Alternative History
Advertisement

I can see that you put quite some thought into this, and I am looking forward to reading.

Battle of Gettysburg

I think you should change the Battle of Gettysburg because the whole battle is an uphill battle for the Confederates, which is rarely a good idea unless you have overwhelming numbers, which the Confederates did not have. A better turning point would have been if Lee followed Longstreet's advice and marched around the Union troops to threaten Washington, forcing the Union troops their advantage in terrain, and winning a large propaganda victory for the South. Just a thought. Have a good one.

Hlanus (talk) 05:16, April 3, 2013 (UTC)Hlanus

If you look further up this timeline, you'll note that the Brits and French got involved, and it doesn't mention any details of the battle other than Cemetery Ridge. Figure it's got to be very likely that the battle itself was very different, including the numbers of either side. Lordganon (talk) 10:00, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Good point. However, I still think that the Union side would have had superior numbers. At the outbreak of the war in our timeline, the North had a total white human population of 23 million to the Confederacy's 5 million. Even if the British and French sent troops, the distance they would have had to travel would have greatly reduced the total number of troops they could have sent. Thus, the Confederates would have been outnumbered at least 2-1.

Hlanus (talk) 15:08, April 3, 2013 (UTC)Hlanus

Not accurate at all - otl, the Confederates had about three quarters the number that the Union had. 4 to 3, not 2 to 1. In this atl, with European intervention, the Union Army will be smaller - units would be needed on the Canadian border at minimum - and adding European troops to the Confederate Army - not needed, I expect - they would outnumber the Union handily. The two populations are wholly irrelevant here. Lordganon (talk) 11:06, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

That all makes sense. I just did not see anything that indicated greater European intervention except the blockade failure. I just put the overall population to show the Unin's overwhelming advantage in manpower over the Confederates, though I suspect the numbers are off due to Texas' independence and other factors.

Hlanus (talk) 15:49, April 4, 2013 (UTC)Hlanus

Hence why I said that I doubted troops would be added to the Confederate Army. The Union would still need to shift troops to the Canadian border - and likely the coasts as well - however, which would more than supply a major difference in numbers. Lordganon (talk) 09:59, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

So then the numbers SHOULD have been in slight favor to the Confederates, maybe 4-3, but would that have been enough? As we all know, defense is MUCH easier than attack. If the Union troops were badly trained, with the best troops on the Canadian border, that MIGHT have been the deciding factor. It would have been like Spartacus in Rome: he was able to run wild in Italy because the best troops were abroad, fighting to expand Rome's borders, and no one took him seriously, so the only troops left were inexperienced and poorly trained. Maybe that was it.

Hlanus (talk) 03:47, April 6, 2013 (UTC)Hlanus

More in their favor than that - the Confederates would have a higher number of troops than otl as well. 5 to 3 advantage or so.

Yes, defense is easier than attack, true - but the Confederates came reasonably close to winning on the first day of the battle otl. With an advantage in numbers.... well, that make work atl.

Lordganon (talk) 10:17, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement