British Intervention

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

British Intervention

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> British Intervention

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

British Intervention - 1/11/2009 9:32:21 PM

Rotherman

Posts: 59
Joined: 1/11/2009
From: Rotherham England
Status: offline

There should be provision for the British to join sides with the CSA and retake our colonies on the eastern seaboard. Great game but steep learning curve.

Post #: 1

RE: British Intervention - 1/11/2009 9:41:11 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotherman

There should be provision for the British to join sides with the CSA and retake our colonies on the eastern seaboard. Great game but steep learning curve.

Yeah...this was a disappointment for some in the beginning. Kinda kills any incentive for the South to invade the North and achieve a chance of receiving foreign help with a decisive victory. (They do win more political points on Northern soil though). However, it would have been a lot of additional rules, code and units to include what was only ever a slim historical possibility, and so it does help keep the steep learning curve a little less steep.

< Message edited by Bo Rearguard -- 1/11/2009 9:46:11 PM >

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to Rotherman)

Post #: 2

RE: British Intervention - 1/11/2009 10:19:50 PM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

For those who have a view that there could have been a British intervention in the Civil War I was dubious and during the summer read 'Victoria's Wars' by Saul David. I am now far from dubious and absolutely convinced it was impossible. Britain had what we now call a problem of 'stretch' throughout this period and it is highly unlikely that we could actually have raised any forces to intervene. There was, as always, a massive bluff using the naval forces but in truth we wree hard pressed to keep the natives subjugated during the century.

A really good read..... Of course the protagonists of the period didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

Roger

_____________________________

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 3

RE: British Intervention - 1/11/2009 10:50:23 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotherman

There should be provision for the British to join sides with the CSA and retake our colonies on the eastern seaboard. Great game but steep learning curve.

Unlikely, given the British policy on slavery at the time.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Rotherman)

Post #: 4

RE: British Intervention - 1/12/2009 7:43:13 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotherman

There should be provision for the British to join sides with the CSA and retake our colonies on the eastern seaboard. Great game but steep learning curve.

Unlikely, given the British policy on slavery at the time.

I don't agree. You seen the movie Amazing Grace? It took a long time for the Brits to give up slavery, it was so profitable. They had to be tricked into outlawing it. If there was enough profit for the "Empire" to intervene they would have made up any excuse to do so. The only thing the British Empire lacked was a Darth Vador. British intervention should have conditions and be in the game to keep the Union honest.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 5

RE: British Intervention - 1/12/2009 9:40:18 PM

orabera

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Monument, CO
Status: offline

quote:

I don't agree. You seen the movie Amazing Grace? It took a long time for the Brits to give up slavery, it was so profitable. They had to be tricked into outlawing it. If there was enough profit for the "Empire" to intervene they would have made up any excuse to do so. The only thing the British Empire lacked was a Darth Vador.
British intervention should have conditions and be in the game to keep the Union honest.

The moneyed class had to be tricked, the run of the mill people were pretty much like New Englanders, very, very much against.

The Brits outlawed slavery in 1833 and after 1839 it was the policy of the government.

British intervention would have required total abolition by the CSA in my opinion. To them it wasn't about States Rights, it was a war against Slavery.

_____________________________

"As god as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 6

RE: British Intervention - 1/12/2009 10:25:11 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotherman

There should be provision for the British to join sides with the CSA and retake our colonies on the eastern seaboard. Great game but steep learning curve.

Unlikely, given the British policy on slavery at the time.

I don't agree. You seen the movie Amazing Grace? It took a long time for the Brits to give up slavery, it was so profitable. They had to be tricked into outlawing it. If there was enough profit for the "Empire" to intervene they would have made up any excuse to do so. The only thing the British Empire lacked was a Darth Vador. British intervention should have conditions and be in the game to keep the Union honest.

The British Empire went anti-slavery in 1834, 27 years before the American Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation made it very difficult for the British Empire to support the Confederacy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 7

RE: British Intervention - 1/13/2009 7:17:16 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotherman

There should be provision for the British to join sides with the CSA and retake our colonies on the eastern seaboard. Great game but steep learning curve.

Unlikely, given the British policy on slavery at the time.

I don't agree. You seen the movie Amazing Grace? It took a long time for the Brits to give up slavery, it was so profitable. They had to be tricked into outlawing it. If there was enough profit for the "Empire" to intervene they would have made up any excuse to do so. The only thing the British Empire lacked was a Darth Vador. British intervention should have conditions and be in the game to keep the Union honest.

The British Empire went anti-slavery in 1834, 27 years before the American Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation made it very difficult for the British Empire to support the Confederacy.

With no ctton coming from the south for their mills and I assume the Indian cotton fields not up to speed money is a big motivator. The Brits did not abolish slavery with out a fight from the Jamacian sugar interest. The threat of intervention should still be there and with the French too. Something to force the Union to attack to get that strategic victory to declare EP. Other wise the south frees the slaves, possible option, and calls for Europeon intervention. Is the strategic victory for EP an offensive one of defensive one?

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 8

RE: British Intervention - 1/16/2009 7:39:30 PM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

WE dicussed British/French/Russian intervention when the last�Patch was being developed. While not on this public forum- there was a conclusion reached that it just wasnt going to happen.
�
Yes- I said Russian...Not only were the Brits and French interested- so were their continental enemy the Russians. The Crimean War between Brit/Fr/Russ had just ended 6 years prior. Russia was pushing hard in The Kyber Pass area against the Brits�- trying to push down into Southwest Asia to gain a warm water port for their Central Asian Conquests. That was called the Great Game by the British- (there was a hilarious book called "Flashman and the Great Game" about the period. If interested.) Russia was involved in the Sepoy Mutiny etc.

Russia saw that Britian and France initially favored the South for economic and political gain.� Britian economically- as America was a trade rival- and France was trying to Invade and conquor Mexico and was in a war there during the Civ War here. They wanted the Monroe Doctorine stopped. A powerful Federal USA was a danger to France's Colonial ambitions in�Mexico.

IN late 1861 the Russian Baltic Fleet sailed across the Atlantic and parked itself in New York Harbor. Thery were fetted and feasted and partied all through the Christmas season, they were treated like saviors. Many looked on this as a potential broadening of the war and got nervous, including Lincoln- who played it cool.�During their long stay in New York many young New York girls fell in love with dashing Russian Officers- many of whom were aristocrates. Young naval cadet Rhymsky Korsikov, who later went on to be a famous music composer, was one of those handsome young officers enjoying the parties and the female attention. The Russians threatened to join in the fight if the Brits or French did. It was a very real threat.
�The Russian Fleet stayed until the Spring- when the Iron Clad Monitor and it's brothers began to appear - along with Iron Clad Cruisers and that was the end of the danger of the British or French fleets. In an instant the British navy realized it could not win� as it was wooden hulled. It changed the entire equation, and Britian, along with every other major player began to build Iron Clads- which started a naval building cycle that lead to the Pre Dreadnaughts- but that was later. Even The Austrians eventually built Iron Clads. By the 1870s they were the top of the line naval fighting vesstles of most navys.
��
Once the Brit Navy said no way- the other voices of caution were heard. Though even as late as mid 1863�intervention in America was argued in Parliment, until Gettysburg and Vicksburg settled it for good.�But every mainstream scholar on the subject I have read states that there was no way Queen Vickie and her council would go to war for the South- She was rabid in her dislike for slavery- and the common folk of England were not interested in supporting the south in general. England was stretched too thin conquering India and Africa and everything else in the world to really seriously do it..
� France was tied down in colonial wars in Africa, especially North Africa, and had fought Austria in Italy in 1859 and 60- and was beginning to see Prussia and Bismark's new united Germany as a bigger problem- and there was 1870 looming for France.
��
Economically the war in the US was a disaster for the Europeans- as most of the investment money that had built America's railroads and transportation industry was British- so every time a railroad or steamboat was destroyed- more Brit investment was lost. �The Brits were more interested in protecting their investments the first year- which is why the Kentucky neutrailty issue loomed large at first.� The Brits threatened to act as peace keepers and hoped the threat would have some effect- it stayed the players hand for a moment, until Kentucky went under and the Brits didnt act - but then was ignored.�In reality their Brit Army was too small and too far away�in the various colonies to be effective. It would have taken a year to gather a force that was effective from all the far flung outposts of the Empire- and by then the Iroon Clads arrived and the Navy lost interest.

I think it was Shellby Foote- or was It McPherson?- who said that the European Intervention- especially after the arrival of the IronClads- was a great Southern Hope- not really based on fact- just on hope. The South needed help- I think they realized that without something, without some extra help, they would eventually be overwhelmed. By late 62 it was pretty clear no English Fleets were on the horizon.� By 1862 France was tied down in a larger war in Mexico that was starting to go bad for them also. This lead to a great religious revival period in the southern armies and state- if no one else would help them- then God would. Huge revival meetings were held regularily in the southern camps and there was clearly strong belief that God would in the end intervien on the side of right. (Though how they squared that with slavery was never defined.)

That intervention didnt happen either- though if we add European intervention we should also add Supreme Being intervention- in which the Union player is suddenly transported to Hell and armies of angels would desend and disarm all union troops. The Southern dream scenario. I would say that if we did that we would have to also add support from the infernal regions- as many southerners thought Lincoln and Sherman and others were devils. As a balancer.
Just saying....

�

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 9

RE: British Intervention - 1/16/2009 8:14:25 PM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

The Russians had one other motive for parking their fleet in New York during winter of 1861. It gave them an ice-free port to sortie from in the event of sudden war with France or Britain even if it didn't involve the United States.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 10

RE: British Intervention - 1/17/2009 1:00:19 PM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

In 1860 we had 13,000 troops that we were able to deploy to China. Two infantry divisions, a cavalry brigade and a seige team. About 25% of these were Indian troops. Palmerston two years previously had declared that we could raise a maximum of 10,000 troops in the whole of the country but after that we were unable to take any more men due to the needs of the economy. In a letter in 1861 Queen Victoria urged sending some artillery to Canada.

In the first Zulu War of 1879 we had 16,000 troops engaged. At Omdurman in the Sudan there were around 7,000 soldiers from Britain.

I can just see this magnitude of forces making an immenase strategic difference to the struggle.

Roger

_____________________________

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)

Post #: 11

RE: British Intervention - 1/17/2009 6:22:58 PM

orabera

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Monument, CO
Status: offline

Britain's power has never been it's Army.

To simulate the effect the British Navy might have had, in mid 62, as the Union player just withdraw all blockading naval units to Boston, increase production of all naval units across the board, then withdraw 10% of of all current and future Union ground forces and transfer them to northern NY, every right thinking American back then wanted to invade Canada and join it to the U.S. We just never got over them not joining us during the Revolution.

_____________________________

"As god as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 12

RE: British Intervention - 1/17/2009 7:56:20 PM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

I would not disagree with you on the Navy side. Though the one navy we didn't have much success against was the Yankees.....

However, to think of another game that does have British intervention in it, it is amazing to see the hordes that suddenly start streaming across the candian border. As I posted, we almost sent a few artillery pieces to Canada, almost....

Roger

_____________________________

(in reply to orabera)

Post #: 13

RE: British Intervention - 1/18/2009 1:54:28 AM

tran505

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline

I also think there should be an option for intervention by the Kingdom of Siam. Didn't they offer Lincoln war elephants at one point? How about allowing a point of "cavalry" to be converted to elephantry? Or would that be packydermery? Or something....

- P

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 14

RE: British Intervention - 1/18/2009 11:12:20 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

Indeed- I have seen Lincoln's Letter of reply to the King of Siams offer of the war elephants- it is on prominent disply at the Royal Palace in Bangkok. It is quiet Gracious- and thanks him profusely- but states in no uncertain terms that the weather difference between the northern and southern clims would be too dramatic, and their proper care and comfort would be jepardized. After the War- when France tried to Invade Thailand in 1866 the next President remembered that letter and sent a squadron of Ocean going Iron Clads to the Gulf of Siam and backed down the wooden hulled French Ships. Ending the French attempt to Invade the Country and annex it as a colony- From that day til this- except for a few years called WW2- an American Fleet Unit as regularily visited Thailand- I have been there when that happened also and every bar girl in Bangkok disappeared to go down to work Fleet week.

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 1/18/2009 11:23:11 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to tran505)

Post #: 15

RE: British Intervention - 1/18/2009 11:24:21 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

An Iron Clad Cruiser- the Galena. Sort of a tube of iron with guns sticking out- these were the ships the Brits were affraid of in 1862 and 1863...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 1/18/2009 11:27:12 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 16

RE: British Intervention - 2/18/2009 11:55:17 PM

Akmatov

Posts: 495
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline

I support the idea of including a possibility of European intervention, if for no other reason than to motivate the CSA player to perform actions designed to encourage that intervention, as occurred in reality.� The fact that the Europeans were not all that likely to intervene isn't the point, the CSA thought they would and in some cases acted to encourage that.� This would nudge the CSA player to deal with the another of the realities of the time.� To exclude it based on hindsight is anachronistic.�

Also, note that HMS Warrior was launched in 1860; so the RN was actually a bit ahead of the USN in the technology race.

< Message edited by Akmatov -- 2/18/2009 11:57:16 PM >

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 17

RE: British Intervention - 2/19/2009 1:13:00 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

The Brits launched the Warrior and then did nothing more because of the conservative wooden ship admirals and cost and budget issues all came into play- until March 62- when the Monitor and Merrimac fight- and the sinking of the Cumberland changed everyone's thinking.
The Brit navy said it was unlikely they could do anything against the Americans lead in Ironclads in 62/63 and that was true until 1864/65- when they finally had enough iron in the water to feel safe- also the French and other Euros all started building metal warships and the great European arms race that cullminated in WW1 was on. The Brits decided( wisely) that they could not take on the Americans early- and they didnt. The only people in the world after 1862 who thought the Euros would intervien were the Southerners. And that hope faded entirely after Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
There is a scene in the movie Gettysburg where Longstreet and Pickett are discussing the British intervention- and the pragmatic truth was there for all. It just wasn't going to happen.

We will ignore the possibility of Russian/ British fighting breaking out if they did intervein in 62- for if we gave British intervention the Russian fleet was also in the mix. The French were in the Gulf and mostly their attention was fixed on Mexico and their carabee island holdings- plus the French fleet was mostly wooden hulled allso- and the French ironclads - when they came- were used in the English Channel- which caused the British to keep their Ironclads watching the French. So what was happening in America was not their primary focus- in 1863 to 1870 the French and British were not all together on friendly terms( chilly) - it was only Later that the rising German Empire became their mutual problem that things thawed.

And another thing- the British Queen, Victoria, had real power in the 1860s- and ruled over a great Empire. She was an absolute Abolishionist. She was clear as a bell on that fact in every document and occasion to speak publically- she would not have allowed British troops- nor British Sailors- to be killed fighting FOR a nation that condoned slavery. period. So after much discussion it was decided that foreign intervention was not a realistic possability.

Besides- most players see little reason to invade the north- the game takes a much more Industrial age war feel- more like the Franco Prussian war- with the Confederates trying to hold onto their core regions. I have seen two occassions when Confeds went north of their start lines- and on both it didnt last long.
It just doesnt pay to invade the north as the confederate- and few try it. Why should that be rewarded? No one has given any solid reason for it-( just because the south thought that was possible- doesnt make it any more real ) The idea we are Just keeping the Union honest?? doesnt hold up either- the Union has a huge job on its hands trying to take out the south- what they do is already pretty honest-.. they are honestly stretched just taking down the south.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Akmatov)

Post #: 18

RE: British Intervention - 2/19/2009 1:39:27 AM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

Diplomacy and many more things could come after a new chapter in the wbts episode. It's too complex to build such system at present time but what could be done would be scripting some sort of timed scripted events to represent what historically happened...which we alrdy did with the failure on the USA attack on Manassas at Jul61. I am talking about episodes like the Trent Affair or the increase in cotton prices in GB with the overbearing pressure of blockade by the US ships. That's easy stuff. Random events could include guerrilla, indians...uuuuuf how many but now is not the time, simple as that.

_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 19

RE: British Intervention - 2/19/2009 1:45:26 AM

Treefrog

Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline

Last year I took my wife to the Portsmouth Naval Dockyard & Museum for our anniversary. Hey, some guys luck out and marry girls that love British naval history; who knew, I just thought she was cute.

So we got off the train in Portsmouth in the dark and walked to our hotel adjacent to the quay. Our window opened forward so through the rain and dark I could barely make out the mutliple masts of a ship and commented to my wife we lucked out.

Next morning we awoke and toured that ship, the HMS Warrior. What a treat.

I admit this has nothing to do with the ACW, but I thought you'd like a story that combined a cute girl with an ironclad.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Rotherman)

Post #: 20

RE: British Intervention - 2/19/2009 6:51:26 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

�Great tie in Treefrog-
and about - the warrior from wikapedia
HMS Warrior was the first iron-hulled, armour-plated warship, built for the Royal Navy in response to the first ironclad warship, the French La Gloire, launched a year earlier.
When completed in October 1861, Warrior was by far the largest, fastest, most heavily-armed and most heavily-armoured warship the world had ever seen. She was almost twice the size of La Gloire and thoroughly outclassed the French ship in speed, armour, and gunnery.
Warrior did not introduce any radical new technology, but for the first time combined steam engines, rifled breech-loading guns, iron construction, iron armour, and propeller drive all in one ship, and built to unprecedented scale.
Her construction started intense competition between guns and armour that lasted until air power made battleships obsolete in the Second World War. This race caused her to quickly become obsolete, and she was withdrawn as a fighting unit in May 1883; she is now a museum ship in Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Article went on to say that the Warrior and her sister ships spent their entire military carreers in the waters around England- watching the French...

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 2/19/2009 8:34:52 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Treefrog)

Post #: 21

RE: British Intervention - 2/19/2009 5:21:48 PM

Akmatov

Posts: 495
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline

Hey, Treefrog be nice to that lady, you are sooooo lucky.

Guys, you seem to have missed my main point. It was not how likely British intervention really was, but how likely the CSA thought it was at the time. Their, apparently mistaken, view of the need to convince Britain of their viability lead them to take certain actions; I am only suggesting the game present the CSA with some of the options they thought existed so as to encourage realistic decision making. As I understand it, the idea is to present the player with the same sort of decisions as the real decision makers faced. If we are going to go all hindsight, why not introduce Spencer Carbines and Gatling Guns in 1861? We all know they work and would make a huge difference, even though some of the decision makers at the time didn't believe that.

Lately I've been reading up on GGBbtS and AACW as I'm going to buy one, one first anyway. AACW includes the possibility of European Intervention and tempts the player to try to trigger that event, which may not be all that helpful even if you do trigger it. In pursuing the trigger, the player may do things that would otherwise not be advisable. I think this presents the player with the same sort of options that the real decison makers had at the time.

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 22

RE: British Intervention - 2/20/2009 5:30:10 AM

Bo Rearguard

Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

Lee and the Southern Government had one other motivation for invading the North other than the possibility of foreign intervention. They wanted to get the war off the ravaged soil of Northern Virginia, at least for a while. In this respect the game does work as there are usually plenty of surplus supplies to be foraged in the Northern states. However, it's not a powerful incentive in itself for invading the Union.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to Akmatov)

Post #: 23

RE: British Intervention - 2/21/2009 2:26:11 AM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

Bo, i remind you in case of big victory CSA gets double PP bonus. It is a good incentive and it's not impossible to get in MD considering the Union does not have good DEF leaders by 63 in overall, definitely not up to match Lee's offensive stats (at least in the historical) it is an incentive enough imho.