Franco-American War, 1866.

Whatever happens if it comes to fighting, the French are going to learn some harsh lessons about modern fighting. That will definitely affect the 1870 war (if it comes ITTL).
>
>
>
Which will be good for the French if they can convert what happens in Mexico into doctrine for their army in europe.
 
I think the main problem for the French will be a hostile local population in Mexico, the fact that the U.S. can bring in more troops more quickly, and the fact that unlike them, America doesn't have concerns across the ocean keeping her from bringing the main brunt of her resources to the party.

French troops were good, and the French Army regarded as one of the best in Europe, so skill and nerve will not be issues for the most part.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The French began their withdrawal in March, 1866; by 1867,

I think the main problem for the French will be a hostile local population in Mexico, the fact that the U.S. can bring in more troops more quickly, and the fact that unlike them, America doesn't have concerns across the ocean keeping her from bringing the main brunt of her resources to the party. French troops were good, and the French Army regarded as one of the best in Europe, so skill and nerve will not be issues for the most part.


The French began their withdrawal in March, 1866; by the spring of 1867, Maximillian's regime was reduced to control of Mexico City, Puebla, Queretaro, Ver Cruz, and little else - essentially, the Vera Cruz to Mexico City region, and that was about it. Carlotta had suffered a breakdown, Max was ready to abdicate, and Napoleon III had already instructed Bazaine to negotiate with anyone (other than Juarez) who would be willing to recognize the Mexican debt to French interests, in return for a peaceful transfer of government.

There were no takers, because everyone in Mexico - except the ultra-conservatives like Miramon et al - understood the US was not going to let a European puppet take over a Western Hemisphere republic.

And everyone in the US knew the French were going to fold, for the same reason ALL the mid-century European interventions (French in Mexico, Spanish in the Domican Republic and Chile-Peru) failed: time and distance.

The French expeditionary force withdrew from Mexico City in February, and left Mexico via Veracruz in March; Maximillian et al lasted until May. He and Miramon and Mejia were executed in June; the Mexican Army (under Porfirio Diaz, who had fought and beaten the French at Puebla in 1862) marched into Mexico City on July 15.

The Mexican liberals lost most of the battles, won the war, and lost the peace, but the Mexican conservatives paid the price in 1911-21.

There's no reason for the US to fight in 1866-67, and absolutely no way the French and Mexican conservatives can win after Appomattox.

Best,
 
If the French didn't back fold and the US did march 50,000 troops into Mexico, I don't imagine the French or Mexico winning. However, there is no real win in war, it all a matter of how much you lose in comparison to the other guy. One thing the French do have is modern equipment and a luke-warm populace.

In theory Mexico could figure an army the same size as the US, but that would take a much more liberal Maximilian. The POD needs to be a bit further back for that to happen. Even if this force was raised, it would have supreme difficulties in supplying it with guns, let along the sort of cannon needed to match the might of the US in a pitched battle.

If I were the French I would attempt to have this force rallied and preparations for a, this is the important part, long and drawn out campaign. For the US to achieve the sort of swift victory needed, it will need to move along the coast. Sweeping down from Texas and then heading for Mexico City. As the French it would be my objective make sure this doesn't happen. In the build up to the war I would fund and supply small groups of Mexican Soldiers, or better yet bandits, to lie in wait for the US Army to cross the border. I would leave these groups under the command of a reliable French Commander, to harass the US supply lines and to launch raids into Texas, as far as Huston is possible.

The majority of my force I would hold at the Tampico and Rioverde provinces. I would improve the defenses of the towns and settlements as much as possible. Fortifying the towns will force the US force to either take them by force, or face the threat of attack to their supply chain or rear flank. Even with the US Army's size, better equipment and experienced soldiers, would probably think twice before engaging the opposition at fortified positions. The US General would have to make the choice to months of cannon bombardment to weaken the defenses, forcing the battle, or attempting to circumnavigate the defenses and go via the mountains.

If the US choose to attack it would probably win the battle, but the loss of life would be a huge hit to the moral at home that would have thought this a quick and easy war. As the French this would be the time to call the best of my soldiers to the fray. Use what's left of the Mexican, French armies to hold Mexico City and to attack the supply lines. Beyond that it will be up to the US to decide who wins the war. As the US you could force an attack of Mexico City and again probably win, or wait months for the defenses to be weak enough. If it's the first you win the war, but with an appalling loss of life. Otherwise the support back home for the war will probably be dwindling rapidly and I would be surprised if the President faces calls to end the war.

If the US choose to wait, the support for the war will probably dwindle or the same. That quick victory will be forgotten as news of Mexican raids into the US quickly replace that dream.

If the US does choose the mountain route they will have given the French everything they could have wanted. A longer, harder route to Mexico City, with more places to attack and harass the US while the defenders fall back and the constant fear of being circled behind. The US Army would have to go at a much slower pace, leave garrisons in every town the faced, lest they harass the supply lines and devote troops to hunting down raiders and protecting supplies. As the French I would lie in wait outside Mexico City, let them get that far and then attack. The French would have a good chance of winning, and would end up harassing the US all the way back to the border. Of course this would not happen the next time the US invaded. The next US army would not make the same mistakes and would press onto Mexico along the shortest route.

In all these scenarios it depends of US public support for the war. If it's high they will win, if it is allowed to be drawn out then it will dwindle. The US is still fresh from the Civil War and they will not stomach a drawn out campaign to remove a leader of another country that isn't a serious threat.
 
I mean, this seems really easy to me, and I don't see how France can win. It couldn't win OTL in Mexico, but somehow if an American army shows up the skills which served it so well in the Franco-Prussian War will ensure victory?
 
French skills

We'll the French did manage to short apart Prussian infantry at 500-600m ranges and the US does not have the Krupp guns that broke up the French positions.

You might always consider just how popular a Yankee army invading Mexico will really be and the effect on Juarez and or his support.
 
I mean, this seems really easy to me, and I don't see how France can win. It couldn't win OTL in Mexico, but somehow if an American army shows up the skills which served it so well in the Franco-Prussian War will ensure victory?

There's this idea that American troops didn't know their own backsides from holes in the ground, and that any European force would run roughshod over them by default.

In this case? I am honestly inclined to think not.
 
The USN is hardly a premier fighting force compared to the French Navy (jury-rigged merchant ships, gun boats, and a scant few ironclads of questionable utility far from home)
The USN had plenty of steam frigates, sloops, and brigs. Plus dozens of ironclads, not just "a scant few". "Far from home"? The US coast is a few hundred km away. France is thousands of km away. Oh, and the USN actually has a wealth of combat experience, while the French have almost none.

and the lions share of its forces will be tied down occupying the South and in the West come this scenario.
The occupation of the South required a very modest number of men compared to the war. The West, another small number. That left 50,000 men to be deployed in Texas for a march on Mexico if necessary, and probably quite a few more available if need be.

The public is already weary of war and most veterans simply want to go home.
Some do, others prefer army life. That's been true after every war. Not all men have wonderful lives to go back to.

However, the sudden appearance of 50,000 Americans will complicate things, but it may also work in their favor by dividing Mexican opinion against yet another foreign power (one which few Mexicans will remember fondly).
Do you really think the Mexicans are too stupid to understand the Americans are there to help them fight the French? There may be some suspicion of American motives, but no one is going to take the side of the known French enemy because of the Americans.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Mexican Republicans outnumbered the Mexican Monarchists 4-1

In theory Mexico could figure an army the same size as the US, but that would take a much more liberal Maximilian.

At the siege of Queretaro (March-May, 1867), the Liberal forces numbered 40,000, the Monarchists about 10,000. The Liberal Ejercito de el Norte included about 25,000 men equipped with US "ACW-standard" weapons, including (among the small arms) Spencer repeaters; the other 15,000 had equipment from all over Europe and the US.

As far as the impact of US troops allied with the Mexican Liberals to dispatch the Conservatives, keep in mind that the majority of the artillery provided to Juarez' forces was actually manned by Americans (US Army veterans)...

Maximillian et al didn't stand a chance.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic. Although I could do without the American flagwaving.

One can wander if the USA is capable of another war, having incurred the costs (both financial and human) of a painful civil war. And would France really be willing to fight for Mexico which has already proven to be a financial drain?

Militarily, it would be hardly be the one-sided affair some people expect it to have been.
The US Navy is not a blue water force. The French navy is. Both have experience, the US Navy against the rebels, the French against the Russians and in numerous (colonial) adventures. And let’s not forget that the French navy is created to fight against European major powers and thus has a lot of institutional experience in fleet actions. As to bombardment of coasts to keep fleets home, both nations have coastal defences (the French arguably more than the Americans) and the French have never bothered to keep their fleet home for that reason.

In continental terms, the American forces are a poorly trained militia with good equipment and recent experience. French troops are regulars with a lot of experience against both regular enemies such as the Russians, the Mexicans and the Austrians and irregulars such as the Berbers and more Mexicans. Many historians state that American strategy & tactics in the 1860s were immature because America didn’t have a General Staff school and thus never learnt the full array of tactics necessary to counter field works. Note that European armies in the 19th century had the same weaponry but never got bogged down in trench warfare to the same extent as happened in ACW. It is a common view that poor troops need field works to steady them.

So I’d say that neither country could effective blockade or interdict the other and that a French field force would have a very good chance of defeating an American field force unless hopelessly outnumbered.

But wars are not won by these things alone. Logistics, national morale and other threats are equally important. France has little to win from such a war besides propping up Maximilian and preventing loss of Imperial face. Meanwhile America has only its Monroe doctrine to rally support. There are no national interests or home territory threatened. So who’d blink first and give in? That would likely depend on how the first battles, both on land and sea, go. I’d expect some French victories after which both countries agree to withdraw and then Maximilian’s regime slowly collapses.
 
I think your depiction of the US army to be more then slightly unfair.

I don't mean it to be. But a bit of rational thinking would help you see where I am coming from.

The us army used in the ACW was basically a militia, created with little input from the small regular army available in 1861 and which was not broken up to provide cadres for the large mass of newly raised troops. Its training was considered poor by contemporary European standards when compared to their own regular troops (as would any militia). It was commanded by political appointees or officers with little formal training in higher command functions. That doesn't mean some didn't do very well but it does mean that they lacked formal training, learned on the job and likely did not known all the current military thinking (for better or worse..).

And if that is not enough stacked against them, the North did not maintain regiments with regular drafts, thus maintaining hard earned institutional knowledge but would raise additional fresh regiments so they could appoint further political appointees while allowing the experienced but battle worn regiments to muster out.

Just compare that to the French revolutionary army. They suffered much of the same problems but had the crucial advantage that much of the regular army provided the structured cohesion necessary for victory, especially after being amalgamated with the levies.

So no, I don't believe for a moment an American ACW force would stand much of a chance against a French force of the 1860s. How could they, with the US leadership doing everything in its power to reduce their combat value. Think about it; no professional cadre, poor training, force commanders appointed for their political clout or experience as a lieutenant decades ago....

If you research the battles of the Franco-Prussian war and the earlier Franco-Austrian and Crimean wars, the picture emerging is that French infantry was simply formidable. Certainly not infallible or unbeatable but I'd put my money on them against militia.


My view is based on reading several books on the ACW and others on the French in the 19th century.

Here are just a few examples:
The Gettysburg Companion
Civil War Command And Strategy: The Process Of Victory And Defeat
The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War War in the Nineteenth Century
Battle Tactics of the Civil War
A Day of Battle: Mars-La-Tour, 16 August 1870
 

frlmerrin

Banned
The USN had plenty of steam frigates, sloops, and brigs. Plus dozens of ironclads, not just "a scant few". "Far from home"? The US coast is a few hundred km away. France is thousands of km away. Oh, and the USN actually has a wealth of combat experience, while the French have almost none.

In 1866 in OTL the USA had no first or second armoured ships, no first class steam line of battle ships, just six steam frigates, around 27 screw sloops, some paddle sloops (8?), some over sized over loaded gunboats 23+, some converted blockade runners, some high end converted paddle steamers (8+?) the militarily useless Octaroras, quite a lot of coastal ironclads with serious design flaws, two decent ironclads (New Ironsides, Stonewall), a smattering of larger ironclads all with extremely serious problems and a lot of 'junk' including the riverine monitors, tugs, small steamers, some obsolete sailing warships and some functionally useless schooners and brigs. The stock of junk is rapidly going down as it is being sold off, I have very probably over estimated the good stuff as quite a lot of that went into reserve or was sold off too.

The French will cruise the Gulf coast with the warships on station and once they have eliminated any opposition they will probably blockade New Orleans and just possibly Mobile. The fleets at Accapulco and Cochin China will take San Francisco and probably occupy San Diego and Pueblo Los Angeles certainly Fort Yuma. If the war is in summer the USA's haling fleet will be in trapped in the Gulf of California and will all be taken as prize. Then the fleet from France arrives off the East Coast destroys all opposition and blockades New York, the Chesapeake, Boston and Maybe Delaware Bay.
The French can base themselves at St. Pierre and Miquilon, Martinique, Vera Cruz and Accapulco. If need be they can take a few enclaves just like the Union did in the ACW
When did the USA aquire all this combat experience? Most of the fleet spent the ACW blockading things and bombarding things. Just what the French were doing elsewhere.

The occupation of the South required a very modest number of men compared to the war. The West, another small number. That left 50,000 men to be deployed in Texas for a march on Mexico if necessary, and probably quite a few more available if need be.

Actually those 50,000 men you are talking about are the army of occupation of the whole South West including Texas and Louisiana and most of them were tied down supervising the restive Texans! Very few of them are on the border and even fewer would be available for an incursion into Mexico.

Do you really think the Mexicans are too stupid to understand the Americans are there to help them fight the French?

The Mexicans on either side are not stupid they know that if the USA helps them it will probably cost them some more land.

There may be some suspicion of American motives, but no one is going to take the side of the known French enemy because of the Americans.

Really? I think many a Mexican would desert the Juarista cause and support Maximillian if the USA sends an army in.

In actual fact most of the above is irrelevant. What happens in Mexico itself is almost completely irrelevant. Who wins depends on what the British decide to do (note they won't go to war with anyone over this).

British stay neutral - French win when blockade bites, USA withraws from Mexico, French still have to suppress the Juaristas. Very expensive for France
British support French - As above but they don't lose Mexico in the first place if the British allow them to use British merchant ships as transports. War not too expensive.
British suport USA - French leave fairly quickly. May seriously mess up USA East and West coasts before they go home.
 
Top