Confederate colonialism?
- Thread starter Shtudmuffin
- Start date
Snake Featherston
Banned
Not even batshit. That stuff had valuable things for Great Power chemical industries. And none of them will be beholden to the CSA in this regard.
67th Tigers
Banned
The British Army of the period had on the order of 300,000 trained troops in the regular army and reserves, exclusive of Indian commitments. With their various reserves, colonial militias and the navy the British Empire kept about one million men under arms in peacetime.
The notion that well trained regulars without battle experience will little better than the ill trained militiamen that fought at Shiloh isn't one I'd want to bet on. The Prussian Army of 1870 were prettymuch "green as grass" in that respect, yet performed superbly.
Wolfpaw
Banned
I prefer to go by the record rather than pie in the sky revisionism, but that's just me.
Let's say the Crimean War makes me think you GREATLY exagerate the poweress of the average British soldier.
Snake Featherston
Banned
That would be the ill-trained militamen that held together and pulled off a victory that military logic would have dictated should never have happened, with the enemy directly copying Napoleon Bonaparte's plan at Waterloo, no less? Yes, I really don't see how the UK wins because it faces larger, untrained armies. And Prussia really didn't perform all that superbly in 1866 or 1870. It just had the fortune to be facing enemies who screwed up sufficiently badly sufficiently quickly before its defects, the same ones that went on to kill the later Germany, happened to matter.
And if we're saying not the ones of Shiloh, what of the ones that managed to withstand the shock of eleven months of sustained day and night combat as per modern times? Did any other army of the Great Powers before WWI focus on sustained, endless combat? Could the UK have actually handled that in the 1860s assuming the improbable circumstances of the Union being suicidally minded enough to try it?
Snake Featherston
Banned
Well, perhaps some people should limit their "contributions" to the ASB forum where theirs more adequately are suited instead of clogging up threads intended to be serious with perfect nonsense such as the miraculously efficient CS logistics system and the CSA of Robert E. Lee facing the Army of the Potomac with 200,000 Confederates. But a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
67th Tigers
Banned
Yeah, remember those 7,500 weakling Brits who repelled 50,000 Russians? Or those 3 divisions of weaklings who ascended the heights over the Alma against a much hotter fire than the Union experienced at Fredericksburg?
Sigh.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Remember how none of these victories led to any strategic result despite what the gap in technology and cohesion would lead one to believe? The Ottomans did the best in that war against the Russians, not Napoleon III *or* the UK.
I'm not sure the Russians in the Crimean War were so fearsome a foe as the Rebs the Yankees were going up against. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Russian army of the time horribly backwards and in shambles? That said, if the British intervened in the middle of the war I'm sure they'd have success with much of the Union Army being diverted against the South. But it wouldn't be a steamroll by any measure, even if most of them are militia at least they've seen action, which is more important than how well they can parade around the drill yard.
Back on topic, I can't really see any Confederate colonies being possible. Confederate expansion at all is a long-shot that'll bite them in the ass, actual overseas colonies at that point are more an insane pipe-dream of the crazier elite planters. I can't recall ever hearing about them being concerned with spreading their ideals, they may have been distasteful but they weren't Nazis. And even if that was true it wasn't like anyone was going to let them. Britain wouldn't exactly tolerate letting a slave state take parts of Africa. The Americans wouldn't exactly tolerate Confederates giving aid to the Mexican Empire in exchange for territory, and the Republicans wouldn't give anything up I don't think, not when they've got the USA on their side. And Confederate society, even the government, is far from being monolithic. The crazy, raving nutjobs from before the war who were all obsessed with creating an empire in Latin America like the vaunted William Walker weren't a majority of society even before the war, and after all that bloodshed the ones who are still alive won't exactly be popular folks.
Back on topic, I can't really see any Confederate colonies being possible. Confederate expansion at all is a long-shot that'll bite them in the ass, actual overseas colonies at that point are more an insane pipe-dream of the crazier elite planters. I can't recall ever hearing about them being concerned with spreading their ideals, they may have been distasteful but they weren't Nazis. And even if that was true it wasn't like anyone was going to let them. Britain wouldn't exactly tolerate letting a slave state take parts of Africa. The Americans wouldn't exactly tolerate Confederates giving aid to the Mexican Empire in exchange for territory, and the Republicans wouldn't give anything up I don't think, not when they've got the USA on their side. And Confederate society, even the government, is far from being monolithic. The crazy, raving nutjobs from before the war who were all obsessed with creating an empire in Latin America like the vaunted William Walker weren't a majority of society even before the war, and after all that bloodshed the ones who are still alive won't exactly be popular folks.
Last edited:
NothingNow
Banned
Nope.
Yeah, nope. The best case scenario for a Spanish-Confederate war is involves the Spanish shelling New Orleans just for the hell of it.
Not even in CSA-apologists wettest dreams.
The Mexican army would kick the CSA's ass before it got half way through Tamaulipas. Then it would descend into a feeble slap-fighting stalemate until someone else intervened, or the CSA ground itself into dust.
No, we've been saying that for years. Hell an attempt to take Cuba could probably tear the CSA asunder, given factional disputes.
Japan, Thailand, Ethiopia, the Afghans, the Mapuche, et cetera.
Snake Featherston
Banned
It wasn't so much that Russia's army was in shambles as that the Russian Army remained one of mass-conscripted serfs with obsolete weaponry. A huge, clumsy serf force against a smaller modern force is not going to do very well. But in a siege, artillery, which was always a Russian and later Soviet strong point happened to have influence out of proportion to the other arms.