AHC: UK and France helps CSA. The Union still wins

TFSmith121

Banned
How did the advantage at sea work out for

Very interesting. Since Britain and France cannot provide enough support on the ground, can there naval support alone be decisive for the CSA?

How did the advantage at sea work out for the Austrians in 1866 in the Adriatic?

Or the French in the North Sea in 1870-71?

Or the French in Mexico in 1862-67?

Or the Spanish in the Dominican Republic in the same decade?

Or the Spanish in the Southeast Pacific against the Chileans and Peruvians, also in the same decade?

Also worth considering is why so many Western nations - including Great Britain, interestingly enough - invested in coast defense ironclads, torpedo boats, and coast artillery and fortifications in the Nineteenth Century against what was presumed to be a threat of blockade from sea-going steam navies.

Also worth considering is the ability for a blockading power to maintain coal-fuelled steamships with auxilliary sails (or vice versa, primarily sailing ships with auxillary steam power) on station at oceanic distances with enough regularity to maintain a blockade, against a technological peer enemy with steam warships operating off their own harbors and with no need to spend weeks or months at sea...

And finally, it is worth considering the impact of blockade on autarkies, especially in the Nineteenth Century when the autarkic powers were in control of what amounted to continents...amatuers and professionals, tactics and logistics, etc.

The interesting thing about periods of technological change is how much they level the playing field.

Best,
 

frlmerrin

Banned
1) Please post a link to a published primary source (not Wikipedia or some frustrated grad student's website) that details the British Army's order of battle and personnel strength in 1861.

2) Please post a link to a published primary source (again, not Wikipedia or someone's website) that details the BRITISH (not French, Turkish, or Sardinian) orders of battle in the Crimea, Baltic, and Russian Far East in 1854-55.

3) Please post a link to the published primary source histories (again, not Wikipedia etc.) of the British German, Italian, and Swiss legions raised in 1855, if you wish - discussing mercenaries' combat effectiveness against local forces on their home ground is always interesting.

4) Please post a link to a published primary source or sources (again, not Wikipedia etc) of the orders of battle of the volunteer and sedentary militias of the Province of Canada and the colony of New Brunswick in 1861-62, including the dates that any units over the company/ squadron/ battery level were raised; actual muster lists would be extraordinarily helpful. Note that such lists are widely available for all US forces in this era.

5) Please post a link to a published primary or secondary source analysis of the failure of the Militia Bill of 1862 in the Canadian Provincial Parliament, and the failure of said bill on the political careers of both John A. and John S. MacDonald;

6) Please post a link to any scholarly analysis of British preparations for war with the North in 1861-62; an author to search for would be Kenneth Bourne.

7) Please post a link to any scholarly analysis of the term "white man's war" in the Nineteenth Century, especially with regards to British mobilization for the 1854-55 conflict with the Russians and the 1880-81 conflict in South Africa;

8) Please post a link to any scholarly analysis of the impact of sea power on the Austro-Prussian War (i.e, Third War of Italian Independence) in 1866; please do the same for a scholarly analysis of the impact of sea power on the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.

Note that there are multiple official British sources (HMSO, etc.) published in 1861-63 that detail the reality of the British Army's and Navy's deployments, organization, and command staff, so please come up with both primary sources and secondary scholarly analyses of these issues.

I'll wait.

Why don't you do some posting of this information instead. You might come up with something useful I have not read. You may even find where most of the information in my post came from if you start looking at primary source and stop lookobsessing over scholarly articles.

Seriously if you want a full list of my references I am happy to compile one for you but it is not something I am going to do for the fun of it. My Consultancy rate is £75 per hour and I estimate it would be around 90 hours of work. PM me if you are interested.
 
Last edited:

frlmerrin

Banned
How did the advantage at sea work out for the Austrians in 1866 in the Adriatic?
Or the French in the North Sea in 1870-71?
Or the French in Mexico in 1862-67?
Or the Spanish in the Dominican Republic in the same decade?
Or the Spanish in the Southeast Pacific against the Chileans and Peruvians, also in the same decade?

This is yet another example of a rhetorical device and a logical fallacy. On top of that it is almosy a cut and paste of what was posted half a dozen posts back.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You know, at my campus, we ask for footnotes and a bibliography

Failing to provide one gets an F.

Good luck next semester.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
That sounds terribly harsh ... and completely unbelievable. When I set tests I am quite realaxed about lack of footnotes, spelling and suchlike but I do mark failure to conduct a logical argument down most severely, especially when there are logical fallacies and dodgy assumptions present.

Oh look another dodgy assumption! You assumed I took the tests when I am the one who sets them.

1) Please post a link to a published primary source (not Wikipedia or some frustrated grad student's website) that details the British Army's order of battle and personnel strength in 1861.

You do realise it is the frustrated grad students that write the scholarly analyses you place such value in?


Best,
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
See, the way this social science thing works is

See, the way this social science thing works is you have to have evidence to support your thesis.

And citing one's sources is part of presenting one's evidence.

Your multi-paragraph post a few back was entirely lacking in any of that, of course, so...you get the grade your deserve.

Best,
 

frlmerrin

Banned
a) This is Alternative History, it is not history and even history has never been a social science.
b) I note you are now using another popular rhetorical device which is to attack the method of presentation of a discourse or argument. Once again I find it necessary to point out that this is a discussion there is no point in using rhetorical devices to 'win' the debate, it is a pointless exercise.
c) If you had read the post you would have noted that the source of most of the data is actually mentioned. I note that the answers to two of your offensively phrased questions can be found in the texts.
d) If you ask polite questions as to where specific information has come from and stop using the opportunity to ask questions like a Jesuit trying to score points against some poor rabbi who's life is at stake in a Spanish disputation I shall be happy to oblige.
e) As nothing more was needed to refute your argument on 'time and distance' than a smattering of historical knowledge and Wikipedia are you ready to repudiate your position on this matter? If not why not?

Bestest,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Nothing in your "long" post is sourced

unless you contend Wikipedia qualifies.

If you do, there's nothing left to say.

Carry on
 
Top