Age of War

My responses to the thread about an earlier "Dreadnought" got me thinking. If for this to happen, IMHO, it needs more, and even regular, fleet actions between major powers, how do we do away with the Pax Britannia and instead have an Age of War. In a sense of course, the Victorian Age WAS an Age of War - Sikhs, Afghans, Burmese, Zulus, Ashanti etc would certainly have thought so. But when it comes to major global-scale conflicts, well the rival powers all lined up alongside each other - as in the Crimean War against Russia, or the 1860s against China.

One does not want to change the entire 19th century out of all recognition - that would be too easy, after all. But one needs to build in greater instabilities. Britain, for one, needs to be a less self-satisfied power. France needs to be less friendly, odd though that sounds. Prussia could do with an earlier kick up the backside. The Ottomans, Egypt, Russia, could all do with playing their games in a different fashion.

I am a great believer in the "Great Man" theory of history - not exclusively, certainly, but in terms of giving events a nudge, or in NOT giving events that nudge where he is absent. As an example, I believe that circumstances in post-1920s Germany could well bring an extreme right-winger to head the government, but without Hitler's peculiar powers, that would either be a more nationalist force (eg Hugenburg), a more militarist force (eg Schleicher) or a sort of Fascist-light (eg Goering leading a Nazi analogue).

Victoria as a person is often under-rated in 19th century timelines. Her persona on the one hand, and what she was not on the other, both existed to allow her reign to become a settled, progressive period. In fact, absent her simply and solely and the knock-on effects may well be enough to create the repurcussions we need for this challenge.

I am loathe to delete her, or kill her early, since apparently I did that in "A Plethora of Princes" - for reasons not too surprising, I still have a substantial memory blank about that timeline (as well as the one on destroying China and Russia). Only fragments remain in what is called my memory. But I think not to go down the Ernest Augustus route, but instead an early death, a Regency and so on.

Let us therefore sadly kill Queen Victoria in 1841, giving her an infection and complications after the birth of her second child, Albert Edward whom we can allow to live. Thus, Prince Albert becomes a widower, father to two children - 1 1/2 year old Victoria, and newborn Albert Edward..

Parliament was not too enamoured of Albert, hence his only being Prince Consort rather than king, and I certainly don't think they will consider him as Regent. Nor will they consider Ernst August, for the past several years now King of an independent Hannover. The Duke of Sussex has been suffering from a long debilitating illness (and has something like 18 months to live) and the natural Regent is Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, in his late sixties, but head of the army and a field marshal, and thoroughly British to boot.

The Duke of Wellington is also still around, and will be seen as a rock. By the rules of primogeniture, Albert Edward becomes king at the age of just a few days (and thus cannot decide his regnal name, the authorities going with his birth name instead). King Albert I won't know a great deal about being the monarch of Great Britain, Ireland and the Empire for quite some time.

Peel is Prime Minister when this drastic change comes about, and his somewhat curious position midway between traditional Tory and Whig probably allows him to ride the changes quite well, and emerge reasonably strong with the support of the Regent, as well as of Wellington, whom people will look to in a time of crisis for guidance.

This thread is not aimed at creating the minutiae, but at looking at the broader knock-ons that could possibly occur - and if you reread the first couple of paragraphs, you will see the sort of things we are looking for. After all, an analogue of the Pax Britannia under Peel, Cambridge and Wellington is hardly much use for us !

- - -

We can assume that, at least initially, colonial conflicts have a momentum of their own, so let the Sikh wars get fought and so on.

The Orleanist dynasty is in power in Paris, and one can assume that Louis Philippe or his heir, Ferdinand, would wish to visit London, pay their respects to little Albert I, and secure whatever advantages they could. We can thus begin Ferdinand's butterflies and have him not killed in a carriage accident in 1842.

Without a strong monarch in place, and with a militaristic Regent instead, one can imagine that British foreign policy has the potential to go off the deep end more or less by accident. Cambridge won't be reining the government in, and instead one can imagine a series of inflamatory pieces coming out of his court, whilst the Prime Minister will be more rudderless, and prone to the various pressures upon him, not a few of which will be militaristic and nationalistic.

Tensions which in OTL were defused could become major here, especially where the USA is concerned, and it is certainly not beyond the possible that a combination of Aristook and Oregon could lead to a British-American war, very useful for the timeline here.

Merge this into the Texas crisis, the potential Mexico war etc, and you could see Britain backing Anson Jones in trying to secure recognition of independence from Mexico, but at the cost of agreement not to join the Union. This after all was British policy in OTL, but here the stakes would be higher, and Britain glued to this policy as a major instrument of statecraft. Polk's behind-the-scenes manoevring and ultimatum to Mexico could well lead us down the road to war, and 1845 sees not just the outbreak of war between Mexico and the USA, but of those between Britain and the USA

Sure, this won't give us our fleet conflict, but it sufficiently derails history to allow things to develop later. The USA has spare resources, both financial and in terms of manpower, but fighting a two-front war is going to be a huge struggle. But things won't be easy for Britain - sure it can reinforce Canada, and can act navally in the Caribbean, but getting any meaningful force out to Oregon is going to be a struggle, and aiding the Mexicans on land very hard. Texas will fold, perhaps in this TL with some sort of coup against Jones and Sam Austin taking military charge. War in the North will divert many US forces, leaders etc, and the thrusts into Mexico are likely to stop much sooner. There will be no landings at Vera Cruz, whilst off California one can assume that British and American warships come to blows.

The peace will be a confusing issue - Britain may well get some minor favourable border adjustments in the North, but the real action is West and South. The USA may well accept British colonies in Belize and Miskitia, but Britain will have to accept US annexation of Texas, and an Oregon settlement much akin to OTL. California perhaps has a tentative independence, whilst New Mexico territories are divided between the USA and Mexico on a pretty much 50/50 basis. Its been very expensive for both sides, and many wonder what the point of them fighting at all was. Polk can point to gains in Texas, N New Mexico and Oregon, whilst Peel can claim to have put the brakes on US expansion and secured British interests in the Caribbean.

We can allow 1848 to occur, not least because it serves a useful purpose. Much is changed, but some of that would actually work towards greater unrest, especially where Britain is concerned. In fact, 1848 is likely to see much greater social agitation within Britain, whereas France, with Ferdinand still alive, will be able the sooner to put a brake on things. We don't want to stop the spread across the continent, just have it in this world that from Paris it spreads, in part, to London and whilst Paris may calm down, London remains in arms and thus a spark to Europe.

Californian independence, "Miner 49er" and all that, will rise to the fore just as Europe is in no position to interfere. British and Mexican interests will be ridden rough-shod over by Americans, and the USA will engineer a Californian request to join the Union, much as they did for Texas. Mexico is probably in no condition to fight, and will probably even have to turn a blind eye to US incursions into its remaining New Mexican territories. Polk could thus win re-election in 1848, thus altering the flow of US presidential history.

1848 historically Russell was PM after Peel's fall in 1846, and we could see this occur in this timeline, Peel's "victory" against the USA not being enought to ensure his political survival, although perhaps it is 1847 before his final eclipse. Russell thus is newer than OTL, has inherited a situation much worse (much of the national wealth spent in pursuing war in N America, many thousands dead whose relatives are voiciferous etc, and no strong monarch to fall back upon). 1848 thus explodes upon Britain with a much more devastating force.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Hmm, I see where you are going with this. To continue, if butterflies could unite Germany in 1848, I think that this would vastly help your scenario, because it would allow plausible conflict between Germany and basically all her neighbors. On the other hand, there would be no Franco- German hatred, so we could see them in a joint alliance against a certain powerful island nation. German unification in 1848 may panic the Russians into a minor military build-up, and to secure their borders, perhaps even securing a treaty with the new nation. So when the times does come around for the Russians to go at the Ottomans again, they have a much better chance, and the Ottomans desperately need intervention and behalf of Britain. Perhaps Austria joins to Ottomans, too, wanting to stop the Russian encroachment on their sphere of influence. But Germany could have had an alliance with Russia against Austria, and an alliance with France, giving us a Ottoman-Austrian-Britain alliance vs. a French-German-Russian alliance.

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:

Hmm, I see where you are going with this. To continue, if butterflies could unite Germany in 1848, I think that this would vastly help your scenario, because it would allow plausible conflict between Germany and basically all her neighbors. On the other hand, there would be no Franco- German hatred, so we could see them in a joint alliance against a certain powerful island nation. German unification in 1848 may panic the Russians into a minor military build-up, and to secure their borders, perhaps even securing a treaty with the new nation. So when the times does come around for the Russians to go at the Ottomans again, they have a much better chance, and the Ottomans desperately need intervention and behalf of Britain. Perhaps Austria joins to Ottomans, too, wanting to stop the Russian encroachment on their sphere of influence. But Germany could have had an alliance with Russia against Austria, and an alliance with France, giving us a Ottoman-Austrian-Britain alliance vs. a French-German-Russian alliance.

Click to expand...

Now there are some very good ideas! Thanks

German unification is certainly an interesting option, the interplay of 1848 forces are going to be stranger with France recovering earlier but Britain going under...

I wonder about Ireland in this too

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Some good ideas and I think your got the right general approach. However I find it rather unlikely that the Us would be that successful against Mexico and Britain, even with the latter's army in pre-Crimean mode. Britain has much better communications with the Oregon area and too much sheer naval and industrial power to not inflict a hell of a lot of damage on the US unless the war is very short and limited.

Far more likely is that America gets very roughly handled and loses substantial land/potential in the west. It might get Texas if there's a pro-American coup there. Mexico probably doesn't have the resources to conquer it and an attempt to do so would probably unite the country behind the pro-American party. Britain probably won't consider intervention worthwhile with a lot of other things on its plate.

However I would argue that this is better for the proposed timeline. While a US denied a pacific coast is weaker in the longer run the defeat and losses will concentrate it more on earlier militarisation and make it a clear opponent of Britain. This will give the potential for weakening Britain's position as it has to keep one eye on N America. Hence either more chance of some long and bloody slogs in Europe or simply a period of prolonged tension greater than occurred OTL and hence an arms race. either approach could led to more advancements in naval technology.

If Germany is united in 48 as someone suggested that will make for a lot of butterflies, which could go in any number of ways. Without the Prussian military/political changes that gave the autocrats more control it won't necessarily dominate central Europe and might even lose to either France or Austria, or a coalition of the two, in any conflict in Europe.

Sounds like the Crimean conflict could be butterflied, at least for the moment. If so Russia will have more influence than OTL but the weaknesses exposed during that conflict will remain hidden and Russia will probably run into a nasty shock at some point.

Steve

Steve, thanks - I'd be happy to alter the outcome of the war somewhat. I don't know enough about Oregon and how the British would have reinforced it - presumably Vancouver, Victoria forts etc were manned, and there is the potential to come across from Canada proper, but its a long way with not much communication. Navally, well its clearly possible to maintain a force (the British did in the Sea of Okhotsk during the Crimean War), I'm not sure what's available or where the political will is.

Maybe one could borrow a leaf out of Harry Harrison (!) and have the Indian Army send some units to NW America ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

This sounds pretty good, might I suggest that Spain and the US go to war earlier, this might spark something especially if the US is going towards a more warlike country. I figure that some sort of massive rebellion breaks out in Cuba and Spain can't hold on, Cuba is quickly dragged into the US sphere of influence and when the Spaniards try to get it back the US plays the Monroe doctrine and gets to get Peurto Rico.

Checkmate113 said:

This sounds pretty good, might I suggest that Spain and the US go to war earlier, this might spark something especially if the US is going towards a more warlike country. I figure that some sort of massive rebellion breaks out in Cuba and Spain can't hold on, Cuba is quickly dragged into the US sphere of influence and when the Spaniards try to get it back the US plays the Monroe doctrine and gets to get Peurto Rico.

Click to expand...

Another good suggestion - there was the Ten Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Years'_War) in the late 1860s+, and IIRC there were always US scams to buy Cuba in the 1850s.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It's pretty simple, really. In 1870 the Russians repudiated the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris, which had forbidden them from having warships in the Black Sea. They never really took advantage of it.

If they had built so much as one sea-going ironclad and used it in 1877, you could have completely changed naval development.

In OTL, the common view, as you repeated in the previous thread, was that the Ottoman fleet was incompetent in the war. It was not. It was quite active, and accomplished all its missions. But all the notable combat was torpedo-related, the Russians pioneering torpedo attack, and the Ottomans torpedo defense.

A gun battle between ironclads would have overshadowed this.

I suspect that gunnery would have been relatively ineffective and that this would give even greater impetus to rams.

Their ineffectiveness against armor would probably inspire a race for even larger guns faster than in OTL.

As guns will have demonstrated lesser penetrating power than on testing ranges, that might have had an impact on design philosophy as well.

Finally, the overshadowing of torpedo warfare by a gun battle might have reduced the obsession with torpedos, and perhaps pulled the rug out from trends of thought that led to the Jeune Ecole, and therefore caused a more vigorous naval race between France & Britain in the 1880s.

If you really want to go nuts, a naval clash between Italy and France over Tunis would really have stirred things up.

Kill orf the Old Queen! by gad Sir, what are you suggesting?

With Victoria out of the way, Her extended family in Europe would be much more prone to militarism than OTL. Prussia, for example, joining conflict with Sardinia and Austria. They would have supported Sardinia by distracting the Austrian army north into Bohemia/Moravia and Galicia. Victoria maintained the peace in Europe, and I feel her absence would butterfly away German unity, and usher in Prussian aggrandizement. It would lead to a united Germany, but one that would fit your requirements more favourably than the Liberal driven one suggested.

The Colonel

Grey Wolf said:

Steve, thanks - I'd be happy to alter the outcome of the war somewhat. I don't know enough about Oregon and how the British would have reinforced it - presumably Vancouver, Victoria forts etc were manned, and there is the potential to come across from Canada proper, but its a long way with not much communication. Navally, well its clearly possible to maintain a force (the British did in the Sea of Okhotsk during the Crimean War), I'm not sure what's available or where the political will is.

Maybe one could borrow a leaf out of Harry Harrison (!) and have the Indian Army send some units to NW America ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

Grey Wolf

I wouldn't go the Harrison way. [Think he had Indian forces marching through Mexico in the 2nd book or something like that? However forces stationed in India and Australia are a lot closer in travel time to Oregon than anything from eastern N America at this time. Also, even across the Pacific its easilier to move and supply them then across the continent before the railways.

If America clashes with Britain in this time period Britain will suffer some damage, especially in terms of privateering probably but America is likely to lose any Pacific territories, which will significantly delay development of much of the western US while its economy is going to really suffer. [Trade and coastal traffic crippled, finances becoming a black hole and possibly the bombarding of a few coastal centres].

Steve

Age of War - 2

I've been pondering Steve's comments, as I always find them amongst the most knowledgable and best thought out on these boards. If Britain could so SOMEWHAT better it would make the butterflies happier, but I was confused about Britain's ability to power-project to the relevant theatres. I suppose 1812-1815 is not entirely the best guide because on the one hand it was 30 years previous, and on the other Britain was fighting a major war in Europe at the same time. Thus, a mid 1840s war would surely see a major effort on Britain's part, but in what way would this be manifested ?

For the 1848 aspect of this timeline, it really doesn't matter how well Britain does in the war, only that it is far away, costs many thousands of lives and is very expensive financially. I don't think any of that would be changed with a more successful outcome

From Britain itself, the easiest theatres to reinforce would be Canada/the NE and the Caribbean. British naval power, perhaps allied to the Indian Army, or to expeditionary forces building on Indian and Chinese infrastructure, could be off Oregon and California comiing from the Northern direction.

Perhaps I have underplayed both the Caribbean and the Pacific theatres. Britain if it wanted to, and put its mind to it, could basically send a large force anywhere it wanted, so there is certainly no reason why it could not send one overseas to Oregon. There would of course still BE conflicts on the borders of British India, and maybe here we would see a less harsh peace for the Sikhs, or for the Burmese.

In the Caribbean, the British navy is going to be supreme - unlike 1812-15 the entire might of the British navy can be deployed there, and this in itself would provide a spur for technology, not so much to develop new technologies but to bring about more widespread application of existing technologies, such as steam-power. New vessels would be designed to maximum specification, whilst others in for refit would be retrofitted with semi-conversions.

What would be British hegemony in the Caribbean mean ? Raids on New Orleans, Mobile etc, landings perhaps at Galveston to support a Mexican thrust. Fierce fighting that apart from many dead on both sides does't necessarily alter the outcome from what I have previously specified - Texas and Northern New Mexico ending up American (and remember that the N limit of Mexican claims reached into Wyoming) whilst S New Mexico remains Mexican, and the outcome in much fought-over California is an independent state.

If we presume a much stronger British effort in Oregon, then the eventual border could be on the river, a return to pre-1815 assumptions perhaps. This would natural to people at this time, and make sense on the map.

California would be a precarious independent state and its quite probable that Mexico retained conttrol of San Diego (which they always denied was part of Alta California anyway). British involement and commitment would be expensive but necessary, but the gold rush will provide the key to opening the door to mass US immigration.

1848

The cost in lives, money and ongoing commitment to Britain has been very heavy, and whilst not in itself cause for revolution, the wave of democratic revolutionism sweeping Europe, and epitomised in Britain by the Chartists, hits a raw nerve.

We can pattern history here to say that in Britain, as elsewhere in Europe, the 1848 revolutions
provide a shake up of the existing system but do not destroy it, instead seeing it rearrange itself in their wake.

The elderly Duke of Cambridge would be deposed as Regent, and one can imagine an ATL Britain latching onto Prince Albert as a symbol - the modern progressive, side-lined by parliament, but widow of the belowed young queen and father of the cute little king.

Cobden or Bright might emerge as an emergency Prime Minister, appeasing the revolutionaries, working with Prince Albert and ultimately defusing the situation, but only after its repurcussions have spread around the world.

California is a major one, where the US is able to engineer an annexation, fighting rearguard units of the Californian Republic (those paid for or loyal to Britain or Mexico) but buying out the assembly to vote for annexation. By the time that Britain is on its feet again, California a done deal and there is not much which Britain can do other than complain and seek compensation - which will probablybe provided for commercial firms but not for governmental loss of face.

The other knock-on of Britain going under is that the pattern of European revolutions would be disturbed. I've also built in a better France with Ferdinand surviving (due to his ATL visit to Britain to pay his respects to King Albert I) and his father's abdication leading to his own accession and careful handling of the crises ahead.

A more stable France and a more chaotic Britain may well give greater impetus to German unification efforts at Frankfurt, especially if France is looking like actively intervening in one of several spheres. Ironically, a combination of moves towards German unity and Austrian weakness could convince Ferdinand to threaten intervention, and lead to purposeful defensive agreements which then lay the foundations for longer-lasting unity.

Butterflies like to play when released into the wild, and war could well threaten seriously between France and the forces of a united Germany. Quite possibly the Danish crisis also crashes into war, with Copenhagen taking heart, whilst in Prussia things do not return to normal so quickly due to the apparent strength of Frankfurt. Its hard to play a game with butterflies, and to a degree any potential realistic outcome can be argued for.

The main question is whether there are knock back-ons from Frankfurt standing up to France. Assume a weakened Prussian king (over OTL) accepts the imperial crown but the armies are outside of his purview, but mustering from all over against France whilst also fighting the Danes. Austrian weakness will for a time be exacerbated as they seem to lose control even of Frankfurt, and their fight-back might be less cohesive - Russian aid seems certain since intervention is Russia's aim, but in Italy events may go more askew. This would be especially the case if Ferdinand is able to pursue a two-pronged approach to dealing with the crises, and perhaps gives his backing to the Milanese.

A united Germany would emerge founded on the national army under the control of Frankfurt, with a relatively weak Emperor, and excluding the Austrians who were in no position to complain. Milan could well secure its independence, whilst Central Italy will be hit by this knock-on and perhaps a weaker Two Sicilies, where the parliament retains its liberties, emerges. Ferdinand probably ends up engrossed in Rome, taking it back from Mazzini et al, that he can accept the other setbacks as long as he gets the Pope back his dominions.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Post 1848

1848-1849 thus ends with Ferdinand's troops storming Rome, a French force bolstering Milanese independence, and a united Germany on the Kleindeutcsch principle with the parliament in control over the Prussian king-emperor.

Prince Albert is Regent of Great Britain, but in the next election one can expect the electorate to swing away from those who immediately benefitted from 1848, and we would perhaps be looking at an early Disaeli premiership. He's young but not too young, modern but not discredited, and forward-looking enough to be able to embrace some of the new guiding principles.

One doesn't like to dump on Disraeli, so we could give him the task of settling down and sorting out a multitude of problems, at least as well as could be expected. There would be the final settlement over California, Again probably with the Sikhs, and maybe Burma, the dottting of the t's and the crossing of the i's. He could well be seen as the man who picks up the mess and runs with it, who converts the smears of dog mess done into white crumbly goodness.

Who would lead the united Germany ?

And then we cross the Atlantic. After Polk's second term we enter in 1849 a brave new world, a nation which has achieved California but which is still heavily divided and is also more financially expended than OTL. There is an ongoing need to maintain a strong defensive force against S New Mexico, as well as Mexico proper, and the Indians in both. At the same time, the British in Oregon and Canada are hardly peacable so needs must require a strong defence there too. California is proving a hard nut to swallow.

_ _ _

Longer term ?

The 1850s were not a time of joy and happiness in the USA, even one so victorious as in OTL, so why shold one assume even an even outcome in the ATL when they have had to fight far harder, do things longer, and come off worse than OTL (tho of course always better than they started) ?

Taylor is less of a glorious figure than OTL because the involvement of the British meant that his rather laid-back and heavily politicised attitude to war did not work in this timeline. Hence, Polk's re-election.

At the 1848 poll, the Americans must needs look to Europe as much as to themselves, Its possible that Polk wins a third term - I think he is still around, healthy and intellligent enough to do so. But American politics tend to act against a third term, the rough coalitions underlyiing the parties swinging this way and that to mean that an alternative usually arises.

1848 is too early for the effects of 1848 to be felt - ie we are looking at the "normal" political process,but one which has the baggage of 1848 piling up against it.

Maybe a nobody like Filmore could sneak in, supported by people as an aid to their own ambitions

1852 is the real test and one could certainly see Fremont playing all his cards here, his cause helped by California's brief interlude of independence and his no-doubt sterling record. Elected, he would see his remit as being to increase the glory of the United States

**_ _ _

Russia is going to be a curious factor, outside all of these knock-ons and working to its own agenda

These 1850s would see greater Franco-German tensions, problems over Milan, the ambitions of Savoy rise up in a different manner, Spain looking to hold onto its empire, perhaps whilst Fremont's USA presses them hard over Cuba, and an Orleanist France heavily involved in protecting the Papacy

Mexico is not going to be a bed of roses, in fact its survival in the 1840s, and the later fall of California may well have radicalised it. We could ask whether this means support for Santa Anna or for another army general, but perhaps the best option is a synergy that takes the former's political skills and the latter's military achievements and makes them into an alliance that sees Santa Anna as a good president into the mid 1850s

*_ _ _

OTL the Crimean War emerged from a mixture of nowhere at all, underlying longterm causes, and great power posturing.

One cannot assume that Russia is going to change any of its aims or priorities here, but it does need to be remembered that until the involvement of Britain and France the actions of Russia were not much different from what it had done in the previous couple of decades.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Many thanks for the comments. I tend to be worried on questions related to Britain my own bias comes into play too much. [I think its a balanced scenario if the US keeps as many as 6 of its original states as long as the rest return to the national fold.]

Catching up on your posts. A few thoughts:

a) If Britain is involved in fairly heavy fighting in the southern US in the 1840's I can see slavery being a big issue. With Britain opposing it and historical precedence there may be attempts to free some slave or simply slave rebellions in the proximity of British forces. Also you might see Britain making use of local manpower, i.e. the black populations of its Caribbean colonies. As such I could see race relations in the US becoming even more bitter and brutal. Could see either a US more committed to slavery as a point of national identity or strongly divided with the south committed to their peculiar institution and the north even more aware of the political and economic problems it caused.

b) This might be especially the case as while supporting Mexico will mean a strong Caribbean presence I think this would be predominantly maritime as the key point would be strangling American logistics. I suspect that the bulk of British ground forces will be committed against the NE of the US. Because it would be the key point for the defence of Canada and also it is the centre of American power so where Britain could do the most damage. Also probably where forces can be the most easily supported in operations.

c) The American seizure of California might occur but sounds fairly unlikely unless it has very strong support there. For one thing its will need some time to find out Britain is weakened by disorder and also that this will be fairly serious and lasting long enough for the land-grab. For another the US has relatively poor logistics to exert power into California. It probably has stronger forces than historically in Oregon but so will Britain and using them for a move on California leaves them open for the local British commander to use his initiative in a crisis and create a very dangerous situation for the US. Not to mention Mexico also needs to be considered. Also the reaction of some aggrieved neighbours after the dust settles.

Not saying its impossible but think its going to be very risky. [Especially thinking that Palmeston is still about and if he has any influence Britain won't take this lying down].

d) If a stronger France clashes with a Confederated Germany that is disorganised and possibly split by internal division what are the likelihood of the latter winning, or at least holding its own. True France might get distracted by Italy but if a united Germany with a capital at Frankfurt starts emerging in a period of instability I think that would concentrate their attention.

e) Presuming a stable Germany does emerge from the crisis then there will be continued tension with France and the question will be the relationship with the other three big powers - Britain, Austria and Russia. Presuming Russia is pushing the Ottomans and the perceived possible threat to India I would expect Britain and Russia to be on opposite sides. If France is allied with the emerging Piedmont state that will tend to make Austria hostile. However it might also have resentment at its exclusion from Germany. Still more likely to ally with Germany than France I expect. Could get some degree of tension and arms build-up with the possible technological boost resulting that we're after.

f) Other question might be would the US be drawn into this system of alliances or still with its traditional diplomatic isolationism?

g) I remember discussing with you the situation in post-revolutionary Britain in your PoP TL. True this is far less dramatic and disruptive [I'm guessing] but could have an effect on Britain's economic and social development, good or bad or both. Could give a hell of a shake up while in the aftermath of a major war, which might see the military and technological stimulus that the Crimean war did OTL.

h) What's going to be the situation in Ireland? Since butterflies permitted the war and then social disorder will be occurring at the same time as the famine OTL.

i) One other question might be how is America on immigration, which I think tends to become more important from about this time? Its position is economically weaker, with deeper debts and higher military spending while it might also have some degree of conscription. Also, with worse relations with neighbours and especially Britain, which supplied the bulk of the early immigrants it might be less welcoming. [Or more if it wants to boost its population because it feels less secure]. Another factor might be that a lot of the early non-British immigration [and the most palatable] was from Germany but earlier unification there might change that.

Steve

PS Think I’m going to have to subscribe. This is starting to look too interesting.

(wrote reply on laptop and forgot to copy to pendrive)

Steve, thanks for your excellent comments

I don't think Britain in the war will be able to make much use of slave rebellions etc, since its interaction with the Southern states is mainly as a raiding/blockading force. Whilst probably landing at Galveston and trying to push from there, there were no significant slave populations in Texas.

But I certainly like the idea of Britain using its Caribbean populations in this war - black regiments (presumably officered by whites at least at first before attrition and field promotions kick in) fighting in Texas and New Mexico.

I was envisaging a precarious independence for California from the start, with the American settler community restless under joint hegemony, and with British naval power being the essential ingredient in supporting the government, tho in itself this would not prove decisive in a fight - it is a deterrent with the weight of the Empire behind it, as per Oregon in the late war.

Thus when Britain is engulfed by revolution, the news whilst not swift will not be SO slow that no one can act on it (after all there is steam power around for SOME ships). US intrigues in California have been ongoing, and many of the pro-US politicians will be in their pay, whilst local militia etc will also be subornable. Add in the start of the Gold Rush and the Emperor's New Clothes element of Britain's power projection and Washington is going to order an all-out effort.

Mexico is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place - able to intervene in California, sure, but not to fight a renewed war across all fronts, and with British naval power unable to prevent landward machinations, its going to be a very grudging peace

During this critical period, Britain is led by reformers of the ilk of Cobden and Bright, and also paralysed by an Irish Uprising, so any immediate chance for a strikeback is lost through lack of political will, distraction and the inability/unwillingness of forces in the theartre to take the necessary action alone.

I was hoping Franco-German relations were confused in this period, that whilst Ferdinand can threaten intervention, mobilise his armies etc, he has to be aware of the potential volatility of the people at home, and of the hope that a peaceful solution can be found. I have said that there is a certain irony in how France's reactions to the potential of German unification lead to the reality of German unification, and I am thinking that here Ferdinand and his ministers have miscalculated - they hoped to split off from Frankfurt significant states, and weaken resolve, but instead they strengthen it. France's indecision is then compounded by the need to divert forces to Italy, which then takes priority as an active theatre.

I certainly think that these tensions would bring with them some sort of arms race in its 1850s form. Reading about 1848 in Germany is very interesting because there WAS the beginning of a national navy, and under a unified government, especially with a war with Denmark and a war scare with France, this will be kept up. The seeds will germinate, and in opposition to them will be the Orleanist naval programme, which Ferdinand will continue to keep up. The American War could well have taught lessons which the European powers are only beginning to pick up now, now that there’s more money going to such matters.

I don’t think that for the time-being the USA is interested in alliances, not least since the arguments of Europe are unlikely to be its, and that the time-lag of an Atlantic crossing, whilst less than before is still significant enough to make direct reaction to events difficult.

I am thinking that Ireland ends up independent, chaotic with ongoing civil war, but too much trouble to reconquer, and probably with substantial French aid to the government at Dublin. This could also help to alleviate the famine, and instead of mass immigration, there could be mass enrolment in armed organizations. This will of course set the post-revolutionary British government strongly against that of Ferdinand, and in the inflammable situation of post-1849 see British and German interests converge. The civil war will center on the Orange Order, and British support, more or less covert and unstated, though obvious for all that. One could probably posit an Irish reaction, though quite how effective any “bombing campaign” can be in the period is dubious. There could certainly be an assassination – maybe of one of the Reformist leaders, albeit after they have lost power to a resurgent new Conservativism.

I think the US will continue to welcome immigrants, not least because they either leave behind their national allegiances or they come because their political allegiances in their homeland make it impossible to prosper there. That said, there will be less from Britain, and less from Ireland, but perhaps more from Germany, Italy and Hungary. I don’t think earlier unification will change a lot of German emigration since it won’t in itself solve the economic problems faced by a large percentage of the population.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Interesting and you cover most of the details pretty well. However doubtful about the idea of an independent Ireland at this point. It is so important to Britain, both as a potential enemy base and also sitting astride so many vital supply lines. Also a new government, needing to show its respecting Britain's interests would be under pressure to bring the rebels to heel. Not to mention the large and well armed Protestant minority in Ireland would both form a powerful loyalist element and a rallying point for the orange interests in the rest of Britain. Also I doubt that a France tangling with both Germany and the Italian peninsula would also seek to quarrel with Britain, even or especially one made unstable by internal unrest and still maintaining a strong navy and with a powerful industrial base.

As such while Ireland might see a major rebellion I doubt it will actually succeed and its likely to be bloody.

Also, even if it does it could make things worse in terms of the famine. Instead of the aid that Britain did send, both government and private [admittedly not enough by a long way] your going to see civil war and disruption of trade and communication, which can't help.

Steve

Mr. Wolf,

I think your assessment of California isn't too bad. In both Oregon and California, especially once the Gold Rush begins, the demographics are completely in America's favor. Both nations would have major logistics difficulties so in that case these problems would even out. Unfortunately for Britain, Mexico will be about as useful of co belligerent in this war as Italy was for Germany in WWII. That is to say America will focus on Britain while easily holding Mexico. Once Britain decides to end the war Mexico will be forced to accept whatever peace terms the other two powers decide upon. I would imagine the outcome would end up seen a border along the Columbia River, though a 49th parallel border is not out of the question either even with a war having occurred.

As for slavery this war will increase sectional tensions, but only after the peace. Depending upon the duration and commitment to hostilities America makes there may even be an effort in New England to recruit blacks (perhaps just to anger the Southerners). Following the war though the debate over free and slave states would return in earnest. Without Oregon the North will oppose slavery in any territory outside of Texas with even more vigor than occurred in OTL.

There is absolutely no way IMHO that the North will embrace slavery just to differentiate itself from Britain. The seeds of the abolitionist movement had been planted long ago and were by now well established. Unless one of the many efforts to sieze Cuba is successful the history of this US will most likely plod along in a manner very similar to what occurred in OTL. Of course if unrest in Britain and Germany increase immigration to the US (which will almost certainly be composed of people not very receptive to slavery) you may see an anti-slavery President win prior to 1860 which will than change things a bit.

Benjamin

Just a thought on America in this TL---With two wars so rapidly, I can see the USA militarizing greatly. When we hit the 1860's for the ATL civil war, the southern states are going to see a larger Federal standing army, so they may seek to negotiate. IOTL, Lincoln had a plan to buy the slaves under a 'gradual emancipation' plan. Perhaps, if something like this is agreed to, the USA would be better off, with no civil war and all.

Another point---if you could have a Russo-American alliance, or at least British hostilities with America and Russia at the same time, it would even the playing field considerably, with the RN having to conduct a war on two fronts at the same time. I say this, because IMO the biggest obstacle for your TL is overwhelming British naval dominance.

A couple of good points I think

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:

Just a thought on America in this TL---With two wars so rapidly, I can see the USA militarizing greatly. When we hit the 1860's for the ATL civil war, the southern states are going to see a larger Federal standing army, so they may seek to negotiate. IOTL, Lincoln had a plan to buy the slaves under a 'gradual emancipation' plan. Perhaps, if something like this is agreed to, the USA would be better off, with no civil war and all.

Click to expand...

I would also see the US being more militarised, although how much will depend on circumstances. [Theoretically this could make a civil war more likely or bloodier as the south seems to have generally had more than their share of the standing army and the weaker economic position of the south could make a military career look more attractive]. However a higher level of military force might also make both sides more cautious about starting bloodshed.

Another point---if you could have a Russo-American alliance, or at least British hostilities with America and Russia at the same time, it would even the playing field considerably, with the RN having to conduct a war on two fronts at the same time. I say this, because IMO the biggest obstacle for your TL is overwhelming British naval dominance.

Click to expand...

It might be a factor as there were clashes with Russia over the position of Turkey, and later Central Asia and the Far East. Russia didn't have a massive navy and its geographical position minimises it further. However a clash or period of tension with Russia would draw off some British resources and attention. I agree that the TL really needs some reason why Britain doesn't win clearly given the naval and industrial/economic predominance at the time.

Steve

California, when the gold rush comes, is inevitably going to attract a lot of Americans, as in OTL. However an independent California that knows about its substantial gold reserves suddenly has an interest in staying independent.

It's by no means sure, but it seems possible that California ITTL, having been independent for a few years, might not be the lawless no-man's-land that it was OTL around this time. This gives the Californian government a chance to attempt to regulate the mining.

If the Californian government believes it can manage the extraction of the gold in the east, it's possible that there might be some resistance to American domination – not that it can't eventually happen, because I think an America with any sort of Pacific coast in Oregon will probably come to dominate California – but with the native elites opposed to it, it might not be the cakewalk it was OTL.



Another thing to be considered is the role of Argentina ITTL. Without American and British hegemony over trade, Argentina might be able to develop more freely than it was able to in OTL, though this probably won't have any impact on world events until maybe the 1880s or '90s.

This is a good set up so far. Gray Wolf keep it up!