ARW USA VS ACW CSA: Who faced the longer odds?

Who faced the longer odds?

  • Both faced equally long odds

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    87
Between the United States in the American Revolutionary War and the Confederacy in the American Civil War, who faced the longer odds?
 
The Confederacy had the longer odds. This is because no nation came in support of it, unlike with the US, which was supported by France and Spain.
 
The CSA faced much longer odds. Their enemy was right next door instead of 3000 miles away, their enemy was more motivated as it was a part of the country proper not just a colony, the CSA had no allies while the US had a few, 1/3 of its population were natural allies of its enemies, The US wasn't fighting anywhere else etc.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Uppss i read the question wrong...

But the first actually won and the other one lose. Shouldn't that be obvious .
Not necessarily. If, say, both of them could only win with foreign intervention, and the chance of foreign intervention in the ACW was one in ten while in the ARW it was one in twenty (numbers chosen for illustration) then the CSA rolling a five while the USA rolled a twenty doesn't mean that either the hit or the miss were more likely than the opposite.
 

jahenders

Banned
It depends on the timing of the question. If you look at it from the perspective of the start of the war or even the first 12-18 months of the war, I think you'd say ARW USA had longer odds. At that point, they had essentially no organized army, no navy, no money, and no equipment against (arguably) the toughest army on earth.

The difference is that in the ARW something happened that significantly changed the odds, primarily France supporting and then actively involved. In the ACW no external event occurred to improve CSA odds.


Between the United States in the American Revolutionary War and the Confederacy in the American Civil War, who faced the longer odds?
 
I'd say that the Confederate States faced significantly longer odds, mainly because of the question of European intervention. The United States had allies, most importantly France, to fund and arm the Americans and do much of the work fighting the British both in North America and elsewhere in the world; perhaps the United States could have won without French help, though I think not, but it's beyond reasonable doubt that the odds would be much, much longer. The Confederate States did not. However, I would argue that there was a very clear national interest for European imperial powers other than the United Kingdom to support the United States, because of the situation of general British hegemony following the Seven Years' War, which was extremely alarming to Great Britain's rivals. The Confederate States did not have the advantage that multiple European imperial powers had a clear interest in supporting it, so it failed to secure European intervention whereas the United States succeeded, so it lost whereas the United States won.
 
It depends on the timing of the question. If you look at it from the perspective of the start of the war or even the first 12-18 months of the war, I think you'd say ARW USA had longer odds. At that point, they had essentially no organized army, no navy, no money, and no equipment against (arguably) the toughest army on earth.
But the Confederacy also starts with essentially no organised army, no navy, no money, and no equipment. However, AWI Britain is across the Atlantic and has significant strategic commitments elsewhere, whereas the Union is right up the road and has nothing else to think about.

EDIT:
Can't muster the enthusiasm to rebut the technology, experience, and budgetary constraint points: let me just deal with the hard numbers.
unlike Britain of the 1770s the U.S. had a minuscule military, meaning the two started off on something approaching even footing (or at least much more even).
British army, required to defend a global empire and act as a police force in the UK: 45,000 men.
Union army, required to beat up Native Americans and occasionally make threatening noises at Canada: 16,000.
 
Last edited:
The US.

They had to start fighting, decide they were fighting for independence (which wasn't clear at first, defeat the finest army in the world, endure blockade by the mightiest navy on Earth, etc.

All with no money, no army, no navy, etc.

The Confederacy on the other hand, while closer to its opponent also fought in an age where defensive weapons extracted a much higher toll on attackers than vice versa, had a more experienced officer corps (compared to ARW America) far more money, etc. Also, unlike Britain of the 1770s the U.S. had a minuscule military, meaning the two started off on something approaching even footing (or at least much more even).

That the U.S. got aid is irrelevant, it was a factor which tipped the scales, but at the beginning of the war intervention was far from certain. The big advantage the U.S. had was that Britain was universally (and I do mean almost literally everyone in Europe hated them), while the U.S. of the 1860s were basically (those guys somewhere that way).
 
The CSA, no doubt.

Ignoring all other advantages and disadvantages that the ARW-era USA and the CSA had, the ARW USA has one VERY imprtant advantage:

For the USA, the British were on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

For the CSA, the USA is literally next door.

Say what you will, but having an ocean between the richer, more developed and better armed enemy is a very important tactical advantage.

Meanwhile, declaring war on an enemy that has far more manpower, weapons, industry, money and resources then you can dream of countering is, as the Confederacy painfully learned, suicide.
 
That the U.S. got aid is irrelevant, it was a factor which tipped the scales, but at the beginning of the war intervention was far from certain. The big advantage the U.S. had was that Britain was universally (and I do mean almost literally everyone in Europe hated them), while the U.S. of the 1860s were basically (those guys somewhere that way).

I'm sorry, when you're saying the French who funded and armed the Americans, and for their aid were rewarded by getting into huge amounts of money which played a significant role in resultant domestic instability and then by the Americans high-handedly cancelling their debts to France with the weak excuse that France had changed its political system (but in a way that no American republican ideologue could truly condemn without being a hypocrite), are supposedly "irrelevant", I really have to question that. Without the intervention I contend that the rebels would probably have been defeated and would certainly have found it much, much harder to win.

European intervention on the United States' side in the ARW wasn't certain, but it was very probable unless the rebels lost quickly enough for it to be seen as a waste of money chasing a lost cause, because—as you and I have both said—Great Britain had very greatly antagonised the other European imperial powers. European intervention on the Confederate States' side in the ACW was far less probable simply because the relevant European powers had far less reason to want the Confederate States to humiliate and weaken the United States in the ACW than they did to want the United States to humiliate and weaken Great Britain in the ARW.
 
I'm sorry, when you're saying the French who funded and armed the Americans, and for their aid were rewarded by getting into huge amounts of money which played a significant role in resultant domestic instability and then by the Americans high-handedly cancelling their debts to France with the weak excuse that France had changed its political system (but in a way that no American republican ideologue could truly condemn without being a hypocrite), are supposedly "irrelevant", I really have to question that.

The effects of aid on France's internal politics does not matter to the question at hand.

Without the intervention I contend that the rebels would probably have been defeated and would certainly have found it much, much harder to win.

Yeah, never denied that. My argument is that just because the U.S. ended up doesn't mean you can take it into account when figuring out who had the longer odds, since that would be like arguing Germany was screwed in 1914 on the grounds the U.S. would declare war in 1917. The beginning of the war is what matters for the question, not subsequent events.
 
The effects of aid on France's internal politics does not matter to the question at hand.

Fair enough.

Yeah, never denied that.

Alright.

My argument is that just because the U.S. ended up doesn't mean you can take it into account when figuring out who had the longer odds, since that would be like arguing Germany was screwed in 1914 on the grounds the U.S. would declare war in 1917. The beginning of the war is what matters for the question, not subsequent events.

The reason why that argument would be invalid is that the USA wasn't necessarily going to declare war on Germany in 1917; it's pretty easy to imagine the USA not doing so. In contrast, in the international situation that prevailed after the Seven Years' War once France had rebuilt somewhat, it's difficult to imagine France and the other non-British European imperial powers not taking the opportunity to take Great Britain down more than a few pegs.

One can't just ignore the likelihood of foreign intervention when assessing who is likely to win or lose in a conflict; the world isn't a show where two alliances are pitted against each other in a 'fair' contest with everyone else forbidden from having any influence in the result. Otherwise, that would be like judging Texas's chances of successfully maintaining independence from Mexico, or the Canadian patriotes' chance of taking and maintaining independence from the British Empire, while ignoring the existence of the United States—obviously unfeasible because foreign intervention plays a decisive role in how likely one side is to win.
 
Top