The Bulgarian crisis provided one of the tensest moments in late 19th
century European diplomacy. According to multiple diplomatic histories
it created a crisis atmosphere in Vienna and berlin was similar to
1914 and featured advocacy of preventive war on russia and possibly
France.
However what would the plausible pathway from the Balkan crisis to a
general war be? In 1914 it was a case of Austria pushes Serbia, Russia
pushes Austria, germany pushes russia, France and Belgium and then
Britain pushes Germany.
However the Bulgarian crisis was most directly between russia and its
erstwhile ally Bulgaria. So how would this come to implicate two
competing great power coalitions?
On Nov 2, 8:28 am, Rob <raharris1...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The Bulgarian crisis provided one of the tensest moments in late 19th
> century European diplomacy. According to multiple diplomatic histories
> it created a crisis atmosphere in Vienna and berlin was similar to
> 1914 and featured advocacy of preventive war on russia and possibly
> France.
> However what would the plausible pathway from the Balkan crisis to a
> general war be? In 1914 it was a case of Austria pushes Serbia, Russia
> pushes Austria, germany pushes russia, France and Belgium and then
> Britain pushes Germany.
> However the Bulgarian crisis was most directly between russia and its
> erstwhile ally Bulgaria. So how would this come to implicate two
> competing great power coalitions?
1880's do not look like a plausible timing as far as Russia is
involved: Alexander III was reigning and his explicit policy was to
keep Russia out of any major military conflict and, as far as it was
in his power, to prevent any major military conflict in Europe.
> The Bulgarian crisis provided one of the tensest moments in late 19th
> century European diplomacy. According to multiple diplomatic histories
> it created a crisis atmosphere in Vienna and berlin was similar to
> 1914 and featured advocacy of preventive war on russia and possibly
> France.
> However what would the plausible pathway from the Balkan crisis to a
> general war be? In 1914 it was a case of Austria pushes Serbia, Russia
> pushes Austria, germany pushes russia, France and Belgium and then
> Britain pushes Germany.
> However the Bulgarian crisis was most directly between russia and its
> erstwhile ally Bulgaria. So how would this come to implicate two
> competing great power coalitions?
Without the machine guns, artillery, and other weapons
and tactics of WWI OTL, how different would the nature
of the conflict have been? For instance, the Maxim
machine gun was just being invented at the beginning of
the Crisis.
<anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote:
>On 02/11/2012 5:28 AM, Rob wrote:
>> The Bulgarian crisis provided one of the tensest moments in late 19th
>> century European diplomacy. According to multiple diplomatic histories
>> it created a crisis atmosphere in Vienna and berlin was similar to
>> 1914 and featured advocacy of preventive war on russia and possibly
>> France.
>> However what would the plausible pathway from the Balkan crisis to a
>> general war be? In 1914 it was a case of Austria pushes Serbia, Russia
>> pushes Austria, germany pushes russia, France and Belgium and then
>> Britain pushes Germany.
>> However the Bulgarian crisis was most directly between russia and its
>> erstwhile ally Bulgaria. So how would this come to implicate two
>> competing great power coalitions?
>Without the machine guns, artillery, and other weapons
>and tactics of WWI OTL, how different would the nature
>of the conflict have been? For instance, the Maxim
>machine gun was just being invented at the beginning of
>the Crisis.
With the exception of the Maxim gun, what is both significant and
missing?
Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
there...
There are significant machine guns around, designs by both Gardner
and Nordenfeldt were around and in operational use along with the
inevitable Gattling gun. These were usually used for slaughtering
people armed with pointed sticks who had the rather quaint idea that
their lands were actually theirs, but I imagine they'd be equally
effective at slaughtering European soldiers if required...
Aircraft aren't significant at that time and the Whitehead torpedo is
fully operational.
Destructor is 1886 and Turbina 1887, so no 'torpedo boat destroyers',
but no effective submarines either, unless you count the rather odd
Nordenfeldt boats.
So you're actually going to get some large fleet actions involving
'pre Dreadnoughts'. Any number of naval reputations are going to go
up in smoke, along with several thousand men...
What else changes?
Well, the British are in red coats and black trousers until 1897, the
Germans in blue with dark trousers (and a different colour for the
officers) until 1905, the French, well, don't change until much
later..
The cavalry looks like a rather up-market circus...
The whole thing will look remarkably like the Crimean War, but with
extra slaughter and less facial hair...
I suppose the really big question is "Will the Germans develop 'Hutier
tactics' before the Allies get their armoured tractors running?".
In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>,
blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
> there...
Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field guns. On mount recoil systems were limited to spring spades at best and most guns used bagged charges. Guns had to be relaid after each shot.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:27:30 -0500, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>, >blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
>> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
>> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
>> there...
> Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field guns. On mount >recoil systems were limited to spring spades at best and most guns used >bagged charges. Guns had to be relaid after each shot.
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:27:30 -0500, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>,
>> blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
>>> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
>>> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
>>> there...
>> Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field guns. On mount
>> recoil systems were limited to spring spades at best and most guns used
>> bagged charges. Guns had to be relaid after each shot.
> So the bangs are slower...
So, less effective machine guns and slower artillery rate
of fire. Is this enough to prevent the essential slaughter
of massed infantry charges (not to mention cavalry) that
was such a horrible part of WWI once both sides got
concentrated in trenches? For that matter, _would_ they
have got concentrated in trenches?
> On 03/11/2012 6:24 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:27:30 -0500,
>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>,
>>> blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
>>>> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading
>>>> guns using
>>>> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not
>>>> much change there...
>>> Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field
>>> guns. On mount recoil systems were limited to spring spades
>>> at best and most guns used bagged charges. Guns had to be
>>> relaid after each shot.
>> So the bangs are slower...
> So, less effective machine guns and slower artillery rate
> of fire. Is this enough to prevent the essential slaughter
> of massed infantry charges (not to mention cavalry) that
> was such a horrible part of WWI once both sides got
> concentrated in trenches? For that matter, _would_ they
> have got concentrated in trenches?
<anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote:
>On 03/11/2012 6:24 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:27:30 -0500, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>,
>>> blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
>>>> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
>>>> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
>>>> there...
>>> Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field guns. On mount
>>> recoil systems were limited to spring spades at best and most guns used
>>> bagged charges. Guns had to be relaid after each shot.
>> So the bangs are slower...
> So, less effective machine guns and slower artillery rate
> of fire. Is this enough to prevent the essential slaughter
> of massed infantry charges (not to mention cavalry) that
> was such a horrible part of WWI once both sides got
> concentrated in trenches? For that matter, _would_ they
> have got concentrated in trenches?
Both the American Civil War and the Crimean War were fought in
trenches.
So yes, they're in trenches.
The tactical systems don't seem to have changed much between those
wars and WWI either, well, not until new tactical and technical
advances changed things towards the end of that conflict.
Plus everyone is in brightly coloured uniforms, which won't reduce the
casualties either...
The other major change is going to be in generalship.
The reign of the unthinking somnambulistic 'Cavalry Generals' who made
a virtue of stupidity (checks tin hat is in place) has not yet started
and you're going to get lethal imperial technocrats like Wolseley and
Roberts taking commands in France.
In article <b7mdnecz_68e-AjNnZ2dnUVZ_vmdn...@giganews.com>,
anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net (Anthony Buckland) wrote:
> For that matter, _would_ they
> have got concentrated in trenches?
That depends on force densities, the Eastern Front in WW1 was largely mobile as it was possible to go round trench lines. I suggest people check out the Russia-Japanese War. IIRC there were cases of the Japanese storming Russian trench lines.
> On 03/11/2012 6:24 AM, Bill wrote:> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:27:30 -0500, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >> In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>,
> >> blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
> >>> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
> >>> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
> >>> there...
> >> Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field guns. On mount
> >> recoil systems were limited to spring spades at best and most guns used
> >> bagged charges. Guns had to be relaid after each shot.
> > So the bangs are slower...
> So, less effective machine guns and slower artillery rate
> of fire. Is this enough to prevent the essential slaughter
> of massed infantry charges (not to mention cavalry) that
> was such a horrible part of WWI once both sides got
> concentrated in trenches? For that matter, _would_ they
> have got concentrated in trenches?
They mostly (if at all) did not in Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian
War, which are most relevant in the terms of time and participants.
They did not during the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78 (of course, the
Ottomans defending Plevna built field fortifications and so,
eventually, did the besieging Russians but those were mostly forts and
not WWI-style trenches and, anyway, trenches during the sieges are
predating the modern times). During the Crimean War the trenches apply
mostly to the siege of Sevastopol but not, AFAIK, to the field battles
and not to the actions outside the Crimea.
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:42:19 -0700, Anthony Buckland
> <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote:
> >On 03/11/2012 6:24 AM, Bill wrote:
> >> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:27:30 -0500, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>> In article <kt6898lod1hg9aklegpgbu0ianqbp90...@4ax.com>,
> >>> blackuse...@gmail.com (Bill) wrote:
> >>>> Artillery is firing shrapnel shells from breech loading guns using
> >>>> both an interrupted screw and an obdurated breech. Not much change
> >>>> there...
> >>> Until the French M1897 there were no quick firing field guns. On mount
> >>> recoil systems were limited to spring spades at best and most guns used
> >>> bagged charges. Guns had to be relaid after each shot.
> >> So the bangs are slower...
> > So, less effective machine guns and slower artillery rate
> > of fire. Is this enough to prevent the essential slaughter
> > of massed infantry charges (not to mention cavalry) that
> > was such a horrible part of WWI once both sides got
> > concentrated in trenches? For that matter, _would_ they
> > have got concentrated in trenches?
> Both the American Civil War and the Crimean War were fought in
> trenches.
> So yes, they're in trenches.
> The tactical systems don't seem to have changed much between those
> wars and WWI either, well, not until new tactical and technical
> advances changed things towards the end of that conflict.
The tactical system did not change between the Crimean War and WWI?
Wow! They changed most dramatically (at least outside the GB) and so
did weaponry.
> Plus everyone is in brightly coloured uniforms, which won't reduce the
> casualties either...
By the 1880's most of the Continental armies (French were exception)
adopted more practical color schema for anything except parade ground
uniforms.
> The other major change is going to be in generalship.
Yes, both Helmut von Moltke and Schliffen would be still alive.
> The reign of the unthinking somnambulistic 'Cavalry Generals' who made
> a virtue of stupidity (checks tin hat is in place) has not yet started
Well, Brusilov was a cavalry general and front commander in WWI but
hardly 'unthinking somnambulistic'. OTOH, you are talking about the
Brits so ....
> and you're going to get lethal imperial technocrats like Wolseley and
> Roberts taking commands in France.
Would the GB ally with France against Germany in 1880's? Just curious.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:16:55 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman
<alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 4:23 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Both the American Civil War and the Crimean War were fought in
>> trenches.
>> So yes, they're in trenches.
>> The tactical systems don't seem to have changed much between those
>> wars and WWI either, well, not until new tactical and technical
>> advances changed things towards the end of that conflict.
>The tactical system did not change between the Crimean War and WWI?
>Wow! They changed most dramatically (at least outside the GB) and so
>did weaponry.
Nope, everyone is still advancing in line...
>> Plus everyone is in brightly coloured uniforms, which won't reduce the
>> casualties either...
>By the 1880's most of the Continental armies (French were exception)
>adopted more practical color schema for anything except parade ground
>uniforms.
The Germans were still in the blue 'waffenfrock', the British were
still in red for 'home service' and the Austrians were in a lighter
blue.
>> The other major change is going to be in generalship.
>Yes, both Helmut von Moltke and Schliffen would be still alive.
>> The reign of the unthinking somnambulistic 'Cavalry Generals' who made
>> a virtue of stupidity (checks tin hat is in place) has not yet started
>Well, Brusilov was a cavalry general and front commander in WWI but
>hardly 'unthinking somnambulistic'. OTOH, you are talking about the
>Brits so ....
True :-)
The French are no better...
>> and you're going to get lethal imperial technocrats like Wolseley and
>> Roberts taking commands in France.
>Would the GB ally with France against Germany in 1880's? Just curious.
Would GB have noticed that Germany is unified?
They're busy fighting in Africa and entangled in Afghanistan, as
major empires tend to be....
They neither want nor need any 'continental entanglements'.
And as in WWI the real conflict is going to be at sea. A blockade
against Germany or France is where the war will be decided (And yes,
I'm being Anglo centric again, but it was the most powerful empire in
the world)
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:16:55 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman
> <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 4:23 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Both the American Civil War and the Crimean War were fought in
> >> trenches.
> >> So yes, they're in trenches.
> >> The tactical systems don't seem to have changed much between those
> >> wars and WWI either, well, not until new tactical and technical
> >> advances changed things towards the end of that conflict.
> >The tactical system did not change between the Crimean War and WWI?
> >Wow! They changed most dramatically (at least outside the GB) and so
> >did weaponry.
> Nope, everyone is still advancing in line...
Can't tell about the Brits but not on the Continent. Unless your
definition of 'line' is extended to extreme
> >> Plus everyone is in brightly coloured uniforms, which won't reduce the
> >> casualties either...
> >By the 1880's most of the Continental armies (French were exception)
> >adopted more practical color schema for anything except parade ground
> >uniforms.
> The Germans were still in the blue 'waffenfrock', the British were
> still in red for 'home service' and the Austrians were in a lighter
> blue.
> >> The other major change is going to be in generalship.
> >Yes, both Helmut von Moltke and Schliffen would be still alive.
> >> The reign of the unthinking somnambulistic 'Cavalry Generals' who made
> >> a virtue of stupidity (checks tin hat is in place) has not yet started
> >Well, Brusilov was a cavalry general and front commander in WWI but
> >hardly 'unthinking somnambulistic'. OTOH, you are talking about the
> >Brits so ....
> True :-)
> The French are no better...
> >> and you're going to get lethal imperial technocrats like Wolseley and
> >> Roberts taking commands in France.
> >Would the GB ally with France against Germany in 1880's? Just curious.
> Would GB have noticed that Germany is unified?
While I don't have any excessive sympathy toward the British
politicians of this time, they were not as stupid as you are
portraying them: this fact was duly noted. BTW, Bismark's intervention
put an end to both Russian over-ambitious plans and British blustering
at the end of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78. Unified Germany was
a force to be counted.
> They're busy fighting in Africa and entangled in Afghanistan,
> as
> major empires tend to be....
Following the same reasoning, conflict was not going to happen because
Russia was busy expanding in the Central Asia (as major empires
tend...). :-)
> They neither want nor need any 'continental entanglements'.
Exactly. So, what sense does it make to talk about British troops in
France?
> And as in WWI the real conflict is going to be at sea.
Crisis stemming out of this scenario involved continental states:
Bulgaria, Russia and Germany. Putting aside almost absolute political
impossibility for this conflict growing into a major war (or any war
at all), it could also include A-H siding with Germany and France
siding with Russia (positions of the smaller Balkan states are more or
less irrelevant). How in this scenario the real conflict would be at
sea escapes me.
Not sure how 'real conflict' of WWI was at sea with the millions
people dying in the land battles.
>A blockade
> against Germany or France is where the war will be decided
It would not, even if the GB decided to participate.
> (And yes,
> I'm being Anglo centric again,
> but it was the most powerful empire in
> the world)
Which does not mean that it was the most powerful military state or
that naval blockade would be a decisive instrument in this conflict.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:43:08 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman
<alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 2:03 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nope, everyone is still advancing in line...
>Can't tell about the Brits but not on the Continent. Unless your
>definition of 'line' is extended to extreme
You mean they're not marching towards the enemy in battalion sized
units?
>> They're busy fighting in Africa and entangled in Afghanistan,
>> as
>> major empires tend to be....
>Following the same reasoning, conflict was not going to happen because
>Russia was busy expanding in the Central Asia (as major empires
>tend...). :-)
>> They neither want nor need any 'continental entanglements'.
>Exactly. So, what sense does it make to talk about British troops in
>France?
Because, as usual, they'd get involved. Almost certainly against
the major power.
British European foreign policy has been based on defeating any power
who looked like dominating Europe for many years.
After the Franco Prussian War the major power was Germany
>> And as in WWI the real conflict is going to be at sea.
>Crisis stemming out of this scenario involved continental states:
>Bulgaria, Russia and Germany. Putting aside almost absolute political
>impossibility for this conflict growing into a major war (or any war
>at all), it could also include A-H siding with Germany and France
>siding with Russia (positions of the smaller Balkan states are more or
>less irrelevant). How in this scenario the real conflict would be at
>sea escapes me.
Because Europe is an importer of raw materials and food.
>Not sure how 'real conflict' of WWI was at sea with the millions
>people dying in the land battles.
Because in the end only the food supply matters...
> >A blockade
>> against Germany or France is where the war will be decided
>It would not, even if the GB decided to participate.
It always has been in the past...
> (And yes,
>> I'm being Anglo centric again,
>> but it was the most powerful empire in
>> the world)
>Which does not mean that it was the most powerful military state or
>that naval blockade would be a decisive instrument in this conflict.
In the long term a naval blockade is invariably the decisive
instrument in a Western European war
On Friday, November 2, 2012 1:53:17 PM UTC-4, Alex Milman wrote:
> On Nov 2, 8:28 am, Rob <raharris1...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > The Bulgarian crisis provided one of the tensest moments in late 19th
> > century European diplomacy. According to multiple diplomatic histories
> > it created a crisis atmosphere in Vienna and berlin was similar to
> > 1914 and featured advocacy of preventive war on russia and possibly
> > France.
> > However what would the plausible pathway from the Balkan crisis to a
> > general war be? In 1914 it was a case of Austria pushes Serbia, Russia
> > pushes Austria, germany pushes russia, France and Belgium and then
> > Britain pushes Germany.
> > However the Bulgarian crisis was most directly between russia and its
> > erstwhile ally Bulgaria. So how would this come to implicate two
> > competing great power coalitions?
I've reviewed my books on this and I guess the political pathway to war would be like so:
Russia invades Bulgaria (instead of just using secret agent skullduggery against Alexander)
Austria intevenes to defend Bulgaria
The Mediterranean powers back Austria, including Britain
Germany ends up getting in to prevent Austria's destruction.
France joins Russia's side.
Now for the initial spark, Russia needs to invade Bulgaria. It has to do so either by sea, or overland through Romania. Romania was an Austrians ally, but perhaps it coulfd be brought onto Russia's side by the prospect of acquiring southern Dobruja (as in 2nd Balkan War, 1912).
> 1880's do not look like a plausible timing as far as Russia is
> involved: Alexander III was reigning and his explicit policy was to
> keep Russia out of any major military conflict and, as far as it was
> in his power, to prevent any major military conflict in Europe.
That may be so, we could say it's not bloody likely. However, at the time Russia was being publicly furious and bellicose with Bulgaria, to the point that the Austrians and Bismarck considered a Russian invasion quite possible.
Maybe the prospect might be given extra oomph if Austria-Hungary fails to rescue Serbia from the Bulgarian counterattack of 1885. Russia was furious with unauthorized Bulgarian expansion into eastern Rumelia, but if renegade Bulgaria were also expanding at the expense of Serbia as well, it might have gone past the point of Russian tolerance and St.Pete might have felt compelled to launch an early version of the Brezhnev doctrine against Bulgaria.
> The Mediterranean powers back Austria, including Britain
> Germany ends up getting in to prevent Austria's destruction.
> France joins Russia's side.
> Now for the initial spark, Russia needs to invade Bulgaria. It has to do so either by sea, or overland through Romania. Romania was an Austrians ally, but perhaps it coulfd be brought onto Russia's side by the prospect of acquiring southern Dobruja (as in 2nd Balkan War, 1912).
> > 1880's do not look like a plausible timing as far as Russia is
> > involved: Alexander III was reigning and his explicit policy was to
> > keep Russia out of any major military conflict and, as far as it was
> > in his power, to prevent any major military conflict in Europe.
> That may be so, we could say it's not bloody likely. However, at the time Russia was being publicly furious and bellicose with Bulgaria, to the point that the Austrians and Bismarck considered a Russian invasion quite possible.
It was explicitly stated goal of Alexander III's policy to keep Russia
out of any serious war. IIRC, the only 'battle' of his reign was
skirmish between Russians and Afghans (accompanied by few Brits) near
Kushka (which had a potential to escalate into a full-scale Russian-
British confrontation but ended up with a final agreement about the
borders in the Central Asia). OTOH, Bismark expressed his
unwillingness to waste life of a single German soldier over the Blakan
'issues'. So, two crucial leaders have 'wrong' opinions about the war
in this specific time and place. :-)
> Maybe the prospect might be given extra oomph if Austria-Hungary fails to rescue Serbia from the Bulgarian counterattack of 1885. Russia was furious with unauthorized Bulgarian expansion into eastern Rumelia, but if renegade Bulgaria were also expanding at the expense of Serbia as well, it might have gone past the point of Russian tolerance and St.Pete might have felt compelled to launch an early version of the Brezhnev doctrine against Bulgaria.
Alexander III was not Breznev (or his own son) and by this time main
Russian interest started switching to the expansion on Far East.
