DEfensive War

[Tim O]

This was lost in the crowd of the ACW and WWI thread and I didn't get an answer so here it is.

Is the AI able to fight a defensive war? While the aim of the U.S. is to conquer the south, the south just wants to be left in peace. I don't want to be playing France and the look over at North America and see that the Confedracy has annexed half the North.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
the south just wants to be left in peace.

I find that a little hard to believe, since the South started the war.

 

[John Poole]

Well the South Seceded...they wanted the Federal government out of their "country" and that is what started the war. They did not have the goal of uniting the United States under Richmond...they wanted to be able to form their own country.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Yeah, I hope defensive wars are available, and maybe as an automatic for revolters. (And I also hope revolters can be annexed in one fell swoop.) But I don't see any real application for it besides independence wars...

 

[Papa Chubby]

A defensive war as an option. Thats something I have never heard of before. I simply thought you would fight a defensive war, if the superiority of the enemy made that the only viable strategy for survival. In the end I would have thought that once War would have been declared a nation should take any action necessary to win/survive. This would mean some aggressive moves to force the other party to the table, and if you got you adversary bent over backwards, why not annex half of the north ?

 

[Tim O]

Of course the South started the war Zagys, and they fought for a very heinous cause, I never suggested otherwise. I am saying though that if they won the war they would not have taken free states by force. At the very most they may have demanded a plebiscite in the states of Kentucky and Missouri on the question of staying with the Union or joining the Confedracy.

 

[unmerged(11149)]

Perhaps a brute force method would be to have the "defensive AI" never demand territory, or at least territory it doesn't have a claim on, as part of its peace offers.

Using the Civil War as an example perhaps the Confederacy could demand the Oklahoma and New Mexico territories, but nothing more. (someone who's more of a Civil War Buff then I can inlighten me on the plausibility of that kinda claim by the South) As far as Ortiz's comment of plebiscites in Missouri and Kentucky, that could be handled by an event in the case of a Confederate victory.

 

[unmerged(10945)]

The confederates had a few claims of various validity during the war, but the chances of them getting any of them in a post-war settlement without a European power intervening AND the confederates actually holding that land by wars end is doubtful at best.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Didn't the confederates make a few moves to capture Washington, which was of course in the North?

 

[Tim O]

THe attempted capture of Washington was merely a military manuver ment to bring the war to a close as was Lee's incursions into Maryland and Pennsylvannia. Neither were ment to actually conquer territory, just defeat armies.

 

[unmerged(8390)]

historical reality

I hate to interject a note of historical reality here - but technically the Confederate States of America left the USA peacefully. President Lincoln then first refused to remove Federal Troops from most areas of the CSA and then called for a general levy of troops to suppress the rebellion. True, the CSA fired first at Fort Sumter, but only because of a Union resupply effort.

I am not going to go into a very long winded history lesson about the causes of the war, except to say that the Confederate States had a very legitmate gripe with what was being done to the governmental system of the USA. The "United STates of America" as it existed legally after the War of Independence was NOT a single Federal State -- it was in fact a fairly loose "confederation" of seperate, equal and sovereign states. Now, could it have survived into the present day in that form? doubtful - but that doesn't change the fact that in any sane "legal" sense, the southern states had every "right" to leave what was supposed to be a voluntary mutual defence and trade association.

While slavery was a very important factor in causing the final split, it was neither the sole cause nor in the end the most important one - regardless of what it is current fashionable to teach in most American schools.
(Not surprising - the current Federal system is the direct descendant of that of Lincoln and is not fond of being told how far from the vaunted principles of our "founding fathers" we have come)

The war was, simply, the final result of the political/economic/cultural domination of the northern states over their southern neighbors.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Re: historical reality

Originally posted by Graycloak

but that doesn't change the fact that in any sane "legal" sense, the southern states had every "right" to leave what was supposed to be a voluntary mutual defence and trade association.

Well that statement there is still open for debate, and I don't think we should take that discussion here...

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
THe attempted capture of Washington was merely a military manuver ment to bring the war to a close as was Lee's incursions into Maryland and Pennsylvannia. Neither were ment to actually conquer territory, just defeat armies.

Well, the south claimed Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. DC is an enclave between Maryland and Virginia. I'm not sure it could have remained under federal controll if the CSA had ended the war as a victorious and independent country...

 

[unmerged(847)]

Ah..be careful Mr. Greycloak, when you rehash facts and statistics from historical records you can miss the very human side of history. What you said has validilty, but so would be my theory that the South failed to adhere to the DEMOCRATIC election of a President and just because they didn't like the results, left. If Douglas had been elected im sure they would have stayed within Union. They had signed a document in the beginning stating that they believed in the right of the public to elect officals to office, and just because they were sore as to the election's outcome they up and left. Now, they may have been legally justified in their leaving, but in truth, that would never create a stable government, if states came and went as they pleased. Therefore, it was reasonable to suffice that the Federals would of course try to react in some way, hence the war. Again, the South had been fine with the Union when it worked for them (war with Mexico, enforcement of slave codes, etc.), so their argument doesn't stand up, in my eyes. However, both sides had valid reasons.
To say the war was just because of monetary reasons does disservice to those who fought the war for their own beliefs; abolitionists for slave freedom, northerners for restoration of the Union-their country, Southern farmers for defense of their homeland, even slave-holders for their peculiar institution. there were many factors yes, but no one more important than the others.

 

[Cagliostro]

Yeah, and if you're going to talk about technical legal terms, the U.S.A. did NOT attack the C.S.A. until the firing on Fort Sumter - so Lincoln was well within his rights to do exactly what he did.

And, of course, the idea that it wasn't about slavery is largely a rewriting of history - in fact the North and South had been fighting over the slavery issue tooth and nail for decades, and at the point the Civil War happened it was the central issue between them. One of the primary goals of the Republican party was to keep there from being any more slave states, and Lincoln's election was what prompted secession, so saying that slavery wasn't centrally important is just not accurate. Certainly there were other important issues - primarily states' rights, but they were tied up with slavery as well. Also, slavery probably helped keep the British and French from recognizing the CSA.

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Original topic: Defensive war.

Move along folks, nothing to see here but another American Civil War thread.

 

[unmerged(11149)]

Originally posted by John_Keats
Original topic: Defensive war.

Move along folks, nothing to see here but another American Civil War thread.

Are there any other examples about defensive wars that anyone can think of that might help flesh out the subject at hand?

I read on one of these threads something about a war were Paraguay got pounded by their neighbors. Sounds fairly defensive to me.
What about France during the Franco-Prussian war?
Maybe China also.

 

[supergamelin]

The CSA should not try to annex territories from the North that they just seceded from. However as far as war is concerned it should not be restricted to invade northern territories, which they did historically. The capture of Washington or of some major Northern cities should bring peace and independance for the South.

However should the war end with confederate independance, they should be able to have their own expansionist policy towards the South. The Sotherners had views on Cuba, Mexico Central and South America.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by ACAD


Are there any other examples about defensive wars that anyone can think of that might help flesh out the subject at hand?

Russo-Japanese war comes to mind. The russians gave the japanese a really bloody nose (but still managed to loose the war though)

The turks defended themselves well in the Russo-Turkish war of 1876-77, nevertheless the war was a huge success for the russian army (and would have been even more so if not the other major powers had forced the russians into a treaty where Russia's military-political gains from the war were severely restricted)

The Boers stopped british attacks at Colenso, Spion Kop and a couple of more set-piece battles before the guerrilla phase of the boer war started.

But the fact remains that it was still very possible to win an offensive war untill the deadlock on the western front in 1914. But the butcher bill after such victories became longer and longer...

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

The war between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein in 1848-50 would constitute such a war (from a Schleswig-Holstein point of view).