World War I in 1898

What would have happened in an Anglo-French war in 1898 over the border dispute in Sudan? Could it, as I implied above, become a global conflict?
 
Given RN supremacy at sea how would France get at Great Britain, the British colonies or even avoid losing her own colonies? Which in turn makes for clear offerings to Italy while Germany and Austria-Hungary will be delighted to see France humbled and isolated.
 
Given RN supremacy at sea how would France get at Great Britain, the British colonies or even avoid losing her own colonies? Which in turn makes for clear offerings to Italy while Germany and Austria-Hungary will be delighted to see France humbled and isolated.

Italy was rightfully terrified at the prospect of war with France, and prepared for armed neutrality in the months of the Fashoda Crisis. Germany's entrance is unlikely, as feelers for a neutrality agreement were already being undertaken before the French Foreign Ministry capitulated.

The British planned to land an expeditionary force at Dakar, which in all probability would have the likelihood of succeeding as well as the WW2 descent on Dakar. Besides that, the other French colonies (excepting Madagascar, Algeria, and Indochina) are easy pickings, but have no real strategic bearing on the war.

RN supremacy was significant, but French gunnery and tactics were better at this time, partially negating this advantage; using a line ahead in a fleet action was still a position up for debate amongst the RN's admirals. The Royal Navy had a deficiency of cruisers, and would have had an unfortunate time dealing with commerce raiders at the beginning of a war. Unlike in 1914, there was no wartime plan to insure British merchants, and with a bit of luck France has the possibility of blowing up the British economy and forcing peace.

That seems unlikely, as the French weren't altogether prepared for a commerce-raiding war themselves, but at least one British admiral was convinced that the war to come would last at least two years. The thing that weighed on the French the most during the Fashoda Crisis was the fact that in the middle of a political furor over Zola's reopening of the Dreyfus affair, nobody was thrilled about starting a war over a ruined fort in a Sudanese swamp.
 
What would have happened in an Anglo-French war in 1898 over the border dispute in Sudan? Could it, as I implied above, become a global conflict?

To answer your second question more clearly, it is highly unlikely. Italy was too worried about France, Germany was content and kind of excited to see her two most competent rivals go at it, and Russia looked at its position in the Far East and unilaterally decided the 1891 alliance didn't apply in this case. Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans are peripheral players in context. Japan could be drawn in, but it would be to little purpose, as it can't really grab any colonies (Indochina is well-defended). The United States is indifferent, though France will have to be careful about raiding neutrals. Spain is likely to have its neutrality repeatedly abused, but can do little about it.
 
Considering the strength and depth of the British-French rivalry, with WWI and post-WWII being entirely alliances of convenience; and that the POD would occur only twenty-ish years after the Franco-Prussian War I could easily see it turn into a war between the two great powers. Britain may successful take some of France's minor colonies, but France has a very real chance of defeating the British on the high seas in the Atlantic around the European coast-line, and in Africa. Perhaps we see France completing its goals in Africa of a line running West-to-East across the continent being in French hands.

Hmm. If the above is true, affects on later European diplomatic, political, social, economic historical development? Assuming an ATL WWI (a very assumption imho), or at least the same circumstances and motives for OTL WWI, how would it play out differently with France and Britain still rivals which had just fought a major war only a decade (or so) prior?
 
wolf_brother, there isn't the slightest chance of France winning at sea, let alone scoring major victories in overseas colonies now cut off from France.
 
Grimm, I reference you back to the replies Douglas already made earlier in the thread in response to your position on the RN.

I would agree though that France's colonies outside of Africa, with the possible exception of Indochina, are simply SOL in this situation.
 
Grimm, I reference you back to the replies Douglas already made earlier in the thread in response to your position on the RN.

I would agree though that France's colonies outside of Africa, with the possible exception of Indochina, are simply SOL in this situation.

France "winning at sea" would be very unlikely. France has about an equal chance to that of Germany in WW1 in beating the RN; it would require a fair amount of luck.

France earning a draw via commerce raiding, which does not, to be fair to Grimm, consist of naval battles as we normally think of them, is quite plausible. France gaining any territory from the war, except as part of a tit-for-tat peace deal, is impossible.

If Grimm means that there isn't a chance that France is able to so decisively score a victory at sea that it can go around sending troops along the Mediterranean littoral, he is correct. If he means that France cannot win a naval battle, he is lacking in information.
 
As for an Anglo-French War's effects on European diplomacy, I'd lean towards it not having too much of an effect at all. The final peace treaty will have the same effect as the Entente Cordiale; all of the disagreements between the two nations will be settled with a high degree of finality. When it's all said and done, both nations still dislike Germany more than each other, and a world where French and British soldiers are fighting against each other in 1898 and alongside one another in 1914 is very plausible.
 
Douglas, since the British have 18 pre-dreadnaughts in service to France's 8 and France is even more badly outnumbered in older ships I would put the odds of a French victory at sea, as opposed to commerce raiding, as being less plausible than a German High Seas Fleet victory over the British Grand Fleet during WWI.

Nor does it help that the French battleships are not only outnumbered but have serious problems. The five ships sometimes called the Charles Martel class were each the product of the designer of each individual ship, resulting in the same main armament but nothing else including armor and speed. The three ships of the Charlemagne class are barely 75% the size of their British counterparts and suffer from serious problems of stability plus a much weaker secondary armament than intended(reduced due to their size).

Commerce raiding may be the French fleet's only chance but it is also the move most likely to provoke the British into harsher terms should it fail after doing enough harm.
 
Douglas, since the British have 18 pre-dreadnaughts in service to France's 8 and France is even more badly outnumbered in older ships I would put the odds of a French victory at sea, as opposed to commerce raiding, as being less plausible than a German High Seas Fleet victory over the British Grand Fleet during WWI.

The cut-off point for battleships of the time is very fuzzy, and picking numbers without taking care to examine the value of older ships is always tricky. Your numbers are really odd because there are 20-22 ships that could be legitimately be called pre-dreadnoughts in the Royal Navy at the time, but I can't figure out how to hit 18. Your number for France must discount the large number of older ships which were, by 1898, either finished or undergoing modernization with large numbers of quick-firing guns. These ships could certainly have stood in a line action, especially against some of the British vessels of a more questionable utility, such as the Admirals.

Nor does it help that the French battleships are not only outnumbered but have serious problems. The five ships sometimes called the Charles Martel class were each the product of the designer of each individual ship, resulting in the same main armament but nothing else including armor and speed. The three ships of the Charlemagne class are barely 75% the size of their British counterparts and suffer from serious problems of stability plus a much weaker secondary armament than intended(reduced due to their size).

I have some knowledge of these ships. Though the problems with stability and a smaller secondary armament are certainly worthy of note, the comparison of displacements is not as relevant as you would think; a very large proportion of the British preponderance in displacement goes to their endurance (coal, stores, etc), and is not a measure of their value as fighting ships. In any case, I cannot emphasize the parlous nature of British gunnery before Captain Scott's reforms enough. Ropp notes that French gunnery was likely to land 50-100% more hits than the British at this point. This would be changed in a few short years, but the old bromides of higher British seamanship and better navigation skills were still in vogue at this point, and pretty paint was more important than firing drill.

but it is also the move most likely to provoke the British into harsher terms should it fail after doing enough harm.

If it fails, then it has not done enough harm. The problem will be that of the Napoleonic Wars; even if you grab Guadeloupe and Reunion and New Caledonia, that hardly matters when the British mercantile fleet is rapidly becoming the United States mercantile fleet. Everyone will find it much easier to come to an agreement when it becomes clear that Britain can't really hurt France, and France (most likely) can't really hurt Britain.

Strategically, the Royal Navy is positioned in a way that makes it difficult for you to get some hypothetical 18-8 matchup. Three new battleships are in China under Seymour to watch the Russians, one is on station as Jackie Fisher's flagship in North America, Stephenson has eight at Gibraltar to prevent a hypothetical joining of the squadrons of Barrera and Fournier at Brest and Toulon respectively, and Hopkins has seven or eight (depending on how you evaluate Hood) at Malta which he has orders to keep there to watch the Levant against any Russian shenanigans, as well as to cover any merchantmen traveling through the Mediterranean.

A worst case scenario sees Fournier (who has the eight ships you must refer to) getting sandwiched by Stephenson and Hopkins in any foray, which is close to your hypothetical matchup at 15/16 to 8, though Fournier would have to be idiotic to allow this to happen to him, since he is closer to either British squadron than they are to each other.
 
Last edited:
Top