Britannia's Fist: From Civil War to World War

Grimm Reaper

lothaw, actually there was a real plot to release an estimated 12,000 Confederate POWs at two camps in/around Chicago in 1864.

It ran afoul of the Copperheads being enormous on paper and worthless when it came to action. Indeed the Confederate officer planning the operation was convinced that his own limited force could seize one camp if only a mere 500 volunteers came forward out of the Ohio, Indiana and Illinois groups with an alleged manpower 200,000 strong. Never happened.

I suppose it is possible, if unlikely, that a hasty splitting of the first RN task force combined with overconfidence might grant the US one lucky victory but the blockade is finished regardless.
 

Grimm Reaper

Just saw a documentary on the Union POW camps around Chicago, particularly one remembered fondly as '80 Acres Of Hell' and I have to wonder if the inmates would have been up for military action if broken out. Yikes!:eek:
 

Timmy811

The World situation in '63.

Taiping borders are likely off, but everything else is okay I think.

A-1863.png
 

lothaw

Grimm Reaper said:
Just saw a documentary on the Union POW camps around Chicago, particularly one remembered fondly as '80 Acres Of Hell' and I have to wonder if the inmates would have been up for military action if broken out. Yikes!:eek:
Click to expand...

I always thought the movie Andersonville portrayed the suffering in the POW camps pretty well. From any prision at best only half would likely be ready to serve. Unless there's use for an Invalid Corps in the Copperheads.
 

Dure

Banned
@Timmy811,

I have looked at your map for 1863. Most of it seems correct with one or two exceptions. I also have some comments and questions that may be of use to you if you are the one that assembled this map.

A) I am unclear what is going on in Central Asia. I think the following states exist in 1863:

1) Emirate of Bukhara
2) Khanate of Kiva
3) Khanate of Khokand
4) Afghanistan
5) Persia
6) British India (see below)

You seem to have several additional states. One on the Chinese border at Xinjiang and three small ones to the west of it, the largest of these appears to be in the Shaksgam valley but I may be out by 250 miles. What are these supposed to be?

There is also a state to the south of the Aral sea that I cannot identify and you appear to have Balochistan & probably Sind as an independent state. It was British in 1863.

B) British India contained a number of independent or semi-independent states some of these are quite large at this time you have just painted the place pink.

C) I assume that you have made a deliberate choice in not showing a separate Tibet as it is a Chinese possession? If so the choice is inconsistent with the treatment of Poland which is shown as an independent state.

D) It would be beneficial to split the larger British Empire elements into the correct colonies.

E) Russian America is not Alaska as such I am not sure how the border was agreed with Yukon but it was after the 1825 treaty.

F) Why is Sakhalin Island split?

G) Manchuria is not in dispute as you imply, the border is well defined by the treaties of Aigin and Peking. Basically east of the Ussuri River is Russian.

H) Treaty ports not shown in China. Macao?

I) Dominican Republic is a Spanish colony 1861 – 1865.

J) What are the two little states on the Burmese border?

K) Much of New Zealand is still under Maori control. The Waikato war is in 1863 and until then much of North Island is under Maori control. Even afterwards the Taranaki is free.

L) The OFS and the Transvaal republic are show but what about the kingdom of Zulu?

M) Many of the African tribal areas shown cannot be regarded as states and the Bamana Empire which is, fell in 1861.

N) Egypt is independent (technically) and owns Sudan.

O) Are Paraguy's borders correct?
 
Last edited:

Timmy811

Dure said:
@Timmy811,

I have looked at your map for 1863. Most of it seems correct with one or two exceptions. I also have some comments and questions that may be of use to you if you are the one that assembled this map.

A) I am unclear what is going on in Central Asia. I think the following states exist in 1863:

1) Emirate of Bukhara
2) Khanate of Kiva
3) Khanate of Khokand
4) Afghanistan
5) Persia
6) British India (see below)

You seem to have several additional states. One on the Chinese border at Xinjiang and three small ones to the west of it, the largest of these appears to be in the Shaksgam valley but I may be out by 250 miles. What are these supposed to be?

There is also a state to the south of the Aral sea that I cannot identify and you appear to have Balochistan & probably Sind as an independent state. It was British in 1863.

B) British India contained a number of independent or semi-independent states some of these are quite large at this time you have just painted the place pink.

C) I assume that you have made a deliberate choice in not showing a separate Tibet as it is a Chinese possession? If so the choice is inconsistent with the treatment of Poland which is shown as an independent state.

D) It would be beneficial to split the larger British Empire elements into the correct colonies.

E) Russian America is not Alaska as such I am not sure how the border was agreed with Yukon but it was after the 1825 treaty.

F) Why is Sakhalin Island split?

G) Manchuria is not in dispute as you imply, the border is well defined by the treaties of Aigin and Peking. Basically east of the Ussuri River is Russian.

H) Treaty ports not shown in China. Macao?

I) Dominican Republic is a Spanish colony 1861 – 1865.

J) What are the two little states on the Burmese border?

K) Much of New Zealand is still under Maori control. The Waikato war is in 1863 and until then much of North Island is under Maori control. Even afterwards the Taranaki is free.

L) The OFS, the Transvaal republic are show but what about the kingdom of Zulu?

M) Many of the African tribal areas shown cannot be regarded as states and the Bamana Empire which can fell it 1861.

N) Egypt is independent (technically) and owns Sudan

O) Are Paraguy's borders correct?
Click to expand...

I took this map from https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=103802&page=2 and made some small adjustments to the situation in America and China.

A - I don't know anything about the situation in Central Asia at this time.
B - While the situation on the ground was complicated with many quasi-independent native states, the fact remains that the British Empire was in control of the subcontinent.
C- Poland isn't shown as independent.
E - Alaska was sold to the US just 4 years later, I assume the border did not change much in that time.
G - It doesn't mean that area is in dispute, it means that it's within the Russian sphere of influence and that the Russians economically and politically dominate that region.
H - Macao is just south of Hong Kong, it's small and a darker green, but it's there.
I,J,K,L,M, - I just left the map as is. For this period I know American, European, and East Asian history in depth, but little about Africa and South & Central Asia. Which state is the Bamana Empire?
N - Egypt is independent but falls within the spheres of Britian and the Ottoman. A white outline inside a border with color inside of that denotes the political domination of that country by an outside power.
O - I believe so, the War of the Triple Alliance is about to begin.
 
Last edited:

Dure

Banned
@Timmy811,
Three things:
First, I was not being critical of the map I was trying to be helpful, I thought you had produced it.
Second, the issues that I drew your attention to and which are likely to affect, or be affected by events in the context of ‘Britannia’s’ fist are primarily I and K, the Waikato war soaked up a lot of the Imperial line east of Suez (not that the Suez canal was there yet). Other areas that may be affected and which I did not mention when reviewing the map are the British occupation of Lagos and the independence of Morocco.
In North America geographical issues which might be relevant are Red Cloud and the Lakota, the Mormons, the Apache and the Cherokee.
Third, Roberto’s map thread. Amazingly ambitious! I am overwhelmed by his vision and his dedication. I have PMed him to let him know I have critiqued his map for 1863.
 

Timmy811

Dure said:
@Timmy811,
Three things:
First, I was not being critical of the map I was trying to be helpful, I thought you had produced it.
Second, the issues that I drew your attention to and which are likely to affect, or be affected by events in the context of ‘Britannia’s’ fist are primarily I and K, the Waikato war soaked up a lot of the Imperial line east of Suez (not that the Suez canal was there yet). Other areas that may be affected and which I did not mention when reviewing the map are the British occupation of Lagos and the independence of Morocco.
In North America geographical issues which might be relevant are Red Cloud and the Lakota, the Mormons, the Apache and the Cherokee.
Third, Roberto’s map thread. Amazingly ambitious! I am overwhelmed by his vision and his dedication. I have PMed him to let him know I have critiqued his map for 1863.
Click to expand...

I understand. :)

Rob's map was for '61 though, I took it and made some small changes.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Timmy811 said:
N - Egypt is independent but falls within the spheres of Britian and the Ottoman. A white outline inside a border with color inside of that denotes the political domination of that country by an outside power.
Click to expand...

Not so, at least not until a 50,000 man British Expeditionary Force lands in 1882.
 

Timmy811

67th Tigers said:
Not so, at least not until a 50,000 man British Expeditionary Force lands in 1882.
Click to expand...

You're right that political domination was much too strong a term, but I would say that Egypt is within Britain's sphere of influence. Has not Britain already militarily intervened in Egypt over it's conflicts with the Ottomans and acquired great economic leverage in that nation through loans to the government, the dependence of Egypt's burgeoning cotton market on British factories, and the construction of the Suez canal.
 

Dure

Banned
Danzig (Gdansk) at least is a free city in 1863 and the border seems to head north into modern Lithuania which is part of the Russian Empire.
 

MFOM

So i Guess from the brief outline, Lee attacks Washington with Royal Navy support? Any one care to outline the defenses of DC against both Land and sea attack at that time?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
MFOM said:
So i Guess from the brief outline, Lee attacks Washington with Royal Navy support? Any one care to outline the defenses of DC against both Land and sea attack at that time?
Click to expand...

At sea it's essentially Fort Washington, a rather weak third system fort, and a few earthwork batteries.

The defences were characterised by British observers as very weak, and one observer showed one of the garrisons that the forts weren't even secure against cavalry.

He
was remarkably civil and gave me passes and
a letter to take me over the fortification[s},
{and] camp around Washington. The city is
surrounded at a radius of some 3 to 5 miles
with a series of detached forts and earth
works making in all about 35 to 40 miles.
These works are not particularly well placed
nor is the design of much good. Many are
too small to be of any real service, and although
manned by some 80,000 men, I believe
good troops would very shortly force
them. The Confederates are not, however,
good enough for this, and consequently the
works render Washington impregnable for
the time, which is all that is required of them.
Even if the Confederates did take the Forts
on the south side of the river, Washington
itself being on the North would still be safe
from everything except shelling, at moderately
long range-Cincinnati is fortified in a
similar manner but the general plan considerably
worse, indeed several positions of their
lines could be taken not only by good infan-
try, but by a sudden dash of well mounted
cavalry. However, there is good excuse for
this for a great portion of the works were
hurriedly thrown up by civilians-I could
not help pointing this out to the chief of the
staff, and at last he acknowledged I was right
especially after I had ridden one of his own
cavalry man's horses (I think the worst saddle
for any real riding) 'clear over the ditch,
and parapet charged in amongst his men
who were absolutely aghast at the idea of
cavalry charging even the slightest obstacle.
The Southern cavalry are the better than the
Northern but still as cavalry they are poor
enough. The cavalry on both sides, but more
especially the Northerns, are merely mounted
infantry. They are not taught to use the
sword at all, and indeed several regiments can
muster but few swords anyway. They are
armed with rifles and revolvers, the consequence
is that they never charge or get well
amongst the infantry, (the only chance for
cavalry) but dismount and skirmish, and of
course get beaten as all cavalry must, in that
sort of work against Infantry. Now and
then a regiment may charge upon a sleeping
picquet or a solitary company when they can
come upon them unawares and un-supported,
or on the march. This is then set down as a
billiards {sic) charge, although really not a
shot has been fired on either side or a man
killed.?

(R. A. Preston, A Letter from a British Military Observer of the American Civil War, Military Affairs, Vol. 16, No. 2. (Summer, 1952), pp. 49-60.)
 

Snake Featherston

Banned
67th Tigers said:
It's interesting, but had you made such a statement about 20 years ago it would have provoked howls of derision for revisionism.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. But then Longstreet led the bigger corps in Lee's army and lacked the disastrous records of Jackson at Cedar Mountain and the entirety of the Seven Days. *shrugs*

67th Tigers said:
Why should he have crushed Lee? Lee was in a prepared defence, and McClellan had only roughly equivalent numbers of infantry (about 40,000 vs Lee's 35,000) of a much lower quality (not quite half McClellan's infantry had been mustered in within the last month, most of them had never even loaded).

We can find fault with McClellan in this campaign (generally a false assumption that Franklin was worth a damn), but perhaps not at Antietam proper.
Click to expand...

If Old Slow Trot could rout a force of equal size before Grant even got started, McClellan's being deceived by MacGruder and Johnston has nothing to attribute to it except that McClellan was a Halleck/Buell. You can say that Fitz-John Porter beat General Lee more than any US general in the war save General Grant.

You cannot say that McClellan has any responsibility for that any more than Buell does for Logan's Cross Roads or Halleck for the Henry-Donelson campaign. McClellan *had* 75,500 troops against Lee's 35,000, he as usual refused to commit any troops to actually fight or to actually direct the battle. He's somewhere around the John French school of competence.
 

Snake Featherston

Banned
67th Tigers said:
Except McClellan.
Click to expand...

Except Fitz-John Porter and in every single case McClellan interpreting Porter's victories as defeats, ESPECIALLY Malvern Hill. Which admittedly is easy to do when you're dining with a French Viscount and leaving it to your one fighting general to win and declare his victories defeats.

67th Tigers said:
You're not far off for the standing regular army (i.e. white general service troops with the Colours). However, add in reservists (from 1847 onwards troops did a reduced term of service, and were liable to recall to the Colours for the remainder of their 22), pensioners (men who'd finished their 22 and were in receipt of a pension, note that they were usually in the late 30's on completion), militia (men who'd volunteered for regular training and refresher training every year, and, when asked historically, generally volunteered for general service), militia reserve (after 1867, militiamen who were enrolled in regular regiments under general service contracts) and then add in Colonial troops on the British regular establishment we get roughly 500,000.

This is exclusive of about 160,000 volunteers, 14,000 yeomanry, the Indian army of a bit over 200,000 and various colonial militia and volunteers.
Click to expand...

We're talking Britain, a society that viewed conscription as anathema and has *always* depended on its navy. An RN intervention to save the CSA by breaking the blockade is all that's necessary for the USA to lose. Britain does not a vast conscript army need, it can simply feed the CSA and let the CSA do all the work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top