Siamese Crisis of 1893 leads to war

Really you'd get an alt-Fashoda.

Say the French come in, a few English battle ships come to intercept them and prevent them from going further.

Say they all go nuts and shots are fired.

You can be damn sure that the French officers who did that would be at best relegated to overseeing the a lovely village somewhere deep in Africa or Tonkin. Somewhere swampy, unruly with regular epidemies of cholera.
At worse, they're discharged and sent to prison.

French Indochina was clearly an antogonist to the UK holding, but it was a commercial war. The French would be stupid to try anything more as they have maybe 10.000 men there on a good day, compared to the hundreds of thousand of sepoys there.

As pointed out earlier, the whole crisis was a great occasion for the UK to get some territory of their own from Siam.

If they get to war with France, it is a very dangerous gamble in the end. If they pressure Siam into caving, Siam is weaker and the UK can extract territory of their own.

It is totally different to Fashoda. The French have already committed themselves to action against Siam. There has already been fighting. The Naval blockade is in place. These are events in the OTL. What do the French do if the pesky Siamese don't acquiesce to their demands? Just say okay and go home. They would have to up the stakes. Unlike Fashoda where Marshand was isolated with no chance of support, the French have a whole naval squadron in the Gulf of Siam and land forces next door in Indo-China.

At this time the Royal Navy had only a third class cruiser and a couple of gunboats on the scene. Sure they can get more, but whereas the French were outnumbered at the time of the Fashoda incident, here the French are at least momentarily more numerous.
 
Last edited:
It is totally different to Fashoda. The French have already committed themselves to action against Siam. There has already been fighting. The Naval blockade is in place. These are events in the OTL. What do the French do if the pesky Siamese don't acquiesce to their demands? Just say okay and go home. They would have to up the stakes. Unlike Fashoda where Marshand was isolated with no chance of support, the French have a whole naval squadron in the Gulf of Siam and land forces next door in Indo-China.

At this time the Royal Navy had only a third class cruiser and a couple of gunboats on the scene. Sure they can get more, but whereas the French were outnumbered at the time of the Fashoda incident, here the French are at least momentarily more numerous.
But it would be stupid. Siam is not that important. It's not Morocco or Tunisia which is right there. It's convenient as a buffer and is mildly rich but it's not important enough to risk war with England.

As said, Siam says no, if the Brita really want it they'll move in and make a show.

At worse you're looking at the equivalent of a border incident. By this point both side hate each other but know that if they go to war, the winner is Germany
 
But it would be stupid. Siam is not that important. It's not Morocco or Tunisia which is right there. It's convenient as a buffer and is mildly rich but it's not important enough to risk war with England.

As said, Siam says no, if the Brita really want it they'll move in and make a show.

At worse you're looking at the equivalent of a border incident. By this point both side hate each other but know that if they go to war, the winner is Germany

If Siam is not that important, then why did the French make such a concerted effort on land and sea against them?

If Siam refuses the French demands, what do the French do? Do you honestly expect them to back down? Remember, it would not be the British they would be backing down from, as at Fashoda, but from the Siamese. For a Frenchman that would be unthinkable.

Britain doesn't want war, but do they let France crush Siam and move right up to their Burmese border? I don't get that impression from what I have read. I think the British could see the way this was going, which is why they encouraged the Siamese to give in. The French got what they wanted (Laos), the British got what they wanted (buffer state) and the Siamese got not to be totally obliterated and to be grateful for it.

It could be a case where neither side wants war, but an incident with a third party ends up causing one.
 
If Siam is not that important, then why did the French make such a concerted effort on land and sea against them?

If Siam refuses the French demands, what do the French do? Do you honestly expect them to back down? Remember, it would not be the British they would be backing down from, as at Fashoda, but from the Siamese. For a Frenchman that would be unthinkable.

Britain doesn't want war, but do they let France crush Siam and move right up to their Burmese border? I don't get that impression from what I have read. I think the British could see the way this was going, which is why they encouraged the Siamese to give in. The French got what they wanted (Laos), the British got what they wanted (buffer state) and the Siamese got not to be totally obliterated and to be grateful for it.

It could be a case where neither side wants war, but an incident with a third party ends up causing one.
France made such a concerted effort because they were there and they could. I detailed what I think would happen if Siam did not back down above.

The colonies were under the authority and fully subordinate to the métropole. It was understood that colonies were not full representative of the foreign policy.
If it goes to shooting, excuses would be made and the matter would be forgotten.

Nobody wants war and the prize is not big enough. The French wanted a buffer state too and the English knew this. That's why all England did was to ask France to stop taking territory and then did the exact same thing. Nobody tried to get Siam, even in 1870 when France was at its weakest
 
Sorry, which post was that in please?
Every post of mine on this thread really.

Siam does not back down, France moves in. If the French don't just decide to cross the Mekong and work alliances with the local princes but decide to bombard Bangkok to make a point, if a local English captain is having a bout of malaria and decides to try and block them and if the French captain is having some fever as well and tries to shoot, French foreign minister presents some excuses, the French captain is shipped to some remote and desolate place.

France still gets concessions which will get presented to Siam as, really, the best you can expect in those circumstances and the UK pay themselves in kind too.

French Indochinese authority did not want to antagonize the Brits, Prussia and possible backdoor infiltration in the mountains was the enemy.
 
After re-reading the history of the Laos protectorat, the French already had a de facto protectorat and a sphere of influence agreed with Siam by treaty.
So why would the Brits object to something that already exists?
 
It is becoming evident to me that the author does not want to think out a reason why it would be rational for either the British alliance or the French to press on and force the other over the brink into all out war. I think it is plain that the deep balance of interests at the time tended to damp out global war or sustained war between Great Powers, the author's own evidence helps make that clear. There are times when the world is poised on the brink and a single spark can set it off, indeed arguably if we laboriously butterfly one spark (to set off the Great War of OTL) then that merely delays it until the next spark, because the tinder is dry and oiled and the bonfire is ready to go. Other times you can flail around with butterflies equipped with flamethrowers and the flames you start will be put out. The French know they aren't ready for war with Germany, there is no guarantee the Germans won't come in and knock them back more notches while they are distracted with fighting Britain. The British evidently don't want war with anybody except weak native peoples at this time (and the Boer Wars showed that it was wise of them to avoid fights at this time). The Germans, as the author said, don't want war with anybody right now; this leaves the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians and perhaps the Turks to start Some Damned Thing in the Balkans, but at this time we'd expect the Great Powers of the Concert of Europe to either sit back and watch, or sit on these eastern powers until they stop.

I think I would probably be borne out in these impressions by any careful student of the era.

However, I do have to admit that war can be pretty silly in its causes and is hard to stop once started. In Siam, as at Fashoda, even if fighting does get out of hand locally I'd expect both Paris and London to take steps to damp it down and end it. The author has not identified a fault line in history but merely one of many incidents which demonstrate, rather than the likelihood of war in this era, its very opposite. This is my impression. But perhaps people are just plain crazy and war can happen any time, with small shifts of mood, for any reason.

Anyway from the number of posts devoted to mustering battle fleets and orders of battle for armies on either side, it is evident the goal here is not to have a plausible AH but rather a war game, to try to game out what could have happened militarily if we all just stop worrying about political plausibility and go with the theory of history expressed in Red Dawn--"sooner or later the biggest two kids on the block are gonna fight!

It so often happens in TLs that I throw my hands up, typically when it a TL logically comes to a juncture where war is imminent, and say "this has to be gamed out by experts." I therefore hope there are some war gamer experts around who can plausibly explain how it would reasonably go down, who has the edge and who is going to lose, and why and how and where and when. I can't do that. I should be grateful there are people who can and who want to. And therefore, having determined that the author has no particular POD in mind beyond "the French and Siamese fight" where from where I'm sitting either one of them would be crazy to, and adds that the British get sucked into the vortex with all out war against France instead of just trying to put out the fire in Southeast Asia. That's it, then the dominoes start falling. I don't see any plausible reason why the French should not worry about Germany piling on, but then again, the Germans certainly could opt to stay out if they choose to, and the French will be grateful for the moment if they do stay out.

The author has set up the board of a war game and wants to play it out. If that is the case and that is clear, I say, fine, let that happen then.
 
As a wargaming scenario, it is very interesting then.

The French would probably move on Hong Kong from the ports of Tonkin to try and blockade it or just bombard its port infrastructure. It's a commercial city, that could be enough to seriously disrupt it
 
It is becoming evident to me that the author does not want to think out a reason why it would be rational for either the British alliance or the French to press on and force the other over the brink into all out war.

I think I would probably be borne out in these impressions by any careful student of the era.

Thank you, very patronising. This author has put a lot of thought and research into the issue and explained how I think a conflict could have started over this issue. I have indeed personally extended the extent of the conflict for my own gaming experience, but a study of the actual situation leads me to believe that had Siam made a stand, then regardless of the greater powers desires to avoid a war there was a distinct possibility of one occurring, and once Britain and France are in a shooting scenario the spread of the conflict is a possibility, especially where Russia is concerned.

France must respond to such a rebuttal and press her claims further for satisfaction. This means bombarding Bangkok, as threatened, and continuing the blockade. The intervention of troops west of the Mekong, or the landing of troops on the Siamese coast, would not then be far fetched. The French had already seized the island of Koh-si-Chang as a naval base. This creates a situation that the British would find intolerable.

I appreciate that mine is only an opinion, and I understand others have different ones, but please don't dismiss mine behind the intellectual high ground.
 
As a wargaming scenario, it is very interesting then.

Yes indeed. The British were very concerned about the relative strength of their navy at this very time in relation to France and Russia. There were whole papers written on the issue. And as said before, the summer of 1893 was probably the closest balance of forces. This thus provides at least some degree of naval balance.
 
Yes indeed. The British were very concerned about the relative strength of their navy at this very time in relation to France and Russia. There were whole papers written on the issue. And as said before, the summer of 1893 was probably the closest balance of forces. This thus provides at least some degree of naval balance.
I'm not that well versed in military history so I'll just be watching from now on. I think I've been clear enough that I don't believe this crisis would lead to war but if you want a war to happen in that time period, it's as good as anything.

I do believe such a war might be limited to skirmishes in the colonies and maybe proxy stuff in Europe. Indochine does have to be wary of Australia and India which are right there but Hong Kong is potentially fragile too. What would China do?
 
I do believe such a war might be limited to skirmishes in the colonies and maybe proxy stuff in Europe. Indochine does have to be wary of Australia and India which are right there but Hong Kong is potentially fragile too. What would China do?

Yes, if war was restricted to just Britain and France, it would be mostly naval/colonial. Little China could do really. The only way this goes large is if the Russians get involved. They were military allies of France with long held desires and plans to seize the Turkish straits. A distracted Royal Navy could have been just the opportunity they were waiting for. The Tsar could also have exercised the Bulgarian thorn in his side. The Russians even had plans to invade Hong Kong! The press was certainly full of such war talk. Take this headline from the 21 July 1893 edition of the New York Times for example:

"RUSSIA WILL SUPPORT FRANCE - AND CHINA WILL SEND HER AID TO SIAM - Great Britain Evidently Alarmed at the Franco-Siamese difficulty. The Marquis of Dufferin Hurried Back to Paris - Instructions Sent to the British Fleet on the China Station - The Russian Fleet Ordered to the Gulf of Siam."

Yes, just press talk, they don't change much, but it does give a sense of the feeling at the time.

There was quite an interesting book written at the time, The Great War of 1892 by Admiral Colomb, which details the course such a war may have taken. A fascinating read and another attempt to indicate the weakness of the Royal Navy.
 
Last edited:
Yes, if war was restricted to just Britain and France, it would be mostly naval/colonial. Little China could do really. The only way this goes large is if the Russians get involved. They were military allies of France with long held desires and plans to seize the Turkish straits. A distracted Royal Navy could have been just the opportunity they were waiting for. The Tsar could also have exercised the Bulgarian thorn in his side. The Russians even had plans to invade Hong Kong! The press was certainly full of such war talk. Take this headline from the 21 July 1893 edition of the New York Times for example:

"RUSSIA WILL SUPPORT FRANCE - AND CHINA WILL SEND HER AID TO SIAM - Great Britain Evidently Alarmed at the Franco-Siamese difficulty. The Marquis of Dufferin Hurried Back to Paris - Instructions Sent to the British Fleet on the China Station - The Russian Fleet Ordered to the Gulf of Siam."

Yes, just press talk, they don't change much, but it does give a sense of the feeling at the time.

There was quite an interesting book written at the time, The Great War of 1892 by Admiral Colomb, which details the course such a war may have taken. A fascinating read and another attempt to indicate the weakness of the Royal Navy.
Interesting. Would you have a link to the NYT article and maybe to the book? I'm a sucker for Indochinese history
 
Interesting. Would you have a link to the NYT article and maybe to the book? I'm a sucker for Indochinese history

Okay, I'm not great with how to link stuff, but I can tell you where to search on the internet.

Search - New York Times archives. Then on that site, search "Russia will support France" with the specific dates of 20-22 July 1893. It should appear as the first item.

Search - "the great war 1892 colomb archive". The whole book is scanned for reading.

A good article on the diplomacy between Britain and France is here:
"THE ANGLO-FRENCH DECLARATION OF JANUARY 1896 AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF SIAMl by Chandran Jeshurun"
If you just type that in it should get you to the pdf of that article.

Hope that's okay.
 
If memory serves me correctly, the threat potentially posed by the Germans at sea was not yet clear in 1893.

Yes, correct. Their first class of modern pre-dreadnought battleships (4 Brandenburgs) did not enter service until late 93'/94', and their navy did not start to seriously expand until the passing of the 1st Navy Law in 1898.
 
Top