Great War in the 19th Century?

Russia? Still smarting from defeat in the Crimea at the hands of the French and the British.

Prussia? Perhaps its too early for Prussia to commit to the US (as Harry Turtledove had them do in his Great War series).

Welcome to the forum! I have never before had someone issue their inaugural post on a thread I started... I may cry...

At any rate, there may be a way to incorporate this:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=4866974#post4866974
 
A total victory of the Russo-Prussian side could be interesting: at best (for them) USA may take both Canada AND Mexico, and possibly purchase Cuba as well (give Spain Algeria instead, for example). Italy is destroyed and possibly partitioned between Austria and Spain, Prussia gets hegemony in northern Germany and possibly Alsace. Portugal may be annexed in an extreme scenario.
Russia emerges as paramount power.

This... doesn't make any sense.

Spain also considering aiding the CSA.

Not that I'm aware of.

Not that there aren't ways to reach that... Spain (read: Queen Isabella) was in favor of taking an active role on the Mexican intervention until Napoleon III basically ruined it for being a stupid asshole, and there were other frictions with the USA (*cough*Monroe Doctrine*cough*Santo Domingo). But Spain and the CSA on the same ship are going to be an Enemy Mine situation, since Spain knows that it is the Southerners the ones who have been fantasizing about annexing Cuba for the last 50 years.
 
Last edited:
Russia? Still smarting from defeat in the Crimea at the hands of the French and the British.

Prussia? Perhaps its too early for Prussia to commit to the US (as Harry Turtledove had them do in his Great War series).


Yes, Russia, as historically there were connections between the governments of Russia and the US at the time. Russia had part of her fleet stationed in California for a time during the Civil War. Interestingly too is the similarities between Alexander II and Lincoln . Alexander emancipated the serfs while Lincoln freed the slaves; both were assassinated.
 
I know I say it often, but it seems to bear repeating: Britain can't afford to intervene in 1861. 1848 trashed the bond market, Crimea in 1854 resaturated it, Sepoys in 1857 pushed it to the edge. While recognizing the CSA as a legitimate government would be quite a propaganda coup for the rebels, the Brits are not in a financial position to DO anything in '61, or even in '66 most likely. If anyone was foolish enough to bring it up in Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make that abundantly clear.

Of course, I don't think convincing Nappy III to intervene without Britain is really that hard at all. Britain says "yeah, great idea, we're kind of busy but knock yourself out" and that might be enough for him; if he can drag Spain along, so much the better.
 
I know I say it often, but it seems to bear repeating: Britain can't afford to intervene in 1861... If anyone was foolish enough to bring it up in Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make that abundantly clear.
It seems odd, then, that in 1861 Gladstone both abolished paper duties and took a penny off income tax (dropping it from 10d to 9d, with subsequent reductions leaving it at 4d in 1865.) I'm sure we're all aware that on the Union side, the threat of war over the Trent forced the suspension of specie payments by both banks and the government. Just to put it in perspective, though, Chase's plan for 1862 saw the Union government spending more than the British government spent in 1815: to fund this, they planned to raise less than a sixth of what Britain raised in tax and borrow three times as much.
 
Not that I'm aware of.

It is relatively common knowledge (I believe) that Spain was in support of the C.S.A. with Prime Minister O'Donnell being probably somewhat more vocal of his support than Isabella. Still, Spain was not a fan of the U.S. at the time anyway and very nearly took steps to support the Confederacy, if only in recognizing her.

It's not like it was unpopular in Europe at the time.

Maybe Britain stays out of it as in OTL but France and Spain do not. This may have the potential to combine an early Franco-Prussian War and an early Austro-Prussian War if Prussia goes to war with a Franco-Austrian alliance at the same time as Spain and France are at war with the U.S. who calls upon assistance from Russia and receives it.

If I'm not mistaken, this puts a

U.S., Russian, Prussian/German States, Italy

Against a

C.S.A., France, Spain, Austria.

Correct me if I'm wrong there. Depending on how it goes, I can actually see Britain eventually siding with a victorious U.S., Germany, Russia - at least post war. The Treaty would be signed in London as Britain remained (mostly) neutral.

If the U.S. loses... well that's something else entirely.

Throw the tomatoes at all that if you want, I'm tired. Just make sure you remove them from their cans first.

EDIT: This seems to be a culmination of much of this discussion, anyway. I'm fairly proud of it. I'd really like to work on something like this at some point if there's any interest. I'll have a lot of restless nights of research to put in and I'll need a little help, but I've got some ideas.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively...

For that matter, an ACW under a surviving Zachary Taylor in 1850 could be looped into a slightly earlier Crimean War. Not sure all the logistics of that, but that would be pretty epic as well...

Not sure if I've EVER seen anything like that on here.

There may be a damn good reason for that too...
 
Throw the tomatoes at all that if you want, I'm tired. Just make sure you remove them from their cans first.

Hey, no need. I'm aware that I'm splitting hairs here. It's true that O'Donnell was a war hawk that believed in gaining prestige through waging wars far away. It's true that Isabella was firmly up Napoleon III's ass. It's true that there were things where Spain and the USA simply did not get along. And it's true that there were probably people who did cheer on the CSA - the Cuban slave-owning planter class seems like an obvious one. But in Spain itself people didn't really think much about the CSA or the ACW as a whole, it was a foreign conflict of secondary or tertiary insterest and there were other fish to fry - first Mexico, then Santo Domingo.

Thus while there is a route to get Spain into fighting a war along with the CSA, it won't be because it has real sympathy for the CSA or was hanging on the wall about to jump in. You'll have to begin with Spain fighting another war and then escalate it to include the ACW.

The obvious choice is Mexico. IOTL, Isabella fantasized with the idea of placing another Bourbon on the Mexican throne or marrying one of his daughters to whoever got it. However, Napoleon III went first for a plain invasion and then for a monarchy that only suited French interests. Prim realized that there was no benefit for Spain to remain there and withdrew from Veracruz in 1861. But had France instead pushed for a monarchy earlier and one that suited Spain's interests (say, he "restores" Agustin Iturbide II, then brokes the marriage between Prince Salvador and Isabella's 1st daughter who had almost the same age - the Mexican conservatives get their monarchy and Isabella her royal conection, while France reserves herself the right to exploit the country's riches) then Spain could remain and support the French war effort. Extra troops, an actual Mexican monarch and the full use of Cuba as a base butterflies the Cinco de Mayo and speeds up the French campaign by a year. Then there is some naval incident and you end with France and Spain at war with the USA and helping the CSA by default.

Extending the war to Europe is going to be far more difficult and even if you manage to have France at war with everybody it could still be more two wars being fought concurrently than an actual world war. Spain could continue to have relations with Prussia and Russia. Something more like the 18th century succession wars than an actual WW1. You could even end with a side winning in a theatre and losing in the other.

Unless, maybe, Italy pulls the stunt someone mentioned before and ends at war with Austria and France, then with Isabella continuing her slide towards conservativism and rust Catholicism and the Conservatives cocky they send an army to save the Pope in Rome and maybe help reinstall the cousins in Naples. Meanwhile Russia sends the fleet to California on schedule and helps the Americans fight off the odd Franco-Spanish raid or assist their own raid in support of the Juaristas in western Mexico.

Britain is the wild card. I get the feeling it will be the one to end this conflict, either by broking a deal or being sucked into one of the sides at some point.
 
There was trench warfare deployed in the ACW. However the US-CS border is much, much, larger than the Franco-Prussian, Austro-Prussian, Austro-Italian, or Franco-Italian borders. And, basically straddling the Alps, its much more mountainous territory, which heavily favors the defender.

The one area you won't see trench warfare ITTL would be the Austro-Russian conflict throughout Galicia and Ruthenia, and especially in the Russians manage to drive into the Pannonian Basin. There the cavalry will rule.
I have to disagree. Trenches were a product of the interaction between mobility & firepower. By the 1860s, the prevalence of rifles mean existing tactical formations will take extreme casualties, so cover & dispersion will need be adopted. So, too, cavalry will suffer extreme casualties, because it doesn't have the armor to withstand fire nor the mobility (speed) needed to overcome it. This was true in WW1, & would have been true in the 1860s, tho somewhat less so before the hydraulic recoil mechanism & the introduction of HE. Mass rifle fire would do the job well enough.
 
Top