- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would the Union Army have been strong enough to beat British after Civil War?
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:34 am
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:34 am
I mean at the close of the Civil War before demobilization occurred.
16
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:35 am to prplhze2000
Like, sail to england and defeat them? No
England hasnt been successfully invaded in 1000 years
Though they are currently willingly allowing themselves to be invaded as are we
England hasnt been successfully invaded in 1000 years
Though they are currently willingly allowing themselves to be invaded as are we
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 8:36 am
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:35 am to prplhze2000
Why fight the British? Just for shits?
Also, British strength is never their army. They were a naval superpower.
ETA:
Their navy would have kicked our arse pretty much at any time pre- world wars.
Also, British strength is never their army. They were a naval superpower.
ETA:
Their navy would have kicked our arse pretty much at any time pre- world wars.
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 8:39 am
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:38 am to prplhze2000
The US Army had close to 1 million men under arms at the end of the civil war. I can only imagine that had to be the largest army on Earth by far.
By 1867 that number was reduced to about 20,000.
By 1867 that number was reduced to about 20,000.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:41 am to prplhze2000
The only entity that existed around the same time as the Union Army that could’ve competed would’ve been the Prussian Army. The Union army had experienced troops, leadership, weapons, etc.
This is a pretty common “what if” game.
This is a pretty common “what if” game.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:50 am to Emteein
quote:
Why fight the British? Just for shits?
Maybe OP is wondering if, for say....Great Britain decided after the U.S. was torn apart from the Civil War to try and retake the country?
Imperialism hadn't yet died in the 1860s.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:52 am to alajones
The Union Army was awfully “seasoned” circa 1865 too. Tough to beat.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:55 am to Tiger985
quote:
The US Army had close to 1 million men under arms at the end of the civil war. I can only imagine that had to be the largest army on Earth by far.
Gonna guess that the armies involved in the Taiping rebellion were a bit larger. Chinese civil wars are fricking nuts.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 8:59 am to Emteein
I dunno, Max Boot, before he went crazy with TDS, wrote the Union Navy at the end of the war was equal to the British Navy.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:09 am to prplhze2000
The Union Army under Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan, Meade, et.al.
was probably the best army on earth in March 1865, Combat hardened and understandfing the use of rail transport better than anyone (at that point)
I think they'd beat the Germans...Could you imagine Sherman's army rampaging thru Germany like their great grandsons did in 1945?
was probably the best army on earth in March 1865, Combat hardened and understandfing the use of rail transport better than anyone (at that point)
I think they'd beat the Germans...Could you imagine Sherman's army rampaging thru Germany like their great grandsons did in 1945?
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:09 am to prplhze2000
Didn't the British have a much bigger advantage during the Revolutionary War? They couldn't overcome the distance then: so why think that they could do so after the Civil War when the US wasn't just a bunch of disorganized colonies trying to raise an army, on the fly, with virtually no established or permanent military? Also, it was much easier and faster to move an army around the country in 1865, but not as much easier or faster to sail one across the Atlantic.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:11 am to vl100butch
I think the Prussians understood the rails as much as we did at the time.
They pioneered the needle guns before we did.
They pioneered the needle guns before we did.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:11 am to prplhze2000
Would a combined Union and British force have been enough to takeover Europe?
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:11 am to prplhze2000
Absolutely. However, the British Army is not what we would have had to worry about. The Royal Navy is where the British put the majority of their eggs.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:13 am to prplhze2000
Invade UK. no, but could the Union army pushed British interests out the Americas?
Look at the map. Canada, British Honduras, Brumada, British bahamas/Virgin Islands. other Caribbean islands. Could we have made Canada the 35th State? (only 34 at end of Civil War)
dont think they could have stopped the Northern Army in canada. maybe in the caribbean....
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:13 am to Bwmdx
quote:
Would a combined Union and British force have been enough to takeover Europe?
Calm down, Harry Turtledove.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:17 am to prplhze2000
In 1864 the Union had the largest standing army in the world, the Confederacy had the 2nd.
After the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack, every nation in the world knew their navy was obsolete.
The big question is where would they be fighting? The ocean in between them would be a problem. But if you are asking if the Union could have taken Canada, yes.
After the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack, every nation in the world knew their navy was obsolete.
The big question is where would they be fighting? The ocean in between them would be a problem. But if you are asking if the Union could have taken Canada, yes.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:28 am to Cosmo
quote:
England hasnt been successfully invaded in 1000 years
Close. William the Conqueror (or the Bastard, if you prefer) successfully invaded England in 1066.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 9:30 am to BiggerBear
quote:
Didn't the British have a much bigger advantage during the Revolutionary War?
Remembering back to history class is a little hazy, but weren't we having a hard time fending off the British until France & Spain joined?
Posted on 2/7/25 at 10:07 am to prplhze2000
quote:
I dunno, Max Boot, before he went crazy with TDS, wrote the Union Navy at the end of the war was equal to the British Navy.
I really find that hard to believe. The British navy at that time was still world wide. The royal empire just had way more experience on the seas.
Recently kicking Russia’s arse in the Black Sea in the Crimean War and kicking china’s arse in the opium wars establishing Hong Kong Their navy was so far superior to any other that no one even Challenged them for 30+ years. It was until the end of the 1800s before they went back into use taking control of the Suez Canal in Egypt.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News