Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Coalition Warfare

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010

  What have been the ups and downs of coalition warfare in history?
  
  This question arose in the following thread:
  
  
  
  Whether it be Rome and her allies v Carthage, or the coalitions of mediaeval Crusaders v the Saracens, or the convoluted alliances of European nations during the wars of religion and the wars of succession in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, or the coalitions for and against Napoleon, or the ententes and alliances during the World Wars etc - how solid or precarious have such coalitions been? And what have been the military, political, economic and diplomatic etc importance of the individual members of the coalitions?

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010

  This is a broad subject, with lots of variability...
  
  Broadly speaking I think there have been two major types of coalition. The first type of coalition was a lot in the Napoleonic wars (on both sides) and was consolidated a single major power that recruited smaller allies for a coalition, using a mixture of bribery, threats, brute force, and diplomacy. In such a coalition all depends on the strength and prestige of the senior partner, and they tend to be very brittle. Britain's coalitions against Napoleon fell apart repeatedly, but after 1812 Napoleon was also quickly deserted by his allies -- the Prussians switched sides. Similarly, the Axis of WWII slowly disintegrated in 1943-1945, as the junior partners began to understand how little they had to gain by continuing to fight on the side of Germany. And the Warsaw Pact disintegrated with the Soviet Union.
  
  The only power that seems to have been able to make that type of coalition work was Rome, by a carefully graduated approach towards its allies. During the second Punic war, Hannibal tried to make the alliance of the Italian cities with Rome fall apart, and with a few exceptions, he failed.
  
  The second type of coalition is a grouping of roughly equal partners, bound together by the threat of an opponent that is too strong for each individually. The Franco-British 'Entente' against Germany probably is a good example. As such coalitions are the product of a strategic situation, they may last as long as that situation persists, and that despite differing interests and conflicting ideologies. The partners don't really have another choice, so they tend to stick it with each other. The coalition that formed against Napoleon after 1812 is also a good example: For all the rapid changes in position that the major powers had taken in earlier years, by 1812 they had understood that they had one single interest in common, and they had decided remain allied as long as Napoleon ruled France.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010

  Re: Message 3.
  
  Mutatis Mutandis,
  
  thank you for another well brought message.
  How did you categorize the coalitions of the Nine Years'War, the War of the Spanish Succession and the War of the Quadruple Alliance?
  
  I would categorize them in the first type...
  
  While I was reading the three wars on wikipedia, and it is not the first time that I don't find that argument back, I was wondering where the changing of alliances was announced that I read some years ago in a school history book. Up to now I didn't find it back in an English language text.
  
  I agree it is off-topic here, but it intrigued me now for some years.
  Found back this evening the sentence in a Belgian schoolbook:
  After the dead of William III, Marlborough and the Prince of Savoye were many times victorious against the French. But as the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Joseph I died (1711) his brother Charles VI became emperor. Up to then the British had always considered Charles VI as their candidate for the Spanish crown. But as he now besides emperor also would become king of Spain, the balance of power in Europe would be disturbed, they thought. Therefore they the let the allies down. (didn't found a good translation: "they dropped" their allies?)
  
  Did again some research and found here something in the sense I meant:
  .
  I checked the "About us" to know who was behind the site...
  Under the heading: royal deaths 1711-1712 I found:
  "These abrupt changes undermine the strategy of the allies. Their aim has been to place the archduke Charles on the Spanish throne. Nobody would now accept his inheriting it as the Austrian emperor.
  By the same token Philip, in possession of Spain, cannot be allowed to inherit the French throne."
  
  My comment: The authors say the "allies", but who were these allies besides Britain and the Holy Empire? Thus in my opinion it was Britain, which steered for the balance of power in Europe?
  
  Mutatis Mutandis, as I know that you come always with reasonable arguments, I think I will have to bow for your greater knowledge...
  
  Kind regards and with high esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 5th August 2010

  Hi Paul,
  
  Thanks for your kind comments. I don't know that much about the warfare of this period, however.
  
  But my impression is that the Grand Alliance was a relatively well-balanced coalition built around Britain, the United Provinces, the Holy Roman Empire, and some junior partners. The Dutch did not contribute a military leader in the class of Marlborough or Eugenius of Savoy, perhaps because their complex system of government, full of checks and balances, offered few opportunities for autocrats of this type to develop. Hence they attract less attention, but they still contributed a considerable part of the manpower of the anti-French coalitions.
  
  And, of course, it was thanks to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which put William III on the English throne, that Britain was in that coalition at all. Before that, the French had been able to maintain at least the benevolent neutrality of Britain by bribing the last Stuart monarchs.
  
  I think the Grand Alliance may classify as a coalition of the second type, as the motivation for the major partners in it was to defend themselves against the aggressive foreign policy of Louis XIV, something arguably none of them could do alone.
  
  The war had a complicated ending, with the coalition breaking up and a compromise peace, but the main reason for that seems to have been that all powers involved where exhausted, economically and militarily: They had fought each other to a standstill, but none could secure a decisive advantage.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 6th August 2010

  Hello Paul,
  
  To Mutatis’ message I can add that at the time the British were split into a Whig party that wanted to continue the War against the French and the Tory party that wanted to end the Dutch influence in British affairs by making peace with the French. When the Tories won the French offered them peace on very generous terms; the British would get the monopoly of the slave-trade in the Spanish colonies of South-America. This proved to be irresistible to the Tories, so they let down their allies.
  
  Regards,
  Poldertijger
  

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 7th August 2010

  Re: Message 4.
  
  Mutatis Mutandis,
  
  thank you very much for this elaborated reply.
  I think you are right over the whole line.
  
  Perhaps about your last paragraph. Historians have perhaps with hindsight! spoken of the first appearance of the British continental power balance policy?
  
  Kind regards and with esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 7th August 2010

  Re: Message 5.
  
  Poldertijger,
  
  thank you very much for this interesting addition. It is also a welcome addition to the message 23 from hotmousemat in Thomas' thread: "The meaning of the word "Liberal" through the times" where you also contributed.
  I was aware of this period by the study of the pamphlet of the author of "Gulliver's journeys" that I also mentioned in Thomas' thread. Except of the "generous peace terms" that the French offered to the Tories. That's new to me.
  
  Kind regards and with esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 8th August 2010

  Poldertijger
  
  Yes you're right. Marlborough was not only a general but the leading influence on the government with his wife, Sarah, as one of the closest influences on Queen Anne. Once the pair fell out of favour the Tory 'peace at any price' party replaced them and the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713.
  
  The British problem with the wars with France in the 18th century was that although Britain often had the better of the conflict she was unable to force a decisive conclusion and it was often political changes at home that led to a negotiated end to fighting. The collapse of the Newcastle-Pitt ministry in 1762 during the Seven Years' War which led to the Treaty of Paris the following year.
  
  In the latter part of the 18th century the attitude of the two parties towards peace and war had switched, as is often the case in British politics - note the change in attitude of the two main political parties today towards British membership of the EU. The fall of Lord North's Tory ministry in 1782 and his replacement by first Rockingham and then Shelburne led to the recognition of the American colonists and the end of the war with France, Spain and Holland.
  
  Even during the more decisive Napoleonic War the resignation of Pitt due to the refusal of George III to grant Catholic Emancipation in 1801 although it led to no political change resulted in the temporary cessation of hostilities by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 9th August 2010

  Hello Allan_D,
  
  Thanks for your message 8. It's much appreciated.
  
  Regards,
  Poldertijger

  Link to this forum: Coalition Warfare

  Report message9

Back to top