Armchair Dragoons Forums

News:

  • Connections Online 2024 will be held 15-20 April, 2024 ~~ More Info here
  • Buckeye Game Fest will be held May 2-5, 2024, with The War Room opening on 29 April ~~ More Info here

News

Buckeye Game Fest will be held May 2-5, 2024, with The War Room opening on 29 April ~~ More Info here

Author Topic: 1866  (Read 16308 times)

bob48

  • Smeghead.
  • Warrant Officer
  • Lead Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 11715
Reply #30 on: February 01, 2020, 06:21:13 AM
This is another excellent, and affordable, book on the 'German War'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Weeks-War-Austro-Prussian-Conflict/dp/1782820108

Hozier has also written a couple of books on the Franco-Prussian War. Its also interesting as he was a serving British Officer during that period, and actually spent some time attached to von Moltke's HQ

“O Lord God, let me not be disgraced in my old days.”

'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers'


panzerde

  • Corporal
  • **
  • Posts: 1236
  • Kriegsherr
    • Cry Havoc
Reply #31 on: February 01, 2020, 12:13:29 PM

Only $989 on Amazon

The Art of War: Waterloo to Mons. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002CND3XE/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_oYjnEbA2W4AGF


Fortunately there were a number of reasonably priced versions and I have one on the way. For less than 1% of that price.

I actually don't really like games.

Castellan -  La Fraternite des Boutons Carres


Boyerwulf

  • Patreon Supporters
  • Jr. Trooper
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Reply #32 on: February 05, 2020, 08:40:47 AM
Have the game, and it's pretty decent. The rulebook is only 20 pages if I remember, so It's not a huge undertaking to learn.



bayonetbrant

  • Arrogance Mitigator & Event "Organizer"
  • Administrator
  • Staff Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 15381
  • Going mad, but at least going somewhere
    • Six Degrees of Radio
Reply #33 on: March 22, 2022, 11:40:07 AM
C'mon, it was obviously his attempted takeover of Mexico!


Rescuing & reviving (thanks to this week's TN, which links an S&T magazine with a similar topic)

Quote from: bayonetbrant
So let's all remember that there actually was some pretty good discussion back at WGer about 15 years ago.  This was a part of my quest to try and rescue some of the better discussions from back then

Here's one about the US Civil War and how it might have affected the Mexican Civil War that was going on almost simultaneously.  For perspective, I reviewed Cactus Throne in early '06. (reprint of the classic review here)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So I'm reviewing Cactus Throne from Against the Odds Magazine (look for it in the next few weeks) and there are some alternate events that result in either US Federal or Conferederate forces arriving in Mexico during the war.

Short catch-up sidebar: While US Civil War raged, the war in Mexico was being fought between the French & some European Allies and the "Republicans" or the native Mexican gov't. US Civil War ran 1861-1865 and French Intervention in Mexico ran 1861-1867
With the Americans distracted with their own war, the French violated the Monroe Doctrine and tried to take over Mexico. The Republicans (anti-French natives) finally turned the tide in 1865 or so, and it all fell apart after that. 



My assumptions: The French didn't start losing in 1865, but instead managed to catch Juarez and the Mexican 'resistance' fell apart in any organized fashion. The US Civil War ran pretty much as it really did.

My Question(s): With the Confederacy on it's heels, and the French facing a partially-hostile native population, could they have made a land grab for Texas, Louisiana, and (maybe) New Mexico and/or Arizona?

The Federals hadn't fully occupied the coastal regions of the Mississippi delta / Houston areas. And frankly, they might not have had the manpower to do that and chase Lee around Virginia.

Maximillian wouldn't have needed to push the Mexicans much into trying to "reclaim" Texas, and the French might've willingly taken a shot a New Orleans. The Confederates wouldn't have been able to put up much resistance. While the US smacked the Mexicans around in 1848, this war would've included the French, and a variety of European allies, and would've been a harder fight for the US, since both sides had recent war experience.

Could the French/Mexicans have taken/held Texas and/or New Orleans?
What would the US reaction have been?
What would the Gulf region look like now if it had happened?


Quote from: besilarius
Napoleon III tried to conquer Mexico on the cheap with a rather small army. 
They might have been able to advance into Texas, but a lack of troops for garrison, would have resulted in massive insurgencies behind them.
Also, attacking New Orleans would have meant coming to grips with Farragut's Gulf Fleet.  The monitors would have eaten the French navy up.
I see no reason to believe that after Appomotax, Sheridan with 40,000 veterans would have moved into Texas and ejected the overstretched French.  Would make a rather fun game, but the numbers, and logistics, are all in the yankee hand.


Quote from: Airborne Rifles
I recall reading that immediately after the end of the Civil War Grant sent a 50,000 man army to the Texas-Mexico border to "observe" the goings on in Mexico and to let the French know that we were none too happy with their activities there.  If I'm not mistaken Sheridan was the one in charge of the opertion.


Quote from: bayonetbrant
keep in mind that by the time Sheridan's guys were on the border, the French were already losing.  But if the French could've bagged Juarez earlier, and wrapped up enough of the pitched battles to save their strength, could they have made a play for Texas by promising to lead the Mexicans to retake Texas in 1864-5 before the US Civil War was over?  That would've have meant turning Sherman around in Alabama, which means that Atlanta, Savannah, and the Carolinas never experience his wrath, and then you've got to actually fight when you get there.  If the Frenchexicans armed the slaves in Texas where most of the Confederates had already been ejected, would they have had enough manpower to make a play for New Orleans?  Who knows.  By 1864, hadn't most of Farragut's fleet moved further east?  Would they have made it back to New Orleans in time to matter?

It was just an idea that came up based on some hypotheticals in Cactus Throne articles, and I wanted to revisit the discussion over here and rescue the thread from WGer before it totally implodes


Quote from: besilarius
It's difficult to find good data on the Gulf Fleet.  Believe that most of the ocean going ships had moved to cover Mobile and the coast thru Florida.
However, there was a blockading fleet on the Texas coast.  The French could likely have driven that away, but then what?  Unless the british came in with a big fleet, the French battle fleet was pretty small.  My memory is they had about eight steam frigates/sloops, and about twenty smaller craft.  They could have blockaded the mouth of the Mississippi, but it seems a real stretch to think they could do another Farragut at New Orleans.
Again, I just don't see the logistic support for a French-Mexican advance into Texas.  The Texians had purposely kept the roads leading from Mexico primitive, to avoid another advance to the Alamo. 
Redeploying the Atlantic coast forces into the Gulf by Gideon Wells, the numbers just don't make sense to avoid the yankees clapping a blockade on the Mexican coast.  This would not have been a huge problem for the French, but the danger of losing an entire army overseas, might have been the push for Napoleon III to be thrown out.
He was an inveterate gambler, who always was willing to try a venture.  But he always did it on the cheap, relying on allies to help.  He involved the naive Maximilian of Austria, partly in the belief that the Austrian Emperor would send forces to save Max if things got out of hand.  There are so many "must happens" here, it's almost like a Bridge Too Far.


Quote from: bayonetbrant
I guess a secondary idea might have been that idea that the Frenchexicans *do* make a stab at New Orleans and Houston, get their asses handed to them, and Sherman, Sheridan, etc are sent south to create a "buffer zone" below the Rio Grande.  Does the US end up with Baja California, and half of Mexico down to Monterrey, Chihuahua, or Torreon?

the other complicating factors, of course, are the need to occupy the South, as well as the significant change in leadership with the loss of Lincoln.  There were already draft riots and huge opposition to "Lincoln's War" just fighting in the Confederate States.  If the US pushed south, or the Mexicans pushed north, does the distraction (for union troops) provide an opening for a significant prolonged guerilla war in the South.  Does it change how many Confederates escape west to Utah and Nevada and the 'colonies' they set up there?

I wonder if war weariness would start to play into things at all and cut into any zest the union has for throwing back an invasion - "let 'em have Texas and we'll keep the rest, because it ain't worht fighting for right now" or something.

I think all things being equal, a series of pitched battles between the union and the Mexifrenchies would go very bad for those down south.  But with an unstable political situation after Lincoln's death, a nation weary of war, significant numbers of Confederates who may be willing to fight against the Union even as irregulars, it mgiht get dicey for a bit there, and all you need is enough people in New York, Buffalo, Philly, Pittsburg, and Cleveland wondering "why the hell are we still fighting?" for things to fall apart.




=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++

Random acts of genius and other inspirations of applied violence.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Six Degrees of Radio for songs you should know by artists you should love