War and Peace: pre-TL discussion

I'm working on a TL that I will post within some months.
The TL is already planned until the 1890's. The POD is a Conservative victory in the Reform War.
But I need help on some points.
First, the ACW.
In this TL, I planned the death of E.K. Smith at the first battle of Bull Run.
Thus, Beauregard is sent in East Tennessee in earlier 1862.
Consequently, Columbus is besieged by Pope instead of Island Number Ten.
A.S. Johnston is more successfull at Shiloh. The siege of Corinth is delayed and Pope is killed or remains in Tennessee, but is not sent in Virginia.
In Virginia, the Peninsular Campaign goes as in OTL, but the Northern Virginia Campaign is less disastrous than in OTL for the Union as Burnside is named to command the Army of Virginia.
In september, the Maryland Campaign occures as in OTL, and still ends into a Union victory. Thereafter, Hooker become the commander of the Army of the Potomac, and he uses the winter to reorganize.
In earlier spring 1863, Hooker launches a new offensive into Virginia, using the strategy chosen in OTL by Burnside with more success in the beginning as he manages to cross the Rappahannock River before the arrival of Lee.
But the battle of North Anna is a disaster for Hooker (the ATL equivalent of Chancellorsville).
Lee launches in late spring his offensive into Pennsylvania. Stonewall Jackson is still alive, and Lee is more successfull than in OTL. Harrisburg is briefly occupied by Stuart. Jackson manages to win the battle of Gettysburg in extremis in just a day. Thereafter, Lee encounter Meade at the Pipe Creek Line. Meade manages to hold off the confederate assaults and Lee retreated into Virginia.
This is a summary of what I planned for the ACW. But I'm not sure about the events in the western theatre after the siege of Corinth in summer 1862, and in Virginia after the Pennsylvania campaign of spring-summer 1863.
My goal is to have McClellan elected president in 1864 and to have an armistice signed in summer or autumn 1865.
Suggestions?
 
In my plans, Grant is captured or killed at Shiloh; and Butler becomes commander of the Army of the James as in OTL. For the Virginia campaign of 1864, I hesitate between two choices:
- replace Meade by Hancock;
- give to Hancock an overall command as for Grant in OTL.
What would be the strategic choices of Hancock?
 
I need your opinion about two theatres: East Africa-Red Sea and Eastern Asia.
ITTL, there is no expedition in Mexico. The Franco-prussian war still occurs but end with a status quo ante bellum negociated in England. Germany is still unified as the war's goals of Bismarck have been reached: the defeat of a french attack against the German states.


East Africa-Red sea:
About the French:
In 1872, a Franco-Turkish war breaks out because of a civil war in the Zaidi imamate of Sanaa.
During this war, the French imperial governement pushes Egypt to declare its total independance from the Ottoman Empire. After having ceased to pay tribute, to reduce the financial problems of Egypt, the Khedive sells his rights over the canal to UK and egyptian Sudan (including Hasbeh, Equatoria and Darfur I think) to France.
In the 1870's, from Sudan, the French extend their influence over Tchad, northern Congo, Buganda and Abyssinia.
In early 1880's, the French colonial army, better trained than the Egyptians is able to supress the Mahdist uprising before it spreads.
By early 1890's, the countries I have cited are submitted to the French rule (Abyssinia after a war of course).

About the Germans, British and Italians:
Due to the failure to reach a total victory over France in 1870, the Germans launched themselves in the colonial adventure earlier than IOTL.
I think that they will still get Tanganyika. I've read somewhere that they made some incursions in Somalia but that they renounced in favour of UK.
The italian advance will follow the same schedule than IOTL. Assab is already occupied by Italians in late 1850's I believe. But as the French have already occuppied Djibouti and Hasbeh, then Abyssinia, this colony will not extend to a great surface.
In Somalia, due to the progression of France in East Africa, and to the earlier involvement of the Germans, the British conquer totally Somalia (including OTL italian somalia), and during the conquest of Abyssinia by France, Ogaden.

I have some doubts about Djibouti.
With a better and larger position in East Africa and the need for France to win the alliance of Russia against Germany, I think it may be possible that the russian colonial adventure in Africa doesn't fail.

attachment.php

This is an approximative map of East Africa around 1900.

East Asia:
The death of Garnier in 1873 occurs as IOTL in Tonkin.
A Sino-French war breaks out (IOTL, the death of an other explorator 10 years later leads to war; ITTL, far less weakened by the Franco-Prussian War, France can lead a war in Indochina).
The peace treaty gives to the French the administration of Taiwan and Hainan which remain de jure chinese territories, and the independance to Korea, but under french protectorate (ITTL, due to the absence of expedition in Mexico, the expedition of 1866 has been continued in 1867, then Ganghwa Island has been ceded to France as a trading post, the french equivalent of Hongkong; during the war of 1873-1875, the island is attacked by the Chineses and their Korean vassal).
In China, the defeat weakens Cixi, and after the death of the Tongzhi Emperor, she is overthrown by the Prince Gong. Prince Gong's son becomes Emperor. Great reforms are enacted.

In Siam, due to a stronger french involvement, the Front Palace Crisis is delayed: to offset the pro-British Front Palace and his western trained and western armed army, Rama V sues for help from France to train and arm the royal army.
The interference of the French in Siam leads to a protectorate in the 1880's.

At the same time, commercial treaties are signed with the kings of Burma and the Sultan of Aceh.
Concerning Burma, the British will not be happy but they will be too occupied by the Second Anglo-Afghan war and a rebellion in India.
Concerning Aceh, I'm not sure about the reaction of Netherlands.

attachment.php

This is a map of Indian Ocean around 1900.


----
Suggestions, commentaries?
 
galileo-034

Some interesting ideas and possibilities. I wonder if a drawn Franco-Prussian war would stimulate colonisation as you suggest or possibly delay it a bit. Instead of Prussia/Germany becoming a clear winner and rapidly becoming economically a lot stronger you would have the relative strengths of the two would be uncertain. While there wouldn't be the running sore that A-L was OTL there would be a lot of tension between the two nations and possibly a considerable arms race, in which case neither side might be that interested in colonial distractions.

What is the Reform War you mention as you're POD? Presumably some clash between Liberals and Conservatives somewhere which goes the other way and whatever country is involved is more reactionary as a result?

Steve
 
galileo-034

Some interesting ideas and possibilities. I wonder if a drawn Franco-Prussian war would stimulate colonisation as you suggest or possibly delay it a bit. Instead of Prussia/Germany becoming a clear winner and rapidly becoming economically a lot stronger you would have the relative strengths of the two would be uncertain. While there wouldn't be the running sore that A-L was OTL there would be a lot of tension between the two nations and possibly a considerable arms race, in which case neither side might be that interested in colonial distractions.
The colonial expansion has been launched by Napoleon III in the 1850's and without disaster of Mexico, it will still continues during the 1860's, maybe even more vigorously. Although I agree with you that even without A-L, tensions will remain ( at a lesser extent than IOTL), I don't think that Napoleon III, and the Bonapartists, would want abandon their dreams of glory. I think that the relations between France and Germany will be more as the relations between France and UK in XVIIIth century.
Of course, France will make a rapprochment with Russia for an alliance against Germany, as IOTL.

What is the Reform War you mention as you're POD? Presumably some clash between Liberals and Conservatives somewhere which goes the other way and whatever country is involved is more reactionary as a result?

Steve
You can see on wikipedia.
To summarize:
In december 1857, a conservative junta opposed to the new federal constitution made a coup. But the states which were given great autonomy thanks to the new constitution refused to recognize the new governement. The civil war broke out.
My POD is the death of general Ignacio de la Llave, a constitutionalist who managed to convince in december 1857 the governor of Veracruz to join the Constitutionalists. Thereafter, as a butterfly effect, the death of general Osollo from typhoid fever is delayed and Guadalajara resists better against the attacks of Santos Degollado. Monterrey, the ATL capital of Juarez falls in 1860.
 
You can see on wikipedia.
To summarize:
In december 1857, a conservative junta opposed to the new federal constitution made a coup. But the states which were given great autonomy thanks to the new constitution refused to recognize the new governement. The civil war broke out.
My POD is the death of general Ignacio de la Llave, a constitutionalist who managed to convince in december 1857 the governor of Veracruz to join the Constitutionalists. Thereafter, as a butterfly effect, the death of general Osollo from typhoid fever is delayed and Guadalajara resists better against the attacks of Santos Degollado. Monterrey, the ATL capital of Juarez falls in 1860.

galileo-034

Ah, it's something in Mexico. The name rang no bells. I see how that might avoid the French intervention. Although since the French intervened in co-operation with the defeated conservatives who, according to the wiki entry favoured a monarchy, do you mean that they supported Max [or someone else] as emperor without a fight or they didn't go for a monarchy?

Steve
 
ITTL, the general Miramon still succed to Zuloaga as president. It's the man of the victory for the Conservatives. From what I've read and understood about him, his political ideas are no incompaibles with a monarchy.
Of course, the Conservatives are favourable to the monarchy. For them, the First Empire failed because of the inexperiance of Agustin Ist; so, they want an european emperor. A monarchy can also be seen as a solution to the political instability, and a catholic emperor would reassure the Church.

Except Maximilian, I don't see other candidates for this crown. If you want make a proposal, don't hesitate.
On the diplomatic scene, Mexico will surely seek alliance of France against USA which support Juarez ITTL as IOTL. So, I think it's not impossible that Napoleon III would 'propose' Maximilian of Habsburg as candidate to the mexican embassy.

I see the restoration as this: following the vistory over Liberals, a new constitution restoring the Empire is issued, then the regency is proclamed with Miramon as regent, thereafter, embassies are sent in Europe to find a candidate, and after one or two years, an emperor is crowned.
 
About the Franco-Prussian war: how do you plan to reach a draw. As I posted just yesterday in the Brutal german unification thread, nearly everything favoured the Germans: They had better leadership, doctrine, artillery, support structures, pre war planning and far more trained reserves. The only things where the french had advantages were infantry weapons and number of active soldiers (which still reached attack positions slower than the German reserves)
You have to either improve the French army starting years before the war (which is possible) or weaken the Prussians significantly (which is a lot harder without a POD before the unification wars) Of course the extent of the German victory can be altered but the French defeat will probably be still humilating without early changes.

Even with more or less a draw as result of the war a unified Germany probably won´t be much more active in colonisation as long as Bismark is at the helm. He was - aside of one or two years in the mid eighties - really opposed to colonial efforts.
I don´t want kill your timeline but you should think about this points beforehand.
 
Some supplementary elements:
- alongside the Chassepot rifle were adopted by the French the Breech loader cannons and a confederate version of the Gatling gun;
- the Marshal de Lorencez, instead of Bazaine, takes the command of the army of the Rhine and wins at Mars-la-tour.
 
Didn´t even see your thread than but I don´t think that one battle will change the war significantly as most German advantages were on the strategic level like better logistics or the greater flexibility in the chain of command (Auftragstaktik is probably one of the major reasons of Prussian success in the unification wars). While a better french commander might have won over the 30 000 Prussians who bore the main part of the Battle you have to remember that they were reinforced by the VIII. and X. Corps by the end of the day while the French were after the battle unable to retreat to Verdun because they lacked ammunition and had to return to Metz instead. With a more energetic commander they would probably have even less ammunition in the face of 50 000 fresh German troops. A faster retreat might have saved the majority of the french Rhine-army but by abandoning the Troops hanging behind and accepting losses to the bad supply situation (I believe I have said before that French logistics in that war really sucked). And even the most brilliant victory would by Phyrric as in the end a total of 900 000 French soldiers (half of whom belonged to the absolutly useless Garde mobile) have to win over the 1.4 million at least decently trained soldiers the Germans fielded without problems.
While a better French artillery will lift the German losses by a significant margin, without changes in French doctrine the Germans still will be better supplied and move faster.
On the Gatling: Why do you think it will be more wisely used than the similiar mitrailleuse, which was by French doctrine wasted by firing from more than 1000 metres behind the front to protect it from hostile artillery.
Sorry but I simply don´t see something else than a German victory (albeit perhaps with a more equal number of losses) without big changes to the French military (training and doctrine being the major deficits in OTL) starting several years before the war.
 
Concerning the Gatling, I must concede that it was only an idea. What's more, I don't think that this would change a lot of things. I've chosen it at it seems to me better handy than the Montigny mitrailleuse.
But the breech loader cannons will have surely a consequence.

I believe that a retreat is still possible if the commanders correctly exploit the victory at Mars-la-tour.
From http://antan.unblog.fr/2008/04/11/les-batailles-de-la-guerre-de-1870-mars-la-tour/ :
The French keep the advantage and are gaining ground. Understanding that they were about to be beaten, the Germans launch a last offensive on their right wing to prevent encirclement. Traped by the relief and by the presence of unsuspected french reinforcements behind the crest, their troops are decimated and finally they retreat in disorder, under the threat of a pursuit by the French.
These latter then capture their first ennemy flag of this war.

A victory badly exploited

At the end of the day, the two armies bivouack a few hundreds meters from each other. The german attack has been repulsed. The French army stays mistress of the battlefield and has a numerical advantage.
Bazaine can then choose or to continue fighting the next day with the help of reinforcements from Metz, and with a good chance to beat the army of Prince Frederick Charles, or to enjoy the advantage of his camp to join Verdun and Chalons. But against all odds, he orders the withdrawal of all the corps on the west side of the Moselle between Metz and Orne, citing a lack of food and ammunition. It thus leaves the Prussians the opportunity to continue north-west and permanently bar the road to Verdun.
If they arrived to Verdun, the army could be transported by train to Chalons.

Thereafter, without 180.000 men to feed, Metz could resist to a siege.
At Chalons, with 250.000 men, the french imperial army would be able to prevent any further german advance upon Paris.
In Alsace and Lorraine, not demoralized by a disaster like Sedan, the besieged fortresses would be also able to resist and immobilize a good part of the German armies (Ist and IInd armies in Lorraine, Werder around Strasbourg).
With the time, the french mobilization would be completed and the french effectives would reach around 900.000 to 1.000.000 men.
I've even imagined a corp of Confederate volunteers (around 10.000 men) fighting for France.
In my opinion, the situation will become a stalemate during autumn and winter.
And of course, the north sea theatre which mustn't be neglected. IOTL, the threat of a french landing had immobilized around 100.000 men in north Germany.
I think it's likely that peace negociations could open, under British mediation. The objective of the war for Bismarck, if I'm not wrong, is not to destroy France but to unite german states by a war of defense against an invader. For me, this objective is reached with the invasion of France, and this political victory wouldn't be lessened by a status quo ante bellum.
 
As soon as they offer battle at Mars la tour the French Rhine Army is fucked. Bazaine returned to Metz because he had not enough ammunition for a second engagement. Why should this be different with an other commander. They would either have to run the whole time away from the German forces which arrived on the Battlefield at the end of the day. A forced march would mean additional losses to the ones of the Battle. Or they retreat to Metz with the known outcome. Even if the French Rhine Army escape it wont change much. The French had problems to supply even the armies it fielded IOTL, a bigger army would probably begin to starve as soon as it moves away from Chalon. On the German side you can now add to Moltkes Forces the Majority of the Army IOTL besieging Metz, as they wont have to stay there without the Rhine-army inside, which gives Moltke a force of around 300 000 men, all of them well trained. On your number of 1 Million mobilised French soldiers: The French opposed to the German States had no functioning system of reserve training. You can reach one million only if you include not only the Garde mobile but also untrained volunteers. The Garde mobile was drafted had no basic training, only 14 days training a year of which not two were allowed to follow upon each other and were equipped with obsolete rifles like the Tabatiere. The volunteers would at least be motivated but probably even worse equipped and not trained at all. On the other side the Germans could mobilise well trained men faster which can besiege the Fortresses while moltke goes for your united Chalon army which will be the French main force for quite a while but still inferior to the available German Forces. Remember a Fortress without professional garrisson can be besieged by just enough men to form a siege ring. I won´t repeat the other points mentioned above, but as said before the French were two classes below the Germans in nearly everything. This can´t be changed by any of your ideas sorry.
 
I just realized that till now every thing I did was shooting holes into your ideas. While this is easier and even necessary for a good timeline it is not really nice. Therefore here a proposal: After his Mexican adventure Napoleon III. had to reorganize the French army. He choose a quite interesting man with some good ideas: Adolphe Niel. Niel had some good ideas, but starting in 67 they had not been fully implemented by the start of the war. Furthermore some important but more costly were derailed by politics. For example he wanted a conscription force but the Legislative gave him the Garde mobile: My opinion about them I expressed before
Finally his death in 69 hampered his reforms.
Have him get minister of war earlier and be more successful and suddenly France has a more dangerous army
 
Don't be sorry. I thank you for these constructive remarks.
I authorized myself the fantasy to be perfectionnist for this TL; as I have other ongoing TLs, I prefer to take the time for this TL.
I'm making searches for around two years, with limited means. Actually, I've an approximative plan of this TL for the end of XIXth century and the beginning of the XXth, and I'm working on the details. If need, I could give more success to the reform promoted by Marshal Niel.
EDIT: I just see your new post.
The Mexican expedition was a failure, almost a disaster, for France, economically, diplomatically, and militarily. It's one of the reasons that made I've chosen the Reform War as POD.
The military reforms were, at the beginning, wanted by Napoleon III. As the Marshal Randon refused to execute them, Niel was nominated.
What do you think of 1862 as year of a reform?
Randon resigns and is replaced by Niel.
It's before the elections of 1863, so no great parliamentary opposition. This reform would even occur at the same time that in Prussia.
 
Last edited:
1862 would certainly be enough time for the reforms to take effect. And paralmentary opposition was one of the major obstacles to his plans. Both sides of the political spectrum sabotaged the reserve force he wanted to create. Honestly I don´t know to which side the parliament shifted in 63. In 67 the left favoured a peoples army (swiss style) and the right a bigger army of regulars. And in 62 the strenghtening of the parliament by Napoleon just started, therefore it´s less an obstacle. I like the idea of Niels reforms in 62 but you should better investigate how much his plans were influenced by the prussian reforms and successes. His desire for a reserve force for example was at least fueled by the growing threat of Prussia. I can´t really help you there as my French is barely good enough to fill my stomach in France and I have not yet found any detailed German or English sources about his plans.
 
Last edited:
With the elections of 1857, we have 276 Bonapartist deputies for 7 Republicans.
In 1863, there were 251 Bonarpartists, 17 Republicans and 15 Royalists.
In 1869, there were 120 liberal Bonapartists, 98 authoritarian Bonapartists, 41 Royalists and 30 Republicans.
 
Top