Could the British have held America ?

Freebird · Jul 23, 2008

Well was not washington himself cool to the idea of complete independance? There was a golden oppertunity to work out a compromise, but the chance was lost by the British.

Would you consider this to be the first insurrection type "low intensity" war? The British were expecting for a short sharp clash of armies followed by surrender. The British did learn from this conflict it would seem, as Wellington used similar tactics in the Napoleonic "Peninsular War"

syscom3 · Jul 23, 2008

I remember one historian saying that the Brits put in command the only general in the world that could lose to Gen. Washington.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 23, 2008

I have to agree with syscom here. They could have with a different attitude toward the ruling power.

Eventually though the US would have ended up like Canada. A seperate state bowing down to the Queen...

Just kidding my Canadian friend!

red admiral · Jul 23, 2008

Richard Holmes (Cranfield and Sandhurst, ex Brigadier) did a series on this question a few years back as well as giving a general history to the war. You really get the impression that the heart of the British leadership wasn't in the campaign and they made little effort to use their advantages. Fighting the French was a lot more pressing matter as well. A political settlement would be the best solution, with greater independence. An early move towards a Dominion like Canada or Australia with virtually complete independence. It would have solved a lot of problems down the line; no US civil war, probably no world wars...

comiso90 · Jul 23, 2008

red admiral said:
probably no world wars...

Please explain why if the US was another Canada or Australia, there would have been no world wars..

Freebird · Jul 23, 2008

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I have to agree with syscom here. They could have with a different attitude toward the ruling power.

Eventually though the US would have ended up like Canada. A seperate state bowing down to the Queen...

Just kidding my Canadian friend!

Yes and perhaps you would be Sir Adler, Duke of Alaska by now!!! 8)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 23, 2008

freebird said:
Yes and perhaps you would be Sir Adler, Duke of Alaska by now!!! 8)

I will take that title!

timshatz · Jul 23, 2008

Have also heard that the Brits really weren't in it when it came to fighting in the Colonies. It was far away, expensive, big and they lost the ideology war before the first shot was every fired.

There were plenty of Brits (in the Whig party) who were openly siding with the Colonials. Not a huge number, but enough to make life difficult for the Torries.

If I had to choose a side, I'd much rather be on the side of the rebels. The situation is much simpler. Stay in the game until the Brits just get fed up and quit. Win when you can, but don't get cornered. Trade land for time and just show up the next day.

For the Brits, it was a strategic nightmare. You can never a corner an Army in a place so vast. Especially with only 30K guys. Conquer a town, and the Rebels pack up and move 100 miles away, set up shop and you have to do it all over again. Brit Regulars have to come from England, Rebel troops can pop up from just about anywhere. Your supply lines are tied to water, the rebels seem to get it from just about anywhere they are at any given time. They have no lines of communication to cut (but the Brits do).

No easy answers.

Njaco · Jul 23, 2008

beside, who wants to name their beer a large wooly mammal.

drgondog · Jul 25, 2008

Soren said:
Could they or not? What were the final deciding factors ?

We have had nearly no discussions on this issue, except one VERY long ago (which was very interesting).

The question is the right one. The British could have 'won' but I do not believe they could prevail and held America.

They could have defeated the first rebellion, but short of extermination and recolonization I doubt that they could sustain the forces necessary to keep rebellion from occurring again while dealing with the French and prevailing there also.

No question where King George's priorities were at that time

drgondog · Jul 25, 2008

syscom3 said:
I remember one historian saying that the Brits put in command the only general in the world that could lose to Gen. Washington.

Probably a Brit Historian?

Airfix · Jul 25, 2008

Let´s take a look at the world at the end of the 18th century.

Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various criminal offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic...
1774 Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther
1775 Colonists in america start to rebell against his majesty. The penalty for doing so is hanging.
1778 France joins America in war, Mozart's Paris Symphony
1779 Spain joins American war. Riots against machinery
1781 Kant's Critique of pure reason
1782 Watt patents rotary steam engine
1783 Treaty of Versaille. Russian annexation of Crimea. Hot air balloon
1789 French revolution

Travelling from A to B means walking.
Transport means Ox-cart.
Mass transport means a ship. You need a river or an ocean to do so.
Fast travel means on horse-back.
Fast communication means: How fast can you ride for days or weeks.

The lack of fast communication and the lack of fast travelling would have prevented an effective guerilla war.

Money comes from India, Africa, the Caribbean islands and China.
Military power is centered in europe.
Science, philosophy and the arts are centered in europe.
The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton, and rice in the south and naval materiel and furs in the north, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean.
America, the place we ship convicts to.
The war in the american colonies was too expensive.
Even successful rebells posed no threat to the British Empire.
So the efforts were half-hearted.

Oreo · Jul 25, 2008

The big question is, who will win the next revolution?

drgondog · Jul 25, 2008

Airfix said:
Let´s take a look at the world at the end of the 18th century.

Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various criminal offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic...
1774 Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther
1775 Colonists in america start to rebell against his majesty. The penalty for doing so is hanging.
1778 France joins America in war, Mozart's Paris Symphony
1779 Spain joins American war. Riots against machinery
1781 Kant's Critique of pure reason
1782 Watt patents rotary steam engine
1783 Treaty of Versaille. Russian annexation of Crimea. Hot air balloon
1789 French revolution

Travelling from A to B means walking.
Transport means Ox-cart.
Mass transport means a ship. You need a river or an ocean to do so.
Fast travel means on horse-back.
Fast communication means: How fast can you ride for days or weeks.

The lack of fast communication and the lack of fast travelling would have prevented an effective guerilla war.

Money comes from India, Africa, the Caribbean islands and China.
Military power is centered in europe.
Science, philosophy and the arts are centered in europe.
The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton, and rice in the south and naval materiel and furs in the north, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean.
America, the place we ship convicts to.
The war in the american colonies was too expensive.
Even successful rebells posed no threat to the British Empire.
So the efforts were half-hearted.

Excellent summary.

Europe had no reason to take America into consideration for any reason other than as a 'backwater' trade partner until it was noted that the North and South collectively put 3,900,000 soldiers on the battlefield in the War Between the States, starting from approximately 1,108 officers and 15,529 (combined)Regular Army/Navy soldiers in 1860.

As a possible interesting note approximately 289,000 soldiers and militia served in the Revolutionary war

timshatz · Jul 25, 2008

drgondog said:
As a possible interesting note approximately 289,000 soldiers and militia served in the Revolutionary war

DD, is that double counting (local militia called to arms, fights, goes home, gets called out a year or two later, both incidents being counted as seperate callouts but involving the same troops)? Seems like an enormous number. Or, does it include Loyalist and Colonist troops?

drgondog · Jul 25, 2008

timshatz said:
DD, is that double counting (local militia called to arms, fights, goes home, gets called out a year or two later, both incidents being counted as seperate callouts but involving the same troops)? Seems like an enormous number. Or, does it include Loyalist and Colonist troops?

Every category named in your first question, including 2/3 that served 3months or less - no loyalists or Colonist troops.

The number for 1812-1815 was 527,000+ with about 2/3 also serving less than three months - only 66,000 served the entie 3 years

Reference - Bureau of Statistics and Census - presented in tables A-V,
"twenty Years of congress 1861-1881" Volume II by James G. Blaine,PhD (a Yankee) 1884 and published by Henry Hill Publishing Company - Norwich, CT

By far the best 1300 page book on the root causes of the War Between the States from the formation of the Continental Congress through the Reconstruction.

Freebird · Jul 25, 2008

timshatz said:
If I had to choose a side, I'd much rather be on the side of the rebels. The situation is much simpler. Stay in the game until the {other side} just get fed up and quit. Win when you can, but don't get cornered. Trade land for time and just show up the next day.

No easy answers.

Hmm, does that sound similar to something more current? Say in the Middle East?

drgondog · Jul 25, 2008

freebird said:
Hmm, does that sound similar to something more current? Say in the Middle East?

Viet Nam would be close

Freebird · Jul 25, 2008

drgondog said:
Viet Nam would be close

Yes that would certainly fit...

Hey Bill, can you think of any mainly "Guerrilla campaign" prior to the US war of Independance? Or was it about the first one?

Airfix · Jul 27, 2008

@drgondog
Thank you.

First general using guerrilla tactics...
Could be Quintus Fabius Maximus, Second Punic War (218-202 BC)

See an exellent article on guerrilla warfare at wikipedia:
Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit:
Beeing the rebell is not always fun.
You are on the military inferior side.
The majority of people want to live their lives without hassle.
You have to threaten (at the best of times) your own people for supporting the other side.
Guerilla warfare is a nasty buiseness at best.

Could the British have held America ?

Could the British have won the American war of indepence

Yes

No

Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Major

Major

Airman

Senior Airman

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Major

Master Sergeant

Major

Master Sergeant

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads