Where Eagles Fly 3.0 - The 1792 Edition

[Barry Goldwater]

Well besides annoying both the French & the Coalition, you also don't get vital trade money you kinda need to kill your debt Oh yeah, and of course both sides will actively try to coerce you into joining them like they did historically.

[Agamemnon]

Well once Nappy takes over I think we should join him, but until then? Rather not take part in the Reign of Terror.

[Pericles of Athens]

Providing morale support and counsel might temper the French and minimize some of the rampant murder, sometimes all a country needs is a friend.

[Agamemnon]

We could propose to help them in establishing a country and defending it if they stopped killing people.

[Dan the Man]

What's this talk of supporting...Napoleon? Why? He's no champion of the revolutionary ideal, just a dictator. It would be foolish for us to lend him any support whatsoever.

We're also pretty much still backwater at this point. There's literally no reason why anybody should care if we're "friendly to France" or not. This isn't some bad child that we can soothe into behaving better. Even if it was, anything we could do would probably be ignored.

[Pericles of Athens]

I was joking if you couldn't tell. But I do think we should support the French, at this point we cant do so militarily(we've got Shawn/Me to deal with and as Dan said we are just a backwater right now) so political support will have to do for now. It would be kinda hypocritical if we didn't since we murdered countless Tories and some of our Generals refused to take even British prisoners.

[Barry Goldwater]

What's this talk of supporting...Napoleon? Why? He's no champion of the revolutionary ideal, just a dictator. It would be foolish for us to lend him any support whatsoever.

We're also pretty much still backwater at this point. There's literally no reason why anybody should care if we're "friendly to France" or not. This isn't some bad child that we can soothe into behaving better. Even if it was, anything we could do would probably be ignored.

Britain does care, though - quite a bit more than France (for now) actually. They have Canada right next door, populated by a load of Loyalists who are a good deal angrier at the US than OTL for the very reason Perry's mentioned, and which they know is a prime target for American expansionism - so you can bet they're going to invest in it as a decent strategic commitment. France's got nothing but Haiti and even that's looking more than a little shaky. So strategically speaking, teaming up with them VS Napoleon once he recovers Louisiana Territory is the better idea: in the event of a war with Britain, the French can't really help you much beyond keeping the British busy in Europe (where the British can count on the Prussians, Austrians, Dutch etc to do most of the heavy lifting on land until Nappy starts bopping them, anyway) but allying with London gives you a shot at Louisiana even before TJ's historical purchase. Ideologically ofc, the French are still the better option.

@Perry While true, hypocrisy is still the way of this world, after all Britain is about to get mighty miffed at the French Convention for lopping off Louis XVI's head real soon. Charles I, AKA citizen Charles Stuart? Never heard of him Plus, you guys could argue that you only brutalized Loyalist POWs, not random civilians whom you thought were Loyalists (and whose deaths, in the case of the September Massacres, turned out to be pretty much pointless anyway).

[Dan the Man]

To clarify, I meant anybody in France. We're not going to sooth any savage beasts by being a friend. On the level of geopolitics, you're right, but curbing the bloodshed is another story.

[Pericles of Athens]

Hypocrisy may be the way of the world but it isn't the way of Henry Wallace, well it is actually but not on this particular issue. Once Nappy takes control though Wallace is gonna start preaching about neutrality being the only viable option, since he hates Britain and the French will be nearly as bad in his eyes once they have an emperor. In addition to the brutalization of Loyalists the CC hand waved away mutilations and as I said McIntyre murdered Red Coats in addition to Loyalists, but hypocrisy will win out I'm sure.

[Agamemnon]

I'd still like to take Canada while Nappy fights the British. Obviously if that's a stupid idea, I won't try it, and I'll probably be out of office by then anyhow.

EDIT: I fail to see how executing enemy combatants as traitors is analogous to slaughtering civilians with different political beliefs. The Tories shot at us. These folks didn't do anything. Not the same. Not hypocrisy. Brutal, but not hypocritical.

[Barry Goldwater]

Hypocrisy may be the way of the world but it isn't the way of Henry Wallace, well it is actually but not on this particular issue. Once Nappy takes control though Wallace is gonna start preaching about neutrality being the only viable option, since he hates Britain and the French will be nearly as bad in his eyes once they have an emperor. In addition to the brutalization of Loyalists the CC hand waved away mutilations(which has come back to bite them with the Whiskey Rebellion) and as I said McIntyre murdered Red Coats in addition to Loyalists.

The CC did? I thought it was kinda-sorta-tolerated under Stanford, but one of Lamberth's ARW agenda points was an end to the policy of savaging Tories, and I presume MMM would've made good on it if that game had lasted a little longer; in terms of the in-universe history, Lamberth prolly did it anyway. And while true, note that I mentioned reprisals for that as well in the history - Howe went on to defeat McIntyre at Williamsburg (where his surprise attack had failed and he was definitely on the backfoot at our point of departure) and showed no mercy to any Patriot trying to surrender, either. I have a feeling that Britain's gonna pay a bit more attention to the ARW due to it being more barbaric, and both sides are definitely going to leave some a lot of choice bits out of their history books where this war's concerned.

So, that makes two hilariously contradictory IC schools of historiography in the WEF-verse so far: the 'Fool/Hero of Charleston' debate, and now the dueling 'Mel Gibson's School of American Historiography v. baby-eating Patriots/angelic British-or-Loyalists' historiographies. Great start folks, can't wait until we hit the Civil War now

[Agamemnon]

Go Mel Gibson!

EDIT: There's also the question of whether Eggers set a dangerous precedent and should have been hanged or was the only one willing to shoot the shaggy dog and get Congress moving, since he both made an incredibly stupid, potentially dangerous decision and happened to also cause Congress to start doing exactly what he went in to demand them to do. I predict lots of college professors debating that in the future, depending on the history of the game.

[Barry Goldwater]

That too. If Rose/EB's debate in the Congress thread is anything to go by, we might also have a fourth pair of competing schools - 'James Amsel, Hero of NYC' or 'James Amsel, McClellan of the ARW'? Quick, to the WEF-verse's IH debate thread! (or VV I guess)

[Pericles of Athens]

Well the Continental Congress did put a death warrant out on every (Militant) Tory and they at the least gave silent consent to the actions when they made Bohannon a Major General and McIntyre the CIC. Though don't get me wrong I'm not saying the British were any better(the murders in Charleston, not taking prisoners in reprisal, etc.) this war was grey on grey morality at its finest. And that's the way I like it, after all I helped muddy the water on this one.

Once we start hitting the later centuries I think we'll get a "Were the Whiskey Rebels a bunch of rebellious drunks or righteous tax protesters fighting in the original spirit of the revolution", though right now everyone east of Applachia is unified in their hatred of them.

[Kip]

Wait a minute, McIntyre actively executed prisoners?

[Barry Goldwater]

McIntyre didn't so much execute prisoners as he simply didn't take any at Philly, having fired his troops up into an IJA-style frenzy with exaggerated tales of British rapine & mass murder across Pennsylvania to the point where I mentioned them killing redcoats trying to surrender, on top of issuing actual 'no quarter' orders; 5k Brits got killed there, whereas if he'd taken prisoners that number would've been cut in half, since historically the numbers of actual KIA troops in pre-FRW 18th century battles were usually actually fairly low. Needless to say, Howe (whose occupation of the North had been pretty civil, as I've made clear time & time again) wasn't amused; as far as he's concerned, he treated the 'rebel rabble' with a relatively light hand in NYC & Philly + after Trenton, and he got repaid with war crimes not just down south (Bohannon mutilating Tory POWs) but also from the supposedly better-disciplined American regulars. The redcoats didn't take kindly to it either, as their reactions at Williamsburg (what parts of it we completed, anyway) after the surprise wore off showed - once the Continentals got driven off the field, as they would have inevitably been by the point the game ended, you can bet a lot of Americans who would normally have gotten clapped in chains got bayonets to the neck instead.

You can also bet that from 1778 onward Howe wouldn't have taken prisoners whenever he could help it ('The Americans want to refight the 30YW so badly? Okay then, I'll oblige them, but they shouldn't have started what they couldn't finish') and that he is canonically undefeated on the field, despite having fought at least three more major pitched battles with the Continental Army; only the POWs from Charleston are reasonably safe from reprisals, and even they become a question mark if the Continentals started to actively execute their British prisoners on top of McIntyre's and Bohannon's atrocities. So uh, feel free to work out the darker implications of that As I said, both sides are going to want to leave a lot more stuff unsaid in their history books ITL.

[Kip]

Oh dear, this changes things. I think its pretty interesting that our war had flavors of the French Revolution in it, but Poole has no interest in setting the precedent that such violent acts can result in an upwards climb in the power ladder, especially after hearing about the massacres in Paris. His administration has barbs, but isn't bloodthirsty; he will carry out the Constitution to the bloody letter, but in a Constitutional manner. Now, in the real world, there would be an officer corps numbering hundreds to choose from, but in IH we have a limited number of players and an even further limited number of military characters (this is how Bohannon earned command of the Southern Department despite his atrocities), so I won't fire McIntyre completely; instead, I present to Fred the option to create a new character to be high commander of the Legion, or else we can move McIntyre down to sub-Legion and put the War Secretary atop the totem pole.

In the interest of sparing you time (as per your post in Congress), I also would like to amend the proposal and move Charles Eggers to sub-Legion. That way, you can simply auto-resolve everything that doesn't involve the Legion directly.

[Barry Goldwater]

That could work, should Fred choose to start fresh with a new (and hopefully less bloodthirsty, since I doubt Poole has much interest in setting a precedent where the punishment for rebellion = death without even being given a chance to surrender) guy McIntyre's continued presence could be justified as 'giving the new meat an experienced handler to keep him from doing dumb things'. All this said though, this has to be done today, since Perry's attacking the LUS now.

Thanks, that could also work if Agg's up for it. And it would give him a chance to command the cavalry again What do the rest of you guys think?

[Agamemnon]

I'm up for it, but since tanks won't be around for another hundred years and the Whiskey Rebellion wouldn't have them anyway, I think I'd rather command light infantry. Don't tempt me with cavalry.

[Pericles of Athens]

Hopefully all the confusions in regards to military rank and appointments leads to disorganization in the ranks.