Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
All of those are minor demands on the Navy, and compared with the loss of Canada forces would likly be redeployed (see my earlier point that this would not be a sudden thing).
Alternate History Thread III
- Thread starter Luckymoose
- Start date
All of those are minor demands on the Navy, and compared with the loss of Canada forces would likly be redeployed (see my earlier point that this would not be a sudden thing).
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Exactly... We Americans have an overinflated view of ourselves because we have a "present-day bias". We're used to being on the top of the world. But Britain back then was the hyperpower; America was a rapidly growing frontier nation, but not even a first rate power yet. It would be like if present-day America was to go to war with, say, Australia: not even a competition (no offense to the Aussies; I like Australia 
).
).
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
According to a quick googling, the US shipbuilding capacity was primarily wooden merchent vessels, compared to british and Canadian iron vessels.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
IN what time period. In 1861 the Royal navy had the HMS Warrior, and in the very beginning of 1862, the US got the Monitor, followed closely by the USS New Ironsides(comparable in all measures to the HMS Warrior) and the rather inept Galena. The Royal Navy would around the same time build the HMS Black Prince.
The Galena would have stood no chance, and the New Ironsides could have put up a good fight, but would have eventually succumbed. The Monitor though, would have been virtually immune to the two Royal Navy Ships, and could have incapacited them both with a hit to the rudder and taking out their masses.
I intend to write this alt-hist after i finish my science project
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Well, in your scenario the Civil War never did break out so the USA getting the Monitor and later ironclads would have been a moot point no?
After all, the development of ironclads in the United States was sped ahead by the Civil War...
Insane_Panda
Deity
Do you guys really think that Britain had the power-projection capabilities able to raze US coastal cities, though? They certaintly had a powerful navy, yet there army was not quite big, and it is still 1861 - transporting soldiers en masse to foriegn shores is very difficult (as can be proven by the near botched attempts in the Crimean War).
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Buhahahhahahhahahahhaahahaha, the HMS Warrior was a superior ship, being faster and more heavily armed (with longer range too). The Moniters guns would have had trouble denting the Warriors armour. The only advantage to the Moniter was its low profile, meaning it would have been difficult to deliver the death blow, but at 40 cannon to 2 (4 of them in the same class as the Moniters guns), my money is on the Warrior
. Before you bring up the Moniter beating the Cumberland and the Minnesota, please note that the smallest gun on the Warrior was more than twice the power of their largest guns, and the Warrior had many times the armour.Edit: in response to the moniter using hits to the rudder, how do you propose to do that when the enemy ship is 6 knots faster than you?
The Moniter is admittedly a much more efficent use of resources than the large and heavy Warrior, but considering british shipyards could have probably produced 7 Warriors in the same time the Union could make 2 Moniters...
@Insane_Panda; no I don't think the British could have successfully land troops, but they would have been able to level everything in range of their naval guns, a good 1.5-2km inland.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
MUHAHAHAHA
The Warrio was flawed in thats its rudder and masts weren't armored. 4 cannon hits, and your ship is dead in the water. Your people can starve or surrender. You can play pingpong on my armor all you want.
And Alex, the Monitor was ordered and built in 3 months, and would have actually been ordered SOONER because this war would have started first anf the English constructing theirs would have been a threat
The Warrio was flawed in thats its rudder and masts weren't armored. 4 cannon hits, and your ship is dead in the water. Your people can starve or surrender. You can play pingpong on my armor all you want.
And Alex, the Monitor was ordered and built in 3 months, and would have actually been ordered SOONER because this war would have started first anf the English constructing theirs would have been a threat
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
When would these 4 cannon hits occur exactly against a faster moving *foe that outguns and out ranges you and can retreat to deep water where you really can't follow
? As for starving out, the British Navy won't exactly be sending her ships out alone now will they, and on steam power alone she could reach Canada or Bermuda.*again 14-17 knots v. 8 knots.
40 guns verses 2.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
The Crimean war was more damaged by incompetence than anything else; the actual results proved that the Western armies were vastly superior to the Russian armies, if anything. The technological disparity would not be nearly so bad in a hypothetical British-American War, but, by the same token, the British would be much more wary of sending morons in.
das
Regeneration In Process
The Crimean problem wasn't a one of poor leadership, it is that of logistics (on both sides; had the Russians had a railroad to Crimea they would've easily crushed the far smaller Anglo-French army). Most amphibious operations in the 19th century have been terrible disasters (just see the British attempts in Napoleonic Wars; the French literally didn't have to lift a finger to stop these).
IMHO the whole scenario is rather ridicilous in that it isn't very clear as to what does any side has to gain from such a war. Well, I suppose the Americans might want Canada, but even that is unlikely, especially as it means jeopardising America's own maritime commerce. Indeed, strategically the British will hold the advantage; whilst the Americans may dominate the shore waters early on, they will stand no chance in the ocean, and thus will lose initiative all the same.
I really don't know why would the British actually try and land troops in America, though, unless the Americans get terribly stubborn. The most reasonable course of action would be to destroy or chase the American fleet into the ports and then blockade USA into submission, while transporting troops to defend Canada.
IMHO the whole scenario is rather ridicilous in that it isn't very clear as to what does any side has to gain from such a war. Well, I suppose the Americans might want Canada, but even that is unlikely, especially as it means jeopardising America's own maritime commerce. Indeed, strategically the British will hold the advantage; whilst the Americans may dominate the shore waters early on, they will stand no chance in the ocean, and thus will lose initiative all the same.
I really don't know why would the British actually try and land troops in America, though, unless the Americans get terribly stubborn. The most reasonable course of action would be to destroy or chase the American fleet into the ports and then blockade USA into submission, while transporting troops to defend Canada.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
No, Crimea established the stereotype of the brave British grunt being led by the incompetent officers; see the Charge of the Light Brigade.
But yes, both sides, more so the Russians, had logistical difficulties; the war was in the end won by far superior technology on the Allied side. I very much doubt that the Russians could have won even with adequate supplies.The British had Canada to launch invasion fleets from, and unlike the French, the Americans were woefully underprepared for any kind of seaborne attack.
No; Americans would lose the shore waters, the economic war, and eventually the military war. The problem was that Americans, both now and then, were exceptionally arrogant about their own nation's abilities in war: see the near run border dispute in Venezuela/Guyana which almost started an Anglo-American war, which America would not have been ready for then, either.
Because the Americans would be terribly stubborn; they would also likely take Canada initially. In any case, I'm not suggesting the British launch a sweeping frontal offensive on the coasts, merely that they would most likely take and burn a few cities like in 1812.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Actually, I think we're significantly underestimating Union capabilities here, though much depends on the leadership of both sides.
Though of course, you can't discount the proficiency of the Corps of Engineers in building coastal forts and such. A long string of forts had been built on the East Coast in the 1850's, many by R.E. Lee himself. Charleston, New York, and the Chesapeake could resist British capture for long periods of time, especially if the coastal defenses held.
Ironically, the Union's position in an Anglo-American war would be virtually identical to that of the Confederacy in the Civil War. Britain has a far superior industrial capability, and would maintain a tight blockade of the American continent while launching futile invasions doomed to failure, since the military genius of Lee and Jackson would be fighting on the Union side. The Union will want to score enough costly victories on Canadian soil to make the British people lose heart and their government sue for peace; conversely the Union will have more of a 'fight to the last' mentality.
In fact, the likelihood of Britain fielding larger forces in Canada but being defeated by smaller, more mobile Union armies (led of course by Southern officers) is very high. Even then, the United States has the ability to project larger armies into Canada than Britain can levy, and faster. In my opinion the worst the U.S. can get is an even peace. Cession of Lower Canada is most likely, and at best all of Canada would be detatched and Quebec freed, though that's stretching it a little.
I wouldn't be so hasty as to underestimate the capability of Union industry; if New York can be held with any degree of success, production can be ramped up incredibly. (Also, the American arms industry was actually superior to all of Europe except maybe Prussia in the late 1850's; British delegations were actually sent to the Connecticut Valley to copy the "American system of manufactures," following the Crystal Palace exhibitions.)
Also, the Union had the capability to wage war nearly indefinitely, since it had a sustainable cotton and grain crop that Britain would be deprived of. It might not be a stretch to say that the more agrarian economy of the U.S. would be put under less of a strain by a hypothetical British blockade. And with the Union Navy assisting southern blockade runners, said blockade will be quite ineffective in the long term. Also, the Union could simply construct a transcontinental railroad slightly faster than in OTL, and ship all their goods off the Pacific seaboard.
I wouldn't put it past the British to attempt some sort of Anaconda Plan; a second invasion of New Orleans is likely, but its success is not.
North King said:
Though of course, you can't discount the proficiency of the Corps of Engineers in building coastal forts and such. A long string of forts had been built on the East Coast in the 1850's, many by R.E. Lee himself. Charleston, New York, and the Chesapeake could resist British capture for long periods of time, especially if the coastal defenses held.
North King said:
Ironically, the Union's position in an Anglo-American war would be virtually identical to that of the Confederacy in the Civil War. Britain has a far superior industrial capability, and would maintain a tight blockade of the American continent while launching futile invasions doomed to failure, since the military genius of Lee and Jackson would be fighting on the Union side. The Union will want to score enough costly victories on Canadian soil to make the British people lose heart and their government sue for peace; conversely the Union will have more of a 'fight to the last' mentality.
In fact, the likelihood of Britain fielding larger forces in Canada but being defeated by smaller, more mobile Union armies (led of course by Southern officers) is very high. Even then, the United States has the ability to project larger armies into Canada than Britain can levy, and faster. In my opinion the worst the U.S. can get is an even peace. Cession of Lower Canada is most likely, and at best all of Canada would be detatched and Quebec freed, though that's stretching it a little.
I wouldn't be so hasty as to underestimate the capability of Union industry; if New York can be held with any degree of success, production can be ramped up incredibly. (Also, the American arms industry was actually superior to all of Europe except maybe Prussia in the late 1850's; British delegations were actually sent to the Connecticut Valley to copy the "American system of manufactures," following the Crystal Palace exhibitions.)
Also, the Union had the capability to wage war nearly indefinitely, since it had a sustainable cotton and grain crop that Britain would be deprived of. It might not be a stretch to say that the more agrarian economy of the U.S. would be put under less of a strain by a hypothetical British blockade. And with the Union Navy assisting southern blockade runners, said blockade will be quite ineffective in the long term. Also, the Union could simply construct a transcontinental railroad slightly faster than in OTL, and ship all their goods off the Pacific seaboard.
I wouldn't put it past the British to attempt some sort of Anaconda Plan; a second invasion of New Orleans is likely, but its success is not.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
Like i said, like i said.
And Thayli, do you have any good websites for find this information?
And Thayli, do you have any good websites for find this information?
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
For a start, the Wikipedia articles on the Corps of Engineers, Fort Sumter and Fort Monroe, to get an idea of the coastal defenses. You can also study the arms industry, though Colt and others, or the development of the machine tool industry in the Connecticut Valley in general. Industrial figures and army totals are harder to find, but not impossible. Most of what I know is from general Civil War-era knowledge I've picked up, it's probably my strongest historical period.
(Though I don't dispute British naval superiority.)
das
Regeneration In Process
That was an isolated and overplayed accident. This sort of stuff happens. The only real mistake was the awkward delay before attacking Sevastopol, but technically it was quite unlikely that it would be as undefended as it was at the point of the landing.
In the Napoleonic Wars, they had BRITAIN. And the French were even less prepared; the only thing they did was a last-moment levee en masse, but the British invasion force was already devastated by disease and starvation by the time the militias were assembled.
Well, yes, that was what I saying. They will lose initiative and so sooner or later will be starved down. The one thing that I can't imagine is the British actually invading America. Raids and bombardments, yes, but nothing beyond that.
I mean, what would they get from such a war, in the long-term? Canada? There are some people that would even be actively opposed to getting Canada, and I don't think any major influence group actually wanted to try and conquer it at that point. Border disputes are much easier to settle by treaty, as per the already set precedent.
Nevertheless, in the event of such a war, America will indeed have a CSA's chance of winning. Speaking of which, such a war does NOT necessarily prevent an Amercain Civil War, because the Southerners are likely to have some qualms about fighting for more free states, in the frozen and faraway north. Plus the British blockade will damage the cotton trade, plus ofcourse the British agents will do their work. Its rather like New England in the 1800s, only worse in that there are also ALL the OTL problems that were quite enough to cause a secession. The only new factors pulling around that is the national consciousness and perhaps the occasional misplaced British atrocity. Still, I think the British could theoretically engineer such a civil war, and intervenne en masse on the Confederate side, perhaps even trying to pull off something similar in California.
Yet if that is avoided, another white peace (like in the 1812 War) is the most likely outcome, perhaps with America paying some humiliating reparations and ceding some disputed border areas. I'd imagine that may lead to interesting situations, like the growth of revanchism and the "Europisation" of the American army (French or German model; French is funnier, but German is more efficient, though also possibly less popular).
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
1) Much like OTL, when the American cotten and grains are cut off the europeans can turn to the inferior, but still adequete sources of egypt and Asia.
2)The British navy has a not inconsiderable pacific presence as well.
Note that I'm not disputing that the worst the union can get is a white peace (with perhaps British gains in the Oregon territory), but I think cessiton of lower Canada is very unlikley, and would just lead to a American civil war in a few years where Britian and her industrial might will be fully on the side of the Confederacy.
The Strategos
Thanatos
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,175
A future/fantasy semi-alt hist I wrote to pass time on a plane ride.
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
The Enlightenment bore a strange creature, one never before seen on a planet renown for spawning unnatural beings. This queer creature decided that it could fully comprehend the world, that it had discovered, in science and logic, the language of the cosmos. This intellectual anomaly that had been created soon spread like a virus among the population, killing the traditional beliefs in magic, spirits, gods, and the mythical. It tore down the altars to the various God and gods and replaced them with an altar to the only true goddess, Reason. But as one of their own philosophers observed, just because something occurred in the same way for as long as you have observed it, does not mean that it had to have always been that way and must always continue that way in the future. But they ignored this warning, and others like it. Secure in their powers of reason, they rejected the previous beliefs of generations past as myth fit only for the unenlightened. And in their pride of grasping Truth, the missed one simple fact. They were wrong.
Of course, for the longest time, they fought against this, defending their precious paradigm against all who dared question it. Thus although cracks appeared during the excess of the Romantics and the contempt of the Post-Moderns, they appeared to be nothing more than waves crashing futilely against the cliffs. Then one event came which swept away their beliefs like a sandcastle being destroyed by an indifferent child. The Invasion.
Suddenly the ridiculed beliefs of yesteryear became the accepted truths of this generation. For it seems that all those myths werent really the creative musings of a nonintellectual man. Instead, it appears as if they are, at their core, history. Magic, spirits, elves, daemons, vampires, werewolves, descriptions of these things were not born of imagination, but experience. Scientists, predictably enough, were quick to offer their own theories to explain this event. There were, they decided, multiple universes which continuously moved like floating wood in an ocean. Occasionally these universes would drift so close that the boundaries before them would become blurred, opening gates that allowed the inhabitants of one universe to travel to another. Then they would drift apart again, closing these gates stranding those inhabitants who had crossed them in the alien universe. It was long ago in the pre-history of man that the last gate had been created, causing the intermingling of universes which lived on in legends and myths, long after the gates themselves had closed and all the alien inhabitants had died. Now, this universe is again close enough to another universe to cause these gates to open once again. And just like humans have evolved since the last meeting, so too have the visitors.
It all started on the fringes of civilization, rumors wafting in from the interior of Africa, strange occurrences reported in the depths of the Amazon, strange experiences reported by the remote mystics of Asia. These reports, of course, were dismissed by the enlightened west, waved away like so many annoying gnats. It became harder to so easily dismiss, however, when evidence started to roll in, videos of strange creatures, never seen before, disappearance of many westerners who had been laboring in these areas, the complete disappearance of previously known human settlements, nature acting in ways that defied the label of natural. If we wished to impose organization and purpose on these first stragglers we might liken them to scouts arriving before the main army. For within a month of the first reports, more than just random sightings occurred. Instead, came what can only be described as armies, hundreds and thousands of alien visitors. We can only speculate what went through their minds when they first found themselves in a strange world, cut off from anything familiar. What we can be sure of is that rather quickly these beings decided that they would make this new world their new home, regardless of the opinions of those who already lived there.
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
The Enlightenment bore a strange creature, one never before seen on a planet renown for spawning unnatural beings. This queer creature decided that it could fully comprehend the world, that it had discovered, in science and logic, the language of the cosmos. This intellectual anomaly that had been created soon spread like a virus among the population, killing the traditional beliefs in magic, spirits, gods, and the mythical. It tore down the altars to the various God and gods and replaced them with an altar to the only true goddess, Reason. But as one of their own philosophers observed, just because something occurred in the same way for as long as you have observed it, does not mean that it had to have always been that way and must always continue that way in the future. But they ignored this warning, and others like it. Secure in their powers of reason, they rejected the previous beliefs of generations past as myth fit only for the unenlightened. And in their pride of grasping Truth, the missed one simple fact. They were wrong.
Of course, for the longest time, they fought against this, defending their precious paradigm against all who dared question it. Thus although cracks appeared during the excess of the Romantics and the contempt of the Post-Moderns, they appeared to be nothing more than waves crashing futilely against the cliffs. Then one event came which swept away their beliefs like a sandcastle being destroyed by an indifferent child. The Invasion.
Suddenly the ridiculed beliefs of yesteryear became the accepted truths of this generation. For it seems that all those myths werent really the creative musings of a nonintellectual man. Instead, it appears as if they are, at their core, history. Magic, spirits, elves, daemons, vampires, werewolves, descriptions of these things were not born of imagination, but experience. Scientists, predictably enough, were quick to offer their own theories to explain this event. There were, they decided, multiple universes which continuously moved like floating wood in an ocean. Occasionally these universes would drift so close that the boundaries before them would become blurred, opening gates that allowed the inhabitants of one universe to travel to another. Then they would drift apart again, closing these gates stranding those inhabitants who had crossed them in the alien universe. It was long ago in the pre-history of man that the last gate had been created, causing the intermingling of universes which lived on in legends and myths, long after the gates themselves had closed and all the alien inhabitants had died. Now, this universe is again close enough to another universe to cause these gates to open once again. And just like humans have evolved since the last meeting, so too have the visitors.
It all started on the fringes of civilization, rumors wafting in from the interior of Africa, strange occurrences reported in the depths of the Amazon, strange experiences reported by the remote mystics of Asia. These reports, of course, were dismissed by the enlightened west, waved away like so many annoying gnats. It became harder to so easily dismiss, however, when evidence started to roll in, videos of strange creatures, never seen before, disappearance of many westerners who had been laboring in these areas, the complete disappearance of previously known human settlements, nature acting in ways that defied the label of natural. If we wished to impose organization and purpose on these first stragglers we might liken them to scouts arriving before the main army. For within a month of the first reports, more than just random sightings occurred. Instead, came what can only be described as armies, hundreds and thousands of alien visitors. We can only speculate what went through their minds when they first found themselves in a strange world, cut off from anything familiar. What we can be sure of is that rather quickly these beings decided that they would make this new world their new home, regardless of the opinions of those who already lived there.
Insane_Panda
Deity
Please continue with this one, The Strategos. Your skill at althistory and writing I appreciate very much
