In very broad terms

How effective would British Troops under British command be in 1859/60 fighting in large numbers against similar numbers of either Northern or Southern troops?

Or just a more detailed hypothetical, 50,000 Brits show up and fight 50,000 from the North or South. Would results be similar to any other battle of the war, or completely different?

Maybe same idea for if the French showed up in those numbers for a battle.

Would their way of fighting look radically different than ours?

I would assume to the modern eye they would show up with equipment and arms very similar to ours.

Very similar on equipment. Both sides in ACW heavily used the British P53 Enfield rifles musket. Lots of equipment smuggled to the Confederacy (cloth, accoutrements, shoes).

In 1861, the British Army wins a fight with even numbers, due to, as previously noted, more experienced officers and troops from the Crimean War. Just in general, the British Army would be more experienced due to constant colonial wars, although this doesn't necessarily translate into employing large units in a conventional battle.* (Think COIN vs major power war.) Confederate troops would probably do better than Union, due to the early CSA advantage in better officers and more disciplined troops (due to the more prevalent militia tradition in the South.)

By mid to late 1863, I think the advantage would have shifted to the North American armies. Two years experience in war is a lot. I think the advantage would be especially pronounced in a meeting engagement anywhere south of the Potomac, because the British army (really, any western European army) would be accustomed to operating with Europe's better developed road and rail network, whereas both the Union and Confederate armies knew how to operate on the South's much less developed roads and rails, and at the much more expansive distances involved on the American continent.

*Edit to add: It's not often appreciated just how small the U.S. Army was, except in time of war, prior to WWII. In 1939, the U.S. Army was roughly equal in size to, I think, that of Bulgaria. And other than the Mexican War, all of the Army's fighting since 1812 had been done against Indians.

Interesting discussion.

By 1861, were British officers still picked primarily or exclusively from the nobility or were they promoting based on ability by that time? Were officers' commissions still purchased?

The practice was in its death throes after the Crimean War. Too much incompetence in the infantry and cavalry. But it was still an issue in 1861.

Madman said:

---

Maybe same idea for if the French showed up in those numbers for a battle.

---

This almost happened. Thankfully Mexican General Zaragoza defeated the French at Puebla, Mexico- what became to be known as Cinco de Mayo- that thwarted the French's plans to support the South. (LINK) for more information.

Sapper Redux said:

---

The practice was in its death throes after the Crimean War. Too much incompetence in the infantry and cavalry. But it was still an issue in 1861.

---

Apparently, it wasn't until the Cardwell Reforms in 1871 that the British finally ended the purchase of officers' commissions. Prior to those reforms, the British officers were largely incompetent, but the senior and junior enlisted men were highly competent professionals.

Redmount_British Army Purchase.docx (live.com)

Purchase of commissions in the British Army - Wikipedia

In a fight against US forces in 1861, I suppose part of the outcome would have been dependent on whether or not the British officers allowed their sergeants leeway and, if so, how much.

I've read that European officers who were over here during the war as observers were contemptuous of our forces, but I suspect that had as much to do with their ungrounded arrogance as it did with our lack of training and experience.

He was born a Tejano, from Goliad. It is a shame he died, as he was a decent soul and smarter than those around him.

1860-61 there was only the U.S. Army in existence. Lots of officers with combat experience in Mexico. Very small regular army strung out across Texas and the western U.S or garrisoning the masonry forts along the coastline.

They would have had a hard time assembling 50,000 soldiers much less be able to maneuvering them. Most units that manned the western outpost were never larger than company sized.

Madman said:

---

In very broad terms

How effective would British Troops under British command be in 1859/60 fighting in large numbers against similar numbers of either Northern or Southern troops?

Or just a more detailed hypothetical, 50,000 Brits show up and fight 50,000 from the North or South. Would results be similar to any other battle of the war, or completely different?

---

There is an entire fictional book about this exact scenario I read a few years ago

spoiler - the North still won.

and I disagree with another poster- by 1864 the Union Army was much more effective and deadly than the smaller British army which was demolished at Balaclava

for logistical reasons alone the North would have crushed any British force.

There is no conceivable world in which British troops come over in 1859-60. First of all, the South hadn't seceded. If British troops came over before that, the North and South would probably fight them together.
Say the British intervene in 1862 or 63. I think either side, North or South would be battle tested and beat them on the field in straight-up even fights. However, in a realistic situation, the British could tip the scales almost anywhere they went, because the Union Army (who they would theoretically be fighting against) was basically locked in combat. So say it's 1863 and the South has advanced towards Gettysburg, and the Union is facing them there and in the West. Are the Brits going to land in Maryland (given their failure to take Baltimore 50 years before)?
Why even do that? Just land troops somewhere North and walk into Philadelphia or New York unopposed.
Why even do that? Just show up with your fleet and pick whatever port you want to take and the Union Navy can't do much. Sure, there might be some old John Paul Jones spirit in them, but they're spread to uselessness.

All this is a moot point. Even the most hawkish of hawks in England would never have allowed a single British soldier (and probably not even a single British seaman) to support the South. This was all a discussion about diplomatic leverage, nothing more, and even then, it was never serious, fleshed out or broad based as an idea.

aalan94 said:

---

There is no conceivable world in which British troops come over in 1859-60. First of all, the South hadn't seceded. If British troops came over before that, the North and South would probably fight them together.
Say the British intervene in 1862 or 63. I think either side, North or South would be battle tested and beat them on the field in straight-up even fights. However, in a realistic situation, the British could tip the scales almost anywhere they went, because the Union Army (who they would theoretically be fighting against) was basically locked in combat. So say it's 1863 and the South has advanced towards Gettysburg, and the Union is facing them there and in the West. Are the Brits going to land in Maryland (given their failure to take Baltimore 50 years before)?
Why even do that? Just land troops somewhere North and walk into Philadelphia or New York unopposed.
Why even do that? Just show up with your fleet and pick whatever port you want to take and the Union Navy can't do much. Sure, there might be some old John Paul Jones spirit in them, but they're spread to uselessness.

All this is a moot point. Even the most hawkish of hawks in England would never have allowed a single British soldier (and probably not even a single British seaman) to support the South. This was all a discussion about diplomatic leverage, nothing more, and even then, it was never serious, fleshed out or broad based as an idea.

---

My question was about the competency of the possible US armies vs the British. Not a question about the odds of such fighting actually happening.


Kind of like when table top gamers try to simulate different impossible historical matchups. A Roman legion vs the French as they were at Agincourt, or The Great Heathen army vs a Legion.

My question isn't a different historical path. It was who beats who under these given conditions. Like the table top strategy guys do.

I can't be the only one that sits in a meeting and considers what historical army beats what. Or how many extra men or advantages would a force need to beat someone.

Kind of like the football board recently had a thread on who wins 2012vs 200X Aggies. Don't remember which year.

There used to be a show on, I think, history channel that was roughly this conceit.

Who would win, Ninjas vs pirates? Navy Seals vs German Special Forces? Legionnaires vs Samurai?

They'd show off each fighter's kit, its pros and cons, role play a fight, and "simulate" 1,000 fights (something like that) to say who would win what % of the time.

The british coming in on the side of the North early in the war would have been huge (leadership and experience) but towards 63, less-so.

The British coming in on the side of the south early would have aided in 2 ways: sustaining the army with supplies and experienced soldiers. I would think the breaking of the blockade and maintaining trade to get supplies would have has as much or more benefit to the south mid/late war than anything else.

Is it accurate to say that the South screwed the pooch with "Cotton Diplomacy"?

you could argue that, but it was one of the main cards they had that they could play. I don't think they could have played it any way that would have made the difference i think they were hoping it would make. From all I've read, it was still their holding onto slavery that turned a lot of potential allies off. A large part of the world viewed it as a war for slavery (which is a whole other debate), but whether you feel it was or wasn't, that made countries hesitant to ally with the south.

I know less about the Civil War than a lot of other periods in history.

Steven Knott at the Army War College lays out a lot about Gettysburg and talks about the imbalance in power between the North and South but also how unpopular the war was in the North. And while the South was never going to win due to military strength it came close to winning by getting the North to decide it just wasn't worth the blood and treasure to keep fighting.



But to my original question. I still think a battle between to similar sized armies and on a neutral battlefield would be fascinating.

Oh and his talk about the some of the Southern Officers putting their personal fights ahead of the Army is also worth thinking about.

I see that often in my little world.

My man!!

It occurs to me that we've probably been looking at this all wrong - the primary impact, had Britain decided to get involved, wouldn't have been the British army - it would have been the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy was, at the time, the biggest and best in the world. Had the Brits deployed it to break the Union blockade, the blockade would have been untenable, at least on ports where the Union hadn't captured the forts/islands controlling the entrance to those ports.

The Royal Navy might not have been able to bring any armored warships across the Atlantic (I have no idea about what kind of ironclads the RN had at that point) - but the US Navy didn't really have any ocean going armored ships, either. The Monitors weren't really built for open water operations.