Latin Monetary Union v Three Emperor's League

[Dubayoo]

Let's say the Spanish Empire never collapsed because Napoleon never tried to pass the Liberal Constitution of 1812 in conjunction with the Peninsular War such that the Latin American colonies never had a motive to resist the monarchy.  Along with this, we don't see the independence of Mexico such that the Texan Revolution doesn't happen nor does the Mexican-American War.  The United States doesn't become the major power it became following the Spanish-American War since Spain remains an empire, and the Carlist Wars never disrupt national stability.  Instead, Spain becomes as powerful as Britain while maintaining positive relations with France, something which has precedent ever since the War of Spanish Succession anyway.  The two countries likewise support Italian unification in contrast to Austrian influence, particularly over Venice.  The Franco-Prussian War still happens in the opposite direction though since Germany is concerned about Western European dominance.  Regardless of outcome, the German states unite to preserve Central European fortitude.  Along with this, Austria-Hungary transforms into the Danubian Federation to preserve its multicultural ties and stabilize its Slavic populations.  Both Austria and Russia contribute to Russian development as well, and the Congress of Berlin against the Ottomans is upheld in Russia's favor.  

In turn, we see two blocs develop: The Three Emperor's League between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia remains intact versus the Latin Monetary Union of France, Spain, and Italy.  The United States doesn't establish enough strength to intervene, and Britain remains neutral between the two groups since it sees them counterbalancing each other well-enough while the British Empire can continue to manage its colonies around the world without interference.  

If the TEL and LMU came to conflict, who would win?

Edited August 3, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Auctor]

Industrially and in terms of deployable forces in an adequate time frame, a France/Spain/Italy even with empires intact gets crushed if a Germany unites as a result of a Franco-Prussian War that Prussia wins. Spain with a large colonial empire has almost nothing to gain from this and Italy still lacks coal to get any real industry going with. Russia will lag industrially if it is still under the Czar but Germany won't and if it doesn't have to commit forces to prop up Austria-Hungary in the east and can still import food the conditions under which it was defeated in World War 1 aren't in place.

 

Seems doubtful that a UK wouldn't intervene and even more doubtful that a USA that doesn't have Texas or the Mexican Cession territories wouldn't be a great power in the area and wouldn't be given some kind of alternate zimmermann telegram type scheme. But you've murdered enough butterflies that we can set that aside.

[Dubayoo]

The main motivation I see for Spain is old royalist and religious ties.  One, the Hapsburgs still reigned in A-H with Franz Ferdinand through the House of Lorraine.  Two, Germany oppressed Catholics during the Kulturkampf.  Three, Spain was ignored from the previous Holy Alliance between Prussia, Russia, and Austria.  In turn, a stable Spanish Empire would get the impression that it had been socially outcast from the Concert of Europe.  A victory would give it more sway and influence on a cultural level, and the fact that the front wouldn't be on its own homeland would mean the country has everything to gain and nothing to lose.  If anything, it could use its navy to blockade the opposition and isolate it from foreign trade supplies while increasing demand for its own exports. 

That said, I agree that Germany has immense industrial might such that there would still be a slugfest.  The advantage here is that Spain would get the industrial capacity of what became California and Texas in the United States not to mention the rest of Latin America wouldn't endure a century of civil unrest following its wars of independence and American economic interventions in the name of the Monroe Doctrine. The French Intervention in Mexico wouldn't even have potential without Mexican independence or borrowing.  I don't see good reason for America to want to contend with Spain either since Spain helped it during the Revolution, and the fact that it's Catholic gave it good reason to abolish slavery such that it would probably support the North if the Civil War still happened.  Britain also abolished slavery earlier, so they would all be on neutral terms at least.

The real advantage I see to the LMU, however, is its currency solidarity.  By ensuring the ratio between gold and silver, it would prevent the Long Depression or the various Panics from disrupting its members since bad money couldn't chase good money away.  All of the members would maintain metallic parity which would prevent arbitrage, and with a strong Spanish Empire, it would be a lot easier to regulate the standards the LMU originally intended to uphold.  I say this especially with regards to Italy (and Belgium) since Spain had historical familiarity with Naples.

Mobilizing Spanish forces to the front would be a lot easier than it was for Britain since railways could connect directly to France.  The distance would also be way shorter than mobilizing Russian forces to the front.  Russian forces were also primarily motivated to fight for their homeland and wouldn't carry much morale beyond defensive engagements.  At best, they'd contend against Italian forces.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Dubayoo