Hanover Fights On! - A different Austro-Prussian War

The Hanoverian Army was good. It defeated a larger Prussian army before becoming surrounded and cut off.

Is there anyway to prolong Hanoverian resistance? Prussia fears Austria more/Hanover less and deployers fewer troops to Hanover? Can Hanover attack the Prussian Rhineland?

Ultimately I am wondering if the war with Hanover can be prolonged (in Hanover or the Rhineland) for a sympathetic France to get involved usefully - deploy some troops to the border with Prussia?
 
Why did Britain just sit on the sidelines? Hanover had been British until Victoria ascended the throne and so the Duke of Cumberland became the King of Hanover.
 
Why did Britain just sit on the sidelines? Hanover had been British until Victoria ascended the throne and so the Duke of Cumberland became the King of Hanover.

No, Hanover was never British. It was a separate sovereignty of man who became King of Great Britain, and of his heirs, but as a title it was wholly independent of Britain.

Compare to Pixar and Apple. Both were headed by Steve Jobs, but Pixar was not part of Apple.

When William IV died, the title to Britain passed to Victoria, his late next brother's daughter, while the title to Hanover passed to his second next brother, Ernest Augustus.
 
I know OTL politics played its part of why the UK did not help its Hanoverian cousins, but what if it had? Even if it was just the Royal Navy impounding Prussian ships. Could that of rallied other countries to sit on Prussia?
 

Flubber

Banned
Is there anyway to prolong Hanoverian resistance?


Prolong Austrian and Saxon resistance and you'll prolong Hanoverian resistance. Support, even diplomatic, from France would help too.

Of course, that raises other problems. :(

There's a truism taught to students in law school: Never ask a question in court which you do not already know the answer to. Bismarck operated his foreign policy along similar lines. He never began a war which he wasn't already extremely certain Prussia would win. Not 100% certain, obviously, but north of 80% definitely.

Bismarck would carefully set the diplomatic stage, isolating his target, roping in allies, and taking other measures. Bismarck also understood what Prussia's precise capabilities were. Roon and Moltke the Elder never lied, for example, to Bismarck in the manner Moltke the Younger et. al. lied to Wilhelm II and Bethmann-Hollweg.

As we've discussed in a few recent Franco-Prussian War threads, a tougher/better prepared France is something Bismarck would be aware of, acknowledge, and accommodate in his plans. Similarly, a tougher/better prepared Austria, Saxony, and/or Hanover are also something Bismarck would be aware of, acknowledge, and accommodate in his plans.

Thus, just as tougher/better prepared France would mean a very different Franco-Prussian war or no war at all, tougher/better prepared Austria, Saxony, and/or Hanover would mean a very different Austro-Prussian War or no war at all.

Can Hanover attack the Prussian Rhineland?

I don't think so. While in the OTL war, the Saxon Army immediately and deliberately abandoned Saxony in order link up with Austrian forces in Bohemia. The Saxons did that, however, because they knew they could not really defend Saxony while joining forces with Austria in Bohemia could help win the war when the main armies clashed.

The Hanoverian Army could possibly do the same, abandon Hanover to seize the Rhineland, but that wouldn't be seen as immediate a war-winning measure as beating the main Prussian armies in Bohemia would be.

It's the mid-19th Century remember. In the European viewpoint, wars between the great powers last a few months or a year at most with the main armies clashing quickly to decide matters. Seizing an enemy's industrial heartland to cripple their ability to make fight a long war just wasn't planned on. Britain always planned on blockades, but the continental powers always planned on things being wrapped quickly and did so right up through 1914.

Ultimately I am wondering if the war with Hanover can be prolonged (in Hanover or the Rhineland) for a sympathetic France to get involved usefully - deploy some troops to the border with Prussia?

As I pointed out earlier, if France isn't neutralized in some manner, and Bismarck took great pains to do so, then the war isn't going to happen.
 
The Hanoverian Army could possibly do the same, abandon Hanover to seize the Rhineland, but that wouldn't be seen as immediate a war-winning measure as beating the main Prussian armies in Bohemia would be.
Actually, the Hanoverian army abandoned Hanover to join up with the Bavarian VII and allied VIII Corps. They very nearly made it, too, but kept stopping to negotiate with the Prussians- one of the proposals, interestingly, was that they would pledge not to fight against the Prussians for a year but would be free to fight for the Austrians in Italy in the meantime. Had they marched on Gotha on 24th June rather than negotiating they probably could have fought their way through.

Unfortunately, the West German Federal Army is beset by all the sins of the German Confederacy. Prince Karl of Bavaria could have headed north to crush the scattered German detachments and rescue the Hanoverians, but was too worried about protecting Bavaria from invasion and refuses to move when the Hanoverians ask him. VIII Corps was too heterogeneous a fighting force, and some of its divisions aren't ready for action until after Sadowa. The Hanoverians, meanwhile, use a different cartridge to all their allies and have been forced to leave all their ammunition behind in their flight to the south: even Langensalza almost used up what they had.
 
The Hanoverian Army was good. It defeated a larger Prussian army before becoming surrounded and cut off.

Is there anyway to prolong Hanoverian resistance?

Only with some wankistry.

Basically, have some Hanoverian expats serve in the Union Army during the ACW, then go back to Hanover and somehow persuade the King to re-equip his entire army with Henry repeating rifles, and train up in new tactics to make best use of them. Even then, Prussia still wins, but it does take longer.
 
IIRC there was some sort of rule in the German Confederation that you had to give so much notice, I want to say 48 hours, before one member could declare war on another. Somewhat foolishly the monarch of Hanover, George V, actually believed in these kind of things and expected Prussia to abide by them so was of course caught flat-footed when hostilities broke out. He also believed that Hanover could chart a course between Prussia and Austria but by the time he realised that wasn't a viable option it was too late. Now when the war started the Hanoverian army were actually on their summer manoeuvres so on the one hand it was lucky in that they were already formed up and in the field, slightly less lucky as I can remember reading somewhere that it meant they didn't have as much ammunition and supplies as if they had been going to war for real. Does anyone know what kind of rifle they were using, I'm not sure but I think it was still breech-loaders. Even then they managed to almost wipe out one detachment of Prussian troops they fought but lost enough time that they were cut off.

So if you want them to do better the best bet is to hit George over the head and get him to realise that trying to hedge your bets is just on a hiding to nothing and that the Prussians won't give a stuff about legal niceties. Starting the campaign off with everyone carrying as many supplies as possible, not trying to negotiate like robcraufurd mentioned and they can probably fight their way clear to meet up with the Bavarians. I've seen estimates of their, the Bavarians and other smaller German states being able to put between 75,000 and 100,000 troops into the field but then you start running into supply issues and command problems of who wants to do what. At the end of the day though it probably won't do much to change the final outcome as that rested on Prussia and Austria, and that came down to the Battle of Koniggratz.

Overall I think the best outcome that Hanover could possibly see would be to retain their independence within Germany along the lines of the Kingdom of Bavaria. Does anyone think this might be achievable, or would Prussia not want to see a gap in their North German Confederation? If George were to be able to retain his throne could have the interesting knock-on of also keeping his treasury, IIRC Bismarck used the looted money to set up slush funds to pay off politicians and journalists. In a timeline where he doesn't get this free infusion of cash he has to either find it elsewhere or operate with much less bribery.

Edit: Seems I was wrong, federal law said that you had to actually wait six weeks not 48 hours before invading another member.
 
Does anyone know what kind of rifle they were using, I'm not sure but I think it was still breech-loaders.
A M1849 Thouvenin-style rifle with seven grooves, a standard version for the infantry and a slightly shorter version for the jaegers, and the M1854 with eight grooves for the sergeants of the jaegers. The decision to adopt needle-rifles was at the end of 1865, too late for the troops to receive them.

So if you want them to do better the best bet is to hit George over the head
Much of the confusion in the Hanoverian campaign stems from the fact that George sacked or retired the entire army's command team on the 17th June. The choice of new general came down to two people, and was given to one over the other based on company command experience in Denmark in 1848. The existing staff were old, mostly KGL veterans, but keeping them on until safety was reached might have been a better decision.

somehow persuade the King to re-equip his entire army with Henry repeating rifles.
Except that they would have run through their scarce ammunition more quickly, and still lacked a common cartridge with their allies. A better suggestion would have been for them to adopt the M1857 Vereinsgewehr, which would have allowed them to share ammunition with other units of VIII Corps.

I'm now going to commit what on this board may be considered heresy akin to speaking ill of Teddy Roosevelt, and say that I don't think the Seven Weeks War provides compelling evidence that the needle rifle is better than the rifled musket. That stosstaktik doesn't work, absolutely: the Austrians and VIII Corps prove that over and over again. But at Kissingen, the biggest battle in the western theatre, the Bavarians have 50 fewer killed and 125 fewer wounded than the Prussians. Strip out the effects of morale, leadership and training- the Bavarians serve only 14 months compared to three years for the Prussians- and you'd struggle to guess which side is supposed to have the better weapon.

I think that even if the army had continued to fight, Hanover would have struggled to survive in the peace treaty. There's simply too much pressure to annex Hanover, in order to join Westphalia to the rest of Prussia. That's why the proposal that Hanover should fight in Italy intrigues me: it might have persuaded Austria to intercede on her behalf in the same way she did for Saxony, whose performance in the campaign alongside Austrian troops appears to have been what influenced this stance.
 
An interesting query. One wonders if Great Britain would have supported Hanover instead of Prussia had the Princess Royal not married heir presumptive to the King of Prussia and had already given birth to a future king [William II] by the time Prussia went to war with Hanover. Even though the marriage of the Princess Royal to Prince Frederick had mutual affection from the start [which was one reason Victoria gave it the her approval], it was seen as something advantageous to both nations. Victoria had had no real liking for Hanover or its kings after William but one wonders would she have reacted with outrage at the conquest of her ancestral lands and, thus, given Hanover the invaluable backing of the British Navy had she not liked the idea of her grandson eventually ruling Prussia [and therefore lording it over any conquered territories- Hanover included]? Yes, William II would soon show every member of his extended family what an irrational,meglomaniacal hothead he was by the time he was an adult but in 1866, he was only seven and I'm sure all parties still had hoped they could smooth out his worse traits.
 
Hannover was a papertiger like many British protectorates in the period. There was a solid reason they caved in and that was overwhelming force by Prussia. Bismarck had already done his scheming to receive guarantees from the major parties that they would either continue or suddenly start policies of splendid isolation and that showed no signs of weakening or faltering by the end of the war, even though the balance of power in Europe had been thrown permanently out of whack. Paired with the solid good of a reliable word, theories like international property, protectorates, and balancing power seem risky bets.
 
I think people tend to overstimate Bismarck and view him as some sort of Kwisatz Haderach. He couldn't keep Russia as an ally, he set up a system which collapsed after he was gone... Not the most impressive guy.
 
Top