Unmentionable Sea Mamals pre-20th century.
- Thread starter NintendoFan1998
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
I think "the USA conquers Canada after losing the Civil War" might qualify. In fact, "the CSA wins the Civil War" might qualify! (I'm a bit iffier on that second one: it's highly unlikely, but could be done-- the USA annexing Canada by force, not so much.)
How about the Boers managing to win the Second Boer War? It can theoretically be compared to Japan versus the USA.
Last edited:
I'd say Nappy Sea Lion and CSA victory are both "Barbarossa-class ASB," in that they are scientifically possible, but it would require both an amazing run of luck on one side and an almost cartoonish level of incompetence on the other side, but it is not exactly impossible in the way that Sea Lion is impossible unless there are major changes pre-WWII.
I think the main one I see around here is "Muslims win the Battle of Tours, proceed to conquer Europe." Sure, Islamic Francia/Islamic Germany/Islamic Italy or even Islamic Britain are not exactly ASB, at least if it is assumed that they were not won by direct conquest, but having the Umayyad Caliphate just simply roll over Western Europe and completely subjugate it is rather ASB outside of a really crappy game of CKII.
I think the main one I see around here is "Muslims win the Battle of Tours, proceed to conquer Europe." Sure, Islamic Francia/Islamic Germany/Islamic Italy or even Islamic Britain are not exactly ASB, at least if it is assumed that they were not won by direct conquest, but having the Umayyad Caliphate just simply roll over Western Europe and completely subjugate it is rather ASB outside of a really crappy game of CKII.
This is a little more obscure but Chile Lost The war Against the Peru-Bolivian Confederation (1836-1839) not because some uber-Chilean Army, but because that war could be best described as a Peruvian Civil War with Support from Bolivia an Chile, and Andres de Santa Cruz, the State Dictator was widely hate and resented by the Peruvian and Bolivian elites
I personnaly think that a Nappy Sea Lion (pre-Trafalgar) is far more plausible than a CSA victory (which is, by the way, far more likely than the post-1939 or even 1936 Sealion).
For me, I think that it is actually "a succesfull long term crusade state" anywhere far away from Europe, due to logistic from the middle ages to the 1600s. Or any country managing to invade China and not suffering from sinicization.
Fall of Vienna, either in 1529 or 1683 leads to Ottoman conquest of, at least, Central Europe and Italy.
Last edited:
Deleted member 97083
I don't see how this one is implausible. A Union that lost the Civil War could become revanchist, while the U.S. would have a population and industrial advantage over Britain and Canada that would increase with time.
Skallagrim
Banned
The problem is that this revanchism seems to always be directed at Canada, even when Canada had nothing to do with the Civil War going the way it did, and that the conquest typically happens rather shortly after the Civil War. Even if an Anglo-American conflict arose (which is unlikely, since both sides would have reason to avoid such a senseless and excetionally costly conflict in this time-frame), the USA's increasing advantage will take some time to materialise. Until the very, very late 19th century, Britain would simply win. (Partly since Britain wouldn't have to actually invade the USA. It would instead use a naval blockade, and then poor forces into Canada, using the resources of its global empire to push the US forces out. Before long, it would become a costly humiliation for the USA.)
I grant that as of the early 20th century, the US advantage becomes such that it can pull off a conquest of Canada even when facing the full might of the British Empire, but at that point, I really feel we're only talking about "the USA conquers Canada after losing the Civil War" in the very technical sense that all later points in time are "after the Civil War".
Deleted member 97083
I agree with this, I was thinking the 1890s-1920s for when the U.S. strikes Canada. Yeah, if it happened immediately after the Civil War it would be a disaster.The problem is that this revanchism seems to always be directed at Canada, even when Canada had nothing to do with the Civil War going the way it did, and that the conquest typically happens rather shortly after the Civil War. Even if an Anglo-American conflict arose (which is unlikely, since both sides would have reason to avoid such a senseless and excetionally costly conflict in this time-frame), the USA's increasing advantage will take some time to materialise. Until the very, very late 19th century, Britain would simply win. (Partly since Britain wouldn't have to actually invade the USA. It would instead use a naval blockade, and then poor forces into Canada, using the resources of its global empire to push the US forces out. Before long, it would become a costly humiliation for the USA.)
I grant that as of the early 20th century, the US advantage becomes such that it can pull off a conquest of Canada even when facing the full might of the British Empire, but at that point, I really feel we're only talking about "the USA conquers Canada after losing the Civil War" in the very technical sense that all later points in time are "after the Civil War".
As I'm not a native speaker this had me thinking for a moment why are they not talking about sea mammals?
Brunaburh
Banned
The problem is that this revanchism seems to always be directed at Canada, even when Canada had nothing to do with the Civil War going the way it did, and that the conquest typically happens rather shortly after the Civil War. Even if an Anglo-American conflict arose (which is unlikely, since both sides would have reason to avoid such a senseless and excetionally costly conflict in this time-frame), the USA's increasing advantage will take some time to materialise. Until the very, very late 19th century, Britain would simply win. (Partly since Britain wouldn't have to actually invade the USA. It would instead use a naval blockade, and then poor forces into Canada, using the resources of its global empire to push the US forces out. Before long, it would become a costly humiliation for the USA.)
I grant that as of the early 20th century, the US advantage becomes such that it can pull off a conquest of Canada even when facing the full might of the British Empire, but at that point, I really feel we're only talking about "the USA conquers Canada after losing the Civil War" in the very technical sense that all later points in time are "after the Civil War".
It's also worth noting that until the 1920's, "US invades Canada" scenarios necessarily become "US hands Britain commercial control of the Americas south of Mexico". Britain had the capacity to isolate the US, and would push to expand its informal Empire beyond the Southern Cone. It also requires the US to build up its pretty pathetic OTL army of 150k regulars into a force capable of conquering Canada and the British not noticing them doing this. At the time the British Army was 250k, without counting the small Canadian army and larger militia, or any colonial troops. This also discounts the Indian army, 140k served in Europe in WWI, though peace time strength was only 150k.
It is not ASB, exactly, but the US lightning attack on Canada requires exteme luck, British stupidity and a reckless disregard for the US's economic interests on the part of its leaders. It also requires the denial of every plausible continental port to the British with a few weeks, or the US will lose.
Nappy's unmentionable sea mammal. There are ways to make the CSA win, difficult but ways. No way in double hockey sticks Nappy can invade and defeat Britain in England (note I did not say in Great Britain)
I'd disagree here. The constraints in Napoleon's time are way less than for Hitler.
They could potentially live off the land in a sizable manner, compared to WWII where your trail is much longer and deeper.
There were also very serious plans at the time that didn't involve river barges
