european intervention

[keith]

hi

just like to say how much i am enjoying learning the game, my question is about wether european intervention is a realistic within the scenarios provided,ie has anyone triggered it at all and if it was to happen what form it would take, how much actual military help would the europeans be able to give the rebels, just of a matter of interest and forgive my lack of knowledge about designing games but would it not be possible to design a scenario were european intervention is very probable, it would be fun to see the results of british and french troops under the command of lee

keith

[Jabberwock]

I have never seen the EI event in the game. It was expected that if the British intervened, they would mostly just use their fleet to clear the blockade, since their major concern with the war was the economic effect it was having on them.

[Spruce]

can we get the song "final countdown" from Europe, when the event fires ? Would be funny !

[Spruce]

I have never seen the EI event in the game. It was expected that if the British intervened, they would mostly just use their fleet to clear the blockade, since their major concern with the war was the economic effect it was having on them.

and not the least to state a political gesture without risking thousands of ground troops. The British navy seems to me superior compared with the US, for sure if you don't count the blockade ships - which are not the real warships,

[veji1]

A great thing would be to have Several levels of intervention :
- On level 1 the CSA side would get to use the british fleet - with bombard option greyed - which would mean practically the end of the blockade and money flowing from the blockade boxes (transports, etc...), this would be the only "likely" Foreign intervention
- On level 2a the CSA would get the fleet + bombard + some activated troops in Canada
- On level 2b teh CSA would get the French fleet + bombard + the mexican expeditionnary force.
- On level 3 the CSA wouldt get all the above + french troops and fleet in Mexico
- On level 4 all out Foreign intervention..

If that sort of gradation could be had, it would be great..

[Doomwalker]

I had been wondering that myself. Hopefully someone has gotten the event to fire and can fill us in on some info.

[Jacek]

The probelm is that USA would probably easily overcome Canada. The British would have to transport their entire expeditionary force there. Plus, the fighting season there would be short due to winter whether there,

[Doomwalker]

I am pretty sure you are right Jacek. In my current Union game that I am playing the British and French would have to show up in a seriously large force to even gain a beachhead, or breach any of the coastal states.

I would still like someone who has gotten FI to fire, to fill in the info on what exactly the event does for the CSA.

[keith]

having looked at the problems gb had in mobilizing a relativley small force for the crimea only ten years earlier and indeed the parlous state of the logistical backup for that force it would seem unlikely that it could mobilze a large enough land force to make any real difference, the naval aspect though i feel could be quite different, i am pretty sure that the rn could take on the usn in a stand up fight at that time, let me know if i am wrong here!! cant help a little bit of brit pride in the rn teehee , thus opening up the possibility of unrestricted supplies for the csa , a blockade of us ports and tying up us troops in protecting what would then be there vunerable coastal cities, i agree though that canada would be vunerable but that would mean opening up another front for the us, also tying up valuable troops and supplies......would be intersesting to see how that scenario would play out

[blackbellamy]

I'm sure this has all been discussed to death before, but IMHO there would never have been any actual military intervention.

There wouldn't have been any troops or naval battles or anything. No major power would have sent thousands of troops to fight, bleed, and die halfway around the world to support some civil war that they had no stake in anyway. No one in Parliament was going "If only the Confederates win 2 more major battles we can declare war on the USA and send troops to South Carolina! Again!"

This is the most that would have happened:

CSA ambassador: Hey, we took Washington!
Brit: Cheers!
CSA ambassador: So can you help us now? Send some guys? And ships?
Brit: (to the USA ambassador) I say, you should seek peace with the South. They're a real nation now. Can't you see we recognized them?
USA ambassador: Why don't you mind your own business?
Brit: Right then. It's the <complicated financial shenanigans> for you!

Event fires: USA income reduced by 5%! USA morale reduced by 10.

End of intervention.

[Pocus]

Don't be so sure, and don't apply pure logic here. See how the British reacted over the Trent affair. Without the Union apologizing, who know what could have happened? You do know that GB had already mobilized Canadian militia and gathered ships in fleets while the crisis was underway?

[Doomwalker]

I thought I had read that somewhere before. Something about 5,000 troops, or was it 50,000, on ships already on there way to the US and only turned around after the apology was issued.

[keith]

my whole point was not wether it was a possibility historically, but wether it would make an interesting scenario and how it would play in the game, btw the crimean war involved the brits and french mobilizing and sending an army thousands of miles to help a friendly nation, for very little actual gain other than maybe keeping the ruskies out of the med, still i do agree i could not see british land forces doing anything other than defending canada, jus my opinion,

is it possible to tweak the game and have a scenario were the europeans do intervene

[blackbellamy]

My point was that there would have been no military intervention based on simple Confederate progress or the lack of Union success in putting down the rebellion. Without an overt Union provocation there was no way in hell England would have spilled blood.

[keith]

true enough, wether gb would have engineered an incident on the scale of lets say the lusitania for arguments sake to influence public opinion and embroil herself in a very bloody and messy civil war for very little gain is very debatable, maybe if an influential politician of the type of sir alfred milner who debatabley engineered the british govt into the boer war was involved in a pro intervention movement then you never know, but you have to admit, it would make a fun scenario for the game and thats what i would like to see

[Jabberwock]

They're a real nation now. Can't you see we recognized them?

I agree that simple recognition would've been the first option considered, and that troop landings would've been the last.

However . . .

There wouldn't have been any troops or naval battles or anything. No major power would have sent thousands of troops to fight, bleed, and die halfway around the world to support some civil war that they had no stake in anyway. No one in Parliament was going "If only the Confederates win 2 more major battles we can declare war on the USA and send troops to South Carolina! Again!"

Consider this - almost 500,000 textile workers in England in April 1861; 250,000 of those on unemployment by the end of 1862, most of the rest working half-time. Half a million Englishmen who would've loved to declare war on the USA, and they did have representation in Parliament. Major powers in the 19th century often sent thousands of troops halfway around the world for much less. If it hadn't been for slavery, GB would've had no problem with intervention.

[pasternakski]

My point was that there would have been no military intervention based on simple Confederate progress or the lack of Union success in putting down the rebellion. Without an overt Union provocation there was no way in hell England would have spilled blood.

I agree. In my opinion, clamoring for a high degree of probability of European intervention is the work of those who want to dabble in fantasy, not face the hard historical realities.

Should we start talking about how goofy any serious chance of French intervention was during this time, particularly considering her political and economic situation?

I suggest that we forget it and play the game.

[Zoetermeer]

I agree. In my opinion, clamoring for a high degree of probability of European intervention is the work of those who want to dabble in fantasy, not face the hard historical realities.

And what do you call playing a computer game about the Civil War?

Why do you play at all? This game wouldn't be much fun if every time you played, events unfolded exactly as they did in real life.

[Jabberwock]

Probability of French intervention without prior or simultaneous British intervention approaches 0.

[Johnny Canuck]

My point was that there would have been no military intervention based on simple Confederate progress or the lack of Union success in putting down the rebellion. Without an overt Union provocation there was no way in hell England would have spilled blood.

That's not quite true. In the summer of 1862, the British government was already discussed offering mediation & recognition, with the implicit assumption that war might follow. If Lee had won Antietam, the British probably would have intervened. In other words, 'simple Confederate progress' could very well have led to British intervention.

Jabberwock's point regarding textile workers is quite appropriate. A war with the USA, especially prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, would have been rather popular. For all the talk of slavery, don't forget that the most recent issue to unite the British middle-classes politically was not slavery, but free trade, & the CSA was far closer to free trade than the USA. Also, pro-war propaganda would have undoubtedly played the anti-Irish race card to criticize the USA. As well, many in Britain viewed American democracy as little better than a 'banana republic'. Many in the governing classes would have welcomed the opportunity to cripple the rising power of the USA (a point particularly emphasized by future Prime Minister Lord Salisbury). The 'peace' party of Bright et al utterly failed to affect British participation in the Crimean War, & there is no reason to assume that the same outcome would not have occurred if the British had entered the Civil War.

[pasternakski]

And what do you call playing a computer game about the Civil War?

ummm. ... how about "facing the hard historical realities."

Why do you play at all? This game wouldn't be much fun if every time you played, events unfolded exactly as they did in real life.

You don't understand what I am saying. I want a wargame to place me in a command situation where I have to take what I am given and apply my genius - or idiocy - in doing better than my historical counterpart (or at least as well when my opponent has exercised his genius in making my role harder than it was historically).

I do not care for games that focus on letting me fiddle around with those conditions in pursuit of creating a fantasy universe. Yes, I enjoy "what if," but only within the constraints of what was reasonable. If I wanted "ACW on Alpha Centauri," I would buy it. But I don't. So, I won't. I would prefer designers not to waste their time building such wildly speculative possibilities into their products. The result is vastly diminished, in my estimation.

Those who do tend to lose my business.

One last thing. You do not need to adopt an insulting posture in responding to what I have said.

I didn't.

Thanks.

[pasternakski]

...the British government was already discussed offering mediation & recognition, with the implicit assumption that war might follow.

"Discussing" and "Doing," in the realm of international relations, are two very different things (particularly when it comes to the peregrinations of the government of the Empire during the mid-19th century. Just look at the facts and circumstances surrounding such matters as Zululand, Sudan, and the Crimea).

If Lee had won Antietam, the British probably would have intervened.

Do you have any scholarly support for this rather startling assertion?

[Johnny Canuck]

Do you have any scholarly support for this rather startling assertion?

"Palmerston waited for one more decisive battle as the signal to proceed with the French and the Russians. It was Gladstone's misfortune to be caught publicly out on a limb when that battle - Antietam, September 17, 1862 - proved eventually to be the beginning of the end of the Confederacy's fortunes."

- Richard Shannon, Gladstone, Vol. I, p. 469.

[Moltke]

Arguing about the implausibility of something put in the game to add flavor and fun is silly and makes one come across as a bit of a curmudgeon. It's not like Britain intervenes in every campaign so no need to get your panties in a bunch, Mr. Strict-historical-accuracy-buff.

[Jabberwock]

Thanks for the visual Moltke.

No, pasternakski, I'm not going to make a drawing of that to add 'flavor' to the game.

[Zoetermeer]

One last thing. You do not need to adopt an insulting posture in responding to what I have said.

Well I definitely apologize if you took that as rude, I didn't intend it to be so.

Your point is well taken. Nobody is trying to tell you what games to play and how to enjoy them - but there's no need to jump onto someone else for suggesting a new "what if" scenario, just because it is not "historically accurate". Nobody is telling you that you have to play the game this way - you can keep doing what you were doing and completely ignore it. Even if they did add this type of scenario, it wouldn't affect you at all. I just don't think you should try to tell other people how to play either, by saying things like "just forget about it and play the game". Everyone should express their opinions here, but only constructively so.

I personally don't see such a scenario tainting the game in the sense that it would ruin its historical flavor, but you are definitely entitled to think otherwise.

[Rafiki]

Do you have any scholarly support for this rather startling assertion?

Having online-known Johnny Canuck for some years now, he is one of two people that I will never doubt have scholarly support for what they say about 19th century history, in JC's case especially when it comes to late 19th century British history

I see your point pasternaksi. Games like this are all about what-if's, and the what-if's you are looking for are the ones that are pretty close to what happened historically. Others here are looking for that which might be a bit further away from history. What I see here are mostly people asking what needs to happen for a foreign intervention to be triggered, and what happens when it does. There are not asking for major changes in the way FE occurs, but perhaps for an option that will allow them to trigger it almost at will, just to see how it will play out. It is not like they are asking "what if the CSA was helped by little green men from Mars" (though some are probably wondering about that too... )

My philosophy when it comes to games like this is that people should be allowed to explore them in any which way they like if that's what gives them enjoyment from it, as long as it doesn't bring less enjoyment of it to others. I.e. as long as foreign intervention default occurs very rarely, I have no problem with people tweaking their games so that it becomes a lot more likely if that's what they consider "fun"

[Director]

Given provocation from the US, war with Britain was certainly possible as the 'Trent' Affair shows. But given an excuse to back down, both the US and Britain were willing to take it. Prince Albert's role in calming the crisis, and his death shortly after, raise some interesting questions about how this might have played out.

Both Britain and France wanted a resumption of cotton shipments and an end to the blockade. Neither wanted to take up arms to defend slavery. Palmerston's recurring idea was to get a group of European nations - Britain, France and Russia were his usual list - to approach the US and propose a mediated peace, IE the recognition of Confederate independence, in hopes an exhausted North would agree. The British govenment could not afford to seem to be following a French lead, Napoleon III refused to act without the British and Russia refused to have anything to do with the plan. Ergo, no mediation and no peace, nor is it easy to see how a coalition of nations could have been brought together for the purpose. Austria certainly did not care to be involved, neither Russia nor Prussia would co-operate with France (or Britain, in Russia's case). Who does that leave? No-one...

Historical analysis of petitions, voting records, pamphlets and such tends to show that support for the North remained solid among British workers (including unemployed textile workers). Had Britain lined up France and Russia and approached the US about mediation, the US reply would have been unfavorable, leaving the Europeans to contemplate financial sanctions, blockade, or war. The memory of the Crimean debacle of the previous decade was still strong. The chance of European powers going to war in support of slavery approaches zero, I think. It is hard to see much happening past perhaps a boycott of trade... and European crop failures left Britain and France utterly dependent on American grain to prevent famine. Any trade sanctions would hurt Europe far more than the US, which at that time was a net importer of goods but was almost entirely self-sufficient.

Could the European powers act swiftly enough to force a decision before their own lack of cotton, grain and trade eroded already-shaky support at home? The evidence of the Crimean War and the Civil War argues not... In prior wars both the US and France had successfully carried out commerce-raiding against Britain. As the Confederacy showed, this time the raiding would be worse. Increases in maritime insurance, the danger to Canada and the almost-certain high casualty lists make a protrcted war unlikely. One result would be strong American support for Fenians in Canada and Ireland and a poisoning of relations with Britain and France that decades might not heal. World War I without a sympathetic or participating America becomes more possible.

Given that the Union fought the Civil War with less than half of its available manpower mobilized, and given that war with Britain would have unified the Republican and Democratic parties in a way the Civil War could not, and also given that Britain would have needed some time to recruit, equip and deploy an expeditionary force (see Crimean War for timelines), Britain and/or France might have found themselves on the wrong end of a very long supply line, fighting agaist a populous, industrialized and unified foe, for reasons they could not clearly define. It would, I submit, make the disasters of the Crimean War seem appealing in comparison. Fighting Russia in the Crimea, with no Russian railroads and little Russian industry, would be a cakewalk compared to an aroused Union backed by the population and industry of the North.

Britain and France did what they could in trying to broker a peace. Lincoln was having no part of a war with Britain, nor would he have agreed to a negotiated peace. Staying out was the best thing Britain and France could possibly have done for their own interests.

[Pocus]

as we know the subject is sensitive, we devised several options, you can disable the FE or make it harder/easier if you want. Anyway it makes a great what if!

About references, there are few sources available online in the Trent Affair, except some excerpts there and there. One of interest though is this one, about the British view of the affair.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm#CHAPTER_VII