There are several incidents that could have done this:The real trick is getting a non-Canadian American power involved.
As for the Napoleonic Wars, I'm not so sure about the "diversity of powers" thing. Most of the Great Powers involved were still European and "white".
The Napoleonic Wars included for a very short time the USA (which may or may not have been a great power) and for an equally short time the Ottoman Empire (which may or may not be an European power). I don't know if you considered China and Japan of 1800 to be great powers or not, but they certainly weren't involved.
As for military operations, they were also mostly concentrated in Europe, but the same thing can be said about WW1 too.
The Turks only fought one or two years at the beginning. When and where did the Persians fight?the Turks, Persians
.Bolivians, Peruvians, Argentinians, Chileans, and Venezuelans
That is another statement I find doubtfull.As for military operations, yes there were mostly concentrated in Europe, but unlike, say, WWI, what happened in India or the Americas had a direct and important impact on the battles happening in Europe.
The Turks only fought one or two years at the beginning. When and where did the Persians fight?
Werențt those Spanish colonies? When they became independent they stayed neutral.
That is another statement I find doubtfull.
That leads to a single-hemisphere war at the most, and almost entirely limited to North America.- European intervention in the ACW
That's more likely to cause a coup in Paris rather than a World War.The French intervention in Mexico excalates
I'd actually say this one is the most likely, though an Anglo-American war is no more a "world war" than a Franco-American fight.- Venezuela Crisis (probably too late)
Who in the hell is going to help Spain prop up its moldering empire?- Spanish American War escalates.
The Turks were neutral in 1803. Between 1806-1812 they fought against Russia alone. They had no formal treaty with Napoleon and were not included in any peace treaty signed by him. And Russian's allies allso left them alone. The Turks made no effort to coordinate military operations with the French, and went as far as to sign peace in 1812 so they wouldn't have to assist Napoleon against Russia.The Turks fought for the Coalition in 1803, then switched sides to the Empire from 1806-1809, then rejoined the Coalition until 1812.
The Persians fought for the Empire from 1804-1807, then joined the Coalition against the Turks from 1807-1812, then rejoined the Empire from 1812-1813. Mostly the Persians were busy fighting the Turks, but also against the Russians.
This is the first time I hear about Spain "vigurously opposing" those independence movements, which mostly happened because the Euopeans were too busy fighting eachother to care about what happens in South America.Their independence movements were fought vigorously by both the Spanish, and the British, and supported indirectly by both the French and the Americans. Spain, and her allies, were so busy trying to hold onto her colonies that it affected the situation in Europe during the Peninsular War.
Since you are the one who made a claim you should back it up with arguments.And yet you have nothing to counter it with aside from a highly vague utterance of disagreement.
Not if the Russians ally with the US as they indicated they would.That leads to a single-hemisphere war at the most, and almost entirely limited to North America.
That depends on wether the French can do Better that they did historically in Mexico, at least initially. It allso helps if they can keep the initial coallition that attacked Mexico (Austria, Spain) together for a bit longer.That's more likely to cause a coup in Paris rather than a World War.
I say this is the least likely, because both countries have similar culture and are democracies, and mutual relations are much better then they had been in earlier decades. Thus, public opinion is unlikely to support a war.I'd actually say this one is the most likely, though an Anglo-American war is no more a "world war" than a Franco-American fight.
Any one of the two European power blocks. Whoewer Spain wants to join.Who in the hell is going to help Spain prop up its moldering empire?
This idea's a non-starter_During the Boer Wars, the Portuguese of Mozambique see a chance to scoop up a young African nation and expand their influence, in the process they come into conflict with England, German Angola also decides they could become more powerful if they could nudge England out of South Africa.
The Turks were neutral in 1803. Between 1806-1812 they fought against Russia alone. They had no formal treaty with Napoleon and were not included in any peace treaty signed by him. And Russian's allies allso left them alone. The Turks made no effort to coordinate military operations with the French, and went as far as to sign peace in 1812 so they wouldn't have to assist Napoleon against Russia.
The same thing is valid for the Persians. I don't even know if they coordinated with the Turks.
This is the first time I hear about Spain "vigurously opposing" those independence movements, which mostly happened because the Euopeans were too busy fighting eachother to care about what happens in South America.
Since you are the one who made a claim you should back it up with arguments.
This is the same Russia that got curbstomped less than a decade before and was going through the pains of frustrated abolition. Support for the Union over an internal rebellion is not the same as saying "Let's go another round with the Brits and French"Not if the Russians ally with the US as they indicated they would.
Easterling;6091380That depends on wether the French can do Better that they did historically in Mexico said:It was Spain, Britain and France; the Emperor was just a liberal Habsburg (big no no at court). Spain nor Britain was keen on going into that close to (another) US border full-throttle like that.
Easterling;6091380I say this is the least likely said:Olney and Chamberlain were pretty powerful gents, and Cleveland's approval ratings are in the gutter.
Easterling;6091380Any one of the two European power blocks. Whoewer Spain wants to join. This of course begs the question of wether the US would attack Spain if Spain had strong allies.[/QUOTE said:It was never a question of Spain wanting allies as much as allies wanting Spain.
Also, the Japanese and Germans made no effort to coordinate their military operations, but that doesn't stop us from referring to them as the 'Axis' in WWII.
Persia fought against Russia, who was allied with France.
Ok, I thought you were referring to the earlier time period. But technically, the Spanish expedition had no impact on the outcome of the Hundred Days campaign, since the Allies won even without them.Here, let's put this another way. In 1815 Spain organized the largest military operation it had ever conceived of in the New World to reconquer New Granada. That meant that the Spanish weren't involved in the War of the Seventh Coalition, as they were still raising up an army to attack France by the time the Hundred Days campaign was over, which meant that the Spanish had no say in the 1815 Treaty of Paris.
Curbstomped? The Russians held their own against 3 other powers and eventually gave up because the war was going nowhere. There was no "curbstomp" involved.This is the same Russia that got curbstomped less than a decade before and was going through the pains of frustrated abolition. Support for the Union over an internal rebellion is not the same as saying "Let's go another round with the Brits and French"
Given the general scramble for allies that was going on back then in Europe, it's kind of surprising that nobody wanted Spain on their team.It was never a question of Spain wanting allies as much as allies wanting Spain.