AH Challenge: Louisiana War of 1804
- Thread starter MacCaulay
- Start date
Vampiloup said:
That requires Napoleon to buypeace from England, following Talleyrands advices. So he gives a few colonies, open the empire makets to english goods and stop pressuring ( for a while ) some Uk allies. That may be possible; Let's say that; for some reasons, USA publicly insults Napoleon and he is so furious he is willing to give to Uk, provided he can strike at USA. I think Uk will go for this if Napoleon proposes to get out of Anvers; for exemple.
And I agree, both with the US being crushed and the huge butterflies
Since the truce ended in 1803 you're going to need one massive POD to get this, starting with convincing the British that Napoleon with a rejuvenated fleet and large expeditionary forces is nothing to worry about.
If truce lasts another two years, happy days for the British and US! No pointless War of 1812, clean win for the US and the British not only don't have to waste forces in North America, they might even get some volunteers! A few thousand riflemen could be nice...
If truce lasts another two years, happy days for the British and US! No pointless War of 1812, clean win for the US and the British not only don't have to waste forces in North America, they might even get some volunteers! A few thousand riflemen could be nice...
MacCaulay said:
No expert but got the idea that the only real population settlements in Louisiana were in the south, around modern Louisiana. Further north only really a few traders and missionaries and plenty of Indians. Hence the main fighting would be in the south. Can't remember are we thinking of US and Britain or this war breaking out while Britain and France are still at peace?
One potential problem for the US. The various Indian tribes, especially the 5 civilised nations, are still unconquered at this point. Along with the early start of Tecumseh's alliance. Would they have still trusted the US to treat them fairly at this time or could the French have made allies with them? [They generally did better in the 18thC with the Indians, largely I think because they were not doing large scale settlement so were less of a threat]. That could at the very least make a tough buffer for Louisiana, the tribes being equipped by the French and possibly with some French forces working with them.
Steve
Smaug said:
Smaug
Think it is probably unlikely. How strong was the forces. On the other hand the Corsicans had initially been unhappy with French rule and Britain had even held the island for a while as a naval base. Not sure what feelings were like by this time. Having one of their native sons, even one who has helped crush the independence movement, may make at least some more favourable to the French.
Steve
Max Sinister
Banned
If the Americans fight Napoleon, Britain could use the opportunity later to get in if both are weakened. Maybe they manage to restrict the US to the old 13 colonies again, surrounding them forever (or at least some time)?
MacCaulay
Banned
Max: In order to do that, the British would have to take away the Northwest Territory that made up most of the land above the Ohio River, and I don't think they'd want two land wars at once.
But the French and American forces would slug it out in the south, and even if the French managed to win a few battles, it seems that the Americans could still bargain for the territory.
Grimm Reaper: In response to the naval power question: I'm thinking the point of departure is that the French successfully put down the rebellion of Touissant in Haiti. Their orders were to land the French Expeditionary Force in New Orleans. Which would mean the American forces would be fighting a French army under Napoleon's brother. So the need for ships is already taken care of. I wasn't going to go so far as to have the French build another fleet. There's limits to my imagination.
But the French and American forces would slug it out in the south, and even if the French managed to win a few battles, it seems that the Americans could still bargain for the territory.
Grimm Reaper: In response to the naval power question: I'm thinking the point of departure is that the French successfully put down the rebellion of Touissant in Haiti. Their orders were to land the French Expeditionary Force in New Orleans. Which would mean the American forces would be fighting a French army under Napoleon's brother. So the need for ships is already taken care of. I wasn't going to go so far as to have the French build another fleet. There's limits to my imagination.
MacCaulay said:
Given that the US didn't hold those areas for another decade that wouldn't be too difficult surely. It had a claim to those areas and minimal presence in them but they were still very much in Indian hands and a US distracted by fighting the French in the south is likely to give Tsusmeh more time to establish his alliance of native states. If Britain is less distracted by France it could easily establish a protectorate over the region and help keep the US out. Its a fairly standard event in a more successful Britain in the 1812 conflict.
Steve
yeah, the Americans were fighting the Barbary Pirates... with our upgunned frigates we had at the time... don't the French have real ships of the line? If they get loose among the frigates, kiss them goodbye...Wendell said:
I disagree.
If anything, it might actually strengthen the Americans long-term. Besides, they could just as easily be permanent British allies akin to what gradually developed IOTL.Max Sinister said:
Firstly, the Americans initially sought to purchase only New Orleans, not all of Louisiana. Secondly, Britain might trade the Americans Canada if there happen to be some sugar islands captured by the U.S. during the war.Imajin said:
the US ships that kicked up all the fuss in the war were all upgunned frigates... we had nothing to match a real ship of the line... and most of the bothersome ships were privateers... the US would be facing the same situation with France as they did with Britain... they could do some damage to French shipping, but couldn't really challenge her for control of the seas...Wendell said:The (British) RN certainly did a good job of sinking the Serapis before it ever made it across the Atlantic
I think you seem to have forgotten the American war of independence. The French landed an army under Rochambeau and managed to defeat or [FONT="]outmanoeuvre [/FONT]the British Navy, leaving the British land forces without supply and ultimately leading to their defeat.stevep said:
It is therefore not the foregone conclusion you seem to think it is that France would be unable to support an army in America. The French navy, allied with Spain and the Netherlands, outnumbered the British Navy in 1804-1805. They were also outbuilding the British Navy.
Clever use of the threat of an invasion of England by troops massed near the Channel would have kept a large part of the British Navy in home waters, easily allowing the French to achieve superiority in numbers off the American seaboard.
Nor where the French solely dependent on foraging, especially not the late consular, early imperial army with its much improved discipline compared to the revolutionary levies.
When planning the invasion of Russia in 1812, a territory equally lacking in supplies, the French made lavish preparations (for the time period) to supply the Grand Army from depots. So the notion was not beyond them.
Wendell said:
You mean like Martinique which the British returned at Vienna?
Britain took Tobago (which was British before the ARW) and St Lucia; they didn't appear to want much in the way of Sugar islands.
If the British want more sugar islands then they can take Sugar Islands, unlike the US who would have a hard time of it in the face of even a modest French fleet.
random thoughts:
it seems to me the war would revolve around New Orleans... there are some other towns in the region, but that's the big one... the US really wants NO, and capturing it would be priority #1. Fighting in the rest of the territory would be tough, as it is literally a howling wilderness in most of it...
what exactly is going on in Europe if Napoleon is messing around in LA? It seems he would have to have made a peace of some sort, or he couldn't afford the movement of ships and troops there. And does Britain really want him to have control of the region?
US/UK alliance... possible, but there is one big stumbling block: British impressment of US sailors. Basically, so long as Napoleon is a threat to Britain, they are utterly dependent on their navy. Unfortunately, the RN was a hellish place to work, and the common sailors deserted in droves; the RN responded by stopping US ships and grabbing any English speaking sailor who couldn't prove he was American (a harder thing to do back then). Naturally, this infuriated a lot of people in the US. To have an alliance, you have to have Britain stopping this policy, which would mean that Napoleon is no longer a threat to Britain... so, again, just what is going on in Europe?
One positive thing the War of 1812 did was establish definite control over the Old Northwest, putting an end to British hopes for a big Indian buffer state and keeping the Americans from moving further west. What happens to that in this ATL?
it seems to me the war would revolve around New Orleans... there are some other towns in the region, but that's the big one... the US really wants NO, and capturing it would be priority #1. Fighting in the rest of the territory would be tough, as it is literally a howling wilderness in most of it...
what exactly is going on in Europe if Napoleon is messing around in LA? It seems he would have to have made a peace of some sort, or he couldn't afford the movement of ships and troops there. And does Britain really want him to have control of the region?
US/UK alliance... possible, but there is one big stumbling block: British impressment of US sailors. Basically, so long as Napoleon is a threat to Britain, they are utterly dependent on their navy. Unfortunately, the RN was a hellish place to work, and the common sailors deserted in droves; the RN responded by stopping US ships and grabbing any English speaking sailor who couldn't prove he was American (a harder thing to do back then). Naturally, this infuriated a lot of people in the US. To have an alliance, you have to have Britain stopping this policy, which would mean that Napoleon is no longer a threat to Britain... so, again, just what is going on in Europe?
One positive thing the War of 1812 did was establish definite control over the Old Northwest, putting an end to British hopes for a big Indian buffer state and keeping the Americans from moving further west. What happens to that in this ATL?
MacCaulay
Banned
stevep: Thanks for pointing that out about the Northwest Territory. Must've been a brainfart.
In response to the thoughts about the American fleet in the Mediterranean, their frigates wouldn't be facing off against anything too large. The French Navy, such as it was, was being used to put down the rebellion in Haiti. This would mean that most naval battles would take place, in my humble opinion, in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Med. Either way, it seems the Americans would win. The French could definitely put up a good fight, though.
And for all we know, a Louisiana War might last no more than a few months, long enough for the French to get defeated in a few battles and for the United States to buy the territory from them.
In response to the thoughts about the American fleet in the Mediterranean, their frigates wouldn't be facing off against anything too large. The French Navy, such as it was, was being used to put down the rebellion in Haiti. This would mean that most naval battles would take place, in my humble opinion, in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Med. Either way, it seems the Americans would win. The French could definitely put up a good fight, though.
And for all we know, a Louisiana War might last no more than a few months, long enough for the French to get defeated in a few battles and for the United States to buy the territory from them.
ranoncles said:
ranoncles
I didn't forget the ARW, which is why I referred to it. In that Britain had the support of a lot of the population of the colonies and also a larger fleet than France and still struggled.
In 1804+ this is a lot worse for the French. In theory they have marginally more ships than Britain but as Trafalgar showed the quality was vastly inferior. Also they lacked the resources to concentrate their fleet and transports and maintain an army across the Atlantic. Furthermore I doubt they would get much support while operating in the US, apart from possibly some of the Indian tribes looking for protection against the US.
The French actually tried the reverse operation in 1804, trying top lure nelson to the Caribbean and it worked but they didn't move fast enough and would still have had to fight the Channel Fleet. Hence I doubt Britain would have given France a free hand in the region, especially with its rich resources.
I didn't mean the French were solely dependent on foraging. However they were more dependent on it than just about any other major power of the time. This gave them much greater mobility, a major part in their success. However it also had a downside. As you say Napoleon made considerable efforts to ensure supply during the invasion of Russia but they were only partial successes. True operating in the US will use much smaller forces and won't face the Russian winter but will involve very long supply lines through largely unsettled terrain so it will not be easy. The French continued to rely on forage in their later campaigns, which was one reason for discontent in France when the army started operating there. However if they do that it will upset the locals and I'm not sure how much spare carrying capacity the area has.
Steve