Okay lets say the when the US invades canada Rather than launching the ill fated three pronged assault, they struck right at Montreal, and overtook it, would the rest of western canada wither or would it just delay the U.S. Defeat?
What if The Us wins the war of 1812?
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
Um, western Canada did not exist at that time. "Canada" was basically Upper Canada, Lower Canada and to a certain extent the Maritimes. And if the American taking of Montreal is anything like what Benedict Arnold tried during the American Revolution, then I wouldn't expect them to hodl onto it for long. If they do take it and Lower Canada with it, then we'd probably see a united North America as a result.
The topic has come up many times before.
All the British need to do is establish the blockade, plus announce that it will not be lifted until all of Canada is returned(or New England secedes), and the US will have no choice but to yield. Or they can land a larger army than OTL with some of the troops otherwise sent to Canada, and pretty much sack every city the US has on the coast one by one.
All the British need to do is establish the blockade, plus announce that it will not be lifted until all of Canada is returned(or New England secedes), and the US will have no choice but to yield. Or they can land a larger army than OTL with some of the troops otherwise sent to Canada, and pretty much sack every city the US has on the coast one by one.
I hoped he meant OTL Ontario when he said 'western Canada'....
Very quickly afterward would come a hostile takeover of the HBC and/or NWC by American interests, thus putting proto-Western Canada within the US' grasp!
I just don't see it. Maybe they could do better, but there would never be a decisive victory. Our army was incredible weak and small at the time, New England refused to support the war with either civilians or financial support, and this was being exploited by the British. If you want the war to go better, your first going have to get New England on the bandwagon. Who knows.. turning the Seige of Detriot into the 'Massacre of Detroit' or something along those lines that turns the northeast more supportive.
A more logical point of attack would be Kingston in 1813 which would result in most of Upper Canada being occupied. Upper Canada is probably the most the US could get at the peace table but would probably have to give up eastern Maine. The idea that the Brits could go around sacking sacking American cities with impunity is rather unrealistic as of the three ciities the attacked in 1814 they only sacked Washington but were defeated at Baltimore and New Orleans. A blockade can hurt the US but the US is less vulnerable in 1812 than in 1776 and we withstood that just fine.
Except Detroit was surrendered to a gang of Natives bellowing out their war cry.
And Alamo, you didn't win the war. Hell, no one really did.
Any PoD would involve making militias more effective. A definitive Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of sending militia across the border would help, too.
There were MANY cases where the US forces were much stronger than the British/Canadian ones, except that the militia refused to cross the border and thus we won.
It would also help if the US had any concept of 'logistics'. William Henry Harrison seems to be about the only general who heard of the concept, and he got cashiered.
A PoD at the declaration of the war can't give you a major US win. A PoD a year or two earlier could.
Oh. And it would help if US finances were in better shape. If a Federalist had been elected 4 years earlier, say...
Except Detroit was surrendered to a gang of Natives bellowing out their war cry.
And Alamo, you didn't win the war. Hell, no one really did.
But where else did we get Remember the Alamo from
Besides.. it makes Detroit look better.. it needs something other than being a piece of crap to remember it byExcept Detroit was surrendered to a gang of Natives bellowing out their war cry.
And Alamo, you didn't win the war. Hell, no one really did.
Tchaikovshy did.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Honestly, it's ASB. The US was lucky enough to get what it did OTL. We lost on the battlefield, but won in the peace treaty. The fact is, the only reason the British didn't come over and crush us like the uppity little insects we were at the time was because they were busy with France and the Napoleonic Wars. Their soldiers were more experienced, had higher morale, had better equipment, were actually disciplined, were willing to fight, and just overall better. Not to mention number disparity; Britain had been at war for a long time and had a relatively large military, while the US was wary of standing armies, so only had a very small regular army. The American army, by comparison, was a bunch of incompetent rogues and scoundrels, especially the state militias. Perhaps the one thing the Americans had on the British were the fact that they were fighting in their home territory. I don't think much really needs to be said about the navies. American ships actually tended to be better than their British counterparts, but that only works in a one on one fight between equally sized ships... Considering the size of the British navy and sheer number of ships of the line, that wasn't likely to happen.
Now, about the only possible strategic success the Americans might have had would be taking and holding Canada. Canada was pretty vulnerable, and the British would have a decent amount of incentive to try to get the US out.
But, honestly, the British aren't going to let Canada fall to the US. Even if the militias get their shit together, the US keeps a larger and better trained standing army prior to the war, and it gets the support of New England, the best they can do is occupy it. If that happens, Britain will just take off the kid gloves they used in OTL's 1812, send a decent amount of more soldiers over, and run wild. Britain had less than 50,000 soldiers in the US, and won the war. There were another 50,000 (I believe, sorry if my number is wrong, but if it's not 50,000, it's even more!) British soldiers in Spain at the time. When the Peninsular War finished, those soldiers would be free to double the size of the invasion force in America. New England was about to secede, and there's a damn good chance that a sudden downturn in the war like that would make them seriously consider following through with the Hartford Convention. So, you do the math. The US winning the war of 1812 is ASB.
Now, about the only possible strategic success the Americans might have had would be taking and holding Canada. Canada was pretty vulnerable, and the British would have a decent amount of incentive to try to get the US out.
But, honestly, the British aren't going to let Canada fall to the US. Even if the militias get their shit together, the US keeps a larger and better trained standing army prior to the war, and it gets the support of New England, the best they can do is occupy it. If that happens, Britain will just take off the kid gloves they used in OTL's 1812, send a decent amount of more soldiers over, and run wild. Britain had less than 50,000 soldiers in the US, and won the war. There were another 50,000 (I believe, sorry if my number is wrong, but if it's not 50,000, it's even more!) British soldiers in Spain at the time. When the Peninsular War finished, those soldiers would be free to double the size of the invasion force in America. New England was about to secede, and there's a damn good chance that a sudden downturn in the war like that would make them seriously consider following through with the Hartford Convention. So, you do the math. The US winning the war of 1812 is ASB.
To be honest, in hindsight the War of 1812 could not have gone more perfectly for the United States. We achieved internation standing among the world, and didn't lose anything.
Had the invasion of Canada been more successful, it's likely the British would have sent more than a token force to America, perhaps even Wellington himself.
This coupled with a full blockade would be a death blow for the United States.
Had the invasion of Canada been more successful, it's likely the British would have sent more than a token force to America, perhaps even Wellington himself.
This coupled with a full blockade would be a death blow for the United States.
If Britain had not been busy with France, the impressments and trade constrictions would not have occurred nearly to the level they did, which was a huge part of the reason for war. Basically, in order to HAVE a War of 1812 you need Britain to be fighting to the death against Napoleonic France.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
I'm not disagreeing with that. But the fact is, if Canada was captured, Britain would've put more emphasis on the war in America. Historically, it was completely a sideshow. Britain used what forces it could in Spain, and spent some relatively small rabble over to the US. With Canada captured, Britain would've been a bit more willing to shift a larger portion of forces to America. Keep in mind, the British started really gaining ground in Spain in mid-1812, shortly after the War of 1812 started, meaning troops could be shifted to America without too much effort. The Peninsular War ended in 1814, a year before the War of 1812 ended. Assuming the Napoleonic Wars go on essentially the same without too many butterflies, Napoleon gets exiled and Britain is free to send tens of thousands of more soldiers to the US. Certainly they're not going to give up Canada to the US so quickly, so it's a safe assumption the *War of 1812 is still going by 1814.
In what way? It technically existed before the War as British colonies, and then 53 years later existed as a British Dominion.
Solomaxwell6, not to mention that the British got everything they wanted in the European settlement so a slice of United States didn't seem especially necessary.
danwild6, add more troops and a grudge in London and it becomes completely realistic. As it was Baltimore was at serious risk despite outnumbering the British force 4 to 1 so add another 4000 British troops and that's all she wrote. And despite your claims the US would have lost New England had the war lasted another year even without a major military defeat.
danwild6, add more troops and a grudge in London and it becomes completely realistic. As it was Baltimore was at serious risk despite outnumbering the British force 4 to 1 so add another 4000 British troops and that's all she wrote. And despite your claims the US would have lost New England had the war lasted another year even without a major military defeat.