NationStates

By the way, don't expect a post from me soon

Khasinkonia wrote:

Sanabel wrote:Legitimists are not in power in France, from what I understand

No, they are not, but my point is that support also depends on who's in power. This is a monarchist South, not a libertarian one, which means autocratic regimes like Russia and Austria-Hungary may be more likely to support us.

Those are regimes which lack the naval power to make much of a difference when push comes to shove, and in all likelihood Europe will not erupt into land war over disagreements over who to support in a fractured North American backwater.

Sanabel wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:No, they are not, but my point is that support also depends on who's in power. This is a monarchist South, not a libertarian one, which means autocratic regimes like Russia and Austria-Hungary may be more likely to support us.

Those are regimes which lack the naval power to make much of a difference when push comes to shove, and in all likelihood Europe will not erupt into land war over disagreements over who to support in a fractured North American backwater.

I'm not talking about military support. Financial support and diplomatic recognition are powerful tools.

Khasinkonia wrote:

Sanabel wrote:Those are regimes which lack the naval power to make much of a difference when push comes to shove, and in all likelihood Europe will not erupt into land war over disagreements over who to support in a fractured North American backwater.

I'm not talking about military support. Financial support and diplomatic recognition are powerful tools.

The Russians are currently fighting the Ottomans and the Austrians are trying to manage the Balkan Crisis overall, why would they stick their necks out for Louisiana?

Sanabel wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:I'm not talking about military support. Financial support and diplomatic recognition are powerful tools.

The Russians are currently fighting the Ottomans and the Austrians are trying to manage the Balkan Crisis overall, why would they stick their necks out for Louisiana?

To save and protect a fellow French-speaking nation. Kinda liked the propaganda for US and British relations in WWI.

Sanabel wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:I'm not talking about military support. Financial support and diplomatic recognition are powerful tools.

The Russians are currently fighting the Ottomans and the Austrians are trying to manage the Balkan Crisis overall, why would they stick their necks out for Louisiana?

Were they doing that during the Civil War? That's the important period for the Confederacy. The Union's issue is that they're really not inclined to take the South back. Support for the war in the North was a big problem, and so if the South becomes an independent nation, the most they'd be willing to do is garrison the border unless attacked. The US public is a powerful thing. If the South has international recognition, even if it's mixed with regards to opinion, then there will be even less push to pursue reintegration.

Mediama wrote:

Sanabel wrote:The Russians are currently fighting the Ottomans and the Austrians are trying to manage the Balkan Crisis overall, why would they stick their necks out for Louisiana?

To save and protect a fellow French-speaking nation. Kinda liked the propaganda for US and British relations in WWI.

Nationalism did not guide foreign policy in 1877. And the Austrians and Russians wouldn’t care about protecting La Francophonie.

The French wouldnt rush to the aid of a Bourbon monarch. They were 7 years into the Third Republic and had enough issues with casting out Bonapartist influence to maintain a democracy, I can’t see them looking to legitimize the very monarchy blood was shed to remove less than a century prior.

Khasinkonia wrote:

Sanabel wrote:The Russians are currently fighting the Ottomans and the Austrians are trying to manage the Balkan Crisis overall, why would they stick their necks out for Louisiana?

Were they doing that during the Civil War? That's the important period for the Confederacy. The Union's issue is that they're really not inclined to take the South back. Support for the war in the North was a big problem, and so if the South becomes an independent nation, the most they'd be willing to do is garrison the border unless attacked. The US public is a powerful thing. If the South has international recognition, even if it's mixed with regards to opinion, then there will be even less push to pursue reintegration.

I could see them recognizing the South, I thought we were talking about those empires potentially coming to the aid of former Confederate statelets

Sanabel wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:Were they doing that during the Civil War? That's the important period for the Confederacy. The Union's issue is that they're really not inclined to take the South back. Support for the war in the North was a big problem, and so if the South becomes an independent nation, the most they'd be willing to do is garrison the border unless attacked. The US public is a powerful thing. If the South has international recognition, even if it's mixed with regards to opinion, then there will be even less push to pursue reintegration.

I could see them recognizing the South, I thought we were talking about those empires potentially coming to the aid of former Confederate statelets

No, I'm mostly talking about recognition, and perhaps providing some degree of proxy support. For Austria-Hungary, Louisiana has the benefit of personal ties in government, as the branch of the Bourbons that is currently ruling was personally hosted by the Austrian crown. It's not necessarily going to call them to aid, but it is a strong factor for consideration when people might think about interfering.

Khasinkonia wrote:

Sanabel wrote:I could see them recognizing the South, I thought we were talking about those empires potentially coming to the aid of former Confederate statelets

No, I'm mostly talking about recognition, and perhaps providing some degree of proxy support. For Austria-Hungary, Louisiana has the benefit of personal ties in government, as the branch of the Bourbons that is currently ruling was personally hosted by the Austrian crown. It's not necessarily going to call them to aid, but it is a strong factor for consideration when people might think about interfering.

I could see potential for recognition, but I’m not sure how far that would go. I cannot see them putting money into a North American adventure in the late 1870s, based on the historical situation. Maybe proxy support, but the sights of Vienna were set primarily on their back yard.

Jackson and Colt are approved. What were the questions about foreign relations etc?

Wait, what about my app?

Vienna Eliot wrote:Jackson and Colt are approved. What were the questions about foreign relations etc?

I have three questions. Was Israel accepted, can it be said the Confederate State/Territory of Arizona exists, and how standardized is the Confederate Military.

All considered I think it could be said two could have happened, and three is important for IC reasons.

Since everyone else is asking, I'd also ask if my second character is accepted

Alaroma wrote:

Vienna Eliot wrote:Jackson and Colt are approved. What were the questions about foreign relations etc?

I have three questions. Was Israel accepted, can it be said the Confederate State/Territory of Arizona exists, and how standardized is the Confederate Military.

All considered I think it could be said two could have happened, and three is important for IC reasons.

It is a fedual monarchy, with duchy and county and barony and all kinds of things and private army. There's no such thing as the US Army in the South (hence the name, the Medieval South). You must rely on vassal power to expand or to keep your demesne in line, I think. Oh, and as John D. Rockefeller and his oil magnates are ever-expanding to California (not to mention the Oregon Trail, Deseret being absorbed into the Union), I think the USA have sufficiently enough presence in both AZ/NM now. Especially noting that they now have competitors both in the North (Great Britain) and the South (Confederate) they might want to ramp up that pilgrim and pioneer settlers much more faster. (Actually that's the reason Texas Rangers are spread all over the desert in real life, to protect the country and the settlers from outlaws and Indians).

Vienna Eliot wrote:Jackson and Colt are approved. What were the questions about foreign relations etc?

DId Britain have diplomatic relations with the Confederates either during or following the Civil War in this timeline? I’d like to know as my app depends quite heavily on it.

Sarderia wrote:

Alaroma wrote:I have three questions. Was Israel accepted, can it be said the Confederate State/Territory of Arizona exists, and how standardized is the Confederate Military.

All considered I think it could be said two could have happened, and three is important for IC reasons.

It is a fedual monarchy, with duchy and county and barony and all kinds of things and private army. There's no such thing as the US Army in the South (hence the name, the Medieval South). You must rely on vassal power to expand or to keep your demesne in line, I think. Oh, and as John D. Rockefeller and his oil magnates are ever-expanding to California (not to mention the Oregon Trail, Deseret being absorbed into the Union), I think the USA have sufficiently enough presence in both AZ/NM now. Especially noting that they now have competitors both in the North (Great Britain) and the South (Confederate) they might want to ramp up that pilgrim and pioneer settlers much more faster.

None of that addresses:
A) Are some standards expected for the Confederate Army
B) Does Confederate Arizona exist.

A is just a matter of practicality, trying to sustain 10 caliber types of ammunition is an daunting prospect during war time. B is just if another state exists, the power of the union has nothing to do with the actions during the War, and how much land was negotiated in the peace.

SangMar wrote:

Vienna Eliot wrote:Jackson and Colt are approved. What were the questions about foreign relations etc?

DId Britain have diplomatic relations with the Confederates either during or following the Civil War in this timeline? I’d like to know as my app depends quite heavily on it.

Britain wanted to help the Confederates under their policy of King Cotton. But the threat of the US Navy, which were far more powerful than the Confederate could ever muster (they even invaded Louisiana) made Britain think twice. And they also have a significant reserve of cotton to fuel the textile industry so Britain might not be so inclined to help the South. In the end, the North effectively isolated the South from Europe, and they won the civil war

I’m assuming the Mississippi River campaign still went well for the Union, given the lack of naval strength held by the Confederates- and that the war was won thanks to greater fortune for the Confederates in the Eastern Theater as it would allow them to seize Washington and threaten Philadelphia

Sarderia wrote:

SangMar wrote:
DId Britain have diplomatic relations with the Confederates either during or following the Civil War in this timeline? I’d like to know as my app depends quite heavily on it.

Britain wanted to help the Confederates under their policy of King Cotton. But the threat of the US Navy, which were far more powerful than the Confederate could ever muster (they even invaded Louisiana) made Britain think twice. And they also have a significant reserve of cotton to fuel the textile industry so Britain might not be so inclined to help the South. In the end, the North effectively isolated the South from Europe, and they won the civil war

Given that the South is still around, we can assume that our version of Civil War history is largely invalid. For example, one of these likely changes is that the Union is repelled from Louisiana or avoided losing New Orleans altogether. IRL the loss of the port was a painful blow. It's very possible their naval invasion fails for some reason.

Sanabel wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:No, I'm mostly talking about recognition, and perhaps providing some degree of proxy support. For Austria-Hungary, Louisiana has the benefit of personal ties in government, as the branch of the Bourbons that is currently ruling was personally hosted by the Austrian crown. It's not necessarily going to call them to aid, but it is a strong factor for consideration when people might think about interfering.

I could see potential for recognition, but I’m not sure how far that would go. I cannot see them putting money into a North American adventure in the late 1870s, based on the historical situation. Maybe proxy support, but the sights of Vienna were set primarily on their back yard.

Yes, it's more of a statement than significant investment. Perhaps some supplies, but the recognition is the most powerful tool, ultimately. Foreign recognition of the South delegitimises US claims over the South internationally. A big player such as AH recognizing would no doubt be a boon.

Alaroma wrote:

Sarderia wrote:It is a fedual monarchy, with duchy and county and barony and all kinds of things and private army. There's no such thing as the US Army in the South (hence the name, the Medieval South). You must rely on vassal power to expand or to keep your demesne in line, I think. Oh, and as John D. Rockefeller and his oil magnates are ever-expanding to California (not to mention the Oregon Trail, Deseret being absorbed into the Union), I think the USA have sufficiently enough presence in both AZ/NM now. Especially noting that they now have competitors both in the North (Great Britain) and the South (Confederate) they might want to ramp up that pilgrim and pioneer settlers much more faster.

None of that addresses:
A) Are some standards expected for the Confederate Army
B) Does Confederate Arizona exist.

A is just a matter of practicality, trying to sustain 10 caliber types of ammunition is an daunting prospect during war time. B is just if another state exists, the power of the union has nothing to do with the actions during the War, and how much land was negotiated in the peace.

In my opinion,
1) No. The feudal levies of the 1000-1400s are very different in military style from one another. The quality just could not be compared. One lord has the funds to equip his soldiers with just a mere shortsword, and his liege Duke could buy them halberds and longbows. There is no standardized military equipment in the Middle Ages (and that is why France keep losing in the Hundred Years' War, because the King of England actually made his subjects to utilize longbows whereas the rest of Europe are very different in equipment). The same thing could be applied in the 1800s (there are various weapon manufacturers: Remington, Colt, Winchester, or even imported from Europe) it's just not possible to standardize everything. Even they use many different types of rifles in the Civil War.
2) Might be, but control is very, very, limited. Even the Transpecos isn't fully settled yet hence the Texas Rangers. Confederate Arizona most likely would be one or two boomtowns with populations no larger than 500. More population centers could be found north - Utah, Kansas, Nevada, Oregon - since there's where the big Union Pacific railroads are.

Khasinkonia wrote:

Sarderia wrote:Britain wanted to help the Confederates under their policy of King Cotton. But the threat of the US Navy, which were far more powerful than the Confederate could ever muster (they even invaded Louisiana) made Britain think twice. And they also have a significant reserve of cotton to fuel the textile industry so Britain might not be so inclined to help the South. In the end, the North effectively isolated the South from Europe, and they won the civil war

Given that the South is still around, we can assume that our version of Civil War history is largely invalid. For example, one of these likely changes is that the Union is repelled from Louisiana or avoided losing New Orleans altogether. IRL the loss of the port was a painful blow. It's very possible their naval invasion fails for some reason.

Sanabel wrote:I could see potential for recognition, but I’m not sure how far that would go. I cannot see them putting money into a North American adventure in the late 1870s, based on the historical situation. Maybe proxy support, but the sights of Vienna were set primarily on their back yard.

Yes, it's more of a statement than significant investment. Perhaps some supplies, but the recognition is the most powerful tool, ultimately. Foreign recognition of the South delegitimises US claims over the South internationally. A big player such as AH recognizing would no doubt be a boon.

I think it’s likely the Union would still capture New Orleans, given the winning strategy for the Confederacy probably wouldn’t have been to take resources out of the Eastern Theater, which was of greater importance. The capture of New Orleans in real life had almost no Confederate resistance.

Khasinkonia wrote:

Sarderia wrote:Britain wanted to help the Confederates under their policy of King Cotton. But the threat of the US Navy, which were far more powerful than the Confederate could ever muster (they even invaded Louisiana) made Britain think twice. And they also have a significant reserve of cotton to fuel the textile industry so Britain might not be so inclined to help the South. In the end, the North effectively isolated the South from Europe, and they won the civil war

Given that the South is still around, we can assume that our version of Civil War history is largely invalid. For example, one of these likely changes is that the Union is repelled from Louisiana or avoided losing New Orleans altogether. IRL the loss of the port was a painful blow. It's very possible their naval invasion fails for some reason.

Sanabel wrote:I could see potential for recognition, but I’m not sure how far that would go. I cannot see them putting money into a North American adventure in the late 1870s, based on the historical situation. Maybe proxy support, but the sights of Vienna were set primarily on their back yard.

Yes, it's more of a statement than significant investment. Perhaps some supplies, but the recognition is the most powerful tool, ultimately. Foreign recognition of the South delegitimises US claims over the South internationally. A big player such as AH recognizing would no doubt be a boon.

Very possible. I think the significant recognition wouldn't be from Britain but France. We already have the Queen of Louisiana reigning in NOLA. And yes the capture of NOLA would present an obstacle to the legitmacy of the South.

Sarderia wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:Given that the South is still around, we can assume that our version of Civil War history is largely invalid. For example, one of these likely changes is that the Union is repelled from Louisiana or avoided losing New Orleans altogether. IRL the loss of the port was a painful blow. It's very possible their naval invasion fails for some reason.

Yes, it's more of a statement than significant investment. Perhaps some supplies, but the recognition is the most powerful tool, ultimately. Foreign recognition of the South delegitimises US claims over the South internationally. A big player such as AH recognizing would no doubt be a boon.

Very possible. I think the significant recognition wouldn't be from Britain but France. We already have the Queen of Louisiana reigning in NOLA. And yes the capture of NOLA would present an obstacle to the legitmacy of the South.

At the time, France was under Napoleon III, so I don't know as to whether it would be more likely for Britain or France to extend recognition to a Bourbon monarch.

Sarderia wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:Given that the South is still around, we can assume that our version of Civil War history is largely invalid. For example, one of these likely changes is that the Union is repelled from Louisiana or avoided losing New Orleans altogether. IRL the loss of the port was a painful blow. It's very possible their naval invasion fails for some reason.

Yes, it's more of a statement than significant investment. Perhaps some supplies, but the recognition is the most powerful tool, ultimately. Foreign recognition of the South delegitimises US claims over the South internationally. A big player such as AH recognizing would no doubt be a boon.

Very possible. I think the significant recognition wouldn't be from Britain but France. We already have the Queen of Louisiana reigning in NOLA. And yes the capture of NOLA would present an obstacle to the legitmacy of the South.

I strongly disagree.

Recognition would not come from the liberal French Third Republic.

They strongly opposed royalism, having dealt with their own Bonapartist problem.

They wouldn’t legitimize Bourbon monarchy in Louisiana.

They wouldn’t support the slave trade.