French Mediterranean

[Alex Milman]

France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

How about a landslide across Gibraltar or similar location that
prevents passage from Atlantic to Med or vice versa.

Because Trafalgar is a LOT closer to Gibraltar (and thus the Med) than
it is to the UK.

Of course that would create a land bridge from Morocco to Spain which
would have major major knock on effects particularly in the early 7th
century AD.....

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

How about a landslide across Gibraltar or similar location that
prevents passage from Atlantic to Med or vice versa.

No, nothing THAT drastic.

Post by The Horny Goat
Because Trafalgar is a LOT closer to Gibraltar (and thus the Med) than
it is to the UK.

Gibraltar should NOT be in British hands. This is not too difficult: just do not allow the Brits to capture it during the War of the Spanish Succession or recapture it somewhat later. The Great Siege was a good example of how NOT to do it but operation was quite possible, for example by going through Catalan Bay - Charles V wall.

2nd prerequisite is French revolutionary government not destroying its own navy (especially the experienced cadres) and concentrating it in Toulon.

Trafalgar was a byproduct of a gross incompetence on all levels, which could be avoided if the experienced cadres were still there.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

How about a landslide across Gibraltar or similar location that
prevents passage from Atlantic to Med or vice versa.

No, nothing THAT drastic.

Post by The Horny Goat
Because Trafalgar is a LOT closer to Gibraltar (and thus the Med) than
it is to the UK.

Gibraltar should NOT be in British hands. This is not too difficult: just do not allow the Brits to capture it during the War of the Spanish Succession or recapture it somewhat later. The Great Siege was a good example of how NOT to do it but operation was quite possible, for example by going through Catalan Bay - Charles V wall.
2nd prerequisite is French revolutionary government not destroying its own navy (especially the experienced cadres) and concentrating it in Toulon.
Trafalgar was a byproduct of a gross incompetence on all levels, which could be avoided if the experienced cadres were still there.

My reference to Trafalgar was simply a way of saying the Royal Navy
could operate effectively fairly close to the Spanish coast and with
Gibraltar in friendly hands that means the western Med as well.

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

How about a landslide across Gibraltar or similar location that
prevents passage from Atlantic to Med or vice versa.

No, nothing THAT drastic.

Post by The Horny Goat
Because Trafalgar is a LOT closer to Gibraltar (and thus the Med) than
it is to the UK.

Gibraltar should NOT be in British hands. This is not too difficult: just do not allow the Brits to capture it during the War of the Spanish Succession or recapture it somewhat later. The Great Siege was a good example of how NOT to do it but operation was quite possible, for example by going through Catalan Bay - Charles V wall.
2nd prerequisite is French revolutionary government not destroying its own navy (especially the experienced cadres) and concentrating it in Toulon.
Trafalgar was a byproduct of a gross incompetence on all levels, which could be avoided if the experienced cadres were still there.

My reference to Trafalgar was simply a way of saying the Royal Navy
could operate effectively fairly close to the Spanish coast and with
Gibraltar in friendly hands that means the western Med as well.

But Gibraltar is NOT in friendly hands (Spain made an early peace with French Republic).

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med
(at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

[Alex Milman]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med
(at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

OK. We are talking the "modern times" - from mid-XVII onward. Louis XIV had a powerful navy which was successful for quite a while. Spanish position varied but after War of the SS it was ruled by the Bourbons and tended to align with France.

The Ottomans are the French allies practically all that time.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the
Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

OK. We are talking the "modern times" - from mid-XVII onward. Louis XIV
had a powerful navy which was successful for quite a while. Spanish
position varied but after War of the SS it was ruled by the Bourbons and
tended to align with France.

OK, so from Louis XIV onwards. France dominates the western Mediterranean
during his reign and immediately after, and perhaps expands its dominance
to the eastern Mediterranean as Ottoman power wanes.

Would avoiding the War of Spanish Succession do it? Britain wasn't really
operating in the Mediterranean before that, and there's no obvious reason
why they would do so afterwards if they hadn't acquired Gibraltar and
Minorca - their interests were elsewhere, in the Americas, and later in
India.

That leaves Spain, the Italian states, and the Ottoman Beys in North
Africa as possible rivals. Spain looks the most serious of those, but if
they're friendly to France, that might not matter.

So if Louis can smuggle his grandson onto the Spanish throne without a
war, that might just do it!

Post by Alex Milman
The Ottomans are the French allies practically all that time.

An alliance which will not last long if the French try to take over the
eastern Mediterranean. <g>

[Alex Milman]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the
Med (at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

OK. We are talking the "modern times" - from mid-XVII onward. Louis XIV
had a powerful navy which was successful for quite a while. Spanish
position varied but after War of the SS it was ruled by the Bourbons and
tended to align with France.

OK, so from Louis XIV onwards. France dominates the western Mediterranean
during his reign and immediately after, and perhaps expands its dominance
to the eastern Mediterranean as Ottoman power wanes.
Would avoiding the War of Spanish Succession do it? Britain wasn't really
operating in the Mediterranean before that, and there's no obvious reason
why they would do so afterwards if they hadn't acquired Gibraltar and
Minorca - their interests were elsewhere, in the Americas, and later in
India.

Yes, this would do as the 1st step.

Of course, it OTL France was seriously handicapped by getting engaged in the pointless or almost pointless (from the French perspective) European wars: War of the Polish Succession (OK, got Lorraine), War of the Austrian Succession, 7 Yeas War (continental part). Enormous resources had been wasted by fighting on continent leaving less resources for naval development.

However, even with all that waste by the time of Revolution France had a reasonably powerful navy which revolutionary government chose to destroy on suspicion of disloyalty (asking for salary and food clearly was counter-revolutionary).

Post by Pete Barrett
That leaves Spain,

During the XVIII century there were 3 Pacte de Famille, Treaty of Aranjuez (by which Spain joined the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain) and then the Second Treaty of San Ildefonso with France which required that Spain declare war on Great Britain.

In other words, most of the XVIII France and Spain had been allies (mostly against GB).

Post by Pete Barrett
the Italian states,

Not very serious competitors either on sea or on land

Post by Pete Barrett
and the Ottoman Beys in North
Africa as possible rivals.

IIRC, due to the fact that France was a traditional Ottoman ally, its ships had been getting a "preferential treatment".

Post by Pete Barrett
Spain looks the most serious of those, but if
they're friendly to France, that might not matter.

See above. Spain was ruled by the Bourbons.

Post by Pete Barrett
So if Louis can smuggle his grandson onto the Spanish throne without a
war, that might just do it!

It would and this could be done reasonably easily if Louis agreed to remove him from the line of the French succession and agreed NOT to provide a moral support to the exiled Stuarts (which he ended up with, anyway, after pretty much destroying France).

Well, of course, even that would not be necessarily if in 1683 he did not refuse to give the youngest son of Olympia Manchini command of a company (to which he was entitled by his rank). War of the SS would be a short affair (Empire starts and immediately loses, the Brits and the Dutch are asking for arrangements). :-)

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
The Ottomans are the French allies practically all that time.

An alliance which will not last long if the French try to take over the
eastern Mediterranean. <g>

There would be no need to take it over explicitly, just exercise enough of an influence (which they have in OTL) for some trade concessions.

[a425couple]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med
(at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

Perhaps everyone is too dismissive of Italian and Austrian
strength.

[Alex Milman]

Post by a425couple

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med
(at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

Perhaps everyone is too dismissive of Italian and Austrian
strength.

There was no "Italy" until well into XIX and Austria as a naval power was also a late comer (IIRC, in WWI its navy could not really get out of the Adriatic Sea).

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:32:34 -0700, a425couple

Post by a425couple

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval dominance on the Med
(at least until early XX). Prerequisites?

From what date? France couldn't have dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean while the Ottomans were strong (so not until the 18th
century, at least), nor dominance over the western Mediterranean while
Spain was strong (so not until the mid 17th century). How were you
thinking of France establishing naval dominance in the first place?

Perhaps everyone is too dismissive of Italian and Austrian
strength.

At least for the Austrian navy which lost all respect after 1918.

During 1914-1918 the name von Trapp was feared as the top Austrian
U-boat ace of the war - when you know that about the old Captain you
know why the Nazis were so keen to conscript him!

These days most people if they know the name at all associate it with
Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer!

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval
dominance on the Med (at least until early XX).
Prerequisites?

Something has to focus _all_ of France's naval
activity in the Mediterranean. As long half the
fleet is in the Atlantic, and France's trade
with the New World is important (sugar islands,
Canada), France's remaining efforts in the Med
won't be enough to control it.

Perhaps if Francis I defeats Charles V and gains
Milan for France. Then recently the possibility
of Brittany remaining outside France, perhaps
under Habsburg aegis was raised.

It seems unlikely that France could gain Milan
yet not get Brittany, but let it go. Then if
France acquired Genoa, Corsica, and Sardinia...

Or this: Castile unites with Portugal instead
of Aragon. Aragon later unites with France,
bringing with it the Balearics, Corsica,
Sardinia, Sicily, and Naples. I don't know how
long such a union of crowns could last, but
while it does, the western Med is a Franco-
Aragonese lake. This might lead to an early
French conquest of the Maghreb, as France
would be the chief victim of Barbary piracy.

One difficulty in all this: Paris is much
closer to the Atlantic than the Mediterranean.
Also, France's Atlantic watershed (the Seine,
Loire, and Gironde basins) is more open and
fertile than the Mediterranean watershed.
Thus France's "center of gravity" is away from
the Mediterranean.

[Alex Milman]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval
dominance on the Med (at least until early XX).
Prerequisites?

Something has to focus _all_ of France's naval
activity in the Mediterranean. As long half the
fleet is in the Atlantic, and France's trade
with the New World is important (sugar islands,
Canada), France's remaining efforts in the Med
won't be enough to control it.

I was waiting for someone finally getting to the point! :-)

Of course, narrow focusing would be VERY helpful. I would not insist on ALL navy being there: after all the Brits managed to do quite well with a broad focus and if France is not heavily engaged in the endless continental wars, it can well afford to have a meaningful presence on the Caribbean as well.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Perhaps if Francis I defeats Charles V and gains
Milan for France.

Milan is important but does not have access to the sea. At that time France was controlling Genoa but eventually lost it to Charles.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Then recently the possibility
of Brittany remaining outside France, perhaps
under Habsburg aegis was raised.

Yes, it WAS raised by me as one of the quite realistic possibilities (but did not generate noticeable interest :-().

Post by Rich Rostrom
It seems unlikely that France could gain Milan
yet not get Brittany, but let it go.

Agree. Anyway, schema was realistic (and almost happened TWICE) but I doubt that it would be maintainable for a long period: among other things, there was a strong pro-French party in the Duchy and all marriage agreements stipulated that, if there is more than one child and the 1st inherits the greater crown, then the 2nd one gets the Duchy.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Then if
France acquired Genoa,

See above. You only need to make it permanent.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Corsica, and Sardinia...

This would be possible with everything else in place.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Or this: Castile unites with Portugal instead
of Aragon. Aragon later unites with France,
bringing with it the Balearics, Corsica,
Sardinia, Sicily, and Naples.

This IS very interesting. At least the initial stage of the Italian Wars (fight for Naples and Sicily) is gone.

Post by Rich Rostrom
I don't know how
long such a union of crowns could last, but
while it does, the western Med is a Franco-
Aragonese lake. This might lead to an early
French conquest of the Maghreb, as France
would be the chief victim of Barbary piracy.

IIRC, in OTL the french had been treated relatively nicely due to their alliance with the Ottomans. But, without European distractions, this still looks as a reasonable step.

Post by Rich Rostrom
One difficulty in all this: Paris is much
closer to the Atlantic than the Mediterranean.
Also, France's Atlantic watershed (the Seine,
Loire, and Gironde basins) is more open and
fertile than the Mediterranean watershed.
Thus France's "center of gravity" is away from
the Mediterranean.

Well, yes but this should not prevent the whole schema if it does not imply EXCLUSIVE concentration on the Med.

Trade in Levant was quite profitable and, closer to the end of the XVIII, the Russian Black Sea markets became available. In OTL, the trade treaty was negotiated but went to nothing thanks to the Revolution.

[a425couple]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval
dominance on the Med (at least until early XX).
Prerequisites?

Something has to focus _all_ of France's naval
activity in the Mediterranean. As long half the
fleet is in the Atlantic, and France's trade
with the New World is important (sugar islands,
Canada), France's remaining efforts in the Med
won't be enough to control it. ------
One difficulty in all this: Paris is much
closer to the Atlantic than the Mediterranean.
Also, France's Atlantic watershed (the Seine,
Loire, and Gironde basins) is more open and
fertile than the Mediterranean watershed.
Thus France's "center of gravity" is away from
the Mediterranean.

Yes.

And especially later.
England / UK NEEDED ocean transport to succeed.
They did, and did well, and were a world power.
France also wanted to be a world power, and
never felt that control of the Mediterranean, Africa,
the Levant, and Middle East were the keys.

"Napoleon III: 1852–70
Napoleon III doubled the area of the French overseas Empire; he
established French rule in New Caledonia, and Cochinchina, established a
protectorate in Cambodia (1863); and colonized parts of Africa. He
joined Britain sending an army to China during Second Opium War and the
Taiping Rebellion (1860), but French ventures to establish influence in
Japan (1867) and Korea (1866) were less successful."
Mexico was a costly failure.
"Intervention in China (1858–60)"
"France in Korea and Japan (1866–68)"
"France in Indochina and the Pacific (1858–70)
Napoleon III also acted to increase the French presence in Indochina. An
important factor in his decision was the belief that France risked
becoming a second-rate power by not expanding its influence in East
Asia. Deeper down was the sense that France owed the world a civilizing
mission."
The Mexican adventure was a costly failure.
" Maximilian --- was captured, judged, and shot on 19 June 1867.
The misadventure in Mexico cost the lives of six thousand French
soldiers and 336 million francs, in a campaign originally designed to
collect 60 million francs. It also aroused the hostility of both the
United States and Austria, which had lost a member of its royal family.
It was also a distraction to Napoleon III, on the eve of his coming
confrontation with Prussia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire

[Alex Milman]

Post by a425couple

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Alex Milman
France, even during the Revolution, maintains naval
dominance on the Med (at least until early XX).
Prerequisites?

Something has to focus _all_ of France's naval
activity in the Mediterranean. As long half the
fleet is in the Atlantic, and France's trade
with the New World is important (sugar islands,
Canada), France's remaining efforts in the Med
won't be enough to control it. ------
One difficulty in all this: Paris is much
closer to the Atlantic than the Mediterranean.
Also, France's Atlantic watershed (the Seine,
Loire, and Gironde basins) is more open and
fertile than the Mediterranean watershed.
Thus France's "center of gravity" is away from
the Mediterranean.

Yes.
And especially later.
England / UK NEEDED ocean transport to succeed.
They did, and did well, and were a world power.
France also wanted to be a world power, and
never felt that control of the Mediterranean, Africa,
the Levant, and Middle East were the keys.

[]


Here we go again: everybody knows what happened in real life so the question is what could change it?

France is not Britain on many accounts and, just because the Brits did something does not mean that the French would have to do exactly the same (even if they did in OTL).

For example, French may start earlier colonization of the Northern Africa for which dominance on the Med would be very helpful while dominance on the Atlantic routes is much less so. They could try to control trade with Levant - highly profitable. They could, eventually, establish control over Egypt, they could, starting from the late XVIII, start extensive trade with Russia via the Black Sea (Ottomans being French-friendly, the route could be easily secured), which could among other things resolve their grain problems, etc.

And, unlike Britain, they could be and were "the world power" in the terms meaningful until 2nd part of the XIX, just by being one of the leading continental powers.