WI: A Tougher Spanish American War

Tucker Dwynn · Oct 19, 2005

What If: The Spanish are better prepared durring the Spanish-American War, put up a much harder fight. American losses are heavier at sea, and on land. (Theo Roosevelt still lives though).

Would America demand more durring the Peace talks?

Would they hold onto thier new possesions harder, perhaps make states out of them?

Would more "Warfare Tech" be developed, over a longer war, such as durring WW I?

Grimm Reaper · Oct 19, 2005

The Spanish had one battleship that did not prove available in either Cuba or the Philipines. Additionally, the performence of the Spanish Army was very poor, especially regarding the failiure to contest the American landings.

It is doubtful that the Spanish could eke out a victory, and I really don't know what else the US would take.

Scomerger · Oct 19, 2005

If else, the war might stretch into 1899, and if the Americans don't score a victory soon, then the war might last to 1900 and beyond and then this thread would be moved to the [After 1900] forum.

Anaxagoras · Oct 19, 2005

IIRC, many historians consider the Spanish surrender of Santiago to have been premature. But I don't see how anything much would have changed in the long run. If the Spanish had fought longer and harder, American losses would have been higher, but the end result would have been the same.

Scomerger · Oct 19, 2005

Anaxagoras said:
IIRC, many historians consider the Spanish surrender of Santiago to have been premature. But I don't see how anything much would have changed in the long run. If the Spanish had fought longer and harder, American losses would have been higher, but the end result would have been the same.

How is that, Anaxagoras?

MrP · Oct 19, 2005

I wonder if better commanders and morale would have allowed the Spaniards more success in repelling the Americans. I'm not sure the Spanish economy can generate a significantly better military without removing some of the logic behind the American attack.

Condottiero · Oct 20, 2005

During the battle of Cavite (in the Philippines) the American fleet was unable to cause significative damages to the spanish fleet. However the spanish commander panicked and ordered the fleet to surrender when the americans were considering retreating to Hong Kong.

What if the spanish navy had developped submarines with anaerobic technology (which they had and was never used until the 1940s by the germans) and they had sunk some american warships in american ports?

Grimm Reaper · Oct 20, 2005

Condotierro, there was no surrender by the Spanish Fleet in Manila Bay, the American squadron destroyed them in the battle.

For one major change we need no significant changes at all.

The Spanish army in Cuba ran and did not even attempt to contest the American landings in Cuba yet they could have fielded an estimated 5000 troops against a rather green American contingent of less than 20000. In fact, the garrison of the very community the US landed at was 300 strong. Now, since the Spanish officers' bravery was matched only by their defeatism, have the junior officer in command 'lose' the order to leave, and instead rip the American landing at will.

The US suffers over 2000 casualties, possibly including a vainglorious colonel of volunteers named Teddy Roosevelt, and only forces the landing by bombarding the civilian population thus acquiring some very negative PR points.

NHBL · Oct 20, 2005

A few possibilities...

Suppose the single Spanish battleship Pelayo was dispatched to Manilla after Manilla Bay, and made it through the Suez Canal before recoaling permission was denied; she steams into Manilla Bay and engages Dewey. This woukld be a bloody mess either way--Pelayo's got 2 12.5" guns, and one 11" gun on either side, but they can punch right through cruiser armor like it wasn't there. Dewey's fleet has many more guns, and likely fresh ammunition by this point, so can reduce the Spanish ship's unprotected porions to a shambles.

Pelayo's guns are in open barbettes, and so are vulnerable even to the 5" secondaries of the cruisers. I couldn't begin to say who would win, both sides need to get close to get hits with the fire control of the day.

That gives a messier, less one sided war whoever wins.

At Santiago, the American fleet was going to win, once it got to gun range, barring bad luck or true stupidity on the part of the Americans. If the Spanish cruisers were in better material condition (Some didn't even have all their guns) they might have done some damage, or perhaps some could have bouth enough time for one to escape, making things seem less total.

Just a pair of naval options to play with...

Condottiero · Oct 20, 2005

Grimm Reaper said:
Condotierro, there was no surrender by the Spanish Fleet in Manila Bay, the American squadron destroyed them in the battle.

For one major change we need no significant changes at all.

The Spanish army in Cuba ran and did not even attempt to contest the American landings in Cuba yet they could have fielded an estimated 5000 troops against a rather green American contingent of less than 20000. In fact, the garrison of the very community the US landed at was 300 strong. Now, since the Spanish officers' bravery was matched only by their defeatism, have the junior officer in command 'lose' the order to leave, and instead rip the American landing at will.

The US suffers over 2000 casualties, possibly including a vainglorious colonel of volunteers named Teddy Roosevelt, and only forces the landing by bombarding the civilian population thus acquiring some very negative PR points.

Nope.
In Cavite the spanish tactic was to approach the american fleet with their flagship Cristina, supported by the guns of the Austria, trying to use the torpedoes. Unfortunately for them they did not achieve to get closer because of american fire. As the americans had a clear superiority in heavy guns and their fast-fire ones.

After two hours and a half the situation was not so bad for the spanish fleet. Only two cruisers (Castilla and Cristina) were damaged having suffered heavy casualties and important damages, but they were still floating and firing. The rest of the fleet had received some impacts but they were in conditions of continuing the battle for some time. Then admiral Montojo panicked and changed his flag to the Isla de Cuba.

Dewey ordered the american fleet to retreat seeing the small effect of their attack. During an small break to allow the crews to rest and eat, he was reported that they had used half of their ammunition but they had not managed to sink a single spanish ship!

If Montojo had known about Dewey's worries he would not have done what he did: assume the combat was lost, order to abandon the ships rendering the guns useless and ordering to sink them.

Dewey was gladly surprised by what he was seeing and ordered to resume the attack, destroying the already sinking spanish fleet.

Ironically Montojo was received in Spain as a war hero.

Wendell · Oct 21, 2005

What if the Spanish-American War happens thirty years early?

Nicole · Oct 21, 2005

Wendell said:
What if the Spanish-American War happens thirty years early?

1868? Would we want such a war so soon after the Civil War, and in the middle of Reconstruction?

Wendell · Oct 21, 2005

Imajin said:
1868? Would we want such a war so soon after the Civil War, and in the middle of Reconstruction?

Let's say Spain backs the Confederacy, and its leadership evacuates near the war's end to Cuba. Granted, this might make the Spanish-American War happen 33 years early, rather than thirty.

Nicole · Oct 21, 2005

Wendell said:
Let's say Spain backs the Confederacy, and its leadership evacuates near the war's end to Cuba. Granted, this might make the Spanish-American War happen 33 years early, rather than thirty.

Why would Spain back the Confederacy? Also, in the 1860s, the unpopular Queen Isabella was on the throne, and Spain had just lost a dreadful war to reconquer Peru and Chile. If Britain and France did not have enough belief in the confederacy to think that they could help it, why would weak Spain?

Wendell · Oct 21, 2005

Imajin said:
Why would Spain back the Confederacy? Also, in the 1860s, the unpopular Queen Isabella was on the throne, and Spain had just lost a dreadful war to reconquer Peru and Chile. If Britain and France did not have enough belief in the confederacy to think that they could help it, why would weak Spain?

I don't know. I'd have to work on that. Maybe to curb U.S. power?

Nicole · Oct 21, 2005

Wendell said:
I don't know. I'd have to work on that. Maybe to curb U.S. power?

They can't even curb Peruvian power

In this period, Spain was more interested in regaining it's former Empire than going off to hurt the US (Yes, there's Florida and the Mexican Cession, but those aren't nearly as important as places like Mexico)

Wendell · Oct 21, 2005

Imajin said:
They can't even curb Peruvian power In this period, Spain was more interested in regaining it's former Empire than going off to hurt the US (Yes, there's Florida and the Mexican Cession, but those aren't nearly as important as places like Mexico)

True, but if you beat the U.S. badly enough, you won't have to worry about its meddling in your (Spain's) imperialist affairs.

Nicole · Oct 21, 2005

Wendell said:
True, but if you beat the U.S. badly enough, you won't have to worry about its meddling in your (Spain's) imperialist affairs.

Well, I don't think Spain saw the US really as much of a threat, since it didn't intervene in the aforementioned war against Peru (though admittedly we were in a Civil War at the time)

David S Poepoe · Oct 21, 2005

Wendell said:
Let's say Spain backs the Confederacy, and its leadership evacuates near the war's end to Cuba. Granted, this might make the Spanish-American War happen 33 years early, rather than thirty.

Secretary of State Seward basically promised to wage war against any nation that recognized the Confederacy if I remember right. On the whole Spanish intervention in the ACW is going to be a disaster for Spain. You have got to remember that Spain was in decline before the Napoleon War and its decline was accelerated by Napoleo's occupation. The Spanish fleet of the 1860s doesn't have the capability to lift the Union blockade and all it would accomplish would be to prolong the South's inevitable defeat. Its not some industrial powerhouse, like Britain, that will be able to ship arms and supplies over quickly. Also Spain has got to get its own house in shape.

Spanish intervention will most likely lead to the Spanish being kicked out of the Western Hemisphere some 33 years earlier than OTL. Don't know if the US would go after the Philippines at the time, but doubt it.

Nosb · Oct 21, 2005

I actually had a TL that had this in there. It had more to do with a tougher federal government on the unions and socialists climaxing in a communist revolution after WW1. On of the results of the US labour stance was that the average American were far less enthusiastic about the Spanish-American War, resulting in massive conscription, resulting much poorer moral, leading to more US casualties but a victory later in 1899, although Roosevelt was killed in the battle of San Juan.