yes I'm looking for a 1 vs 1 war between any of these 3 countriesMake Russia more threatening and Germany less threatening and Germany-Austria alliance will look a lot better to the UK than the France-Russia one. Once the alliance system is set you just need a spark. Throw in a more aggressive French colonial policy if want to really push the UK away.
Unless you're looking for a 1 v 1 war in which case, a Russia capable of pushing into Central Asia or colonial dust up with France. It's about the same, but you need an actual act of aggression for this case since the UK, is not about to start a war in this period.
maybe through afghanistan proxy ?If Russia wasn’t so backwards and was led better you could absolutely see a war between Russia and Britain in Central Asia.
Russia is not backward, I think the correct term is lagging compared to Britain's scale as Russia is a bigger Scale compared to Germany UK and other stuff, meaning development to the levels of germany or UK would be harder to AchieveIf Russia wasn’t so backwards and was led better you could absolutely see a war between Russia and Britain in Central Asia.
I think a France & Russia vs UK is much more likely bu 1vs1 is also not impossible.Is there any chance of a Britain vs France or Britain vs Russia conflict in the 1900 to 1914 period ?
if so under what circumstances
thanks
Regarding Russia , given logistics in Central Asia, neither side is going to be able to bring more than token forces to bear. So its more stirring up trouble by giving potential rebels encouragement/money than anything like an actual shooting war between the nations. So mainly economic and petering out relitivly quickly ( both sides more concerned about Germany's growth ).The first possiblewar triggers that spring to mind are the Fashoda incident of 1898 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashoda_Incident )for Britain vs France, or the Dogger Bank incident ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident ) for Russia.
As to the outcomes, well Britain vs France is strongly likely to see the UK triumphant (by this stage France has been more than eclipsed by Britain), and would likely see the British Empire seize colonial territories (probably in West Africa or the Caribbean). An Anglo-Russian war is likely to just bog down to an expensive slogging match with no real winner, as neither side is truly capable of damaging the others core power sources.
Well Russia has its client states Bukhara and Khiva, which are pre-1917 actually protectorates of the empire rather than an integral part of it. I don't know how much it can mobilise their own armies, but there are clearly garrison forces there that could be formed into an army.Regarding Russia , given logistics in Central Asia, neither side is going to be able to bring more than token forces to bear. So its more stirring up trouble by giving potential rebels encouragement/money than anything like an actual shooting war between the nations. So mainly economic and petering out relitivly quickly ( both sides more concerned about Germany's growth ).
As I said its all small scale stuff on land, poor quality buffer zones exist which basically mean the core territories are not getting touched. No railways , few roads, little other infrastructure, all mean for both sides a force of a few thousand, not large scale armies. These might skirmish in territory that is not considered vital by either party but its just a minor colonial war in scale. As for at Sea , the Russians are so outmatched once the RN pivots that they are not going to come out to play.Well Russia has its client states Bukhara and Khiva, which are pre-1917 actually protectorates of the empire rather than an integral part of it. I don't know how much it can mobilise their own armies, but there are clearly garrison forces there that could be formed into an army.
Britain also has an army of its own in India and native levies it can call up, if necessary, from the princely states in the North.
I would imagine a British strategy would be to try to stir up trouble in Khiva and Bokhara (and Kokand, which has been absorbed by Russia, but whose identity is within living memory).
Also, Tibet was a clashpoint for both empires, despite nominal Imperial Chinese suzerainty. Britain certainly sent military expeditions into Tibet in this period (Younghusband in 1903) and Russia can do similar
There is also the naval war in the Far East which will take on an order of magnitude higher than the same during the Crimean War
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
It would take a much worse Russian and British leadership than in OTL for this to happen because by 1900 the borders in the CA (Russian-Afghan border) had been set. What’s left was settling the border in Tibet (hardly a suitable theater for a big war and hardly a serious reason for one) and spheres of influence in Persia, which were not conflicting. AFAIK, in the case of Persia both Britain and Russia were on the same course being unhappy with a new Persian political system which they considered too liberal.If Russia wasn’t so backwards and was led better you could absolutely see a war between Russia and Britain in Central Asia.
Well Russia has its client states Bukhara and Khiva, which are pre-1917 actually protectorates of the empire rather than an integral part of it. I don't know how much it can mobilise their own armies, but there are clearly garrison forces there that could be formed into an army.
Britain also has an army of its own in India and native levies it can call up, if necessary, from the princely states in the North.
I would imagine a British strategy would be to try to stir up trouble in Khiva and Bokhara (and Kokand, which has been absorbed by Russia, but whose identity is within living memory).
Also, Tibet was a clashpoint for both empires, despite nominal Imperial Chinese suzerainty. Britain certainly sent military expeditions into Tibet in this period (Younghusband in 1903) and Russia can do similar
There is also the naval war in the Far East which will take on an order of magnitude higher than the same during the Crimean War
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Yes, it is generally a good idea to have strategy defined before you are starting a war and it usually includes some political considerations. By 1900 Britain did not have any clear or desirable goals in the Russia CA and Russia was not planning conquest of Afghanistan so the war triggered in the CA is very unlikely and if it happens as an offshoot of something else, it most probably would not be a campaign of conquest on either side.My points were not that this would be what caused the war but how the war would play out in Central Asia. If you find yourself at war with Russia, you're not going to not bother to fight them, or not bother to outline a strategy there
Britain did not have means to bring enough troops for a decisive victory in the CA while the Russian logistics in the region was considerably better so an idea of the British land victory seems to be on a fantastic side. As for the reparations, this is even less likely: Russia did not pay them even after the CW.. After all, Britain might win a thumping victory overall, so stretch goals might be on the table, or gains made in places like Bukhara could be up for negotiation away in return for reparations.
Sometimes I think this is an anti-alternate history website. Isn't the point of the discussion to look at what might have happened, work out how that might play out, look at ultimate possibilities, and discuss how to bring those about?
Russia and France have common concerns against Britain?Escalation of the Russo-Japanese War, which sees the United Kingdom and France join on opposite sides.