Army in WW1

AllWar

I'm new here,
Hello everyone, I intend to make an alternative history based on ww1, but I wanted to do it well, with good historical knowledge and with good narrative bases. If I have fortunately solved these two things, I am left with the problem of remaining realistic with armies and divisions; And here I need help. In fact, if at least for the most famous divisions and for the most famous generals I found info, I would not know where to find a complete list (or at least sufficient). If you could advise me something of European country and others from the internet or not, I would be grateful.... I'm interested to all your advice
 

Belisarius II

It would help if you could lay out what your TL would be based on. How far back you want to go to change things. The war started in the Balkans; do you want to change the regions history? Do you want to change the internal political history of the major powers? Is it the military strategy of the belligerents that you want to change, or how they organized their armies, and fleets? You can start out with a general idea and fill in a lot of the details as you map it out and go forward. Good luck with your project.
 

NoMommsen

Anothe truly detailed source about troops can be found here. Short notes on almost all german units back to their first formations. Just follow the links.
Regarding the CP "main" powers ... if you're somewhat able of german ...
here is the complete History of WW 1 from the german side as published by the Reichsarchiv. If you'r not able of the german language (and the german fonts used) the appendices with their rather considerable maps would possibly still serve you well.​
and here is the same from the austrian side. Here the maps etc. are 'outsourced into the "Beilagen"-volumes.​

Another interesting site regarding french dispositions might be this one. On a day by day base the positions of all the french military units are recorded. Click on the 'overview' map and in another window you haeve it on a REAL big scale
 
Last edited:
Arnold d.c

Arnold d.c

Well, if you are open to using wargaming designer notes, the John Tiller designer notes are available. There is East Prussia 1914, Serbia 1914 and France 1914. In each webpage there is a designer notes under the "Updates and Downloadable Files," which are filled with comments on the various armies as well as the equipment used.
 
David Flin

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
AllWar said:
@Belisarius II I want to change the military tactics/events and alliances.
Click to expand...

The tactics that had been developed were based on the experiences each army had in the pre-war period.

For example, the Haldane reforms coming out of the experiences of the Boer War set up the tactics and training and structure of the British Army in the pre-war period. Similarly, France and Germany drew lessons (not necessarily the same ones) from the Franco-Prussian War.

If you want to change the tactics adopted in the start, then you're going to have to change the pre-war experiences. And the evolution of tactics during the war arose directly out of the experiences of the war.

Tactical doctrine just doesn't simply arise from thin air; they are devised to best meet (according to the experience and knowledge available at the time) the circumstances they are expected to face.

As for changing the alliances; WW1 wasn't the outcome of a rather brutal game of Diplomacy. The alliances arose out of perceived need and political strategy. France and Germany are always going to be on opposite sides. To balance up Germany's greater manpower resources, France is going to cast about for suitable allies, and the most obvious one is Russia. Russia and Austria-Hungary are always going to be tense because of competing interest in the Balkans, and Austria=Hungary's diplomatic ineptitude is always going to piss off Italy. Britain and the USA do huge amounts of trade, and US interests strongly favour maintaining that trade, so getting USA into fighting against Britain is a bit of a non-starter.

Any changes need explanations, not just the Kaiserboo arm-waving that is depressingly common.
 

Belisarius II

AllWar said:
Thanks to all for the advices! U're fantastic!

@Belisarius II I want to change the military tactics/events and alliances.
Click to expand...
Read what David Flin wrote above. Those are the alliances that everyone gravitated into. You have to do some heavy lifting to have the major powers change sides. You have to go back to 1890 for the lapse of the Reassurance Treaty between Germany & Russia to really change things. Even if the Kaiser renews the treaty managing it over the next 20 years would be increasingly difficult. Austro/German diplomacy became increasingly awkward as they offended and threatened everyone and became increasingly paranoid.
Over time they drove the Russians, Italians, and British away from them, and towards the French. The only power they drew closer to them were the Turks.

Oddly as the Germans grow richer and stronger, they became more fearful of the future, till they were convinced they had to destroy their rivals before they destroyed them. This stemmed from a profound pessimism that pervaded among German elites started in the late 19th Century and only got worse as time went by. Deep concern about things like the "Yellow Peril", and the "Russian Steam Roller" convinced them that the White Race (Slavs weren't white enough) in general, and the Germanic people in particular were in steep decline. It's hard to have a rational foreign policy when your leaders are driven by thinking like that.
 
Last edited:

jlckansas

You also have to look at national ideas. An example of this is the US. We were all for intervention in places like Mexico in 1914 at Vera Cruz and 1916 on the Border. We took over Haiti in 1915 and basically had the Marines and Navy Running the Country for a while. Limited interventions in China to protect missionaries and businesses was also there. Intervention in Europe was just not thought of at the time, 1914, and we needed to stay out of their problems. We did not fund the army at any where the needed levels like we did the Navy at the time.
 

kham_coc

Banned
David Flin said:
And yet it was France that was invaded in 1870
Click to expand...
No, That's a lie:
France mobilised its army on 15 July 1870, leading the North German Confederation to respond with its own mobilisation later that day. On 16 July 1870, the French parliament voted to declare war on Prussia; France invaded German territory on 2 August.The German coalition mobilised its troops much more effectively than the French and invaded northeastern France on 4 August.
France declared war and invaded first, there is no debate on this, France declared the war and invaded Germany.
Kindly retract your historical revisionism.

David Flin said:
and in 1914, not Germany.
Click to expand...
It had spent the last 44 years trying to set up round two.
It not doing that would have stopped it from happening - It was the object of French foreign policy to seek war with Germany 1871-1914.
Aplying our righteous moral standards, there are literally dozens of French officials who should have been hanged for conspiracy against the peace.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
jlckansas said:
You also have to look at national ideas. An example of this is the US. We were all for intervention in places like Mexico in 1914 at Vera Cruz and 1916 on the Border. We took over Haiti in 1915 and basically had the Marines and Navy Running the Country for a while. Limited interventions in China to protect missionaries and businesses was also there. Intervention in Europe was just not thought of at the time, 1914, and we needed to stay out of their problems. We did not fund the army at any where the needed levels like we did the Navy at the time.
Click to expand...

Yup. That anti-European intervention was partly fueled by the 1796 George Washington dictum of "avoiding foreign entanglements". That idea was something of a cornerstone of US foreign policy for a century. Businesses could certainly engage in foreign trade, but the US government generally avoided commitments outside of the America's in the 19th Century. The government was of two disparate minds about foreign adventures into the first half of the 20th Century, before embracing full-on engagement/meddling with the "outside" world in the second half of the century.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
David Flin said:
And yet it was France that was invaded in 1870 and in 1914, not Germany.
Click to expand...
And in 1940, and before France being invaded, Prussia invaded Denmark in alliance with Austro Hungary. Then proced to invade former Ally Austro Hungary (promising compensation to France for staying neutral) then 1870 happened...
Any way just if you need inspiration I strongly recommend The Unwanted Clairvoyant by @jeandebueil

The Unwanted Clairvoyant. A different French strategy in WW1

15th July 1911 General Victor-Constant Michel, Vice-President of the Supreme War Council, was in a precarious position. The Minister of War, Adolphe Messimy, had strongly advised him to resign three days ago. His rather tempestuous argument with the Colonel Grandmaison, the flamboyant chief of...
www.alternatehistory.com
 

Burton K Wheeler

Moderator
David Flin said:
The tactics that had been developed were based on the experiences each army had in the pre-war period.

For example, the Haldane reforms coming out of the experiences of the Boer War set up the tactics and training and structure of the British Army in the pre-war period. Similarly, France and Germany drew lessons (not necessarily the same ones) from the Franco-Prussian War.

If you want to change the tactics adopted in the start, then you're going to have to change the pre-war experiences. And the evolution of tactics during the war arose directly out of the experiences of the war.

Tactical doctrine just doesn't simply arise from thin air; they are devised to best meet (according to the experience and knowledge available at the time) the circumstances they are expected to face.

As for changing the alliances; WW1 wasn't the outcome of a rather brutal game of Diplomacy. The alliances arose out of perceived need and political strategy. France and Germany are always going to be on opposite sides. To balance up Germany's greater manpower resources, France is going to cast about for suitable allies, and the most obvious one is Russia. Russia and Austria-Hungary are always going to be tense because of competing interest in the Balkans, and Austria=Hungary's diplomatic ineptitude is always going to piss off Italy. Britain and the USA do huge amounts of trade, and US interests strongly favour maintaining that trade, so getting USA into fighting against Britain is a bit of a non-starter.

Any changes need explanations, not just the Kaiserboo arm-waving that is depressingly common.
Click to expand...

Secondarily to David's point, the U.S. at this point has occasional tensions with the UK (though, as he says, war is unrealistic) but long-lasting alliances and connections with France and Russia. Many Americans, even German-Americans, are very skeptical of the rise of Germany (which at this point is perceived more as super-Prussia than as a German nation) as a power. If the U.K. and Germany stay allied, the U.S. almost certainly stays neutral, and if the U.K. is on the side of France and Russia, the U.S. is very likely to enter the war against Germany or at least support its traditional allies.

It's possible with a P.O.D. not too long before the war to have a U.K.-German alliance, particularly given tense British relations with Russia, but the U.S. is not going to be the factor that tips the war to the Central Powers.
 
Sacer Bubonicus

Sacer Bubonicus

Banned
AllWar said:
@Belisarius II I want to change the military tactics/events and alliances.
Click to expand...
For a detailed breakdown of the Russian army, Menning's Bayonets before Bullets is mandatory. He is basically the authority on its development from the 1850s onward, so you can't go wrong with him. Also, there are a bunch of Youtube videos where Menning talks about the subject (eg).
For a good summary of the leadup to WW1 for the Russians, Germans and Austrians, take Prit Buttar's Collision of Empires.
David Flin said:
Any changes need explanations, not just the Kaiserboo arm-waving that is depressingly common.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this won't just be the 1001st CP Victory playthrough on this site.

One can only see the same tired cluster of tropes repeated so many times until one yearns for the opposite.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top