Armchair Dragoons Forums
Wargaming => Age of Gunpowder => Topic started by: ojsdad on January 29, 2020, 08:11:51 PM
-
Does anyone have 1866 from Compass Games, or played it. I'm thinking of getting it. It's on sale for $55 until Jan 31
https://www.compassgames.com/1866-the-struggle-for-supremacy-in-germany.html
-
I have it, and have even opened it, but it has yet to make it to the table.
Given the rarity of games on this topic, it's worth getting at that price if you're interested in the period. IIRC, the components are good and I recall the reviews were favorable.
Does anyone have 1866 from Compass Games, or played it. I'm thinking of getting it. It's on sale for $55 until Jan 31
https://www.compassgames.com/1866-the-struggle-for-supremacy-in-germany.html (https://www.compassgames.com/1866-the-struggle-for-supremacy-in-germany.html)
-
What Doug said, I really am into the period. Having said that, I'm not a great liker of point-to-point systems, personally.
-
Agree Bob. This is a very confusing war.
In re the movement, Moltke was confident of military victory because the Austrians had one, single track, rail system into Bohemia, while the Prussians had something like five double tracked lines into the theater.
However, at the very beginning, he told Von Roon that the winner would be Napoleon III.
As long as Austria kept it's army intact, he felt Napoleon would intervene and demand an end of hostilities before Prussia could win an outright victory.
The Prussians were actually throwing every delaying tactic at the French Foreign Minister who was trying to deliver an ultimatum through the Koniggratz campaign.
Prussia couldn't face the two major armies and the French would be able to demand, and get, major areas around the Rhine. This would solidify an alliance between France and Austria aimed at keeping Prussia in check.
Of course, the inept adventurer miscalculated, and his late efforts gained nothing for France.
-
Of course, the inept adventurer miscalculated, and his late efforts gained nothing for France.
An apt summation of Napoleon III as there ever was.
-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Koniggratz-Helmuth-Moltke-Austro-Prussian/dp/1909384968
An excellent book.
-
Panzerde, this got me thinking ab out Napoleon III.
I can't decide. Would you think his greatest mistake was letting Prussia win a total military victory in 1866?
Or, by ignoring centuries of French military policy, letting Piedmont and Cavour unify Italy?
Or His fixation on weakening Austria, to have been his single greatest mistake?
-
C'mon, it was obviously his attempted takeover of Mexico!
-
It's really so ever hard to tell when you people are being facetious or sarcastic.
-
It's really so ever hard to tell when you people are being facetious or sarcastic.
Really? I thought it was obvious...
-
Panzerde, this got me thinking ab out Napoleon III.
I can't decide. Would you think his greatest mistake was letting Prussia win a total military victory in 1866?
Or, by ignoring centuries of French military policy, letting Piedmont and Cavour unify Italy?
Or His fixation on weakening Austria, to have been his single greatest mistake?
As pointless as the attempted imperial ambitions in Mexico were, that was ultimately a sideshow.
I can't completely fault him about the Austria thing. Messing with the Hapsburgs, of all stripes, is a recurrent theme among French regimes for hundreds or years. It wasn't bright, but it's almost something I'm not sure he could have avoided doing. Having said that I believe his stance vis a vis Austria leads pretty directly to the two other mistakes you mention.
Allowing the Prussian victory in 1866 probably has the most obvious and immediate consequences. Without the 1866 victory over Austria you don't get the 1870 victory that ultimately unseats Napoleon III. Unified Italy seems to have less immediate negative connotations, but as you observe, there were solid reasons not allowing this was French policy for centuries.
As I say, though, I think this can be attributed to his policy toward Austria. He could have backed off the ancient dynastic struggle, maintained a French hand in Italy and probably, with Austrian help, prevented or delayed Prussian hegemony in Germany. His fixation on Austria led him to miss the real threat to the Second Empire and to fritter away Imperial resources in Italy. So, even though it was somewhat in keeping with his predecessors to oppose Austria I have to see that as the core of his eventual failure. Even the Mexican thing traces back to it.
What's your spin Besilarius? I'll be the first to admit that I'm less well read on the Second Empire than I am a couple of hundred years earlier, so the above might be pretty off base!
-
It's really so ever hard to tell when you people are being facetious or sarcastic.
This one's real. He really did try to do this. It's the origin of Cinco de Mayo, in fact.
He thought he could take advantage of the US Civil War to install a puppet government in Mexico and establish an Imperial French presence in the Western hemisphere. The Mexicans turned out to not be down with the plan, and caused some painful defeats of the French despite being outnumbered and poorly equipped. Once the ACW was over, the Americans made it known they weren't amused either. We get to whip on Mexico, but Europeans most definitely do not.
-
Yep, when
Joe* Phil Sheridan showed up on the Texas border with about 60,000 battle-hardened Union troops who were in a bad mood because they couldn't go home yet, the French started having second thoughts about their adventurism in Mexico.
The fact that they were getting smacked around a bit by the locals before then certainly didn't help matters at all. Santa Ana (yes, *that* Santa Ana) changed sides about five times over the course of three years - so much so that his counter in The Cactus Throne is printed with both sides so he can switch back and forth.
It didn't help that the French Imperial expeditionary force included units from about five different nations that didn't particularly like each other so they had no one to count on once the locals decided they didn't enjoy being ruled from afar
edit:
* thanks (sort of), Mirth
-
Yep, when Joe Sheridan showed up on the Texas border with about 60,000 battle-hardened Union troops who were in a bad mood because they couldn't go home yet, the French started having second thoughts about their adventurism in Mexico.
You sure it wasn't Phil Hooker?
-
It could have been. I thought it was a Sheridan counter in the Cactus Throne game, but they could have been stretching the hypothetical some
Edit:
Bottom center of the green counters
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepage/img/y4GdnAkqrEUeryO_Iga-O6nVYA8=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale()/pic122091.jpg)
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/u52gRNybAmAy4/giphy.gif)
-
You should have said TJ Hooker.
-
You should have said TJ Hooker.
:ROFL:
-
Gosh, Panzerde, I am so torn about this guy trying to keep on his big boy pants.
You know how cats swipe at moving objects or glittery baubles? That was Napoleon.
In a way, my gut thinks the Crimean War may have been his worst mistake because it let him think he was so good.
If you have the time, and interest, my favorite book on this era is William McElwee's Art of War: Waterloo to Mons.
He is a good read with lots of informative anecdotes and important details mixed together. It's out of print, but used copies can be had for less than ten dollars.
Brant, it was Phil Sheridan. Joe Hooker was slowly drinking himself to death by that point.
-
Brant, it was Phil Sheridan. Joe Hooker was slowly drinking himself to death by that point.
Dammit. I wanted him to figure it out on his own.
-
As an admin, can you delete the last line of the post?
-
Brant, it was Phil Sheridan. Joe Hooker was slowly drinking himself to death by that point.
Dammit. I wanted him to figure it out on his own.
y'know - given how much I avoid that era of conflict, it's a wonder I even got Sheridan's name right.
And voice recognition kept spelling out "Sheraton" instead anyway ;D
-
Ol' Joe Sheraton
-
I just ordered since today is the last day of the sale.
-
If you have the time, and interest, my favorite book on this era is William McElwee's Art of War: Waterloo to Mons.
He is a good read with lots of informative anecdotes and important details mixed together. It's out of print, but used copies can be had for less than ten dollars.
Thanks! On my list!
-
With your interests, pretty sure you will enjoy it.
The section on the changing treatment of the ACW by the british is really informative.
-
belisarius, is this your library? ;D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d7/da/e4/d7dae43f126029f819d1087fae108b39.jpg)
-
If you have the time, and interest, my favorite book on this era is William McElwee's Art of War: Waterloo to Mons.
He is a good read with lots of informative anecdotes and important details mixed together. It's out of print, but used copies can be had for less than ten dollars.
Thanks! On my list!
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
-
We don't want to lower our standards, but the used paperback copy is a little cheaper.
-
That is pretty shocking to ask that much. It's a fun read. A good read.
But not worth that amount at all.
The used for less than $9 is my style.
As to that library, I can only dream.
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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)
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 (https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/reviews/classic-reviews-cactus-throne-ato/))
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So I'm reviewing Cactus Throne (http://www.atomagazine.com/game_15.html) from Against the Odds Magazine (http://www.atomagazine.com/) (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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) and French Intervention in Mexico ran 1861-1867 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico)
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.