With a POD as early as, say, the 1850s, is it possible for the USA and the Second French Empire to go to war with one another in the mid/late 1860s? (Over the Mexican situation, perhaps?) If so, what would the outcome of such a war be?
A Franco-American war in the 1860s.
- Thread starter Huehuecoyotl
- Start date
No sure about whether it would be possible for them to go to war, mostly because neither is in a position to directly attack the other. Certainly, there's no way you could have an American invasion of France at that time, and France has no nearby colonies from which to base an invasion of the US.
If it's a situation where each is supporting a different side in a conflict in Mexico, who would win would really depend on the internal dynamics of Mexico rather than anything we can say about the us and France.
Probably the best bet for a franco-American war would be a us civil war where the csa is supported by French troops and supplies. However, we can't say anything more about what the outcome would be until we've answered WHY and HOw France is supporting the csa.
If it's a situation where each is supporting a different side in a conflict in Mexico, who would win would really depend on the internal dynamics of Mexico rather than anything we can say about the us and France.
Probably the best bet for a franco-American war would be a us civil war where the csa is supported by French troops and supplies. However, we can't say anything more about what the outcome would be until we've answered WHY and HOw France is supporting the csa.
Saphroneth
Banned
I think the worst you could get for France, really, is not much worse than a Status Quo Ante Bellum. (Well, you know, apart from all the dead soldiers and expended treasure.) It might even come out a little better than OTL, for the Empire specifically, if this means Napoleon III isn't convinced his glorious arms are invincible.
For the US, it's more or less the same in the late 1860s. Once the Civil War's over, the US is a little too hard to seriously damage in the 1860s time frame.
...but...
...if the French help the Confederacy, then the Union is going to have to spend much more blood and treasure reconquering the Rebels. (Among other reasons, because OTL the Confederacy was blockaded and low on rifles/ammunition/food/clothing/everything... and now they're not.)
That said, that's not really a Franco-American war, in a lot of ways. It's the American Civil War where the Confederacy get help.
For the US, it's more or less the same in the late 1860s. Once the Civil War's over, the US is a little too hard to seriously damage in the 1860s time frame.
...but...
...if the French help the Confederacy, then the Union is going to have to spend much more blood and treasure reconquering the Rebels. (Among other reasons, because OTL the Confederacy was blockaded and low on rifles/ammunition/food/clothing/everything... and now they're not.)
That said, that's not really a Franco-American war, in a lot of ways. It's the American Civil War where the Confederacy get help.
Well my own TL (shameless plug here) deals with the issue. That being said I've yet to delve deep into the French involvement in the main TL.
As another point the possibility of a Franco-American conflict existed as long as the French meddled in Mexico. Though it's very unlikely Napoleon would have risked open war (or even the entire adventure) without the Civil War.
As another point the possibility of a Franco-American conflict existed as long as the French meddled in Mexico. Though it's very unlikely Napoleon would have risked open war (or even the entire adventure) without the Civil War.
For me the PODE is a Imperialist win at Puebla. If Maxie had sidelined Juarez and his Nationalists, I can see him saying to the Mexicans, "Follow me and my victorious army north of the Rio Bravo to take back our lost territory." Though, if I were him I'd settle for taking back a good chunk of Arizona and New Mexico. Texas and California would be too big a bites.
TinyTartar
Banned
How victorious would that army be, however, if it tried to go north? I am guessing that the largest army Maximillian could put in the field ranged from about 20-40,000 troops, and many of those would have to be left in Mexico to watch over the sidelined Nationalists while he invaded northwards.
The US massively downscaled after the Civil War, however, about 50,000 troops were in the Rio Grande region in 1866 with numbers dropping over time. The US could probably field an army double the size of that of Maximillian in the region, and it would be one that would be better trained, equipped, with more secure and effective supply lines, not to mention better battle hardened commanders.
I don't think that Maximillian could accomplish that much in the timespan you are speaking of. The loss at Puebla was in 1867, with victories occurring earlier in 1862 and 1863 for the imperialists. For Maximillian to attack post Civil War America he would have to be mad, as the might of the US Army would crash on him and he'd no longer have his European friends around to bail him out. For him to try during the Civil War brings up a whole host of issues I cannot even begin to enumerate.
Saphroneth
Banned
As a general rule (with exceptions) in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the US has a tendency to massively demobilize between wars and massively mobilize during them.
So, for example, post-1865 it has a large army of trained men (not necessarily well trained, not in things like shooting, but they've got the deployment and artillery handled) and a large navy, much of it modern ironclads.
So fighting the US a that time is hard.
But from then until the late 1880s, the US did very little in terms of modernization or capability retention. As such, the US of 1880's fleet was mostly the fleet it had in service or building in 1865, and the US of 1880's army was very much a Civil War beast. (100-200 yards fighting range, 3" 1860s guns and so on).
Which is why the likelihood of a French war succeeding in the 1860s is high in 1860-2, then drops until 1866 or so, and then begins to (slowly) rise again.
Incidentally, in the late 1860s, the French would be bringing the Chassepot to a battle. That's a good, medium-long range, breech loading rifle started in full production in 1866 - while the US is still trying to decide what kind of trapdoor rifle to produce. (They built a lot of experimental models, though... so the capability is there to rush-build lever action breech-loaders.)
Britain's not in full scale grab-all-colonies mode unless provoked, in this time period.
Prussia would be unlikely to do so, remember it took a French attack on Metz to make the German Federation gel into what would become Germany. It'd be just Prussia versus France, and that's not a risk to take lightly.
Though that does remind me - tactics-wise, the French are very different if the Austro-Prussian war has happened.
Before that date, the French tactics were pretty much like the American ones but more so - shock action, at the tip of a bayonet (instead of a close range firefight).
After that, as the French saw what good shooting did to Austrian shock columns, they switched mode entirely to fire-base tactics. This is a good way for an attacking American force (without the schwarmm tactics of an extended skirmish line with good shooting, or the Krupp artillery to blast the French out of their trenches) to get killed in large numbers.
So, for example, post-1865 it has a large army of trained men (not necessarily well trained, not in things like shooting, but they've got the deployment and artillery handled) and a large navy, much of it modern ironclads.
So fighting the US a that time is hard.
But from then until the late 1880s, the US did very little in terms of modernization or capability retention. As such, the US of 1880's fleet was mostly the fleet it had in service or building in 1865, and the US of 1880's army was very much a Civil War beast. (100-200 yards fighting range, 3" 1860s guns and so on).
Which is why the likelihood of a French war succeeding in the 1860s is high in 1860-2, then drops until 1866 or so, and then begins to (slowly) rise again.
Incidentally, in the late 1860s, the French would be bringing the Chassepot to a battle. That's a good, medium-long range, breech loading rifle started in full production in 1866 - while the US is still trying to decide what kind of trapdoor rifle to produce. (They built a lot of experimental models, though... so the capability is there to rush-build lever action breech-loaders.)
Britain's not in full scale grab-all-colonies mode unless provoked, in this time period.
Prussia would be unlikely to do so, remember it took a French attack on Metz to make the German Federation gel into what would become Germany. It'd be just Prussia versus France, and that's not a risk to take lightly.
Though that does remind me - tactics-wise, the French are very different if the Austro-Prussian war has happened.
Before that date, the French tactics were pretty much like the American ones but more so - shock action, at the tip of a bayonet (instead of a close range firefight).
After that, as the French saw what good shooting did to Austrian shock columns, they switched mode entirely to fire-base tactics. This is a good way for an attacking American force (without the schwarmm tactics of an extended skirmish line with good shooting, or the Krupp artillery to blast the French out of their trenches) to get killed in large numbers.
