Anglo-American Wars of the 19th Century

[Brosip Broz Tito]

How about a Great Northern War?

James G. Blaine nearly won the general election in 1884, losing by .10% in New York, which would've swung it for him.

He was an Anglophobe and was for military revitalization.

I recall the US having a dispute over seal harvesting in what would've been his term with Canada, where an American ship was confiscated.

The American press goes nuts, Great Britain presses the Yukon/Alaska in favor of Canada ITTL, a skirmish leads to the Great Northern War to prevent the Yukon from getting to the Pacific. But Blaine will have much greater ambitions...and Western Canada is sparsely populated and resource rich.

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, but seriously - a war over seal harvesting?

How about a Great Northern War? James G. Blaine nearly won the general election in 1884, losing by .10% in New York, which would've swung it for him. He was an Anglophobe and was for military revitalization. I recall the US having a dispute over seal harvesting in what would've been his term with Canada, where an American ship was confiscated. The American press goes nuts, Great Britain presses the Yukon/Alaska in favor of Canada ITTL, a skirmish leads to the Great Northern War to prevent the Yukon from getting to the Pacific. But Blaine will have much greater ambitions...and Western Canada is sparsely populated and resource rich.

Yeah, but seriously - a war over seal harvesting?

A decade after the Alabama claims are settled and the rapprochement is well underway?

And when Gladstone, the PM who settled the 1st South African war diplomatically, rather than ordering an expeditionary force to the theater, despite the British army being defeated in every single battle?

It is - remotely - possible the British could have stumbled into a war with the United States in 1862, given Palmerston's obvious blind spot when it came to the US and a much longer list of short of war tensions and incidents; but even that's a huge stretch, given the historical record and Lincoln and Seward's obvious ability to deliver four annoying visitors to the British and French.

In 1884? Makes even less sense.

Best,

 

[galveston bay]

I suppose my biggest problem with Tsouras work (having only read Britannia's Fist and Disaster at D-Day) is that much of the time there isn't enough logical explanation for why various plans happen or are developed (for instance in D-Day I felt the German's just seem to do well by authorial fiat while the Allies founder about for reasons which in context of 1944 are not adequately enough explained) and my biggest gripe with Fist was the half assed ending which seemed to be a cheap way to wrap it up quickly.

Aside from that though, much of the work was actually enjoyable in a wonky sort of way. I suppose I just expected a more effort put into ending the series which may be why I'm so down on him. Well that and bloody Captain Sharp who he bludgeons us with as being a super spy, cripes he's more aggravating than Merlin from David Weber's Safehold series

Probably my biggest problem with Conroy is the magical abilities of "Old Fuss and Feathers" who seems to be lazily inserted into the story despite his historic inablilty to even understand why corps sized formations are needed! That and Rebecca's jarringly lesbian friend who likes to talk about sex.

What is with him and really sleazy wooden sex scenes? Almost as bad as Turtledove's infamous Mark Twain sex scene

a good love scene or sex scene is a bit harder to write than one might suppose

Captain Sharpe shows up in "Gettysburg" (first). So does Ulric Dahlgren

 

[Brosip Broz Tito]

Yeah, but seriously - a war over seal harvesting?

A decade after the Alabama claims are settled and the rapprochement is well underway?

And when Gladstone, the PM who settled the 1st South African war diplomatically, rather than ordering an expeditionary force to the theater, despite the British army being defeated in every single battle?

It is - remotely - possible the British could have stumbled into a war with the United States in 1862, given Palmerston's obvious blind spot when it came to the US and a much longer list of short of war tensions and incidents; but even that's a huge stretch, given the historical record and Lincoln and Seward's obvious ability to deliver four annoying visitors to the British and French.

In 1884? Makes even less sense.

Best,

I meant a seal harvesting incident creates an environment in the 1880s that leads to a war over the Yukon in the 1890s.

 

[galveston bay]

Yeah, but seriously - a war over seal harvesting?

A decade after the Alabama claims are settled and the rapprochement is well underway?

And when Gladstone, the PM who settled the 1st South African war diplomatically, rather than ordering an expeditionary force to the theater, despite the British army being defeated in every single battle?

It is - remotely - possible the British could have stumbled into a war with the United States in 1862, given Palmerston's obvious blind spot when it came to the US and a much longer list of short of war tensions and incidents; but even that's a huge stretch, given the historical record and Lincoln and Seward's obvious ability to deliver four annoying visitors to the British and French.

In 1884? Makes even less sense.

Best,

it would require more aggression from Blaine than I would normally expect

 

[TFSmith121]

Sam Steele, Mike Healy, and Soapy Smith all walk into the Malemute Saloon

I meant a seal harvesting incident creates an environment in the 1880s that leads to a war over the Yukon in the 1890s.

Maybe, but seems a stretch. Any situation where Sam Steele, Mike Healy, and Soapy Smith are all on the scene at the same time could be pretty freaking entertaining, however.

Hum, maybe something for BROS...

it would require more aggression from Blaine than I would normally expect

One would think so.

Best,

 

[galveston bay]

Maybe, but seems a stretch. Any situation where Sam Steele, Mike Healy, and Soapy Smith are all on the scene at the same time could be pretty freaking entertaining, however.

Hum, maybe something for BROS... ,

to set a train in motion for a probable war you need

1. Alabama Claims.. the British tell the US to piss off or some such (enough to anger but not mean war right away)

2. The Seal thing in the 1880s

3. The Venezuela thing in 1895

4. finally, a crisis over the Yukon as a final flash point

Seriously it would take a lot of work to get the Anglo-Americans to the point of shooting at that late date (Klondike Gold Rush is 1896-99)

 

[TFSmith121]

True...

to set a train in motion for a probable war you need:

1. Alabama Claims.. the British tell the US to piss off or some such (enough to anger but not mean war right away)

2. The Seal thing in the 1880s

3. The Venezuela thing in 1895

4. finally, a crisis over the Yukon as a final flash point

Seriously it would take a lot of work to get the Anglo-Americans to the point of shooting at that late date (Klondike Gold Rush is 1896-99)

True.

But that never stopped it before, did it?

Best,

 

[galveston bay]

True.

But that never stopped it before, did it?

Best,

I am not against a timeline based on this, but as has been stated, it won't happen over one thing. It takes a reasonably lengthy period of relations going from polite to unfriendly to hostile to create the conditions where shooting looks like a good plan. So I would have some expectations regarding such a timeline

Of course it would also likely see some military preparations before hand. For one thing the US Congress is far more likely to spend money when it thinks there actually is an enemy or potential one. The American military suffered financially post Civil War because the only enemies were Plains Indians and the occasional need for the Navy to shoot some unpleasant Pacific Islanders and Asians (we did actually launch a full scale amphibious assault against Inchon post Civil War)

If the situation begins to get ugly, then the Congress would be more likely to start raising budgets in the 1870s instead of the late 1880s and 1890s.

 

[edgeworthy]

I suppose my biggest problem with Tsouras work (having only read Britannia's Fist and Disaster at D-Day) is that much of the time there isn't enough logical explanation for why various plans happen or are developed (for instance in D-Day I felt the German's just seem to do well by authorial fiat while the Allies founder about for reasons which in context of 1944 are not adequately enough explained) and my biggest gripe with Fist was the half assed ending which seemed to be a cheap way to wrap it up quickly.

Aside from that though, much of the work was actually enjoyable in a wonky sort of way. I suppose I just expected a more effort put into ending the series which may be why I'm so down on him. Well that and bloody Captain Sharp who he bludgeons us with as being a super spy, cripes he's more aggravating than Merlin from David Weber's Safehold series

Probably my biggest problem with Conroy is the magical abilities of "Old Fuss and Feathers" who seems to be lazily inserted into the story despite his historic inablilty to even understand why corps sized formations are needed! That and Rebecca's jarringly lesbian friend who likes to talk about sex.

What is with him and really sleazy wooden sex scenes? Almost as bad as Turtledove's infamous Mark Twain sex scene

To be honest I was enjoying Britannia's Fist, despite the obviously being written for a "Good-Guy" American audience (With some crazy biases and interpretations, how is firing on any ship in territorial waters not a hostile act?), right up to the Third Battle of Charleston chapter.

Completely ignoring the Dahlgren issue, the American fleet has every Monitor, bar one, in the Union Navy versus just two Royal Navy Iron Frigates, the author completely ignores the availability of Royal Oak and Terror.
Admiral Dahlgren gets a power boost by recommissioning the former CSS Atlanta into his forces, USS Wabash is suddenly upgraded from its historical broadside of IX Inch Dahlgrens to XI Inch guns.
The division of Monitors sent for a refit at Port Royal turn up at the last minute to swing the odds.
And the utter capstone ... a pair of USN Submersibles, neither they nor their Captains, nor their Mothership, simply referred to as the Submersible Tender, are ever named, at the height of the battle launch a sucessful attack on a moving target, Black Prince, with limpet mines

This is the point my suspension of disbelief leapt out the window

Its as if the American player has the scenario set on easy and knows all the cheat codes.

The bit with Ulric Dahlgren, yes the Admiral's son ... who was an Army officer, how does that work?, singlehandedly launching a boarding action was just silly.

 

[TFSmith121]

Undoubtedly, and, as had been stated, its not

If the situation begins to get ugly, then the Congress would be more likely to start raising budgets in the 1870s instead of the late 1880s and 1890s.

Undoubtedly, and, as had been stated, its not like anything was missing in the 1870s other than money; the technical expertise and R&D was certainly in place.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

No comment on the Tsouras story because I haven't read it

This is the point my suspension of disbelief leapt out the window Its as if the American player has the scenario set on easy and knows all the cheat codes. The bit with Ulric Dahlgren, yes the Admiral's son ... who was an Army officer, how does that work?, singlehandedly launching a boarding action was just silly.

No comment on the Tsouras story because I haven't read it, but Ulric Dahlgren was commissioned into the USVs as an officer in 1862 after serving as a volunteer aide to his father and on active service.

The admiral's biography of his son is here; obviously rather hagiographic, but lays out the course of events pretty clearly:

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...SGZScWEKJSWMte53Y4E&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

a good love scene or sex scene is a bit harder to write than one might suppose

On that I agree, but Conroy's sex scenes just seem slightly sleazy and unnecessary to the overall story. The Mark Twain sex scene was just rather a bit of an uncomfortable mental image...

To be honest I was enjoying Britannia's Fist, despite the obviously being written for a "Good-Guy" American audience (With some crazy biases and interpretations, how is firing on any ship in territorial waters not a hostile act?), right up to the Third Battle of Charleston chapter.

Eh it seems like authors believe to get the interpretation right for an American audience the British always have to be portrayed as somewhere just below the Galactic Empire in terms of villainy in these kinds of fictional works. Look at the mess that was The Patriot!

Very few authors are capable of capturing the moral grayness of war sadly.

Fist though is fun enough if you turn off your brain and keep reading

Completely ignoring the Dahlgren issue, the American fleet has every Monitor, bar one, in the Union Navy versus just two Royal Navy Iron Frigates, the author completely ignores the availability of Royal Oak and Terror.
Admiral Dahlgren gets a power boost by recommissioning the former CSS Atlanta into his forces, USS Wabash is suddenly upgraded from its historical broadside of IX Inch Dahlgrens to XI Inch guns.
The division of Monitors sent for a refit at Port Royal turn up at the last minute to swing the odds.
And the utter capstone ... a pair of USN Submersibles, neither they nor their Captains, nor their Mothership, simply referred to as the Submersible Tender, are ever named, at the height of the battle launch a sucessful attack on a moving target, Black Prince, with limpet mines

This is the point my suspension of disbelief leapt out the window

The techno wank aspects were (IMHO) an attempt to set the story apart from other works. That and its probably seen as more exciting if you can have exciting things like balloon bombers and bizarre technological inventions crawling out of the woodwork.

That's how David Weber makes all his money

The bit with Ulric Dahlgren, yes the Admiral's son ... who was an Army officer, how does that work?, singlehandedly launching a boarding action was just silly.

Maybe he transferred to the Navy at some unspecified point in this time line? Like I said, if you turn your brain off its good fun

 

[Tiro]

EC, TFS121 - as the reigning experts on the Trent War in these forums and the local equivalent of the Lion & the Unicorn (honestly, you make Gladstone and Disraeli look like the Tom and Jerry!*), might one ask if you have ever considered working out a Wargame that would allow you to pursue your purely-Academic debates down a more entertaining avenue?

I'm not arrogant enough to think this will actually SETTLE your disagreement (and as a sometime Academic myself I know that a good dispute is the very life-blood of Historical scholarship, preventing it from becoming a mere dry & dusty assertion of dogma), but I honestly want to see what the two of you could come up with if your scholarships combined in the noble cause of Fun!

After all, wouldn't it be more Sporting to hazard a little pride and put your theories into practice at the mercy of Dame Fortune than to perpetually agree to disagree?

*Genius Points and a special No-prize to anyone who can explain this allusion to particularly obscure Victoriana.

 

[TFSmith121]

Thank you for the kind words...

EC, TFS121 - as the reigning experts on the Trent War in these forums and the local equivalent of the Lion & the Unicorn (honestly, you make Gladstone and Disraeli look like the Tom and Jerry!*), might one ask if you have ever considered working out a Wargame that would allow you to pursue your purely-Academic debates down a more entertaining avenue? I'm not arrogant enough to think this will actually SETTLE your disagreement (and as a sometime Academic myself I know that a good dispute is the very life-blood of Historical scholarship, preventing it from becoming a mere dry & dusty assertion of dogma), but I honestly want to see what the two of you could come up with if your scholarships combined in the noble cause of Fun! After all, wouldn't it be more Sporting to hazard a little pride and put your theories into practice at the mercy of Dame Fortune than to perpetually agree to disagree?

Thank you for the kind words...

It would be interesting to see this done through an actual refereed event at the AWC or C&GSC, certainly (akin to the Sandhurst run-through of ZEELOWE); I'm not certain it could be done in any other forum that would do it justice.

From the point of view of BROS, I have tried to use the primary and secondary sources I can find, both actual and on-line, and to share them when questioned; I have also tried to find a historical precedent, at least in general terms, for the various plot points and actions, and in something approximating the time frame - basically, as stated in the introduction, 1841-1881, or the four decade span of a professional man's working life.

I have also tried to avoid turning any of the historical individuals sketched therein into puppets, much less the victims of authorial lobotomies; absent the initial set of events to kick off such a conflict in the first place, which - absent Palmerston being free to act without being "governed" by others, namely V&A - seems the only way to get one.

Lincoln et al certainly were not going to fumble their way into one, as per the historical record, which includes multiple examples, far beyond Trent, of the US ignoring provocations, from the historical St. Albans Raid to Chesapeake to untold others...

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

EC, TFS121 - as the reigning experts on the Trent War in these forums and the local equivalent of the Lion & the Unicorn (honestly, you make Gladstone and Disraeli look like the Tom and Jerry!*), might one ask if you have ever considered working out a Wargame that would allow you to pursue your purely-Academic debates down a more entertaining avenue?

I'm not arrogant enough to think this will actually SETTLE your disagreement (and as a sometime Academic myself I know that a good dispute is the very life-blood of Historical scholarship, preventing it from becoming a mere dry & dusty assertion of dogma), but I honestly want to see what the two of you could come up with if your scholarships combined in the noble cause of Fun!

After all, wouldn't it be more Sporting to hazard a little pride and put your theories into practice at the mercy of Dame Fortune than to perpetually agree to disagree?

Why thank you for the praise, but I'd hardly consider myself an expert

However, as someone once said, alternate history is the ultimate unknowable. IMO there's no way to ever garner anything resembling a satisfying conclusion to the questions at hand as there are simply far too many variables to be considered in framing these scenarios. We can make reasonable guesses and assumptions in constructing them, but absent a time machine or omniscience we can't actually know everything there is to know about how events happened or would happen.

Writing or gaming any definitive scenario on such matters would be impossible. Making plausible and interesting stories out of it OTOH is completely possible

That all being said, I think a moderated debate between our two opinions in a formal setting would be interesting. Certainly entertaining

 

[edgeworthy]

Why thank you for the praise, but I'd hardly consider myself an expert

However, as someone once said, alternate history is the ultimate unknowable. IMO there's no way to ever garner anything resembling a satisfying conclusion to the questions at hand as there are simply far too many variables to be considered in framing these scenarios. We can make reasonable guesses and assumptions in constructing them, but absent a time machine or omniscience we can't actually know everything there is to know about how events happened or would happen.

Writing or gaming any definitive scenario on such matters would be impossible. Making plausible and interesting stories out of it OTOH is completely possible

That all being said, I think a moderated debate between our two opinions in a formal setting would be interesting. Certainly entertaining

Assuming nobody immediately bites my head off ... the opinion of the US Naval Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Institute
http://www.usni.org/usni.html
is that in the event of such a conflict, at least at sea, the US was in deep trouble!
http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm

And remember this is an organistion who's members recently voted USS Constitution the greatest warship in history.
If they are going to be at all partisan in any direction that says it all.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sorry, what point are you trying to make?

Assuming nobody immediately bites my head off ... the opinion of the US Naval Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Institute
http://www.usni.org/usni.html
is that in the event of such a conflict, at least at sea, the US was in deep trouble!
http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm

And remember this is an organistion who's members recently voted USS Constitution the greatest warship in history.
If they are going to be at all partisan in any direction that says it all.

Sorry, what point are you trying to make?

The wikipedia entry is a description of the USNI; says nothing about strategy or tactics in the event of a European intervention in 1861-65, naval or otherwise.

The second link is just to the home page; was there a particular article or something you were trying to link to?

The third link goes to a ship list and mentions the numbers of ships maintained by the European navies; it says nothing, however, beyond that.

It also misspells Don Canney's last name.

Best,

 

[La Rouge Beret]

EC, TFS121 - as the reigning experts on the Trent War in these forums and the local equivalent of the Lion & the Unicorn (honestly, you make Gladstone and Disraeli look like the Tom and Jerry!*), might one ask if you have ever considered working out a Wargame that would allow you to pursue your purely-Academic debates down a more entertaining avenue?

Actually that is a pretty good suggestion and seeing this scenario wargamed out would be pretty bloody interesting.

 

[galveston bay]

Assuming nobody immediately bites my head off ... the opinion of the US Naval Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Institute
http://www.usni.org/usni.html
is that in the event of such a conflict, at least at sea, the US was in deep trouble!
http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm

And remember this is an organistion who's members recently voted USS Constitution the greatest warship in history.
If they are going to be at all partisan in any direction that says it all.

do you have a link to an online version of the article?