Challenge: British Empire crippled by 1900

Except that attacking was often good strategic sense, and required troops to keep going in spite of enemy fire. E.g., the French were able to win the Franco-Austrian War partly due to their ability to advance rapidly and drive the Austrians back at bayonet point. If your troops are incapable of moving under fire, then not only do are your tactical options circumscribed, you also make it easy for your enemies to pin you in place and then attack or outflank you at leisure.

Sorry, but you (and seemingly not only you) are completely missing the point. The problem was not an attack per se. The problem was an attack in the columns. Standard tactics since Napoleonic times was to send ahead a chain of the skirmishers followed by the main mass of infantry marching (*) in the dense columns of battalion or half battalion size maintaining formation regardless the losses (this is of course an idealized picture). It was more or less OK all the way to the FPW during which the Prussian columns started disintegrating into the loose attacking formations with the soldiers running ahead, falling on a ground then running ahead again. Not because they were ordered to do so (actually at St-Privat the officers had been trying to prevent this from happening) but because soldiers figured out that marching ahead in the dense formations against very intensive fire is too suicidal.

(*) At some point the French started using marching in the fast step ("gymnastic step") but it was not universally picked up.
 
Last edited:
How about a Russo-American Alliance, after France doubles down on Maximillian (which is stupid, but could happen) and the proxy war threatens to explode? The Russians offer mediation, and the issue is resolved favorably to American interests - existing pro-Russian sentiment crystallizes into "These guys are our allies in Europe, keeping the British and French from going to war with us!"

With a Russo-American treaty dissuading intervention by other European powers, the Russian Empire manages a decisive victory in the ATL analog for the 1877 Russo-Turkish War and sees much greater gains at the Congress of Berlin. With lingering American anger and the Russians preferring an ally in the hand to one in the bush, the French are somewhat more isolated diplomatically, which Bismark exploits during the Franco-Prussian War, leading to a stronger German Empire and a somewhat weakened France. Having faced two almost-wars with Britain and France (or at least, perceived as such), the Americans never delve into isolation and are overtly powerful rather than brimming with potential.

The British Empire is no weaker than OTL, but now three peers are stronger: the United States, Russia, and Germany. She's now one Great Power among four, rather than a borderline superpower.
 
Last edited:
How about a Russo-American Alliance, after France doubles down on Maximillian (which is stupid, but could happen) and the proxy war threatens to explode? The Russians offer mediation, and the issue is resolved favorably to American interests - existing pro-Russian sentiment crystallizes into "These guys are our allies in Europe, keeping the British and French from going to war with us!"

With a Russo-American treaty, the Crimean War is either butterflied or much more limited to produce a stronger Russia, the French are somewhat more isolated diplomatically (which Bismark will ensure stays the case, as that was one of his primary goals), and without turning toward isolation, the Americans are overtly powerful rather than brimming with potential. When the new German Empire goes around seeking alliances, they're much less likely to pick a decaying Hapsburg Empire than Russia or Great Britain, which functionally leaves Germany stronger.

The British Empire is no weaker than OTL, but now three peers are stronger: the United States, Russia, and Germany. She's now one Great Power among four, rather than a borderline superpower.

The Crimean War was a decade before the French intervention in Mexico.
 
What about we achieve this not by weakening Britain, but by buffing her enemies/rivals by having them "roll all sixes"?
 
Maybe have Russia and France similarly roll all sixes as well?
A bit of a crazy scenario but try this:
Franco-Prussian war goes almost as OTL, bit more of a slog for the Prussian but ultimate victory. The Germans, trying to redirect France's energies, agree to go on a joint program to raise a big navy to take on the world (that way money is not put in a land army that could threaten Germany).
It's basically a world sharing agreement, "To Germany Europe, to France the World", and they get together to throw the UK down a peg
 
You really need to understand the subject on which you are trying to pontificate because what you wrote has little to do with what I'm talking about. By 1859 there was nothing new in the idea of skirmishers: combination of skirmishers and columns had been widely used since the wars of French Revolution (and perhaps even earlier) and became something of a generally accepted norm during the Napoleonic Wars. Standard column was either battalion or half battalion, rarely a company.

You really should not try and pretend you know more than others

You are talking about the ability of various armies to take a defended position. You then stated that no one thought to use cover on the advance until after the Franco-Prussian War and now skirmishers are not a new idea. Save for European armies the role of skirmishers was to disrupt the fire of the defenders and thereby provide cover in the form of suppressing fire to advancing bodies of troops who due to their numbers would be less able to take advantage of every nook and cranny of the ground and still move as a body of men.

Further rather than being taught to disdain cover:

All Regiments to be instructed in Light Infantry Movement—Although a certain number of regiments are styled "light infantry,” it is necessary that every corps of infantry shall be fully instructed in this important branch of its duty. '

From Field Exercises and Evolutions and again this notion of teaching all infantry to be able to perform as light infantry, whose role includes skirmishing and the use of cover in case you are unclear, was not unique to the British.

Also why have you heard of the Prussian Guards at St Privat? It is because the German forces at Gravelotte seem to have forgotten to perform adequate reconnaissance and thus run into enemy fire before they had actually deployed into their attacking formations. Yet at many other battles German corps and divisional attacks succeeded in pressing through such fire and carried the position and without suffering disabling losses, this was because the Prussians and their allies also used the fire of advanced bodies in addition to artillery to cover the advance of the main body to contact and again this tended to work.

The central point though is the tactics of the Prussians were not that innovative, it was theirs and their allies mobilisation that was the innovation.

The better counter argument to the idea that all US Volunteers went to ground on receiving fire is to look up examples of the times they did not and managed to press the attack. The big issue for the volunteers portion of the Union Army was unlike the regulars of the US Army component there really was not any single manual nor any officer instruction on how to conduct an attack so it was all ad hoc and on the hoof.
 
You really should not try and pretend you know more than others

You are talking about the ability of various armies to take a defended position.

I'm probably in a better position to know what I'm talking about and, even after detailed explanation you still did not get a clue. There is no sense in continue this type of exchange. Best wishes.
 
You could go back way earlier and have the British Royal Navy be destroyed by the Spanish Armada and Britain not being a seafaring nation after that.
 
You could go back way earlier and have the British Royal Navy be destroyed by the Spanish Armada and Britain not being a seafaring nation after that.

They're an island nation which likes to trade with the continent, which requires a navy to protect these assets. They also have Ireland which they really like to project power in. British sakoku just doesn't make sense in the slightest.
 
Top