Could the CSA fight Spain?

[Cryptic]

Israel, at what point?

Japan in 1905? Citation needed.

Texas? Citation definitely needed..

Vietnam at which point in which war?

North Korea did not defeat either the ROK or the USA.

Russia was superior to Napoleon in artillery and in use of irregular troops, thus not applicable.


Finland when?

The USA in the ARW didn't defeat the UK, France, Spain, and the Netherlands defeated the UK.

Greece when? In the Graeco-Persian Wars you had heavy infantry fighting light infantry in close quarters.

Which war with Rome did Carthage?

When did Tecumseh win a war?

Red Cloud did win a war, but he was Lakota, not Lakota + Cheyenne.

You are splitting alot of hairs. The fact that an under equipped and out numbered force can fight and win a defensive war should be obvious. I could go and refute your entire request for evidence*, but that is like trying to prove a negative and I have a feeling it will jsut lead to a request for further evidence. In the end, underequipped and outnumbered forces do fight and win wars (especially defensive wars) against opponents.

* Well not quite, I do need to strike Tecumsah as having won.


-I never said Red Cloud was a Cheyenne, I said he led a coalition of both Cheyenne and Lakota warriors. Which he did.

-Finland Winter War? The stated goal of the USSR was to occupy Finland, that did not

-Japan, 1904 The Japanese were outnumbered

Vietnam? The one against France and the one against the USA (war goal was to prevent a communist take over of the South, that did not happen)

-Carthage vs Rome? The second one, the one in which Rome got burned

-Israel? 1948 and 1967

-USA? The war of independence

-Texas? War of Independence from Mexico

-North Korea? I said "almost" and anybody who thinks it was easy on the Pusan Perimeter is mistaken

 

[Snake Featherston]

Except that it's not because it practically speaking hasn't happened, which your examples if anything validate.

1) Which he did not have inferior numbers or inferior equipment in terms of using them, nor was he exactly seeking to challenge a superior enemy on that enemy's own terms like the famous losers of history always do.

2) Yes, but in practical terms only in two areas were the Soviets truly superior to the Finns in a quantitative sense, armor and air power, and weather kept the USSR from being able to even really *use* the latter. And even if they had had that superiority the Soviets' failures of co-ordination would have given even a Santa Anna a victory over them.

3) Relative to the entirety of the Russian Army, perhaps. Relative to the bit they were fighting in Korea and Manchuria? Not quite.

4) In both cases Vietnam had plenty of quality equipment and infinite logistics that its enemies could not interdict, hardly the sign of an inferior force with inferior weaponry, instead it's a light infantry force handsomely exploiting its advantages against a qualitatively superior force in equipment terms that repeatedly failed to exploit its own.

5) That's not quite the case, Israel mobilized more men faster and in the 1967 case started the war and jumped the Arabs, taking out their air force in the first day, ensuring that the societies fighting with inferior equipment were the ARABS. Who well, lost.

6) Except the USA's allies won that war, not the USA. By itself the Continental Army disintegrates for want of pay and ammunition by about 1778.

7) Again, what proof is there that the Texas forces were inferior to those of Santa Anna?

 

[QuoProQuid]

Israel, Japan against Czarist Russia, Texas, Vietnam, North Korea (well almost), Russia against Napoleon, Finland, The United States before it became the United States, ancient Greece, ancient Carthage, Tecumsah (sp) and his Native American coalition, Lakota and Cheyenne coalition...

Israel- I actually choked on my own drink.

Japan- Are we talking about the same industrializing, militaristic, populous economic powerhouse that was Japan in 1904? This is to say nothing of the largely underdeveloped Russian Empire or the fact that Russia had very few forces east of the Ural Mountains.

Texas- EDIT: I don't actually know enough about this to criticize it. I had a joke here originally about the Alamo.

Russia- The French army in Russia was malnourished, demoralized and running severely low on ammunition. This example doesn't help your argument at all.

North Korea- You mean the North Korea supported by both China and the Soviet Union?

Finland- Finland did not win, it managed to secure peace through negotiations which involved the cessation of territory near Leningrad. Finnish successes, however, can be attributed to a number of factors including Stalin's purges of the Officer Corps, poor quality and seasonally inappropriate Russian equipment and poor tactics. The war was not so much a Finnish success as much as a Russian failure.

Revolutionary US- You mean the United States so massively supported by France, the Netherlands and Spain?

Ancient Greece- 'Ancient Greece' is not, nor has it ever been a nation. You are going to need to specify what period and which city-states you are referring to.

Carthage- Again, you need to specify the period you are referring to.

Tecumseh, the Lakota and Cheyenne - This is why the United States never was able to expand into the Northwest, right?

--------------------

Back to the topic at hand, I doubt the Confederacy would have been able to win a fight against Mexico let alone Spain.

 

[Johnrankins]

Is there a Confederate Screw timeline out there?

By which I mean a timeline where the Confederacy, through incredible luck, manages to win or negotiate its independence, and then high on its fluke, it proceeds to a series of disastrous misadventures in the Caribbean and Central America, a failed war with Mexico, Texas secession, the boll weevil, slave revolts, failure to industrialize, etc?

I'd pay money to read something like that.

I mean, let's face it, there's no shortage of Confederate Wanks out there.

Ask and you shall receive!
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=6184109#post6184109

 

[Cryptic]

Israel- I actually choked on my own drink.

Japan- Are we talking about the same industrializing, militaristic, populous economic powerhouse that was Japan in 1904? This is to say nothing of the largely underdeveloped Russian Empire or the fact that Russia had very few forces east of the Ural Mountains.

Texas- I too remember the glorious Texan victory of the Alamo.

Russia- The French army in Russia was malnourished, demoralized and running severely low on ammunition. This example doesn't help your argument at all.

North Korea- You mean the North Korea supported by both China and the Soviet Union?

Finland- Finland did not win, it managed to secure peace through negotiations which involved the cessation of territory near Leningrad. Finnish successes, however, can be attributed to a number of factors including Stalin's purges of the Officer Corps, poor quality and seasonally inappropriate Russian equipment and poor tactics. The war was not so much a Finnish success as much as a Russian failure.

Revolutionary US- You mean the United States so massively supported by France, the Netherlands and Spain?

Ancient Greece- 'Ancient Greece' is not, nor has it ever been a nation. You are going to need to specify what period and which city-states you are referring to.

Carthage- Again, you need to specify the period you are referring to.

Tecumseh, the Lakota and Cheyenne - This is why the United States never was able to expand into the Northwest, right?

--------------------

Back to the topic at hand, I doubt the Confederacy would have been able to win a fight against Mexico let alone Spain.

Israel, Put on a new shirt and drink again. Israel was heavily outnumbered and out gunned in 1948 and 1967.

USA, I mean the US that fought for years alone. The colonists did win with French assistance, but they needed to create winning conditions to receive meaningful aid.

Texas, Texas never won independence from Mexico?

Finland, They did win. The Soviet war goal was to occupy the entire nation. That did not happen.

Russia, The French Army in Russia did not start out malnourished, demoralized and low on everything. They ended up that way because of Russian skill.

Lakota and Cheyenne, They won a war, but lost the wars.

Ancient Greece, I"ll clarify with coalition of ancient Greek city states.

 

[M79]

Why not?

Without help from the US there is little reason to pursue guerilla activities, especially if the government will kill you for participating. Besides, the CSA could reciprocate with aid for pro-Confederate forces in West Virginia or Kentucky if it came down to it. Why promote more problems after (years/months) of warfare?

And yet this did little to encourage railroad building OTL, except rail-to-river, which was far from sufficient for anything like a railroad net. As for textile mills - look at the fumbling OTL efforts.

You may recall that there were other priorities for the CSA at the time, national existance among them. Without an army measuring well into the hundreds of thousands breathing down their necks and with an opportunity to industrialize there will be domestic improvements in infrastructure.

If they were smart, they wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

I do not think the inherent loyalties of Eastern Tennessee can be magically altered by Richmond just as those in Kentucky and most of West Virginia will not be radically altered by Washington. Civil wars are uniquely difficult situations, and to simplify them as being manageable by ahandful of intelligent people/decisions would be misunderstanding the situation at best.

What CSA goods? Cotton? They can get it from elsewhere if they decide the CSA is worth embargoing.

It takes time and effort to do so and it might not be as cheap. Inertia works in the CSA favor initially and money will change minds where other arguments will not. CSA tobacco, cotton, and other cash crops will come to bear though without that the CSA is hard-pressed for capital and their planter elite will seek alternate leadership if they are hit hard enough financially.

And I don't see why the CSA is going to have "strong cavalry". And no, a tradition of horsemanship in the countryside doesn't count. Infantry armed with bolt action rifles? How exactly is the Confederacy keeping up with the latest technology with the budget issues it will have?

They might be able to buy Lee-Martini rifles from the UK as they upgrade to the Lee-Enfield or Mausers which were available for licensed production. Carcanos and Mosin-Nagants were also on the world stage about that time. There were several rifle designs to choose from, it's a question of what the CSA would want and who would give them the best deal. Maybe they try to improve on Mondragon's design and create something entirely their own, who knows. As for cavalry they will have a strong tradition of horse ownership and cavalry officers from the ACW, they will not let that go. Cattle industry and people familiar with horses throughout the CSA will also give them an edge in terms of raising cavalry forces and experience with them just as American automobile ownership and experience gave our people advantages with using Shermans in WWII.

 

[Elfwine]

Without help from the US there is little reason to pursue guerilla activities, especially if the government will kill you for participating. Besides, the CSA could reciprocate with aid for pro-Confederate forces in West Virginia or Kentucky if it came down to it. Why promote more problems after (years/months) of warfare?

Yeah, it's not like they can't possibly feel a lack of loyalty to the CSA and act accordingly.

You may recall that there were other priorities for the CSA at the time, national existance among them. Without an army measuring well into the hundreds of thousands breathing down their necks and with an opportunity to industrialize there will be domestic improvements in infrastructure.

This is looking at the period up to the ACW, where railroad construction in the South was based on limited interests, at best. No reason for that to change post-war.

I do not think the inherent loyalties of Eastern Tennessee can be magically altered by Richmond just as those in Kentucky and most of West Virginia will not be radically altered by Washington. Civil wars are uniquely difficult situations, and to simplify them as being manageable by ahandful of intelligent people/decisions would be misunderstanding the situation at best.

Read up on Governor Harris's incompetent policy on the subject turning resentment into active hostility, though.

It takes time and effort to do so and it might not be as cheap. Inertia works in the CSA favor initially and money will change minds where other arguments will not. CSA tobacco, cotton, and other cash crops will come to bear though without that the CSA is hard-pressed for capital and their planter elite will seek alternate leadership if they are hit hard enough financially.

Time and effort well worth spending to deal with the CSA if the anti-slavery issue is loud enough, and it is getting louder.

The planter elite is the leadership, though. And a leadership unconcerned with the prosperity of the CSA on the whole.

They might be able to buy Lee-Martini rifles from the UK as they upgrade to the Lee-Enfield or Mausers which were available for licensed production. Carcanos and Mosin-Nagants were also on the world stage about that time. There were several rifle designs to choose from, it's a question of what the CSA would want and who would give them the best deal. Maybe they try to improve on Mondragon's design and create something entirely their own, who knows. As for cavalry they will have a strong tradition of horse ownership and cavalry officers from the ACW, they will not let that go. Cattle industry and people familiar with horses throughout the CSA will also give them an edge in terms of raising cavalry forces and experience with them just as American automobile ownership and experience gave our people advantages with using Shermans in WWII.

The (remaining) US also has a strong tradition of horse ownership and a fairly good number of good cavalry officers, but it's not a matter of "letting it go", it's a matter of translating "country boys know how to ride" into effective cavalry units - easier said than done.

As for the firearms thing, the CSA doesn't have the budget for massive imports - and one thing that will be interesting is to see how their plan for the Regular Army (here: http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatearmy.htm - I think I saved a link detailing the legislation's specifics somewhere, all I remember is forty batteries worth of artillery) meets reality's needs.

Because this is going to have to grow, or be supplemented with state forces, or both. All have consequences.

 

[Fiver]

And even given that, a Confederate army, especially one led by "A-Team" generals could easily fight and win a defensive war against Spain or Mexico.

Why do you assume the Confederacy has any "A-Team" generals? The best they ever had was beaten by a Union "B-Team" general.

Besides, by 1898 Lee has been dead for 28 years.

Mexico would be fighting an offensive war, did not have a good military record, did not have an industrial base, lacked logistics skills as well and probably did have some pretty deep internal socio economic divisions.

As opposed to the Confederacy, which did not have a good military record, did not have an industrial base, lacked logistics skills, and had deep internal socio-economic divisions.

Mexico has more free people. The CSA has the advantage of fighting on the defensive. It could go either way, but would probably be a bloody stalemate.

 

[Elfwine]

Why do you assume the Confederacy has any "A-Team" generals? The best they ever had was beaten by a Union "B-Team" general.

Besides, by 1898 Lee has been dead for 28 years.

And would be 91 if he wasn't.

Jackson (if not killed at Chancellorsville) would be 74, Stuart (if not killed at Yellow Tavern) would be 61, Longstreet is 73, Cleburne (if not killed at Franklin) is 70, Robert Rodes (if not killed at Third Winchester) is 69, Wade Hampton is 80, Forrest (I disagree he's A team but most don't, so let's count him) is 21 years dead (would be 77) - and then we're left with the B team and worse, assuming these folks are the A team - at least in the context of the Confederacy.

Anyone with any meaningful ACW command experience would be in their late fifties at the youngest, which is rather old for field service, and there's no guarantee whatsoever of the next generation.

And wars between 1865-1898 . . . well, look at the ages and get back to me. The majority of ACW veterans (of the rank of general) will be middle aged at best for most of this period.

 

[robcraufurd]

Anyone with any meaningful ACW command experience would be in their late fifties at the youngest, which is rather old for field service

Although this wasn't seen as being a disqualifying factor in the Spanish American War as fought historically:

William Shafter (V Corps): 63
Joseph Wheeler (2IC): 62
Jacob Ford Kent (1st Division): 63
Henry Ware Lawton (2nd Division): 55
Samuel Sumner (Cavalry Division): 56
Wesley Merritt (VIII Corps): 62
Thomas Anderson (2nd Division [sic]): 62

I think it's fair to say that none of these had particularly stellar Civil War careers, or would appear on a list of the "A-Team" in 1865. The same goes for Wheeler, who presumably ranks as "B-Team" or worse in your assessment of Confederate generals and yet was selected for active service despite having taken up arms against his country.

This exercise is a bit akin to picking out the German Army's "A-Team" in 1919 and saying that these would be the men who'd lead it to war in 1952. The passage of time does odd things to military careers.

 

[Elfwine]

Although this wasn't seen as being a disqualifying factor in the Spanish American War as fought historically:

William Shafter (V Corps): 63
Joseph Wheeler (2IC): 62
Jacob Ford Kent (1st Division): 63
Henry Ware Lawton (2nd Division): 55
Samuel Sumner (Cavalry Division): 56
Wesley Merritt (VIII Corps): 62
Thomas Anderson (2nd Division [sic]): 62

I think it's fair to say that none of these had particularly stellar Civil War careers, or would appear on a list of the "A-Team" in 1865. The same goes for Wheeler, who presumably ranks as "B-Team" or worse in your assessment of Confederate generals and yet was selected for active service despite having taken up arms against his country.

This exercise is a bit akin to picking out the German Army's "A-Team" in 1919 and saying that these would be the men who'd lead it to war in 1952. The passage of time does odd things to military careers.

I'd nominate Merritt as A-team, otherwise . . . (Wheeler is "Thank God he commanded men in gray." team, for instance, though he might have learned as he got older.)

But all of those are definitely old for active service. Maybe not disabled, but I wouldn't want to rely on the old and the untested with the CSA's far inferior (to the OTL USA) resources.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Why are you all assuming that a Confederate war with Spain would take place in 1898?

 

[Elfwine]

Why are you all assuming that a Confederate war with Spain would take place in 1898?

I don't know about exactly 1898, but the Confederacy even in a quick war is going to need to spend some time rebuilding, and some time developing, before even its arrogant leaders think it can take on Spain - one would hope.

 

[Dumanios]

In OTL, the USA handed Spain's ass on a platter.

However, if the CSA manages to survive the Civil War with its territory intact as seen at the start, then have a host of problems before they can get into a war with anyone. A near-total lack of an industrial base, reconstruction of transportation, farming, and industry, the formation of a decent-sized navy, and the training of an army.

The Spanish Empire, though, had little industry, outdated military to the point where the Dominican Republic can defeat them, and very little support in Cuba.

 

[Fiver]

Why are you all assuming that a Confederate war with Spain would take place in 1898?

Because that's what the first post in the thread assumed. Besides the Confederacy is going to be in enough trouble in 1898, setting it earlier stacks the odds even further against them.

 

[M79]

Yeah, it's not like they can't possibly feel a lack of loyalty to the CSA and act accordingly.

There were significant pro-Confederate elements in both Kentucky and West Virginia, if the Union wants to supply guerillas the CSA can reciprocate.

This is looking at the period up to the ACW, where railroad construction in the South was based on limited interests, at best. No reason for that to change post-war.

There are several reasons for it to change post-war. For one the major ports in the North are off limits and waterways connecting North and South are gone. The prospect of a transcontinental railroad is still fresh in the minds of many Southerners, even if it requires transit through Mexico. Also, the Confederate government will realize that railroads are necessary for logistics and supplies for military defense. With larger population centers and even limited industrialization there will also be reason for passenger traffic, not to mention cargo traffic.

Time and effort well worth spending to deal with the CSA if the anti-slavery issue is loud enough, and it is getting louder.

Why spend the time and energy when you can make others do it for you? All the larger markets have to do is threaten and make it stick, the CSA will follow.

The planter elite is the leadership, though. And a leadership unconcerned with the prosperity of the CSA on the whole.

No but they will do what is best for their own country's defenses and that of the military if they have a good reason.

The (remaining) US also has a strong tradition of horse ownership and a fairly good number of good cavalry officers, but it's not a matter of "letting it go", it's a matter of translating "country boys know how to ride" into effective cavalry units - easier said than done.

The more experience they have on horseback to begin with the easier the transition, do you have a specific area of the Union in mind? Texas, Indian Territory, and other Southern areas will have quite a bit of horse ownership

As for the firearms thing, the CSA doesn't have the budget for massive imports - and one thing that will be interesting is to see how their plan for the Regular Army (here: http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatearmy.htm - I think I saved a link detailing the legislation's specifics somewhere, all I remember is forty batteries worth of artillery) meets reality's needs.

Read it again and note that 1861 thinking will change by war's end. Ideals are nice but the hard lessons of war will make Richmond realize that some centralization is needed, especially in the military.

Because this is going to have to grow, or be supplemented with state forces, or both. All have consequences.

All decisions have consequences, whether military or otherwise. And not all of them are bad.

 

[Elfwine]

There were significant pro-Confederate elements in both Kentucky and West Virginia, if the Union wants to supply guerillas the CSA can reciprocate.

The Union doesn't need to supply guerillias for East Tennessee-Western North Carolina to be a hotbed of dissent.

There are several reasons for it to change post-war. For one the major ports in the North are off limits and waterways connecting North and South are gone. The prospect of a transcontinental railroad is still fresh in the minds of many Southerners, even if it requires transit through Mexico. Also, the Confederate government will realize that railroads are necessary for logistics and supplies for military defense. With larger population centers and even limited industrialization there will also be reason for passenger traffic, not to mention cargo traffic.

And inconveniently for the CSA, the Confederate government funding that is out of the question.

Why spend the time and energy when you can make others do it for you? All the larger markets have to do is threaten and make it stick, the CSA will follow.

Well, if the CSA can be talked into giving up slavery, yes. But if it doesn't, I don't see why the CSA is going to get the UK treating it as no big deal.

No but they will do what is best for their own country's defenses and that of the military if they have a good reason.

Because that's what they did OTL?

The more experience they have on horseback to begin with the easier the transition, do you have a specific area of the Union in mind? Texas, Indian Territory, and other Southern areas will have quite a bit of horse ownership

The Midwest clear through to the border with New England has plenty of horse ownership.

Read it again and note that 1861 thinking will change by war's end. Ideals are nice but the hard lessons of war will make Richmond realize that some centralization is needed, especially in the military.

Richmond realizing it and the state governments cooperating are two different things.

All decisions have consequences, whether military or otherwise. And not all of them are bad.

In this case, some of them are worse, but that's not what you meant, I suspect.

 

[pieman97405]

Is there a Confederate Screw timeline out there?

By which I mean a timeline where the Confederacy, through incredible luck, manages to win or negotiate its independence, and then high on its fluke, it proceeds to a series of disastrous misadventures in the Caribbean and Central America, a failed war with Mexico, Texas secession, the boll weevil, slave revolts, failure to industrialize, etc?

I'd pay money to read something like that.

I mean, let's face it, there's no shortage of Confederate Wanks out there.

I've been thinking of writing a timeline where the South wins with French help, and then goes to hell. Slave revolts, secessionist movements, a military coup, near feudal conditions on the plantations, pro-union rebellions, anarchy, and maybe an early boll weevil if I can swing it. I got a vague idea going up to 1932, but the idea still needs allot of work.

 

[Cryptic]

Jackson (if not killed at Chancellorsville) would be 74, Stuart (if not killed at Yellow Tavern) would be 61, Longstreet is 73, Cleburne (if not killed at Franklin) is 70, Robert Rodes (if not killed at Third Winchester) is 69, Wade Hampton is 80, Forrest (I disagree he's A team but most don't, so let's count him) is 21 years dead (would be 77) - and then we're left with the B team and worse...

Good points.

I was assuming that the member postulating an attmept by Mexico or Spain to grab Confederate territiory was referring to a date closer to 1865 -70, before the Confederacy fully recovered from the war with the Federal government.

In regards to A team vs B team, a Confederate weakness may well be the rapid post war promotion of officers beyond their true competency level (ala Custer). Even apparent A team officers can turn into B team in given situations. For example, Mosley maybe brilliant at commanding an irregular batalion, but horrible commanding a main force Division.

 

[Elfwine]

Good points.

I was assuming that the member postulating an attmept by Mexico or Spain to grab Confederate territiory was referring to a date closer to 1865 -70, before the Confederacy fully recovered from the war with the Federal government.

In regards to A team vs B team, a Confederate weakness may well be the rapid post war promotion of officers beyond their true competency level (ala Custer). Even apparent A team officers can turn into B team in given situations. For example, Mosley maybe brilliant at commanding an irregular batalion, but horrible commanding a main force Division.

Not sure when/if Mexico would strike, but given Mexico's own state in '65-70, it would probably wait if it wasn't the one attacked first. I was looking at CSA Carribean dreams with "ages in 1898", as a CSA which hasn't one way or another fallen apart in that generation is going to be full of confidence - whether that confidence is merited or not.

On the Peter Principle:
Ironically, Custer would be an example of just plain overconfident - as in, he was at a lower rank than the one he had in the war, but he did fine in the ACW for a given definition of.

I think a lot of Confederate officers - especially those not West Point trained/familiar with the Mexican-American war - being overconfident in the CSA vs. Mexico for similar reasons, even if not overpromoted. May well be the same vs. Spain.