lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 28, 2017 20:53:45 GMT
Nice will read them, thanks for the link. Another great alternate civil timelines are the books by Peter Tsouras called the Britannia's First Trilogy ( Wikipedia link of his series)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jul 28, 2017 21:05:16 GMT
So the Union would probably concentrate the majority of it's military efforts on invading the South while only attempt to secure a buffer within British America? And because of the blockade, I am guessing no opening a second front in the Gulf Coast with the troops that would've taken part in that campaign instead being divided between coastal defense, northern buffer zone, and invasion of the South. So even if the Union were to win, chances are the conflict would last into the 1870's with greater loss of life then OTL and likely Reconstruction lasting into the 20th century? I couldn't see the probably level of bloodshed or the union economy/willingness to continue the war lasting anything like that long. If they did manage to attack Canada they do have some chances to make progress before British reinforcements arrive, see the TL I referenced earlier, but if they just sit back in the north then their economy is likely to collapse long before 1870. Also one other factor I forgot to mention yesterday. The position of the south is going to be markedly stronger. Even if Britain [and other European powers] don't recognise the south, which I think Britain may not do for a while the British blockade removes the threat to the southern coastline - which frees up forces. Probably even more importantly, while the union is cut off from trade with Europe the south now has access. So it can sell cotton and other goods and buy manufactured goods that it lacked OTL. Including of course a lot of weapons, uniforms etc that it was short of OTL. If in a year the union army is still using modified muskets, even those refitted to be sort-of rifles and the south is well equipped with modern rifles and artillery things are going to be a lot costlier for any northern attack. Now that the union is fighting Britain the south could risk going onto the defensive and forcing the north to come to them. [Risk because the UK and union might make a separate peace at some point.] If it gets to the point that Britain, probably followed by other European powers recognise the CSA or even worse Britain and the CSA have some sort of formal alliance then the southern position is even stronger.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 28, 2017 21:09:44 GMT
If it gets to the point that Britain, probably followed by other European powers recognise the CSA or even worse Britain and the CSA have some sort of formal alliance then the southern position is even stronger. But how would the British handle the fact the CSA is a slave state.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jul 28, 2017 21:29:10 GMT
Guys
I think assuming that Prussia will attack France under those circumstances could be risky. OTL after defeating Denmark [in alliance with Austria] then defeating the bulk of the German states, including Austria Bismarck manouvered to get France to declare war on Prussia. This was necessary to make France seem enough of a threat that the southern German states, nervous about Prussian aims, were willing to side with it against the French and then join the German empire established. If France is still emboiled in Mexico I can't see Napoleon III taking the bait. A naked attack on France by Prussia might well win - although there could be butterflies - but it could mean that the resultant German empire doesn't include the south German states [Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Baden] which could well form some sort of alliance with Austria.
If the war between the US [and possibly Russia but I doubt it] is somehow still going on by 1870 then its unlikely that will get linked up with a Franco-Prussian war. Britain still heavily involved in a war in N America is unlikely to distract itself by getting involved on the continent and similarly whoever wins on the continent is unlikely to wish to immediately start a new war with Britain.
Alliances tended to be fairly fluid in this period. France varied between friendship with Britain, hostility towards it and then friendship again as the two powers faced a common threat from Germany. Prussia/Germany was an ally [albeit fragile] of Austria, an opponent then a friend again. It often had good relations with Russia but clashing interests in eastern Europe drove them apart and if a strong Prussian centred Germany arrises TTL that is likely to occur again. Presuming that the US is defeated, as is likely, its likely to be hostile to both Britain and the CSA but how long that lasts would be variable depending on the circumstances. [International relations, internal developments in the rump US and the terms of the peace treaty will all be very important here]. Its likely that when a WWI type conflict occurs in Europe the US will be a lot less friendly to Britain but its far from certain either what the sides would be or that the US would definitely be fighting. Similarly there are a hell of a lot of paths an independent CSA could take.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jul 28, 2017 21:42:32 GMT
If it gets to the point that Britain, probably followed by other European powers recognise the CSA or even worse Britain and the CSA have some sort of formal alliance then the southern position is even stronger. But how would the British handle the fact the CSA is a slave state. It would definitely be an uneasy relationship. That's why I'm assuming that Britain wouldn't recognise or formally ally with the CSA, at least at 1st. Its not going to war to aid the CSA but because of union actions in the Trent crisis. Hence why I say I wouldn't rule out some agreement ending the UK-US conflict fairly early on. It would save a lot of bloodshed and resources for both sides but depends on how much politics and public opinion in both countries affect things. If the union is stuborn on not settling the crisis and the war becomes prolonged then some informal co-operations between the UK and CSA is likely and quite possibly British recognition of the south. However there was strong support for the south in the still influential aristiocratic faction in the UK as well as the old idea that 'my enemies enemy is my friend' while there are mutual advantages from some level of co-operation. Say using southern ports to help tighten the blockade of the north. As I've said already Britain being at war, without any co-operation at all is a huge boost to the south. If as a result of a long war, say to 1864-66 say the union is defeated, Canada protected and the CSA wins its independence then a lot depends on the circumstances. Most especially the status and stance of the rump union. If it is strongly revancist, builds up its military after the defeat and is seen as a threat to both powers there is going to be some links. However slavery is always going to be a huge problem as long as it exists in the south and any attempt to expand it, such as the often suggested attempts on Cuba or Haiti is likely to mean a strong reaction from Britain, quite possibly a military one. Especially if someone like Gladstone is in power. If the union appears weak, is split by internal conflict and suffering economically then relations between Britain and the south are likely to be worse.
|
|
|
Post by patrick1978 on Jul 30, 2017 4:29:09 GMT
So ultimately a Russo-American Hegemony would run the North American continent?
I believe the Russian Civil War, assuming it wasn't butterflied, would result in the total commitment of the U.S. military to fight Red Army.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 30, 2017 6:31:20 GMT
So ultimately a Russo-American Hegemony would run the North American continent? If they won, the could also return to a status quo with the United Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by patrick1978 on Jul 30, 2017 6:49:08 GMT
How would the 20th and 21st centuries likely be affected by a Russo-American alliance?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 30, 2017 6:52:41 GMT
How would the 20th and 21st centuries likely be affected by a Russo-American alliance? We would see the Tsaar still in Russia, it will be a American special relationship with Russia instead of the United Kingdom and also no selling of Alaska by the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by patrick1978 on Jul 30, 2017 6:59:14 GMT
How would the 20th and 21st centuries likely be affected by a Russo-American alliance? We would see the Tsaar still in Russia, it will be a American special relationship with Russia instead of the United Kingdom and also no selling of Alaska by the Russians. Western Europe would probably be our primary rival in an alternate cold war?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 30, 2017 7:04:09 GMT
We would see the Tsaar still in Russia, it will be a American special relationship with Russia instead of the United Kingdom and also no selling of Alaska by the Russians. Western Europe would probably be our primary rival in an alternate cold war? Germany ore Prussia as it would be called could be friendly to the American-Russians, do not know about the United kingdom ore France.
|
|
|
Post by patrick1978 on Jul 30, 2017 7:13:47 GMT
Western Europe would probably be our primary rival in an alternate cold war? Germany ore Prussia as it would be called could be friendly to the American-Russians, do not know about the United kingdom ore France. So probably United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal along with their colonial holdings against Russo-German-American alliance?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 30, 2017 7:22:04 GMT
Germany ore Prussia as it would be called could be friendly to the American-Russians, do not know about the United kingdom ore France. So probably United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal along with their colonial holdings against Russo-German-American alliance? What happen to Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jul 30, 2017 15:17:12 GMT
So ultimately a Russo-American Hegemony would run the North American continent? I believe the Russian Civil War, assuming it wasn't butterflied, would result in the total commitment of the U.S. military to fight Red Army. Even if that happened, and it would seem unlikely, you then have things set up for them to fight over the spoils. With the US winning in the short term but with a probability of lasting emnity between the two powers. [Russia is too weak at this point to play a major role outside eastern Europe at most and definitely couldn't defeat a militarised and expansionist US in N America.]
|
|
doug181
Chief petty officer
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
|
Post by doug181 on Aug 1, 2017 3:48:30 GMT
I don't think the Russians would be able to accomplish must more than a small nuisance.Just getting troops to Siberia a major undertaking.
|
|