Faeelin
Banned
You know, we might take you more seriously if any of us could imagine you referring to the British fighting "the evil of liberty and democracy" in India, or recognizing the Confederates doing so.
Rainbow of Blood
- Thread starter MFOM
- Start date
You know, we might take you more seriously if any of us could imagine you referring to the British fighting "the evil of liberty and democracy" in India, or recognizing the Confederates doing so.
The North had a free population about 3.4 times as great as the South but only fielded 2.4 times as many soldiers as the South, so that's laughably false.
Early's chances were vastly exaggerated, he never had a real chance to successfully take the capital. How does the Confederate Army of 1862 have anything to do with this timeline? I don't see much hope for it in any case, the AVN was lucky it wasn't destroyed during it's invasion of Maryland.
At no point was the Army of the Potomac near destruction during the Seven Days. Though I do find you claiming that delicious irony, given how you've so greatly praised McClellan in the past, and the Peninsula Campaign being his highpoint.
The Russians are taking their time mobilizing, and it's not as if the French or Brits can react in good time, with their disposable forces busy in North America. They're obviously going to attack the Turks, and then fight the Austrians in conjunction with the Prussians.
67th Tigers
Banned
Well, the "not free" population also counts. Even if not used as combatants they still work. The population ratio is close to 2:1, and the ratio of war spending is about 2:1. Union war expenditure per capita is about the same as Confederate war expenditure.
Yeah he did. Grant had absolutely stripped the capital's defences to feed the grinder. Early was defeated by a large contingent of the Army of the Potomac and Army of the Gulf despatched by sea to reinforce Washington arriving just in the nick of time.
Yeah, they were. To quote Lee; "Under ordinary circumstances the Federal army should have been destroyed". Had Pope, or Hooker, or Grant been commanding that army there is little doubt the Army of the Potomac would have been destroyed in Virginia.
The Russians *are mobilised* because they are already engaged in a civil war/ war of independencein Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Latvia, and parts of Ukraine and Russia. They are simply incapable of attacking anyone.
Look at a Census report, the math is what I say it was. And the North had a thing called industrialized agriculture that the South didn't have. Their production actually went up during the war despite the mobilization.
And Federal forces got there in time and easily repulsed him.
Just because Lee says it doesn't make it so. Quote some reputable historians that agree with him.67th Tigers
Banned
However, you've manipulated the figures by excluding southern slaves (but including northern slaves). These were worker as much as free men, and must be considered when discussing economic potentials.
"Industrialised agriculture". Really? Really?
You do know you're a century out here? As relevant as mentioning how Federal jet fighters gave them an advantage.
Harsh. Rafuse. Burton.
Seriously, read Burton's Extraordinary Circumstances, which is probably the standard narrative of the Seven Days.
Timmy811, all the CSA has to do is maintain an effective position until the 1864 election although arguably sufficient disasters prior to the 1862 election could cripple Lincoln with a hostile Congress so the CSA doesn't have to win in the field, just hold out long enough.
One popular subject on this board has been where Jefferson Davis does not replace Joe Johnston with John Bell Hood, Sherman does not take Atlanta before the election and Lincoln is out and that's just one change in command of one army.
With the Union blockade shattered, British and French forces invading, no CSA shortages and massive Union shortages...
One popular subject on this board has been where Jefferson Davis does not replace Joe Johnston with John Bell Hood, Sherman does not take Atlanta before the election and Lincoln is out and that's just one change in command of one army.
With the Union blockade shattered, British and French forces invading, no CSA shortages and massive Union shortages...
Telemond's_Lamb_Chop
Banned
That was bloody rude Timmy.
I think your estimate of the length of Britannia's Fist is about right. It is however such a staggeringly bad book that there is so much to write about. Consider the following:
The book is extremely jingoistic if not racist,
the author cannot separate his views from those of his characters,
the standard of English is very poor,
the editing is very poor,
the primary justification for the story is logically inconsistent,
there is an huge amount of what I can only consider to be unintentional homoeroticism in the book which is the only funny bit in the book
there is no PoD, there is no clearly defined set of PoDs history is simply rewritten to meet the author's need.
it is not possible to determine when the author is being ahistorical and when he is historical at the start of the book
the author's anti-Marx views suggest a lack of scholarship on his part given the impact of Marx on the view of the ACW in Britain
the author's characterisations of British characters, French characters, Russian characters and indeed everyone except Union characters is offensive to the point of characature,
the author cocks up British names,
the author cocks up British diplomacy and politics
the author does not understand any ballistics (and this is an ex tank officer!) his understanding of the performance of Dahlgren and Armstrong guns is so pathetic as to be pityable.
the author does not understand armour plate to the extent that he cannot distinguish between wrought iron and steel,
the author does not understand ship stability
the author has used the Royal Navy of 1862 in his story not the appropriate Royal Navy
the author does not understand that a ship on coast guard service is not fit for the deep sea
the author overloads the USS Gettysburg to the point that it would sink
the author claims unattainable speeds fo US ships
the author cannot tell shot from shell
the author garrisoned the wrong forts a Portland
the battle at Portland contains physical impossibilities
the battle of Portland require that a British post Captain act like a petulant five year old
the battle at Charleston is physically impossible and could not have happened for any number reasons
the battle at Charleston is unrealistic in both the Union defence and the British response.
the intervention of the Russian admiral in the chase would have been regarded as treasonable by his superiors
ach! I grow weary this is just under half the things I have notes about are you truely surprised it reached 20,000 words?
As to Turtledove I have never felt the need to take one of his books to bits and I don't enjoy the Draka books so I have only read two of them and again I never felt the need to pull them apart.
67th Tigers
Banned
I'll lend you my copy of Rainbow of Blood when I finish it. Need something to force myself to read it (rather than go straight to the battles and watch my mind boggle).
Shame because there is a far more reasonable Trent War (by Andrew Uffindell, although he appears to have toned down British power) in Dixie Victorious, a book Tsouras edited.
Gregory Nero Arken
Banned
Who do you think was feeding the South before the war? It took long enough for Davis to later ask then order the plantations to stop growing cotton and to grow some actual food.
67th Tigers
Banned
The south, which had the same per capita agricultural output of cereals, meat etc. as the north.
Free Lancer
Banned
Grimm in this Sentence you are saying it is Impossible for a Nation to take on Many Nations, Like Germany in WW2 who was Fighting England,Russia,and the USA at the Same time and Could have won had they done things Differently
Free Lancer
Banned
Lamb Chop what do you do in Life? i ask this Because i will Believe the Word of a Former US Army Officer who is Senior Military Intelligence analyst and a Military Historian over your word every day
Free Lancer, no, I never said any such thing as you pretend in your post.
The Union could have lost the war and came close to against just the Confederacy so unless you can offer some basis for the the Union being able to conquer the Confederacy while fending off Canada, France, Great Britain, the inevitable Native American action and perhaps other nations...
The Union could have lost the war and came close to against just the Confederacy so unless you can offer some basis for the the Union being able to conquer the Confederacy while fending off Canada, France, Great Britain, the inevitable Native American action and perhaps other nations...
Free Lancer
Banned
what im a Reading from your Post is that one Nation Can not Fight Against Many other Nations witch is not True there are Many things to add to this like for Example the X Factor,
your Native American is in a Civil war on its own so Sending Troops to help out the Invaders is more or Less not going to Happen
and other Nations Joining the Union because lets Face it France and the UK were not well Liked.
note that the Native Americans did react during the Civil War. The Sand Creek Massacre set off what was in effect a full scale revolt by the Southern Plains tribes, while short sighted action in Minnesota set off a revolt by the eastern Sioux. Plus, the Navajo were rather thoroughly suppressed during the Civil War and an Apache War was fought. For the most part they were dealt with by volunteers from the West, as well as local militia. The Confederates had their problems with the Comanche in Texas as well.
There was never any particular danger of California or Denver ever being cut off from the Union as a result. A lot of people died, compared to other Indian Wars, but in overall effect, the only substantial effect was that in Texas the Comanche frontier was pushed back about 50 miles. Nothing nearly this severe happened further north.
As to the basis of the Union being able to fight off the British and French, as well as the South in 1864. Certainly it is arguable, very arguable, from either position. The South certainly didn't have the manpower to conquer any state at any point in the previous years when things were going relatively well. The British might be able to concentrate the resources for temporary occupation of areas, but the French sure can't. They have too much at stake on the European Continent to deploy much more than they did historically in Mexico, which note is not remotely conquered, just partially occupied.
So really, the only nation with the wherewithall to seriously threaten the Union is Britain. Lee, Longstreet, and the other Southern Armies can tie down large numbers of Union troops, but there simply are not the necessary manpower reserves after losses to attrition and combat in any extended campaign for them to do much. If the Union uses economy of force, which it could very well do in this situation, it could mass sufficient troops to fight the more dangerous enemy.. in this case the English. All the Union has to do is wait for developments in Europe or elsewhere to draw off the English and French (which are alluded to in the books) and then the Confederacy will lose. It will add years, but probably not more than one or two.
Keep in mind that Grant complained in 1864 bitterly about tens of thousands of Union troops that were not doing anything useful. There are reserves available, and Tsouris has also given the Union a patriotic second wind in the books. A not unreasonable one really, considering the British have launched an ill advised, marginally justified war to begin with.