Discussion:
French Revolution without Revolutionary Wars
(too old to reply)
Alex Milman
2017-09-08 17:46:49 UTC
Permalink
What if French Revolution happens but there are no Revolutionary Wars?

Leopold II comes to a cynical conclusion that a fate of his sister and her
family does not worth a major war and that the ongoing events are French
internal business and Frederick William II of Prussia concurs so there is no Declaration of Pillnitz as a triggering point. OTOH, unlike OTL French
republican government manages to keep revolutionary rhetoric under control
limiting it strictly to France and the issues French.

The 1st Coalition did not happen, French Republic did not start its military
buildup followed by the aggressive campaigns.

How likely the Reign of Terror would be without the OTL hysteria of "they are
trying to get us!"? On their own the aristocrats would not look as dangerous
as when they are painted as the agents of the foreign powers. Of course,
as long as the looting component is present, a government may keep playing
that card but perhaps not up to the same degree.

There are still serious differences between various political groups in the
Convent so this component of the Terror may remain. Probably when killing of
all extremes is completed the Swamp takes charge (there was an interesting
argument that Robespierre actually was "tiger of the Swamp" who exterminated
both Left and Right but was destroyed when he forgot himself and tried to
attack the Swamp) and ends up with something like OTL Directorate politically
and something of the "wild capitalism" (like in OTL :-)) economically.

Now, in an absence of the never-ending wars there is no huge army ("which we
have to keep fighting because otherwise it will destroy us") and no excessively
popular generals (no wars means no spectacular successes and, as a result,
no popularity) so the republican government, flawed as it is, survives.

A separate issue is a fate of the royal family. Few options within this ATL
(not to be confused with the real life :-)):

(a) Louis and M-A are executed but nobody gives a damn (after all, Louis
XIV signed a treaty with Cromwell and James of Scotland did not start war
with England over execution of his mother, Russian record by that time is
even worse: Ivan VI and Peter III had been murdered, family of Ivan VI had
been held in a close confinement for decades so Catherine II as a defender
of the legitimacy is not a very convincing figure). The only really concerned
figure, Leopold II, has plenty of the close relatives left and one sister
more or less does not really matter. Perhaps we can assume that at this time
he has some military or diplomatic conflict wither with the Ottomans or with Prussia and is forced to adjust his priorities (anyway, there was a short
period of the normal relations between the Republic and Hapsburgs).

(b) They are held under the close guard (perhaps in more comfortable
conditions than in OTL) and are smart enough not to try to escape or to
have communication with the émigrés.

(c) Louis is smart enough to abdicate (highly unlikely but not 100% impossible)
and either allowed to live comfortably (but under the supervision) in some
estate or permitted to leave France because as an abdicated monarch in exile
(even if he has second thoughts later) he is much less attractive figure than
as a martyr: his leadership capacities were close to zero. Anyway, his
execution achieved nothing practical: his brothers remained alive (and hardly
were a noticeable factor prior to 1814).

A byproduct: no huge armies of the OTL Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

How the European affairs will develop for the next few decades without all
these wars?

The French Republic at peace with its neighbors. Eventually, there could be
some "conventional" wars of a limited scale but no major changes on a map, at
least in Europe.

None of the "Great Powers" has to spend enormous money on the military
buildup and campaigns and the OTL soldiers are engaged in the local economies.
Most probably, British-French economic competition is still there but there
is no Continental System and the things are continue in more natural way.
There is an opening for the French penetration into the Russian market
(practical after annexation of the Black Sea coast and creation of the ports
there): a treaty had been signed just before the fall of the Ancient Regime
and in ATL it is picked up by the Republican government.

Catherine II is less obsessed with the "Jackobins" scare and perhaps
this may prevent the 2nd Partition of Poland (1792). Well, it probably
would not because Catherine II was angered by the very fact of the independent
constitutional activities in Poland but, OTOH, she started a war just to
rollback these reforms, partition, after the Polish defeat, was Prussian
idea. Anyway, with some stretch of imagination we can have a surviving
independent Polish state (continued internal mess may eventually result in
its disappearance but let's be optimistic :-)).

HRE survives for unknown number of years.

Prussia is not forced to modernize its military system for at least few
decades to follow so the unification of Germany may not happen in the OTL
form and timeline.

Italian states remain the same which, among other things, means independent
Venice.

Spain keeps drifting peacefully in the same direction but an absence of the
OTL events may make liberation of the Spanish American colonies much more
problematic: Spain still has a navy and an army.

Britain - ????
unknown
2017-09-08 18:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Britain - ????
Largely ignored the initial revolution. Pitt the younger was more
concerned with internal affairs like reducing the national debt. Without
apparent French agression and if the Revolutionary does not do to much
propaganda this state is likely to continue. By the way without the
stress of the war Pitt is likely to live longer with major effects on
British history.
Alex Milman
2017-09-08 20:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Alex Milman
Britain - ????
Largely ignored the initial revolution. Pitt the younger was more
concerned with internal affairs like reducing the national debt. Without
apparent French agression and if the Revolutionary does not do to much
propaganda this state is likely to continue. By the way without the
stress of the war Pitt is likely to live longer with major effects on
British history.
So we have a relatively peaceful Europe with a possible area of the
French-British conflict being India (and perhaps Caribbean?). Perhaps
an earlier start of the colonial race in Africa?
Insane Ranter
2017-09-09 04:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
So we have a relatively peaceful Europe with a possible area of the
French-British conflict being India (and perhaps Caribbean?). Perhaps
an earlier start of the colonial race in Africa?
So more or less like our OTL exception being the earlier start of the colonial race for Africa?
Alex Milman
2017-09-09 14:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Alex Milman
So we have a relatively peaceful Europe with a possible area of the
French-British conflict being India (and perhaps Caribbean?). Perhaps
an earlier start of the colonial race in Africa?
So more or less like our OTL exception being the earlier start of the colonial race for Africa?
Actually, quite different from OTL:

1st, there are no huge human and economic losses caused by the Revolutionary
and Napoleonic Wars.

2nd, map of Germany is quite different from one of 1814: there is still HRE
with 800+ German states, which makes unification more difficult.

3rd, map of Italy is different: Venice retains its independence (don't remember
other post-Napoleonic "adjustments").

4th, there is a non-zero chance of the independent Poland in post-1st Partition
borders.

5th, there are no (at least for a while) changes in warfare caused by the
French Revolution: the armies are much smaller, there is no conscription, etc.
with the resulting smaller military budgets.

6th, there is no strong anti-French feelings in Prussia (and other parts of
Germany) and no "German patriotism" which became quite visible by 1813.

7th, Spanish colonial empire may survive for a much longer time and Spain
itself avoids the terrible war on its soil.

8th, Russia most probably not ends up having union with the "Kingdom of Poland"
avoiding the following uprisings and "Polish Issue".

9th, Prussia may not end up with its military system (caused by the Napoleonic
restrictions on its military) and ends up by slowly drifting to something
more modern but not making it into the most powerful military state in
Europe.

10th, Britain may not end up with as such a powerful position in Europe as in
OTL at the time of Vienna (not being sponsor of the anti-Napoleonic coalition).
There are no Wellington & Nelson's legends (no tear jerking movies, the railroad
station and a bridge have different names, sir Walter Scott is not writing
a pompous poem, etc. :-)).

11th, Sweden has a different royal dynasty and chances are that it does not
end up as a neutral state.

12th, there is no Restoration in France, no Louis-Phillip, no 2nd Empire,
most probably no equivalent of the Franco-Prussian war and, with some luck,
no WWI (and as a result, WWII).

13th, probably no Crimean War (Republic will be much less eager to get into
this adventure than NIII who needed a military glory and had a personal
grudge with Nicholas I who refused him a proper addressing). The most probable
byproduct - delayed reforms in Russia (but a better financial situation).
Rob
2017-09-12 02:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
So we have a relatively peaceful Europe with a possible area of the
French-British conflict being India (and perhaps Caribbean?). Perhaps
an earlier start of the colonial race in Africa?
In tropical Africa, disease conditions will still forestall partition of the interior for two generations more. Any African "scramble" would be limited to coastal forts and strips, and possibly colonial enclaves in far southern Africa and Africa's Mediterranean littoral.

In the pre-quinine era less distracted, but more populous and expansive Europeans might accelerate their domination of Ottoman lands. They probably can't force concessions from China, Korea or Japan much earlier than OTL however?
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-10 05:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
What if French Revolution happens but there are no Revolutionary Wars?
Leopold II comes to a cynical conclusion that a fate
of his sister and her family does not worth a major
war and that the ongoing events are French internal
business and Frederick William II of Prussia concurs
so there is no Declaration of Pillnitz as a
triggering point. OTOH, unlike OTL French republican
government manages to keep revolutionary rhetoric
under control limiting it strictly to France and the
issues French.
With all respect, I think this is difficult. There was
a definite degree of "Red Scare" going around Europe
at the time. The "old regimes" were too frightened to
make a realistic appraisal of the situation; and the
Republic was almost equally carried away in the other
direction. Emotions were much stronger than reason.
Post by Alex Milman
How likely the Reign of Terror would be without the
OTL hysteria of "they are trying to get us!"?
And the apparent threat of invasion.
Post by Alex Milman
A byproduct: no huge armies of the OTL Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.
And vast numbers of people not killed.
Post by Alex Milman
How the European affairs will develop for the next few decades without all
these wars?
None of the "Great Powers" has to spend enormous money on the military
buildup and campaigns and the OTL soldiers are engaged in the local economies.
I have a reference which shows that at the height of the wars,
British government spending approached _50% of GNP_. That kind
of expenditure has huge impacts.
Post by Alex Milman
HRE survives for unknown number of years.
The HRE was (ISTM) spinning toward dissolution, even before the Revolution.
Secularization of clerical states was already happening, IIRC, and "old
regimes" were enthusiastic about mediatization of lesser states. Yes, the
French/Napoleon dictated much of that, but the German princes were awfully
cooperative. And the Revolution, even if it doesn't go on the march, would
generate even more sentiment for reform.
Post by Alex Milman
Prussia is not forced to modernize its military system for at least few
decades to follow...
Unless Prussia gets into some other war and gets stepped on.
Post by Alex Milman
so the unification of Germany may not happen in the OTL
form and timeline.
Almost certainly will not.
Post by Alex Milman
Italian states remain the same which, among other things, means independent
Venice.
Maybe. Austria was eager to added to Italian holdings. Venice was
an obvious target.
Post by Alex Milman
Spain keeps drifting peacefully in the same direction but an absence of the
OTL events may make liberation of the Spanish American colonies much more
problematic: Spain still has a navy and an army.
There we find vast changes. OTL's Latin American revolutions were
against a regime that was being stomped by France. If there is no
French invasion, I don't see any successful revolutions at all for
a very long time. Spain held Cuba and the Philippines until 1898,
and were evicted only by US forces.

Brazil also is very different, without the Portuguese Crown ever
residing there.

The US changes too. The news of the French Revolution affected US
politics, with Jefferson and the Republicans in sympathy, and the
Federalists hostile. "Citizen" Genet tried to involve the US in
the FR Wars, which caused a political crisis. Then the US fought
the "quasi-war" of 1798 against France at sea. The Alien and
Sedition Acts were in part a reaction to all this.

OTL, the US acquired Louisiana cheap thanks to the French wars,
and was able to seize/buy Florida because Spain was wrecked.
ATL, there will probably be a US-Spanish War in the early 1800s,
because US settlers will be spilling into Louisiana and Florida,
and continued Spanish rule will be intolerable to them.

But - probably no War of 1812, as even the War Hawks won't think
the US can take on Britain head-to-head.

Another impact will be the survival of the Mameluke regime in
Egypt. And without the French expedition, Egyptology will not
take off till much later.

There could be knock-ons for India as well; the British fought
the Assaye campaign in the midst of the FR&N Wars (1803). If there
is no war in Europe, perhaps there are more British troops in
India; the Marathas may be deterred from fighting. Dunno how that
would work out.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-09-10 16:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
What if French Revolution happens but there are no Revolutionary Wars?
Leopold II comes to a cynical conclusion that a fate
of his sister and her family does not worth a major
war and that the ongoing events are French internal
business and Frederick William II of Prussia concurs
so there is no Declaration of Pillnitz as a
triggering point. OTOH, unlike OTL French republican
government manages to keep revolutionary rhetoric
under control limiting it strictly to France and the
issues French.
With all respect, I think this is difficult.
If it was simple, it would probably happen but "difficult"
is not the same as "impossible".
Post by Rich Rostrom
There was
a definite degree of "Red Scare" going around Europe
at the time. The "old regimes" were too frightened to
make a realistic appraisal of the situation; and the
Republic was almost equally carried away in the other
direction. Emotions were much stronger than reason.
Of course. Catherine II, who was politically flirted with
Voltaire & Co and hired LaHarpe as a teacher to her
grandchildren, suddenly became scared of the Russian masons
(who were mostly aristocrats not interested in anything but
a "feel good" talk) and later of the "Jacobins" as if there
was any serious chance for their activities in the XVIII
Russia. Her son, Paul went even further by forbidding French
fashions as being "revolutionary". What was a realistic chance
for the revolutionary ideas becoming anything more than an idle
talk among the people who were most unlikely to became the
revolutionaries? Zero. Keep in mind that the same Catherine
refused to give Britain a help against the colonies declaring
this British domestic business and, while Washington & Co
hardly qualified as the Jacobins, this was a revolution with a
platform which could be easily considered as quite revolutionary
(from the perspective of the Russian Empire). Paul I was a rabid
anti-revolutionary but as soon as France became a Consulate, he
immediately cooled down and became French ally even if Bonaparte
did not reject (at least openly) the ideological foundations of
the French Republic.


I strongly suspect that the chances for the revolutionary
influence in Prussia at that time were equally unrealistic.

I understand that the Spanish Bourbons may be upset with the
execution of the French one but a little bit later the same
Spain made a treaty with the French Republic so it does not
look like their grief was too deep.

OTOH, Britain was officially neutral until France declared a
war on it.


This is why I explicitly emphasized "reason" vs. "emotion" in
defining this ATL.

Ditto for the French side: initially, things were quite "domestic"
but scare of the foreign intervention played right to the hands of
the radicals and you know the rest.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
How likely the Reign of Terror would be without the
OTL hysteria of "they are trying to get us!"?
And the apparent threat of invasion.
Exactly. Without going into the obvious parallels with the Russian
Revolution, the radicals need an enemy to get and retain power. In the
case of French Revolution a domestic enemy was too weak while on
its own (upraising in Vandee started, to a great degree, as a reaction
to the universal conscription) so the foreign (and absolutely inept)
one came quite handily.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
A byproduct: no huge armies of the OTL Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.
And vast numbers of people not killed.
And working.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
How the European affairs will develop for the next few decades without all
these wars?
None of the "Great Powers" has to spend enormous money on the military
buildup and campaigns and the OTL soldiers are engaged in the local economies.
I have a reference which shows that at the height of the wars,
British government spending approached _50% of GNP_. That kind
of expenditure has huge impacts.
And between Tilsit and 1812 Russian military budget increased few times
and so did the numbers, which meant very serious negative impact on Russian
economy: most of the soldiers had been peasants and Russian agriculture
was very labor-consuming.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
HRE survives for unknown number of years.
The HRE was (ISTM) spinning toward dissolution, even before the Revolution.
But in an absence of a "driving force" (Nappy in OTL) the process could be
quite slow and not as drastic.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Secularization of clerical states was already happening, IIRC, and "old
regimes" were enthusiastic about mediatization of lesser states. Yes, the
French/Napoleon dictated much of that, but the German princes were awfully
cooperative.
They did not have too many options because most of Germany had been under
the French occupation. Besides, Napoleon gave the few bigger states territories
of the endless small ones, which of course resulted in certain enthusiasm
among the "survivors". But if there is no force equal to Napoleonic, conversion
of 800+ (IIRC) independent territories into 32 (?) could take a very long time
even if just because the bigger entities would try to prevent other bigger
entities from getting too much, etc.

Actually, as Marbot remarked (his book is not dedicated exclusively to the
Kalmyk archers :-)), eventually this reform played against Napoleon: under
the HRE the "imperial" contingents were pretty much meaningless as a military
force because there were too many of them, most being too small and all of
them being far from uniform. The bigger states created by Napoleon could and
did provide him with the meaningful contingents while he was winning but as
soon as he started loosing these armies started turning against him.
Post by Rich Rostrom
And the Revolution, even if it doesn't go on the march, would
generate even more sentiment for reform.
Well, a meaningful reform among 500 - 800 hundred entities would be a hard
thing to accomplish. It could happen sooner or later but rather later than
sooner.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Prussia is not forced to modernize its military system for at least few
decades to follow...
Unless Prussia gets into some other war and gets stepped on.
Of course. But a number of the potentially strong opponents was rather limited.
Probably Sweden over Swedish Pomerania but Sweden was in a sorry state as
well. War against Russia was unlikely, to put it mildly. The Hapsburgs, without
modernization forced upon them by the French revolutionary armies were not
better than the Prussians so a debacle on OTL scale was extremely unlikely and
I'm not sure that anything short of a complete disaster and national
humiliation would force meaningful reforms (in a short term).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
so the unification of Germany may not happen in the OTL
form and timeline.
Almost certainly will not.
Post by Alex Milman
Italian states remain the same which, among other things, means independent
Venice.
Maybe. Austria was eager to added to Italian holdings. Venice was
an obvious target.
Good point but it would require the French neutrality (I assume) and if
Austria is an aggressor than the French intervention amounts to a "conventional"
non-ideological war.

OTOH escalation involving potentially interested 3rd parties (both Brits and
Russians had been operating on the Med) could make it into something more
serious.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Spain keeps drifting peacefully in the same direction but an absence of the
OTL events may make liberation of the Spanish American colonies much more
problematic: Spain still has a navy and an army.
There we find vast changes.
That's the point. :-)

Quite often the fall of the Spanish colonial Empire in the Americas is
overlooked but the territories impacted were much bigger than those
impacted by the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars.
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL's Latin American revolutions were
against a regime that was being stomped by France. If there is no
French invasion, I don't see any successful revolutions at all for
a very long time. Spain held Cuba and the Philippines until 1898,
and were evicted only by US forces.
So we'll have either no revolutions at all or all of them being crushed.
This means, among many other things, that Mexico remains Spanish viceroyalty
for a much longer time than in OTL (ended in 1821), which may create
serious differences from OTL with a potential impact on the OTL borders.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Brazil also is very different, without the Portuguese Crown ever
residing there.
Of course.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US changes too. The news of the French Revolution affected US
politics, with Jefferson and the Republicans in sympathy, and the
Federalists hostile. "Citizen" Genet tried to involve the US in
the FR Wars, which caused a political crisis. Then the US fought
the "quasi-war" of 1798 against France at sea. The Alien and
Sedition Acts were in part a reaction to all this.
OTL, the US acquired Louisiana cheap thanks to the French wars,
and was able to seize/buy Florida because Spain was wrecked.
ATL, there will probably be a US-Spanish War in the early 1800s,
because US settlers will be spilling into Louisiana and Florida,
and continued Spanish rule will be intolerable to them.
But would the outcome of such a war be clear if Spain is still a reasonably
powerful state?
Post by Rich Rostrom
But - probably no War of 1812, as even the War Hawks won't think
the US can take on Britain head-to-head.
Another impact will be the survival of the Mameluke regime in
Egypt.
Actually, it continued after the French departure (formally, by the
time of the French invasion they were formally Ottoman subjects) all
the way to 1811 when Mohammed Ali exterminated their leaders.
Post by Rich Rostrom
And without the French expedition, Egyptology will not
take off till much later.
OK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
There could be knock-ons for India as well; the British fought
the Assaye campaign in the midst of the FR&N Wars (1803). If there
is no war in Europe, perhaps there are more British troops in
India; the Marathas may be deterred from fighting. Dunno how that
would work out.
But there could be more French troops there as well. IIRC, there was a
campaign fought during the French Revolution and there were numerous French
officers serving to the Hindu rulers as the mercenary commanders of the sepoy troops.
Chrysi Cat
2017-09-11 09:51:11 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US changes too. The news of the French Revolution affected US
politics, with Jefferson and the Republicans in sympathy, and the
Federalists hostile. "Citizen" Genet tried to involve the US in
the FR Wars, which caused a political crisis. Then the US fought
the "quasi-war" of 1798 against France at sea. The Alien and
Sedition Acts were in part a reaction to all this.
OTL, the US acquired Louisiana cheap thanks to the French wars,
and was able to seize/buy Florida because Spain was wrecked.
ATL, there will probably be a US-Spanish War in the early 1800s,
because US settlers will be spilling into Louisiana and Florida,
and continued Spanish rule will be intolerable to them.
But would the outcome of such a war be clear if Spain is still a reasonably
powerful state?
<snip>

Now I will admit right out to being a biased American *and* to having a
less-than-laudatory historical education in even *undergrad* work at
uni, let alone postgrad degrees like most of you, but I'd have to think
that you're trying to suggest 'official war' when the most likely
scenario is more along the lines of 'the same way the Mexicans lost
Texas and would have lost California, Mexican-American War or not."

Yes, Spain including her colonies has a much greater population than any
one province of New Spain (tautology is a tautology!), but if you're
looking to crush rebellions, enough of your garrison has to be loyal to
the Crown that the *garrison itself* doesn't become the main source of
rebellious soldiers. _That_ basically means "Peninsulares", thanks to
the Borbon "Reforms" that are anything but.

There *aren't enough of them being born in Spain* to garrison *all of
New Spain including Spanish Louisiana*. If you try, you have so few
people at home that the Ottomans could conquer your entire country, let
alone the French or Portuguese. You can *either* hold 'traditional' New
Spain tightly, or you can put enough troops in Louisiana and the
Floridas to keep even just their locally-born population under your
boot. Not both.

And of course, Spanish Louisiana is also being settled so lightly by
even *criollo* Hispanophones that _the._ _majority._ _of._ _the._
_population._ _of._ _her._ _large._ _towns._ _is._ _still._
_Francophone._ as of the OTL Louisiana Purchase. [Wow. Doing a Phil
impression can be entertaining when you're worked up!]

Whereas Anglophonesof the time are not exactly in the habit of remaining
thin on the ground. Once a few get in, you're not talking 'a few traders
and voyageurs', you're talking an eventual colonisation.

Kind of ironic that for the last 50 years, because the birth rate of one
side of that coin fell while the other remained steady, we've been
looking at counter-colonisation instead :-p

But yeah, not likely a WAR-war, and if one breaks out, the US are most
likely well and truly boned, and either forced to negotiate as the 17
individual nations they are, or defeated wholesale and forced to (very
temporarily, unless the aforementioned peninsulare-boosting ends) swear
loyalty to the King of Spain.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
The Horny Goat
2017-09-11 16:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Now I will admit right out to being a biased American *and* to having a
less-than-laudatory historical education in even *undergrad* work at
uni, let alone postgrad degrees like most of you, but I'd have to think
that you're trying to suggest 'official war' when the most likely
scenario is more along the lines of 'the same way the Mexicans lost
Texas and would have lost California, Mexican-American War or not."
You seriously think most of us have graduate degrees in history?

For myself make that one single undergrad 20th century survey course
coupled with 40-50 years of reading. As a voracious reader I've read
all sorts of sources many of which conflict with other. As I write
this I'm watching a PBS video called "Commanding Heights" which is
primarily focussed on Britain and the US on the conflict between the
ideas of Keynes and Friedmann on the one hand and Hayek on the other.
It's based on a book by Daniel Yergin by the same name - the title
referring to the critical elements of national economies.

If you're a regular reader you'll know I tend to be a big non-fan of
John Maynard Keynes particularly the first half of his career. While I
definitely believe government has a role to play in limiting economic
abuses (particularly in areas where one side or another by the nature
of the 'industry' has a strangehold - a good example being medicine
where a free market with free entry and exit of firms can't
effectively exist) am very definitely a capitalist.
Alex Milman
2017-09-11 17:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snip>
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US changes too. The news of the French Revolution affected US
politics, with Jefferson and the Republicans in sympathy, and the
Federalists hostile. "Citizen" Genet tried to involve the US in
the FR Wars, which caused a political crisis. Then the US fought
the "quasi-war" of 1798 against France at sea. The Alien and
Sedition Acts were in part a reaction to all this.
OTL, the US acquired Louisiana cheap thanks to the French wars,
and was able to seize/buy Florida because Spain was wrecked.
ATL, there will probably be a US-Spanish War in the early 1800s,
because US settlers will be spilling into Louisiana and Florida,
and continued Spanish rule will be intolerable to them.
But would the outcome of such a war be clear if Spain is still a reasonably
powerful state?
<snip>
Now I will admit right out to being a biased American *and* to having a
less-than-laudatory historical education in even *undergrad* work at
uni, let alone postgrad degrees like most of you, but I'd have to think
that you're trying to suggest 'official war' when the most likely
scenario is more along the lines of 'the same way the Mexicans lost
Texas and would have lost California, Mexican-American War or not."
Demographic factor would be probably just as important as in OTL and
I wrote more than once that Louisiana (French or Spanish) was not sustainable.
Neither California nor Texas had a noticeable population under the Spanish
rule or in independent Mexico and that would not drastically change unless
we assume scenario of a massive emigration from ATL Spain into the colonies.
But a purely military aspect may be different if the Spanish troops are
better organized and led and are more numerous then the Mexican ones in OTL.
Unlike OTL Mexico ATL Spain would presumably have a reasonably strong navy
and could bring the reinforcements to the conflict areas and, operating from
its bases on Caribbean, that navy could do at least some harm to the US
territory. Viceroyalty itself could be in a much better shape without a
protracted war for independence (11 years) and the following turmoil
(the 1st empire, uprising, the 1st Republic, dictatorship of Santa Anna
with its uprisings and problems).

It would not take too much in the terms of the numbers to defeat the Texas
rebellion: at San Jacinto each of the armies had approximately 1K and 1 or
2 guns. Surely, few regular Spanish regiments with few artillery batteries
would make all the difference. Mexican-American War was a completely
different story because each side fielded approximately 70K troops but here
we are talking about 1840's (well, even then, extra troops from Spain could
make war less disastrous).
unknown
2017-09-11 18:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
(well, even then, extra troops from Spain could
make war less disastrous).
From what I remember reading, anything that got rid of Santa Anna would
result in Mexico doing better.
Robert Woodward
2017-09-12 05:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Alex Milman
(well, even then, extra troops from Spain could
make war less disastrous).
From what I remember reading, anything that got rid of Santa Anna would
result in Mexico doing better.
They weren't doing especially well before Santa Anna got involved (when
the Mexican-American war started, he was in exile in Cuba). From what I
have read, not one of the Mexican generals distinguished himself in any
battle.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Alex Milman
2017-09-12 15:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by unknown
Post by Alex Milman
(well, even then, extra troops from Spain could
make war less disastrous).
From what I remember reading, anything that got rid of Santa Anna would
result in Mexico doing better.
They weren't doing especially well before Santa Anna got involved
They had problems form the very beginning : the 1st Mexican Empire was ridden with the troubles and they never ceased to exist.
Post by Robert Woodward
(when
the Mexican-American war started, he was in exile in Cuba).
It did not really matter: the Mexican Army was in a sorry state and
it would take at least a military genius (which Santa Anna obviously
was not) to win against a better armed and trained opponent.
Post by Robert Woodward
From what I
have read, not one of the Mexican generals distinguished himself in any
battle.
Well, they clearly "distinguished" themselves in the battles against other
Mexican generals. :-)
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-14 23:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There was
a definite degree of "Red Scare" going around Europe
at the time. The "old regimes" were too frightened to
make a realistic appraisal of the situation; and the
Republic was almost equally carried away in the other
direction. Emotions were much stronger than reason.
Keep in mind that the same Catherine
refused to give Britain a help against the colonies declaring
this British domestic business and, while Washington & Co
hardly qualified as the Jacobins, this was a revolution with a
platform which could be easily considered as quite revolutionary
(from the perspective of the Russian Empire).
The rhetoric of a handful of rural farmers in a remote
colony might be ignored, as it only affected British
rule over them. (The colonial governments themselves
were in rebellion, so the change was only the link with
Britain.) No big deal.

The overthrow of the oldest and most prestigious
monarchy in Europe? Mob action overturning the social
order in a nation which was arguably the core of
European civilization?

That would be (and was) terrifying.
Post by Alex Milman
Paul I was a rabid anti-revolutionary but as soon as
France became a Consulate, he immediately cooled
down and became French ally even if Bonaparte did
not reject (at least openly) the ideological
foundations of the French Republic.
But that was years later, _after_ the immediate panic
had ebbed.
Post by Alex Milman
This is why I explicitly emphasized "reason" vs. "emotion" in
defining this ATL.
Fair enough. But ISTM very hard for reason to outweigh
emotion at such a moment.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
HRE survives for unknown number of years.
The HRE was (ISTM) spinning toward dissolution, even before the Revolution.
But in an absence of a "driving force" (Nappy in
OTL) the process could be quite slow and not as
drastic.
I think there was a "preference cascade" in the
making. As with the French Revolution: IIRC, there was
a single day in which the nobles in the Assembly
renounced all their feudal privileges - because it was
_time_, and everyone knew it.

Germany was in a similar condition; the "old regime"
of petty states, ecclesiastical domains, intricate
borders with lots of exclaves, etc, had to go, and
everyone knew it. It was just a matter of a
precipitating event.
Post by Alex Milman
Quite often the fall of the Spanish colonial Empire in the Americas is
overlooked but the territories impacted were much bigger than those
impacted by the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars.
I don't quite think so... The NW included after all the US, Canada,
Russia, Egypt, and all of Europe.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL, the US acquired Louisiana cheap thanks to the French wars,
and was able to seize/buy Florida because Spain was wrecked.
ATL, there will probably be a US-Spanish War in the early 1800s,
because US settlers will be spilling into Louisiana and Florida,
and continued Spanish rule will be intolerable to them.
But would the outcome of such a war be clear if
Spain is still a reasonably powerful state?
Interesting question - by 1820, the US had abut 10M people,
while Spain had about 12M. Spain was still nominally a Great Power,
but how much actual power could Spain project to the Americas?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Another impact will be the survival of the Mameluke regime in
Egypt.
Actually, it continued after the French departure (formally, by the
time of the French invasion they were formally Ottoman subjects) all
the way to 1811 when Mohammed Ali exterminated their leaders.
Yabbut they were pretty beat up by the French first.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There could be knock-ons for India as well; the British fought
the Assaye campaign in the midst of the FR&N Wars (1803). If there
is no war in Europe, perhaps there are more British troops in
India; the Marathas may be deterred from fighting. Dunno how that
would work out.
But there could be more French troops there as well.
AFAIK, there were no French national troops in India
after 1763. (Aside from a few guards at Pondichery
and Chandernagore.)
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, there was a campaign fought during the French
Revolution...
I can't find any reference to such... Ah. In 1793,
the British besieged and captured Pondichery, which
had a garrison of 1,659 and held out for three weeks.
The other French posts all surrendered without
fighting.

These posts were returned to France in 1802. I don't
know what happened to them between then and 1815.
Post by Alex Milman
and there were numerous French officers
serving to the Hindu rulers as the mercenary
commanders of the sepoy troops.
European mercenary officers are one thing; actual
troops are another. BTW the Mahratta commander at
Assaye was a German mercenary.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-09-15 01:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There was
a definite degree of "Red Scare" going around Europe
at the time. The "old regimes" were too frightened to
make a realistic appraisal of the situation; and the
Republic was almost equally carried away in the other
direction. Emotions were much stronger than reason.
Keep in mind that the same Catherine
refused to give Britain a help against the colonies declaring
this British domestic business and, while Washington & Co
hardly qualified as the Jacobins, this was a revolution with a
platform which could be easily considered as quite revolutionary
(from the perspective of the Russian Empire).
The rhetoric of a handful of rural farmers in a remote
colony might be ignored, as it only affected British
rule over them. (The colonial governments themselves
were in rebellion, so the change was only the link with
Britain.) No big deal.
Well, when it was rebellion of her own subjects, it b was a very serious
issue even if it did not involve any ideology besides "kill the nobles". :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
The overthrow of the oldest and most prestigious
monarchy in Europe?
Wouldn't the HRE be at least an equal competitor?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Mob action overturning the social
order in a nation which was arguably the core of
European civilization?
Actually, Catherine was 'triggered' against the things that she
considered revolutionary before the French Revolution even started:
her actions against the Russian masons are dated by 1785. The only
thing that the French Revolution REALLY added was the term "Jacobins"
(which Catherine used quite liberally :-)).

OTOH, look at the situation from a purely practical perspective. Russian
relations with the Bourbons were not excessively cordial because they were
traditionally supporting the Ottomans and anti-Russian parties in the
Commonwealth. Neither did Russia had any meaningful economic relations with
France (again, Britain was the main partner up to such a degree that the
French goods usually had been carried to Russia by the British ships).

During her reign Catherine proved to be quite flexible ideologically and
was intelligent enough to understand that events in France are hardly
impacting Russia (except for forcing some quite capable Frenchmen into the
Russian service). In OTL she did not went beyond making some meaningless
noises and only her son, quite a few years later, intervened militarily.
Even then, it took years of the French aggressive wars of conquest and he
was quite satisfied when the French Republic became a dictatorship: the 1st
Consul did not openly reject any principles of the French Revolution by the
time he and Paul became close buddies.

Notice that the fleeing Bourbons did not get any serious support from any
of the Russian rulers.
Post by Rich Rostrom
That would be (and was) terrifying.
Not really, as far as Russia was concerned. In the worst case scenario she'd
break the diplomatic relations.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Paul I was a rabid anti-revolutionary but as soon as
France became a Consulate, he immediately cooled
down and became French ally even if Bonaparte did
not reject (at least openly) the ideological
foundations of the French Republic.
But that was years later, _after_ the immediate panic
had ebbed.
Well, actually, the "panic" became much greater because situation escalated
from an unpleasant (well, of course it was bad for the French to execute
their monarch but the Brits did the same thing and, honestly who cared in
Russia?) to a very serious: by the time of his intervention armies of the
French Republic had been operating well beyond the French borders creating
the vassal republics. The disease was spreading and, actually, it was even
conflicting with the Russian (or at least Paul's) interests when the French
took Malta and extended their operations into the coast of the Ionian Sea
(by that time Russians got used to a notion that the region is within their
"sphere of the interests").
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
This is why I explicitly emphasized "reason" vs. "emotion" in
defining this ATL.
Fair enough. But ISTM very hard for reason to outweigh
emotion at such a moment.
Who said that it would be easy? However, it was clearly possible if BOTH
sides tried to use that "R-thing". :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
HRE survives for unknown number of years.
The HRE was (ISTM) spinning toward dissolution, even before the Revolution.
But in an absence of a "driving force" (Nappy in
OTL) the process could be quite slow and not as
drastic.
I think there was a "preference cascade" in the
making. As with the French Revolution: IIRC, there was
a single day in which the nobles in the Assembly
renounced all their feudal privileges - because it was
_time_, and everyone knew it.
Indeed.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Germany was in a similar condition; the "old regime"
of petty states, ecclesiastical domains, intricate
borders with lots of exclaves, etc, had to go, and
everyone knew it.
Eventually, but most of the participants would prefer this to
be postponed (except for those who would end up as the beneficiaries).
Then again, it would be a matter of not only "when" but also of "how"
and "by whom".
Post by Rich Rostrom
It was just a matter of a
precipitating event.
And if there is no French Revolution and Nappy, the event could be postponed
by the decades or perhaps even a century due to an absence of an obvious
"precipitating event" (in this case, force capable of carrying such a task).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Quite often the fall of the Spanish colonial Empire in the Americas is
overlooked but the territories impacted were much bigger than those
impacted by the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars.
I don't quite think so... The NW included after all the US, Canada,
Russia, Egypt, and all of Europe.
It was claimed that Bolivar liberated a territory much greater than
Napoleonic Empire (which is obviously correct). Then it is "OR", not
"AND" and I'm not sure if it is correct to put war of 1812 in America
into the basket of the "Napoleonic Wars". Of course, "impacted" was not
a precise word.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL, the US acquired Louisiana cheap thanks to the French wars,
and was able to seize/buy Florida because Spain was wrecked.
ATL, there will probably be a US-Spanish War in the early 1800s,
because US settlers will be spilling into Louisiana and Florida,
and continued Spanish rule will be intolerable to them.
But would the outcome of such a war be clear if
Spain is still a reasonably powerful state?
Interesting question - by 1820, the US had abut 10M people,
while Spain had about 12M. Spain was still nominally a Great Power,
but how much actual power could Spain project to the Americas?
By 1820? Very little, AFAIK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Another impact will be the survival of the Mameluke regime in
Egypt.
Actually, it continued after the French departure (formally, by the
time of the French invasion they were formally Ottoman subjects) all
the way to 1811 when Mohammed Ali exterminated their leaders.
Yabbut they were pretty beat up by the French first.
Of course, but few years later they rebelled against the Ottomans and
for a while had been quite successful in their grab of power: the Ottoman
governor became a plain figurehead (until he killed them all).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There could be knock-ons for India as well; the British fought
the Assaye campaign in the midst of the FR&N Wars (1803). If there
is no war in Europe, perhaps there are more British troops in
India; the Marathas may be deterred from fighting. Dunno how that
would work out.
But there could be more French troops there as well.
AFAIK, there were no French national troops in India
after 1763. (Aside from a few guards at Pondichery
and Chandernagore.)
Yes, AFAIK, there were only the French mercenaries serving as the sepoy
officers and commanders. Without the OTL distractions, they could potentially
try to restore their lost possessions by sending some troops.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, there was a campaign fought during the French
Revolution...
I can't find any reference to such...
My recollection of the dates was wrong. I was thinking
about the Marquis de Bussy but his activities predated the Revolution:
he died in Pondicherry in 1785.
Pete Barrett
2017-09-15 08:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
AFAIK, there were no French national troops in India after 1763. (Aside
from a few guards at Pondichery and Chandernagore.)
Yes, AFAIK, there were only the French mercenaries serving as the sepoy
officers and commanders. Without the OTL distractions, they could
potentially try to restore their lost possessions by sending some
troops.
The obvious time to do so would have been when France was fighting
Britain during the American War of Independence. They either didn't try,
or didn't try successfully, so they probably didn't at that time have the
resources.

The next opportunity would be during the 3rd Mysore War (1790, so during
the period in question) when Mysore (a French ally) attacked Travancore
(a British ally), and was roundly defeated three years later. If France
had supported Tipu more effectively, he might have avoided such a bad
defeat, or he might even have won. That would have preserved French
influence, if not given France any definite possessions in India.

Looking at the line-up on each side (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Third_Anglo-Mysore_War), it's not clear why Tipu started this war, as he
seems to have been opposed by every power in the region. He might have
been expecting help from France which didn't arrive, or perhaps he
thought Cornwallis wouldn't act. If it was French help he was expecting,
it may be that the French (in 1790) were otherwise engaged. Would that be
different in the ATL?

Mysore was so emasculated after the defeat that no amount of French aid
in the 4th Mysore War would have helped, so 1790 was probably the last
opportunity for France to get back its position in India.
--
Pete BARRETT
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-16 00:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Interesting question - by 1820, the US had abut 10M people,
while Spain had about 12M. Spain was still nominally a Great Power,
but how much actual power could Spain project to the Americas?
By 1820? Very little, AFAIK.
Some, anyway, even OTL - the Latin American
revolutions were fairly serious wars. Spain
had armies of several thousand in New Granada
(Colombia) and Argentina.

But... If push came to shove against the US,
and Spain has not been trashed by French
invasion and occupation - how much muscle
can Spain exert in the New World, compared
to what the US can put forth?

Population is about equal. Spain has a
stronger government with a tradition of
large regular armies. The US is a fractious
republic, which can raise substantial
_militia_ forces - probably a lot more men
than Spain could field in American. Only
militia, though - but American militia, when
feeling committed, performed pretty well.

Another point is that Spain has very little
strategic depth in Florida and Louisiana, but
probably would have naval supremacy, especially
in the Gulf of Mexico.

Spain might be able to hold on to the Florida
Keys, the Dry Tortugas, and even the southern
end of the Florida peninsula. If only the Keys
and Tortugas, the US might never go to the
trouble of taking them later. Or the US might
buy them eventually. If Florida was already a
state, the Keys might remain a separate Territory,
like the Virgin Islands.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-09-16 02:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Interesting question - by 1820, the US had abut 10M people,
while Spain had about 12M. Spain was still nominally a Great Power,
but how much actual power could Spain project to the Americas?
By 1820? Very little, AFAIK.
Some, anyway, even OTL - the Latin American
revolutions were fairly serious wars. Spain
had armies of several thousand in New Granada
(Colombia) and Argentina.
As far as I can tell, each of the battles (that I could find)
involved under 10 thousands on each side.
Post by Rich Rostrom
But... If push came to shove against the US,
You have to be more clear on the timing. In OTL the liberation
wars in the SA happened in 1807 - 1820's while in OTL the US
wars with Mexico happened couple decades later, which could make
a serious difference.
Post by Rich Rostrom
and Spain has not been trashed by French
invasion and occupation - how much muscle
can Spain exert in the New World, compared
to what the US can put forth?
See above: it will depend on when the US gets
into the picture. And, of course, on how much
Spain could count on the local resources.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Population is about equal. Spain has a
stronger government with a tradition of
large regular armies. The US is a fractious
republic, which can raise substantial
_militia_ forces - probably a lot more men
than Spain could field in American. Only
militia, though - but American militia, when
feeling committed, performed pretty well.
In the Mexican American War the US fielded a regular
army of 70K+ so I'd assume that you are talking about
the earlier period.

Then, again, invasion of what are we talking about?
Louisiana (if Spanish) is not defensible and Florida
is hardly to defend. Attack on Mexico would require
to deal 1st with Louisiana. Then, again, in OTL it was
to a great degree a matter of the demographic pressure in
Texas and u willingness of the Mexican population to move
into the peripheral regions (no matter how attractive)
like Texas and California. Probably the pattern would be
the same with Spain still in charge unless we assume a
massive migration from Spain (this would be an interesting
scenario if not necessarily realistic).
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-17 01:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
In the Mexican American War the US fielded a regular
army of 70K+ so I'd assume that you are talking about
the earlier period.
Actually, the US field army of the Mexican War was
almost entirely "volunteer", i.e. militia regiments.

But as I noted, US "militia", when they were
motivated, fought very effectively. E.g. the battle
near Chihuahua, where two regiments of Missouri
Mounted Volunteers routed twice their number of
Mexicans.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Loading...