|
|
Post by CastilloVerde on May 2, 2020 22:49:13 GMT
its a period of attention since its the last time a foreigner became a monarch purely by military conquest, as opposed to having widespread support. Indeed, it's a quite important event not only in English history, but general world history. I had a brief look again and couldn't find it either. Possibly been removed at some point for some reason. That's a shame. Would've been nice to have a look at that. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857 
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 3, 2020 11:49:06 GMT
its a period of attention since its the last time a foreigner became a monarch purely by military conquest, as opposed to having widespread support. Indeed, it's a quite important event not only in English history, but general world history. I had a brief look again and couldn't find it either. Possibly been removed at some point for some reason. That's a shame. Would've been nice to have a look at that.
Very true. Not only a shattering disaster for English society and people but also the rest of the British Isles as it lead to greater 'English' involvement in the other states generally of a violent king. Note that here 'English' includes the large number of people of Danish origin in the north who were slaughtered in large number in the Harrying_of_the_North, along of course with a lot of the English speakers of the region. Coupled with assorted Norman infighting it resulted in not only the pretty much enslaving of the bulk of the population and high taxation for Norman fortifications and churches but a hell of a lot of bloodshed and destruction.
Also it pulled England from a more northern orientation and more isolated position deep into the wars in France. Without it there would have almost certainly been no 100 Years War. Which hugely changed the history of both countries and through them much of Europe.
With the TL possibly you would ask one of the mods on the AH site as they might know what happened and if its still about somewhere?
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by CastilloVerde on May 4, 2020 0:49:19 GMT
Indeed, it's a quite important event not only in English history, but general world history. That's a shame. Would've been nice to have a look at that.
Very true. Not only a shattering disaster for English society and people but also the rest of the British Isles as it lead to greater 'English' involvement in the other states generally of a violent king. Note that here 'English' includes the large number of people of Danish origin in the north who were slaughtered in large number in the Harrying_of_the_North, along of course with a lot of the English speakers of the region. Coupled with assorted Norman infighting it resulted in not only the pretty much enslaving of the bulk of the population and high taxation for Norman fortifications and churches but a hell of a lot of bloodshed and destruction.
Also it pulled England from a more northern orientation and more isolated position deep into the wars in France. Without it there would have almost certainly been no 100 Years War. Which hugely changed the history of both countries and through them much of Europe.
With the TL possibly you would ask one of the mods on the AH site as they might know what happened and if its still about somewhere?
Steve
Yes, the Harrying of the North was one of the most tragic events in British history, IMO. So much potential I feel was lost, especially with the development of the northern settlements. It's also true that England was pulled into Continental politics with the Norman Conquest, a change from the Scandinavian orientation of the preceding centuries. With these in mind, a surviving Anglo-Saxon England TL would have to take all of these into consideration. The resulting butterflies would produce a radically different Britain, France, and Scandinavia in the coming centuries. Regarding the timeline, I did another search on Google and was able to find it: LinkThe title began with "These Hills" rather than "Those Halls."  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 4, 2020 10:24:32 GMT
Very true. Not only a shattering disaster for English society and people but also the rest of the British Isles as it lead to greater 'English' involvement in the other states generally of a violent king. Note that here 'English' includes the large number of people of Danish origin in the north who were slaughtered in large number in the Harrying_of_the_North, along of course with a lot of the English speakers of the region. Coupled with assorted Norman infighting it resulted in not only the pretty much enslaving of the bulk of the population and high taxation for Norman fortifications and churches but a hell of a lot of bloodshed and destruction.
Also it pulled England from a more northern orientation and more isolated position deep into the wars in France. Without it there would have almost certainly been no 100 Years War. Which hugely changed the history of both countries and through them much of Europe.
With the TL possibly you would ask one of the mods on the AH site as they might know what happened and if its still about somewhere?
Steve
Yes, the Harrying of the North was one of the most tragic events in British history, IMO. So much potential I feel was lost, especially with the development of the northern settlements. It's also true that England was pulled into Continental politics with the Norman Conquest, a change from the Scandinavian orientation of the preceding centuries. With these in mind, a surviving Anglo-Saxon England TL would have to take all of these into consideration. The resulting butterflies would produce a radically different Britain, France, and Scandinavia in the coming centuries. Regarding the timeline, I did another search on Google and was able to find it: LinkThe title began with "These Hills" rather than "Those Halls."
Thanks for that link. Sorry, my memory slipped up.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 4, 2020 17:31:03 GMT
Just finished reading the Harold victory TL. A bit thin on some details of how Britain is able to get such a huge empire largely unopposed but very interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by CastilloVerde on May 4, 2020 20:05:51 GMT
Just finished reading the Harold victory TL. A bit thin on some details of how Britain is able to get such a huge empire largely unopposed but very interesting. I'm reading it right now. Yes, it's quite interesting indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 8, 2020 6:28:06 GMT
General Jackson doesn't die from his infection at Chancellorsville, and instead returns to duty in the early fall like Longstreet did IOTL after his wounding. With Jackson instead of Ewell, there's a strong chance Lee can destroy the Army of the Potomac during the Bristoe Campaign.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 8, 2020 10:27:41 GMT
General Jackson doesn't die from his infection at Chancellorsville, and instead returns to duty in the early fall like Longstreet did IOTL after his wounding. With Jackson instead of Ewell, there's a strong chance Lee can destroy the Army of the Potomac during the Bristoe Campaign.
I suspect that an heavy defeat of the union force would be too late. Gettysburg and Vicksburg have already occurred and the union is getting stronger while the south is increasingly short of resources. Unless it triggers some political reaction against Lincoln that forces him to stand down or the south holds on much better and a peace candidate emerges to defeat him in the 64 election - which is still a year away so its a big call.
Possibly if Jackson doesn't get shot at all and manages to turn Chancellorsville into a markedly bigger southern victory that might work? Especially if it draws forces away from the Mississippi and hence prevents the union gaining complete control of the river but their too few or too late to prevent Lee winning a big victory at a Gettysburg equivalent then that might be markedly more effective at draining northern morale and willingness to continue the war. Possibly followed by larger draft riots - or them occurring in other places as well as OTL only briefly in New York.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 8, 2020 18:25:38 GMT
General Jackson doesn't die from his infection at Chancellorsville, and instead returns to duty in the early fall like Longstreet did IOTL after his wounding. With Jackson instead of Ewell, there's a strong chance Lee can destroy the Army of the Potomac during the Bristoe Campaign. I suspect that an heavy defeat of the union force would be too late. Gettysburg and Vicksburg have already occurred and the union is getting stronger while the south is increasingly short of resources. Unless it triggers some political reaction against Lincoln that forces him to stand down or the south holds on much better and a peace candidate emerges to defeat him in the 64 election - which is still a year away so its a big call. Possibly if Jackson doesn't get shot at all and manages to turn Chancellorsville into a markedly bigger southern victory that might work? Especially if it draws forces away from the Mississippi and hence prevents the union gaining complete control of the river but their too few or too late to prevent Lee winning a big victory at a Gettysburg equivalent then that might be markedly more effective at draining northern morale and willingness to continue the war. Possibly followed by larger draft riots - or them occurring in other places as well as OTL only briefly in New York.
Steve
I'll give some context. Jackson's fame came from his abilities in terms of maneuver, from quick marches to decisive turning movements, with him showing his skills most impressively in the cases of Second Manassas and Chancellorsville. Given the Bristoe Campaign is also alternatively called the "Marching Campaign", you can see how this would play in Jackson's strengths in of itself but the particulars of it in particular show this, in that there are multiple similarities to Second Manassas. While Meade is indeed a better General than John Pope was, failures in intelligence gathering and inter-Army communications are constantly plaguing him; case in point is an entire 24 hour stretch where the Federals have absolutely no idea where Lee is at. That's a particularly dangerous situation for the Army of the Potomac, which is entirely dependent on the Orange and Alexandria railway as its only means of escape and resupply. Further, Meade's efforts to stay near Culpepper leaves large formations of his Army with a major river, the Rappahannock, to their rear and across which they'd have to cross if they needed to make an escape. All of these factors actually would actually come together to seriously threaten Meade during the OTL campaign and ATL would give Lee, through Jackson, a major opportunity: Meade's completely in the dark as to Lee's movements, only finding out 11 hours after initial fighting that contact has been made and four hours after the Confederates have taken Sulphur Springs, meaning they are now moving into his rear. This is critical because, as previously stated, the Orange and Alexandria Railroad is the Army of the Potomac's only means of escape and resupply, as the ravages of the war have left the Virginia countryside largely barren. Jackson's abilities for hard, quick marches combined with his previous experience in the area will give him the edge to get into the Federal rear and cut the railway. Meade won't know what's happening until it's too late and even once he does he simply lacks the strength to counter-attack until he gets Sedgwick's wing of the army across the Rappahannock. By the time that's done, Lee will have long since added Hill's Corps to Jackson's, placing the entirety of the Army of Northern Virginia to Meade's rear and likely with enough time to have fieldworks in play. The Army of the Potomac can't go cross country, so they're going to have to directly assault the Confederates in the hopes of breaking through their lines. Given Meade has only 80,000 to the 55,000 under Lee, who are also going to be dug in most likely, that simply isn't going to happen. In essence, Lee has the ability to completely destroy the entirety of Meade's command. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 8, 2020 18:31:30 GMT
So, the Army of the Potomac is destroyed in October of 1863 by Lee. What’s going to happen next? On the political level, it’s important to note that the 55,000 casualties suffered by Grant were enough to so shake Northern morale that Lincoln until the end of August thought he was going to lose re-election; Lee here in the ATL has done that better by increasing the losses by a third and completely destroying the chief Federal army. While Lincoln is blessed that this great defeat is not with his re-election at hand, it still comes during Congressional and State-level races that even IOTL saw, for example, a Copperhead endorsed by McClellan come within a hair of winning the Governor’s office in Pennsylvania. This defeat also comes when memories of the New York City Draft Riot, Detroit Race Riot and o utright battles with Draft resistors in Ohio are still fresh; we’re also mere months away from disturbances in Lincoln’s home state of Illinois. The Peace Democrats are going to be incredibly strengthened by this, with major repercussions going into 1864. At the strategic level, however, things are even worse. Outside of the troops in the immediate environs of Washington, there is no real Federal force to oppose Lee in the Mid-Atlantic. There are also no real prospects for any such force being constructed soon, as the Lincoln Administration had stripped what surplus forces existed in the aftermath of Chickamauga in order to rescue the now besieged Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga; Grant had detached 20,000 under Sherman, while Hooker had been sent with 15,000 from the Army of the Potomac. Pulling out any other forces thus opens up serious dangers in other theaters, which greatly constrains the options for the Union cause. In short, Lincoln will have to decide whether he wants to save D.C. or, most likely, see another great military disaster around Chattanooga. If the Federals fail to move to protect Washington, Lee will move to occupy Centreville and emplace batteries along the Potomac, closing it down to riverine traffic just as the Confederates did for nearly a year back in 1861-1862. Lee can then take the majority of his host, swing into Maryland and then occupy Baltimore, closing off the only rail connections into Washington. With the railways and the Potomac closed, the city will inevitably be forced to surrender at some point. In the meantime, with Lee in Baltimore, a secession convention can be organized for Maryland. Between the decisive defeat of Meade, D.C. under Siege and Maryland now in the Confederacy, it’s such a disaster for Federal arms that French intervention becomes essentially assured. Should the Lincoln Administration attempt to save the city, the most likely route for such would be to pull the 15,000 troops of Burnside’s Department of the Ohio out of East Tennessee. Likewise, the 15,000 men that had been detached for Chattanooga from the Army of the Potomac under Hooker could be withdrawn, likely arriving in less than two weeks. 30,000 men isn’t enough to take on Lee in the field, but it’s sufficient to strongly picket the entry points into Maryland and reinforce Washington. Combined with Lee’s hesitancy to campaign that far North with winter coming, it’s probably enough to deter the Confederates. The problem is, however, that it opens up the Federals for certain disaster elsewhere, Chattanooga in particular. Without Burnside at Knoxville, there’s no need for the Knoxville Campaign, opening up the railway network for use in aiding Bragg’s logistics. Perhaps equally important is that the 10,000 men under Maj. Gen. Samuel Jones in Southwestern Virginia can now perform a link up with Bragg’s Army. Returns from November suggest this would mean 69,000 Confederates against 57,000 Federals, once you remove Hooker’s 15,000 from the total. However, the Federals have a further disadvantage in that around 40,000 of their number is trapped within Chattanooga, on the brink of starvation in late October. These facts alone make clear that Grant is in serious danger here before you even consider specific operations. Case in point is that Hooker’s men were used to protect Bridgeport, Alabama and its connections to Chattanooga, meaning what would become the “Cracker Line” origins point is dangerously exposed. Further, without Hooker’s men to guard Wauhatchie, Longstreet can take and directly cut the Cracker Line as its main point in Chattanooga. No matter which way you look at it, it’s definitely likely the attempt to relieve the city is going to fail. Accord to Thomas, in his famous correspondence with Grant when the latter arrived on scene, the Army of the Cumberland had, at most, seven days worth of rations left. By the time the Cracker Line was opened IOTL, they had, at most, a day’s worth. No matter how resolute George Thomas is, when the supplies run out it’s only going to be a matter of a few days before the Army of Tennessee is able to bag the 40,000 men of the Army of the Cumberland. Thereafter, with only Sherman’s 20,000 on scene and no hope of reinforcements, Bragg can either destroy the remainder of the Federals or, much more likely, retakes Tennessee and sets himself up in a position to move into Kentucky come Spring. Between all of this, I think it’s safe to say Northern willpower to carry the war is going to be dangerously depleted if not outright destroyed. Even ignoring that, the French under Napoleon III were still serious about intervention into the Fall of 1863 and these decisive Confederate victories make such a move a near certainty. On the whole, I think this is a war winning scenario for the Confederates: |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2020 9:44:04 GMT
Was Woodward back by McClean? It doesn't mention it on the Wiki link and while he has often been called a peace candidate when he stood against Lincoln in 64 I have seen a lot of argument about that - chiefly on the site mentioned above.
Not surprised there were other anti-draft and anti-black violence than in New York but hadn't heard of those other incidents before.
With the jstor item I recently found I could log on there as an individual but that document only seems to give access to chapter summaries so ob Napoleon III in 63 I can't see any more than what you posted here. If fact a little less. Some of what I do see does sound rather partisan as well while the last bit:
is rather a dubious assumption. Napoleon might well see economic advantages in supporting the south and definitely a way of possibly boosting his position in Mexico, although he could have been mistaken there  but even if successful on that issue while it would have stablised the French presence in Mexico for a little while its unlikely to make a big difference in the world balance of power. Or at least not one in France's interest.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 9, 2020 21:57:48 GMT
Was Woodward back by McClean? It doesn't mention it on the Wiki link and while he has often been called a peace candidate when he stood against Lincoln in 64 I have seen a lot of argument about that - chiefly on the site mentioned above.
Not surprised there were other anti-draft and anti-black violence than in New York but hadn't heard of those other incidents before.
With the jstor item I recently found I could log on there as an individual but that document only seems to give access to chapter summaries so ob Napoleon III in 63 I can't see any more than what you posted here. If fact a little less. Some of what I do see does sound rather partisan as well while the last bit:
is rather a dubious assumption. Napoleon might well see economic advantages in supporting the south and definitely a way of possibly boosting his position in Mexico, although he could have been mistaken there but even if successful on that issue while it would have stablised the French presence in Mexico for a little while its unlikely to make a big difference in the world balance of power. Or at least not one in France's interest.
Steve
. As for McClellan himself, his VP was Pro-Peace and so was the platform for 1864; the confusion comes from the fact that, after Atlanta, he repudiated said plank. This was just expedient politics, however, as before then he was in favor of, at the least, arranging for an Armistice without pre-conditions:  As for the French, I can supply you without the chapter. Their goal was to have a free Confederacy and Imperial Mexico in their orbit, which they thought would, indeed, swing the global balance of power by weight of their new position in North America; their documentation from the time proves this was their thought process and goal. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 10, 2020 9:10:41 GMT
Was Woodward back by McClean? It doesn't mention it on the Wiki link and while he has often been called a peace candidate when he stood against Lincoln in 64 I have seen a lot of argument about that - chiefly on the site mentioned above.
Not surprised there were other anti-draft and anti-black violence than in New York but hadn't heard of those other incidents before.
With the jstor item I recently found I could log on there as an individual but that document only seems to give access to chapter summaries so ob Napoleon III in 63 I can't see any more than what you posted here. If fact a little less. Some of what I do see does sound rather partisan as well while the last bit:
is rather a dubious assumption. Napoleon might well see economic advantages in supporting the south and definitely a way of possibly boosting his position in Mexico, although he could have been mistaken there but even if successful on that issue while it would have stablised the French presence in Mexico for a little while its unlikely to make a big difference in the world balance of power. Or at least not one in France's interest.
Steve
. As for McClellan himself, his VP was Pro-Peace and so was the platform for 1864; the confusion comes from the fact that, after Atlanta, he repudiated said plank. This was just expedient politics, however, as before then he was in favor of, at the least, arranging for an Armistice without pre-conditions: As for the French, I can supply you without the chapter. Their goal was to have a free Confederacy and Imperial Mexico in their orbit, which they thought would, indeed, swing the global balance of power by weight of their new position in North America; their documentation from the time proves this was their thought process and goal.
Thanks for that link. While difficult to tell for sure because only some pages are available, excluding the immediately preceding one unfortunately, but it does sound like McClellan endorsed Woodward under pressure and reading further along he does seem to have been under pressure from elements across a split Democratic party as well as elements in Lincoln's government.
As the section above says prior to the fall of Atlanta he was still committed to regaining the south but would seek to do this by peaceful means, presumably by offering protections on the continued status of slavery. I suspect this was a boat that had already sailed however as too much had been done in the north to repudiate southern slavery and in the south to establish a national identity so I suspect if he had won the Presidency he would have quickly found himself forced back to war. After all if the south hadn't believed Lincoln are they likely now to believe him?
If Napoleon thought that he was dreaming. The CSA was arguably a greater threat to Mexico - under any regime in Mexico city - than the post-war Union. Also Mexico was almost certain to be a resource sink, especially given his support of arch conservatives generated much opposition. Coupled with France being a continental power it could never afford a lasting military commitment in N America. Plus an alliance with a slave holding south would have been poisonous to many elements in Europe as well as the rump Union.
Even if successful it wouldn't have supplied that great an economic base given the rural nature of most of both Mexico and the CSA, although privileged access to the latter above Britain would have given France a boost. However whether that would have been worth the enmity of the north is a question.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 10, 2020 17:57:40 GMT
The endorsement of Woodward was McClellan's first official foray into the politics leading up to 1864. As for McClellan himself, his VP was Pro-Peace and so was the platform for 1864; the confusion comes from the fact that, after Atlanta, he repudiated said plank. This was just expedient politics, however, as before then he was in favor of, at the least, arranging for an Armistice without pre-conditions: As for the French, I can supply you without the chapter. Their goal was to have a free Confederacy and Imperial Mexico in their orbit, which they thought would, indeed, swing the global balance of power by weight of their new position in North America; their documentation from the time proves this was their thought process and goal.
Thanks for that link. While difficult to tell for sure because only some pages are available, excluding the immediately preceding one unfortunately, but it does sound like McClellan endorsed Woodward under pressure and reading further along he does seem to have been under pressure from elements across a split Democratic party as well as elements in Lincoln's government.
As the section above says prior to the fall of Atlanta he was still committed to regaining the south but would seek to do this by peaceful means, presumably by offering protections on the continued status of slavery. I suspect this was a boat that had already sailed however as too much had been done in the north to repudiate southern slavery and in the south to establish a national identity so I suspect if he had won the Presidency he would have quickly found himself forced back to war. After all if the south hadn't believed Lincoln are they likely now to believe him?
If Napoleon thought that he was dreaming. The CSA was arguably a greater threat to Mexico - under any regime in Mexico city - than the post-war Union. Also Mexico was almost certain to be a resource sink, especially given his support of arch conservatives generated much opposition. Coupled with France being a continental power it could never afford a lasting military commitment in N America. Plus an alliance with a slave holding south would have been poisonous to many elements in Europe as well as the rump Union.
Even if successful it wouldn't have supplied that great an economic base given the rural nature of most of both Mexico and the CSA, although privileged access to the latter above Britain would have given France a boost. However whether that would have been worth the enmity of the north is a question.
With regards to McClellan, his plan was to offer an armistice and then begin peace talks. The problem with such was well known by the Lincoln Administration and was why they repeatedly rebuffed European efforts along these lines in both 1862 and 1863; it's de facto recognition of the Confederacy as it gives official legitimacy to their government, inviting the Europeans to get involved. Even ignoring that, once the fighting stops, it's going to be next to impossible to restart with a Democratic congress elected on a Pro-Peace platform. McClellan will also not find friends with the Republicans in this regard, as once he promises to preserve slavery many of them will cease their support. As for France, it's Napoleon lol. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 11, 2020 9:18:38 GMT
Thanks for that link. While difficult to tell for sure because only some pages are available, excluding the immediately preceding one unfortunately, but it does sound like McClellan endorsed Woodward under pressure and reading further along he does seem to have been under pressure from elements across a split Democratic party as well as elements in Lincoln's government.
As the section above says prior to the fall of Atlanta he was still committed to regaining the south but would seek to do this by peaceful means, presumably by offering protections on the continued status of slavery. I suspect this was a boat that had already sailed however as too much had been done in the north to repudiate southern slavery and in the south to establish a national identity so I suspect if he had won the Presidency he would have quickly found himself forced back to war. After all if the south hadn't believed Lincoln are they likely now to believe him?
If Napoleon thought that he was dreaming. The CSA was arguably a greater threat to Mexico - under any regime in Mexico city - than the post-war Union. Also Mexico was almost certain to be a resource sink, especially given his support of arch conservatives generated much opposition. Coupled with France being a continental power it could never afford a lasting military commitment in N America. Plus an alliance with a slave holding south would have been poisonous to many elements in Europe as well as the rump Union.
Even if successful it wouldn't have supplied that great an economic base given the rural nature of most of both Mexico and the CSA, although privileged access to the latter above Britain would have given France a boost. However whether that would have been worth the enmity of the north is a question.
With regards to McClellan, his plan was to offer an armistice and then begin peace talks. The problem with such was well known by the Lincoln Administration and was why they repeatedly rebuffed European efforts along these lines in both 1862 and 1863; it's de facto recognition of the Confederacy as it gives official legitimacy to their government, inviting the Europeans to get involved. Even ignoring that, once the fighting stops, it's going to be next to impossible to restart with a Democratic congress elected on a Pro-Peace platform. McClellan will also not find friends with the Republicans in this regard, as once he promises to preserve slavery many of them will cease their support. As for France, it's Napoleon lol.
Napoleon III not Napoleon I. The former has much greater realisation of his countries limitation - albeit not how weak his military's top leadership and organisation was, as 1870 showed. Hence why he was reluctant to step in without Britain agreeing.
I agree that it would be difficult getting the war restarted if there was an armistice but I suspect not as impossible as your suggesting. The basic argument for the armistice is to stop fighting while trying to organise a peaceful unification. With a stated intent to resume the conflict if such agreement isn't achieved. For every northern who was willing to accept an independent south there will be other who reject the idea, hence the war in the 1st place. Plus an armistice doesn't mean ending the blockade, which was the main tool for continuing to weaken an already drained south.
|
|
but even if successful on that issue while it would have stablised the French presence in Mexico for a little while its unlikely to make a big difference in the world balance of power. Or at least not one in France's interest.