AHC/WI: Franco-Spanish-C.S.A. Alliance?

Actually, depending on one views the Quasi-war, one can offer three European powers...

Best,

three? Britain twice, Although i would consider with a real victory since in the AWI they just kinda gave up and in 1812 they burned the capitol then got bored. Mexico isn't a European power, and the Quasi war was just that...a Quasi war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Britain in the 1775-83 war, Spain in 1819, and France

three? Britain twice, Although i would consider with a real victory since in the AWI they just kinda gave up and in 1812 they burned the capitol then got bored. Mexico isn't a European power, and the Quasi war was just that...a Quasi war.

Britain in the 1775-83 war, Spain in 1819 (Florida), and France in the quasi-war.

The British "kinda gave up" in 1883 after losing not one but two armies in the field (Burgoyne's at Saratoga and Cornwallis' at Yorktown); that's not giving up, that's outright military defeat, not once but twice, including the complete loss of two field armies.

1812-15 was a mutual combat sort of situation, but the British lost at Baltimore/Hampstead Hill, Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, and New Orleans...not exactly minor setbacks.

The Spanish basically didn't even contest the loss of Florida in 1819.

So, yeah, I think there's two European powers, right there.

The point being, no European power could generate, deploy, and sustain the combat forces necessary to prevail over an American power (the US, or any other, for that matter) by the Nineteenth Century, as the history of the United States, all the Latin American republics that gained their independence from Spain, and Portgual makes clear.

The two times a European power tried to re-impose rule over an Western Hemisphere nation in the Nineteenth Century (France in Mexico and Spain in the Dominican Republic, both in the 1860s), they both lost.

Time and distance.

Best,
 

SunDeep

Banned
Britain in the 1775-83 war, Spain in 1819 (Florida), and France in the quasi-war.

The British "kinda gave up" in 1883 after losing not one but two armies in the field (Burgoyne's at Saratoga and Cornwallis' at Yorktown); that's not giving up, that's outright military defeat, not once but twice, including the complete loss of two field armies.

1812-15 was a mutual combat sort of situation, but the British lost at Baltimore/Hampstead Hill, Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, and New Orleans...not exactly minor setbacks.

The Spanish basically didn't even contest the loss of Florida in 1819.

So, yeah, I think there's two European powers, right there.

The point being, no European power could generate, deploy, and sustain the combat forces necessary to prevail over an American power (the US, or any other, for that matter) by the Nineteenth Century, as the history of the United States, all the Latin American republics that gained their independence from Spain, and Portgual makes clear.

The two times a European power tried to re-impose rule over an Western Hemisphere nation in the Nineteenth Century (France in Mexico and Spain in the Dominican Republic, both in the 1860s), they both lost.

Time and distance.

Best,

It's not really about re-imposing rule in this scenario though, is it? It's either forcing the Unionists to back down or bringing them to a stalemate, getting them to the negotiating table and convincing them to accept the status quo- which, coincidentally enough, happens to be exactly what the British managed to accomplish in OTL's war of 1812, preventing the Americans from annexing any parts of Canada. This, at the same time as they were engaged in perhaps the most critical of the Napoleonic Wars, the War of the Sixth Coalition.

ITTL's US Civil War, unlike the British in 1812, France and Spain wouldn't have any other ongoing conflicts to worry about, wouldn't have to scrape together a force of 6,000 under-trained reserves and be forced to hold the line with them for two long years. Instead, they'd be able to deploy a large task-force comprised of tens of thousands of some of the best, brightest and most battle-hardened soldiers they have, prepped and equipped to go on the offensive along with the Confederates and take the fight to the Unionists from the off. The good ol' U.S of A's raw conscript recruits wouldn't stand a chance...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Actually, the end result of the 1812-15 war was undisputed

It's not really about re-imposing rule in this scenario though, is it? It's either forcing the Unionists to back down or bringing them to a stalemate, getting them to the negotiating table and convincing them to accept the status quo- which, coincidentally enough, happens to be exactly what the British managed to accomplish in OTL's war of 1812, preventing the Americans from annexing any parts of Canada. ...


Actually, the end result of the 1812-15 war included the destruction of the British Empire's most effective military allies in North America, the native confederacies of the old Northwest and old Southwest - which had sustained Britain's goals in North America since the 1760s, first against the French and then against the Americans, including in 1775-83.

As far as the strength of the French and Spanish armies and their abilities to sustain extended operations in the 1860s in the Western Hemisphere, you may wish to consider the record of the French in Mexico and the Spanish in the Dominican Republic in the same decade.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Actually, the end result of the 1812-15 war included the destruction of the British Empire's most effective military allies in North America, the native confederacies of the old Northwest and old Southwest - which had sustained Britian's goals in North America since the 1760s, first against the French and then against the Americans, including in 1775-83.

That wasn't quite as disastrous a setback for Britain as you might think. Britain managed to complete all her war aims, defend Canada, and severely humiliate the US army and torched the US capital.

They did lose their allies, but that was mostly for a lack of proper support and poor planning on the part of Tecumseh. The British did suffer some losses of their own in the war but it was more of a near thing for the US than many like to admit.

Its always important to remember that in this war the British were basically fighting with the equivalent of one hand tied behind their back.

As far as the strength of the French and Spanish armies and their abilities to sustain extended operations in the 1860s in the Western Hemisphere, you may wish to consider the record of the French in Mexico and the Spanish in the Dominican Republic in the same decade.

I'll give you Spain, but France did fairly well in Mexico considering the difficulties they faced. If it hadn't been for US support Juarez might not have been able to defeat the French forces.

Without US support and pressure you probably see France win in the long term.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
British war aims in 1814 included truncating the US

Its always important to remember that in this war the British were basically fighting with the equivalent of one hand tied behind their back...


British war aims in 1814 included truncating the US. The British armies committed to Baltimore/Hampstead Hill, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans were all regulars, including their commanders - Ross and Pakenham, for example. They still lost, just as they had at Saratoga, and for the same reasons.

Time and distance.

Cripes, the British lost to the Argentines in 1806 and again in 1807.

More importantly, your "one hand tied behind their back" is why the European powers all lost their wars in the Western Hemisphere in the Nineteenth Century. There was always a European threat that prevented "both hands" from coming out.

As far as the French in Mexico, they had much more important things to worry about, as witness 1871...

Best,
 
British war aims in 1814 included truncating the US. The British armies committed to Baltimore/Hampstead Hill, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans were all regulars, including their commanders - Ross and Pakenham, for example. They still lost, just as they had at Saratoga, and for the same reasons.

Time and distance.

Cripes, the British lost to the Argentines in 1806 and again in 1807.

More importantly, your "one hand tied behind their back" is why the European powers all lost their wars in the Western Hemisphere in the Nineteenth Century. There was always a European threat that prevented "both hands" from coming out.

As far as the French in Mexico, they had much more important things to worry about, as witness 1871...

Best,
The War of 1812 showed there were plenty of instances where US troops couldn't match up to their European counterparts as well though. Multiple forts in the US were captured and the capital was overrun and burned despite the US having numbers and defensive positions over the British.

Just take a quick look at the losses the US incurred against the British in that conflict too. American losses far exceeded those of the British, depending on which source you trust it can vary from several hundred to several thousand.

And the AWI had a lot to owe to French support, specifically the fleet that helped make Yorktown possible by winning the Battle of the Chesapeake.

But what you're saying seems to indicate that no European power was capable of standing up to a rebellion or another country that wasn't close-by (relatively speaking). This is simply not true when you look at how the British were able to suppress the Indian Rebellion in 1857, win the First Opium War, and win the Madhist War in the late 1800s. The French also fought down rebellions in Indochina as well but didn't lose control there until World War 2. Even the Dutch were able to win a colonial fight in the Java War despite being heavily outmatched numerically.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
"Peer competitors" is the term of art

But what you're saying seems to indicate that no European power was capable of standing up to a rebellion or another country that wasn't close-by (relatively speaking). This is simply not true when you look at how the British were able to suppress the Indian Rebellion in 1857, win the First Opium War, and win the Madhist War in the late 1800s. The French also fought down rebellions in Indochina as well but didn't lose control there until World War 2. Even the Dutch were able to win a colonial fight in the Java War despite being heavily outmatched numerically.

"Peer competitors" is the term of art...and that's the difference in terms of the conflicts between the "Americans" (north and south) and the Europeans I am referencing and those between Europeans and the Asian and African cultures you're referring to in your post.

The point is that none of the European "imperial" conflicts you are referencing were against peer competitors, in terms of culture, organization, politics, industrialization, etc. The first such conflict with an Asian or African power that was a peer competitor with the Europeans was, interestingly enough, the Russo-Japanese War, and we all know how that turned out.

The only real exception is the 2nd South African war, and that's in an entirely different era in terms of technology and economics than the Nineteenth Century conflicts in the Western Hemisphere - and it still took a political accommodation AND the largest British overseas troop deployment before WW I to - somewhat - force an end to the independence of the Transvaal and Vrystaat republics.

Which - essentially - promptly got dominion status (as the Union) and in which the Dutch-speaking population almost immediately dominated politically and economically over the "British" element of the SA poulation (much less the Asian and culturally African elements).

And even in South Africa, the 1st SA War is yet another example of a European power failing against a "settler" power.

There really aren't any counter-examples.

Best,
 
Last edited:
British war aims in 1814 included truncating the US. The British armies committed to Baltimore/Hampstead Hill, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans were all regulars, including their commanders - Ross and Pakenham, for example. They still lost, just as they had at Saratoga, and for the same reasons.

Time and distance.

The war aims were insane really when they attempted that. Sailing troops unprepared around the world and giving them leaders who were (like the American leadership 1812 to early 1814) sub par at best and woefully incompetent at worst.

More over the British still only viewed the war as a sideshow and all attempts to broaden it were rather poor and the infamous Battle at New Orleans came after the treaty signing (due to spotty communications) so even at a British victory wouldn't have amounted to much.

Though there's a few neat TLs on this site dealing with that exact scenario.

Cripes, the British lost to the Argentines in 1806 and again in 1807.

This time and distance thing prevents that, quite frankly the British winning would have been astounding since they were in the thick of the Napoleonic wars at this point.

The British deciding to pursue the war of 1812 further is another matter however.

More importantly, your "one hand tied behind their back" is why the European powers all lost their wars in the Western Hemisphere in the Nineteenth Century. There was always a European threat that prevented "both hands" from coming out.

Yes, but then imagine a scenario where that isn't the case. It's not hard to see how the British fully committed to trouncing the US couldn't get away with it, or see the French in Mexico without Prussia breathing down their necks, Juarez would be doomed had that been the case.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except one can not find a period in

Yes, but then imagine a scenario where that isn't the case. It's not hard to see how the British fully committed to trouncing the US couldn't get away with it, or see the French in Mexico without Prussia breathing down their necks, Juarez would be doomed had that been the case.

Except one can not find a significant period from 1600 to 1900 where the British and French, or the Spanish and Dutch, or the French and Germans, or some combination, or all of the above, aren't at each other's throats...for all sorts of reasons, good, bad, and indifferent.

Power politics, especially post-Westphalia, pretty much required them to be...

Basically, all of the European powers that established daughter/settler colonies in the Western Hemisphere had strategic rivals much closer to home then anywhere in the Americas.

And given that, none of them could ever bring "both hands" to a contest in the Western Hemisphere; if they did, even if there wasn't an incipient conflict in Europe, one of their rivals would see the opportunity.

Best,
 
Top