Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 3rd, 2012, 10:07 PM
Tallest Skil Tallest Skil is online now
Terrible At Everything
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
Le Bump.....
Please don't. Not without actual content, in any case.

I think the best the US could ever hope for in a 'successful' War of 1812 is the highlighted shown here:



Maybe that plus further very aggressive settlement in subsequent years means they could also buy away the northern border of the Great Lakes south of the Hudson Bay watershed, which would then mean the 49th parallel border westward is no longer set in stone, but I doubt it.
__________________
Help.

Last edited by Tallest Skil; September 3rd, 2012 at 11:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old September 3rd, 2012, 10:15 PM
Wolfpaw Wolfpaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: God Hates Flags
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Maybe that plus further*very aggressive settlement in subsequent years means they could also buy away the northern border of the Great Lakes south of the Hudson Bay watershed, which would then mean the 49th parallel border westward is no longer set in stone, but I doubt it.
I could see some future issues down the line over the Great Lakes. It would be suitably ironic if Natives fled to the American-promised Ontario to join Upper Canadians in their resistance to the Yankees. Nice map, btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Please don't. Not without actual content, in any case.
This seems like a completely necessary remark.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old September 3rd, 2012, 10:20 PM
MerryPrankster MerryPrankster is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
Best of luck, chaps; Jefferson didn't leave Mad Jimmy much of a military to fight with.
That's the POD I can think of--wiser military policies under Jefferson. Even if he didn't want a standing army, a navy consisting of more than just near-worthless coastal gunboats might be more palatable.
__________________
Want some quality fiction? Check of Flashing Steel, Flashing Fire: Ten Tales of Valor and Imagination!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old September 3rd, 2012, 10:26 PM
MerryPrankster MerryPrankster is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._national_debt

This says that the navy under John Adams was stronger and the Federalists objected strongly to scrapping much of it.

Perhaps the Democratic-Republicans' position is weaker and the Federalists' stronger so that the reductions to the navy don't happen? The Royal Navy would still be much stronger, but defeating an enlarged U.S. Navy would take time and have other knock-on effects.
__________________
Want some quality fiction? Check of Flashing Steel, Flashing Fire: Ten Tales of Valor and Imagination!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old September 3rd, 2012, 10:30 PM
MerryPrankster MerryPrankster is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
The problem with keeping Adams' navy and still having the War of 1812 is that it might deter the British from their more obnoxious behaviors. Even if the Royal Navy still outclasses the U.S. one, impressment might not be worth the effort if the effort is a lot harder.

(Heck, in OTL the British stopped impressing sailors anyway but by then it was too late.)
__________________
Want some quality fiction? Check of Flashing Steel, Flashing Fire: Ten Tales of Valor and Imagination!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old September 3rd, 2012, 11:32 PM
Tallest Skil Tallest Skil is online now
Terrible At Everything
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
This seems like a completely necessary remark.
It was the remark needed. They frown greatly on thread bumping sans content here. Just something to heed going forth, is all. Feel free to bring back old threads (just not too old), but they want you to have some content in doing so.

And thanks. The map is partial from the United States as of 1847 in Big Tex' The United States of Ameriwank.
__________________
Help.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old September 4th, 2012, 01:53 AM
Roger II Roger II is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Asōrestān
Posts: 366
It's not much of PoD, but would a stouter defense of Washington and making life hell for British ships in Chesapeake Bay(a somewhat comparable situation in terms of being a small inland body of water with freaky weather and challenging navigation to the Great Lakes) help combined with a more sucesssful Lundy's Lane? I don't see major territorial gains happening but "We repulsed all British assaults on our core territory without serious incident and occupied juuuust enough of their territory to force some serious concessions and slightly marginal but more defensible territorial gains" would certainly be a pretty solid performance from the United States.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novak

OH NO THE TIME TRAVELING POLITBURO RUINED THE ROMAN EMPIRE AGAIN!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old September 4th, 2012, 02:13 AM
Fearless Leader Fearless Leader is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Well, first off, I don't think it's too far fetched to have America perform better militarily in the war of 1812. Given their abysmal performance in OTL this isn't too much of a stretch. The real challenge is getting this better military performance to translate into an actual political victory.

For example, let's take as our POD American General Henry Dearborn dying in January of 1813. This is far from far-fetched, the man was horrendously overweight and needed to be carted around in a two wheeled carriage which became known as a "Dearborn" for decades after the war. Furthermore his camp was in such bad shape that disease outbreaks were rampant. IMO it isn't too much of a stretch for him to pass earlier than OTL.

Dearborn's passing leaves General Zebulon Pike in command of the armies slated to invade Upper Canada in 1813. Pike had all the makings of an earlier Winfield Scott but in OTL his life was cut short by the British blowing up Fort York and sending a massive log hurtling into his back. An aggressive, discipline focused commander like Pike could've seen the American army transition to a more professional force far earlier than it did in OTL.

Furthermore, I could see Pike's aggressiveness leading to the Americans following their original plan of attack and taking Kingston in Spring of 1813, instead of launching joint offensives on the Niagara and York. In OTL the Americans were dissuaded by faulty intelligence that multiplied the number of British at Kingston 10 fold from 500 to 5000. Had the Americans actually attacked Kingston in Spring 1813 they would have surely taken it and in so doing effectively cut off Upper Canada from further British aid.

Assuming Pike attacks Kingston this leaves Sheaffe with few other options than to retreat from the American Northwest and try to either retake Kingston or wait for Prevost to send the requisite number of troops down from Quebec to re-open supply lines to Upper Canada. Given Prevost's cautious nature I'd wager the former is the path Sheaffe will be forced to take. This of course ends diastrously as it allows Harrison to marshal the American forces in the Northwest and pursue the British. Furthermore, like OTL relations between the retreating British and Tecumseh probably are strained leading to the breakup of the later's coalition.

Thus an attack on Kingston in Spring of 1813 would probably have left all of Upper Canada in American hands by the end of the year. Britain would probably launch an offensive down lake Champlain in TTL to try and gain enough leverage in New York to force a status quo ante bellum end to the conflict. If the Americans can defeat them there and elsewhere (A big if granted) they might just be able to gain a more favourable peace.
__________________
Current Timeline:A True and Better Alamo Wake Island fends off the Japanese invasion...chaos and a vastly different Pacific War ensues!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old September 4th, 2012, 02:22 AM
MerryPrankster MerryPrankster is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
I like your scenario, FL. Combine it with Jefferson not scrapping Adams' navy for whatever reason and Perfidious Albion (no offense) might come off the worse for this.
__________________
Want some quality fiction? Check of Flashing Steel, Flashing Fire: Ten Tales of Valor and Imagination!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old September 4th, 2012, 04:52 AM
BigWillyG BigWillyG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger II View Post
It's not much of PoD, but would a stouter defense of Washington and making life hell for British ships in Chesapeake Bay(a somewhat comparable situation in terms of being a small inland body of water with freaky weather and challenging navigation to the Great Lakes) help combined with a more sucesssful Lundy's Lane? I don't see major territorial gains happening but "We repulsed all British assaults on our core territory without serious incident and occupied juuuust enough of their territory to force some serious concessions and slightly marginal but more defensible territorial gains" would certainly be a pretty solid performance from the United States.
Not sure if it would create the POD but it seems easy enough to have the Washington raid be a disaster for the Brits. Enough of their landing attempts in Europe like Walcheron were disasters and some defended shore batteries in the Chesapeake could get lucky and destroy some RN ships of the line with heated shot. Even if they can capture DC after that it would probably still be considered a defeat by the RN due to the loses.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old September 4th, 2012, 11:32 AM
BlondieBC BlondieBC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialaquila View Post
Maybe avoid the French invasion of Russia, and have the British devote more resources to the Peninsular War? That would leave even fewer British troops for the Americas and allow the US an opening to make some gains. It might also make the British more desperate for peace, with all resources being needed to combat the French in Spain.

Along with this, you could have the US fight a war with Spain in the early 1800s over Louisiana and Florida. This might give an incentive to keep the US regular army stronger relative to its OTL weakness, with the memory and lessons of a recent war.
Agreed, this would work. The UK still fighting Napoleon hard through 1816 means not only that the UK does not reinforce North America, but it may well pull out some troops. If combined with the USA negotiators being reasonable (not demanding all of Canada, allow Quebec to be free), it would get you an USA win. It is not so much the USA wins, as the UK is unwilling to fund enough regiments to get a draw.

As to the USA keeping a larger army, there would be some other ways, but all would involve military threats - larger slave revolts, more battles with Indians or the UK seeming more threatening.

If I was to write a TL, at first glance I would go with a UK diplomat/King making vague but threatening type speeches about the USA (think Kaiser Wilhelm II type stuff - bombastic and often meaningless) combined with Napoleon wintering at Vilnius instead of driving on Moscow. This should keep him in the war at least one more year. And with the American papers exaggerating the English statements, we could get a bigger militia. They still would be clearly class B or C units by European standards, but if big enough, we could get initial gains that are hard for the UK to reverse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycaon pictus View Post

Agreed. Probably the only way the Americans could not only win the war but have it stay won that is, not have to face Wellington and about 50,000 men a few years later would be if the war against Napoleon ended in stalemate and the British had to stay focused on France. (Although it's hard to imagine Napoleon being satisfied with a stalemate.)
You can also get their by lack of will for the UK due to poor finances. The UK finances were quite stretched by the end IOTL, so just taking the war a few years longer may be enough to make a settlement likely. While Wellingtons army of 50K is impressive by American standards, it is too small to occupy the USA by quite a large margin. And the logistical/financial cost of supporting 50K men in the field is quite large. Since the UK chose to compromise IOTL and take a draw, they could easily accept the USA gaining some land.

For example, if early in the war, the USA gains Ontario and Quebec is either independent or also conquered by the USA, a treaty accepting the USA gaining Ontario and not gaining Quebec might look quite attractive to both sides. Or a situation where there are some "border clarifications" that "hide" the fact the UK loses lands. If the USA gains the north shore of Lake Superior, how big a deal is this really to the House of Commons?

The tough part is the USA gaining the early victories and holding the land for a few years.
__________________
Prince Henry of Prussia: The Rise of the U-Boat
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=225455
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old September 4th, 2012, 11:42 AM
BlondieBC BlondieBC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Please don't. Not without actual content, in any case.

I think the best the US could ever hope for in a 'successful' War of 1812 is the highlighted shown here:

Maybe that plus further very aggressive settlement in subsequent years means they could also buy away the northern border of the Great Lakes south of the Hudson Bay watershed, which would then mean the 49th parallel border westward is no longer set in stone, but I doubt it.
Agreed that would be a huge win for the USA. To be fair, just gaining the entire North Shore of Lake Eire would be a big gain.

IMO, losing Ontario will split Canada into 2-3 nations. Eastern Canada, Quebec (maybe) and British Columbia. The USA settlers will tend to creep NW from the new lands, and it likely prevents any type of road/rail network linking Eastern and Western Canada. The USA likely ends up the the land between the Rockies and Ontario, even though it make take a couple of generations.
__________________
Prince Henry of Prussia: The Rise of the U-Boat
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=225455
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old September 4th, 2012, 12:29 PM
Georgie Porgie Georgie Porgie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 371
Due respect.. a US win in the 1812 war will be a poke in the eye to the world's only super power. What do you imagine Britain will do?

If Napoleon is defeated in 1814 (as per OTL... and remember Britain had little to do win the defeat of Nappy on land) this would leave the worlds largest navy free to bring a battle tested army from Spain to were ever in the US they wanted to (obviously water permitting).

I can see the American forces doing well but being smashed and the US being forced into a humiliating peace (similar to Germany in 1918).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old September 4th, 2012, 02:25 PM
imperialaquila imperialaquila is offline
Aspiring Thru-Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Happy Valley
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgie Porgie View Post
Due respect.. a US win in the 1812 war will be a poke in the eye to the world's only super power. What do you imagine Britain will do?

If Napoleon is defeated in 1814 (as per OTL... and remember Britain had little to do win the defeat of Nappy on land) this would leave the worlds largest navy free to bring a battle tested army from Spain to were ever in the US they wanted to (obviously water permitting).

I can see the American forces doing well but being smashed and the US being forced into a humiliating peace (similar to Germany in 1918).
This is why a lot of the scenarios discussed involve Napoleon being kept in the fight for at least an extra year, or avoiding the invasion of Russia altogether.
__________________
When did we forget that the Space Shuttle was a program that strapped human beings to an explosion and stabbed through the sky with fire and math?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old September 4th, 2012, 04:17 PM
Georgie Porgie Georgie Porgie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialaquila View Post
This is why a lot of the scenarios discussed involve Napoleon being kept in the fight for at least an extra year, or avoiding the invasion of Russia altogether.
Yes, but never say why Napoleon would not invade, he really had to it was the only way he could support his army. Napoleon seemed to operate something like a pyramid scheme, it just needed more countries rather than people.

IF he didn't invade Russia France would have gone into economic melt down with 5 years - no matter what Napoleon did.

If he didn't invade Russia then Britian and Russia would have invaded him! Either way Napoleon is on his way out and the flea-bite of a war in the new world can be sorted out.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old October 25th, 2012, 03:14 AM
606jae 606jae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 231
the easiest way I see for the USA to gain land would be have the peace talks go long enough for news of New Orleans to reach Ghent and some land might be forthcoming.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old October 25th, 2012, 03:21 AM
Meerkat92 Meerkat92 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Orbiting Alpha Centauri (ain't got no Sol)
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by kclcmdr View Post
The USA of 1812 needs a bigger and stronger Navy...

Without that...
the British Navy can easily dance around the American Coastal zone region and lay siege to the various city ports if they aren't defended properly...

And land their Redcoats and try to burn more towns and cities like Washington DC....
What would be a good POD for a bigger and stronger Navy in time for it to impact the War of 1812, though?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old October 25th, 2012, 03:45 AM
Malta Malta is offline
Kirked
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimare
Posts: 1000 or more
The stretch was pretty far, but No Hull, No Madison, and Lake Champlain Campaign is main focus of taking Canada.

Try not to alienate the Late Loyalists.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbomally View Post
"A one-party state? Are you loco in the coco? Why would anypony just want one party?"-Pinkie Pie
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.