How decisive of a victory could the British have achieved in the War of 1812? The POD has to be after the out break of war, the war can last a few more years if wanted. What could the British have taken from the US after the war? Would the have let Tecumseh set up his Native state along the Great Lakes? Could the British add injury to insult at take the Louisiana purchase from the US? What would this mean from the future of North America?
British Victory in the War of 1812
- Thread starter General Melchett
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
None, nothing, no, no, it's the end of the world as we know it.
1. None.
2. Nothing.
3. No
4. No
5. It's the end of the world as we know it, because apparently Britain would rather war-war than jaw-jaw (and sell-sell, for that matter...)
The British had been at war (almost) non-stop for (almost) six decades by 1815; they were quite happy to call an end to it, as was the United States.
Best,
1. None.
2. Nothing.
3. No
4. No
5. It's the end of the world as we know it, because apparently Britain would rather war-war than jaw-jaw (and sell-sell, for that matter...)
The British had been at war (almost) non-stop for (almost) six decades by 1815; they were quite happy to call an end to it, as was the United States.
Best,
Fairly crushing given the right POD and circumstances. Absolute best case scenario for Britain is obviously as follows:
1. New England secedes from the US
2. Establishment of Native British aligned buffer state in the West
3. Check of US expansionist urges
4. Control of the Great Lakes
Now personally I think the best case is if the British are able to dictate terms from Washington (which they would have been able to do OTL had it not been for what could almost literally be called an act of God) and if the British hadn't had to deal with Napoleon still in 1814-15.
Really the US got very lucky late in the war and if the Brits had been able to turn their full attention to the US you can bet that the US would have been crushed and Britain's full war aims established.
However, let's say a more effective British peace in 1814 still (Nappy being bested in 1813 let's say) Britain is effectively stepping on the US's jugular via crushing naval blockade, they manage to successfully occupy Washington, they have occupied Maine effectively and are cruising around the Great Lakes.
Ideally they would order the US off the lakes, followed by some territorial concessions in order to add some defensive depth to Upper and Lower Canada. That's all I can think of off the top of my head for this scenario
1. New England secedes from the US
2. Establishment of Native British aligned buffer state in the West
3. Check of US expansionist urges
4. Control of the Great Lakes
Now personally I think the best case is if the British are able to dictate terms from Washington (which they would have been able to do OTL had it not been for what could almost literally be called an act of God) and if the British hadn't had to deal with Napoleon still in 1814-15.
Really the US got very lucky late in the war and if the Brits had been able to turn their full attention to the US you can bet that the US would have been crushed and Britain's full war aims established.
However, let's say a more effective British peace in 1814 still (Nappy being bested in 1813 let's say) Britain is effectively stepping on the US's jugular via crushing naval blockade, they manage to successfully occupy Washington, they have occupied Maine effectively and are cruising around the Great Lakes.
Ideally they would order the US off the lakes, followed by some territorial concessions in order to add some defensive depth to Upper and Lower Canada. That's all I can think of off the top of my head for this scenario
If they had the will to pursue the war further in 1815, they could have pretty much done whatever they wanted with the US.
Precisely, at most they will force some territorial concessions from the US to add strategic depth to British North America, if possible create a friendly Native allied state, place strict requirements on the number of warships (if any) they can put on the Great Lakes, and basically ensure that trade is not further disrupted.
TFSmith121
Banned
And none of that gains a single guinea...
And none of that gains a single guinea...nation of shopkeepers, remember?
A war fought three thousand miles across the North Atlantic by a European power was never won by wishful thinking, as the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all learned, multiple times.
Best,
Fairly crushing given the right POD and circumstances. Absolute best case scenario for Britain is obviously as follows:
1. New England secedes from the US
2. Establishment of Native British aligned buffer state in the West
3. Check of US expansionist urges
4. Control of the Great Lakes
Now personally I think the best case is if the British are able to dictate terms from Washington (which they would have been able to do OTL had it not been for what could almost literally be called an act of God) and if the British hadn't had to deal with Napoleon still in 1814-15.
Really the US got very lucky late in the war and if the Brits had been able to turn their full attention to the US you can bet that the US would have been crushed and Britain's full war aims established.
However, let's say a more effective British peace in 1814 still (Nappy being bested in 1813 let's say) Britain is effectively stepping on the US's jugular via crushing naval blockade, they manage to successfully occupy Washington, they have occupied Maine effectively and are cruising around the Great Lakes.
Ideally they would order the US off the lakes, followed by some territorial concessions in order to add some defensive depth to Upper and Lower Canada. That's all I can think of off the top of my head for this scenario
And none of that gains a single guinea...nation of shopkeepers, remember?
A war fought three thousand miles across the North Atlantic by a European power was never won by wishful thinking, as the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all learned, multiple times.
Best,
And none of that gains a single guinea...nation of shopkeepers, remember?
A war fought three thousand miles across the North Atlantic by a European power was never won by wishful thinking, as the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all learned, multiple times.
Best,
Your absurd bias on the subject aside, by 1814 the US was being strangled by a near total economic blockade and British forces were only repelled by either absurd unluckiness, or lack of skill on the part of the British commanders.
Had they had the will to continue the war they could have easily gained the strategic depth I mention and control of the Great Lakes, and there would have been precisely jack and shit the US could have done about it.
TFSmith121
Banned
They pursued the war quite energetically and...
They pursued the war quite energetically in 1814-15 and...lost, nonetheless.
Just ask Pakenham, Ross, and Downie.
Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, Fort McHenry/Hampstead Hill, and New Orleans were not flukes; neither were they the product of any particular doctrinal or technical advantage of the US forces over the British.
Time and distance and logistics; none of the European powers could surmount that on the mainland of the Americas (North or South) from (roughly) 1750 onward...
Even the French couldn't manage Haiti in 1803, and the Spanish barely held on to Cuba in the Nineteenth Century; once the Cubans had an ally with a navy built in the Western Hemisphere, the Spanish left, sadder but wiser.
Best,
They pursued the war quite energetically in 1814-15 and...lost, nonetheless.
Just ask Pakenham, Ross, and Downie.
Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, Fort McHenry/Hampstead Hill, and New Orleans were not flukes; neither were they the product of any particular doctrinal or technical advantage of the US forces over the British.
Time and distance and logistics; none of the European powers could surmount that on the mainland of the Americas (North or South) from (roughly) 1750 onward...
Even the French couldn't manage Haiti in 1803, and the Spanish barely held on to Cuba in the Nineteenth Century; once the Cubans had an ally with a navy built in the Western Hemisphere, the Spanish left, sadder but wiser.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Well, they tried repeatedly to carry the war into
Well, they tried repeatedly to carry the war into US territory decisively in 1814-15 and they lost all three times they tried - again, as witness the careers of Pakenham, Ross, and Downie.
Liverpool asked Wellington to take it on in 1815 and the Iron Duke said not with a 10-foot-grenadier, so to speak.
The British had been fighting the French since 1760, roughly; don't you think they figured they had better things to do than keep playing round the rugged rocks for another ten years?
Especially given their general lack of success in 1775-83, and the examples of the resounding (lack of success) the French, Spanish, and Portuguese had in trying to hold on to their empires in the Western Hemisphere?
At what point does the "insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" trope come into being?
When Prevost's invasion is defeated? Ross? Pakenham?
Perhaps Burgoyne? Cornwallis? Leclerc? Morillo y Morillo? Beresford? Whitelocke?
Is there a pattern here? At what point does the problem with the concept become undeniable?
Seriously, it only took the Italians 12 times on the Isonzo...
A land war in the Americas mounted from Europe is just as insane as one in Asia mounted from the Americas...
Best,
Well, they tried repeatedly to carry the war into US territory decisively in 1814-15 and they lost all three times they tried - again, as witness the careers of Pakenham, Ross, and Downie.
Liverpool asked Wellington to take it on in 1815 and the Iron Duke said not with a 10-foot-grenadier, so to speak.
The British had been fighting the French since 1760, roughly; don't you think they figured they had better things to do than keep playing round the rugged rocks for another ten years?
Especially given their general lack of success in 1775-83, and the examples of the resounding (lack of success) the French, Spanish, and Portuguese had in trying to hold on to their empires in the Western Hemisphere?
At what point does the "insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" trope come into being?
When Prevost's invasion is defeated? Ross? Pakenham?
Perhaps Burgoyne? Cornwallis? Leclerc? Morillo y Morillo? Beresford? Whitelocke?
Is there a pattern here? At what point does the problem with the concept become undeniable?
Seriously, it only took the Italians 12 times on the Isonzo...
A land war in the Americas mounted from Europe is just as insane as one in Asia mounted from the Americas...
Best,
The Siege of Detroit ended in an all out British Victory.
So right there. American territory taken by the British Army along with Tecumseh's men.
So right there. American territory taken by the British Army along with Tecumseh's men.
There will be no USA anymore, just South Canada
Nah we'd just be the United Provinces of North America
If the British aren't fighting the French, the US is as good as dead. It was a tie with Britain using it's third-string soldiers, and when Napoleon wasn't running amuck in Europe the British nearly destroyed Washington and it took a tornado to stop British advancement. If Britain can devote their full forces to the US, it would get real ugly real fast. With Admiral Nelson in the Great Lakes, Perry gets demolished. British cake walk to Washington and easily split the US. New England sucedes from the US and Britain takes the Great Lakes and most of the Louisiana Purchase. The only real success by the US would probably Jackson in the south, mostly because a majority of the British forces would be based in the North.
TFSmith121
Banned
Zombie Nelson on the Great Lakes in 1815 would be...
Zombie Nelson on the Great Lakes in 1815 would be... sort of disturbing.
"Kissss me, 'ardy ... I needz your brainz...."
More seriously, "If Britain can devote their full forces to the US" - what, pray tell, was it that prevented them from doing just that in 1815 after Waterloo?
Oh yes, it was the fact that Britain could not deploy "their full forces" to the Western Hemisphere at ANY TIME.
Minor thing called the economy they had to deal with...
And Europe.
And the Med.
And Injah.
And the fact that three times the British TRIED to invade the US in 1814-15, they lost ... quite decisively, actually.
As per the late Generals Ross and Pakenham, and Commodore Downie.
Wonder why that was, again?
And again, Lord Liverpool asked Wellington (not exactly a third-stringer) to go take command in North America and the Duke said, essentially, "thanks, but no thanks - you're doomed to failure, and I won't be a part of it."
I know that hardly appeals to the war-war rather than jaw-jaw crowds, but there it is...
Seems like a pretty realistic appraisal from the Duke, after all - the last British general to win any glory in North America was Wolfe, and even he ended up dead...
Best,
Zombie Nelson on the Great Lakes in 1815 would be... sort of disturbing.
"Kissss me, 'ardy ... I needz your brainz...."
More seriously, "If Britain can devote their full forces to the US" - what, pray tell, was it that prevented them from doing just that in 1815 after Waterloo?
Oh yes, it was the fact that Britain could not deploy "their full forces" to the Western Hemisphere at ANY TIME.
Minor thing called the economy they had to deal with...
And Europe.
And the Med.
And Injah.
And the fact that three times the British TRIED to invade the US in 1814-15, they lost ... quite decisively, actually.
As per the late Generals Ross and Pakenham, and Commodore Downie.
Wonder why that was, again?
And again, Lord Liverpool asked Wellington (not exactly a third-stringer) to go take command in North America and the Duke said, essentially, "thanks, but no thanks - you're doomed to failure, and I won't be a part of it."
I know that hardly appeals to the war-war rather than jaw-jaw crowds, but there it is...
Seems like a pretty realistic appraisal from the Duke, after all - the last British general to win any glory in North America was Wolfe, and even he ended up dead...
Best,
Zombie Nelson on the Great Lakes in 1815 would be... sort of disturbing.
I think I just got my next timeline idea.
Let's face it: that would make the logistics much easier to manage.
ManintheField
Banned
First we have to define what victory means and how it is achieved: The British took the American capitol IOTL, and failed to achieve a war-winning victory by doing so. Even if they held it...exactly what reason do the Americans have to give up? DC was a few nice buildings in a swamp at the time, the Federal government had extremely few employees and was capable of uprooting and moving, when necessary.
British supremacy on the Lakes is another interesting point to look at, but it still begs the question of how. The Americans showed themselves capable of matching the British blow for blow on the lakes.
Ultimately, it's hard to see a way the war ends with anything but a peripheral strategic objective or two gained by the British and, otherwise, everything is status quo ante. Taking the UP? Maybe, sure. Lower Peninsula, too, even. Going much further than biting around the edges requires a deeper commitment to the war than a war exhausted Britain would ever realistically make.
British supremacy on the Lakes is another interesting point to look at, but it still begs the question of how. The Americans showed themselves capable of matching the British blow for blow on the lakes.
Ultimately, it's hard to see a way the war ends with anything but a peripheral strategic objective or two gained by the British and, otherwise, everything is status quo ante. Taking the UP? Maybe, sure. Lower Peninsula, too, even. Going much further than biting around the edges requires a deeper commitment to the war than a war exhausted Britain would ever realistically make.
Nazar knows trust me
Indeed. Though in the long term all it ended up doing was making America want a round 2 in a few decades. So really, unless the Brits commit themselves to completely dismantlement the US, any significant territorial concessions would likely be reversed in a future conflict when America gets stronger.
Alas thus was the fate of my Mega Canada.
This is a reason why Britain could crush the US, not a reason for the Americans winning.
Britain was devoting only a bare minimum of resources to the war in the Americas, a lot of the weight was being took on by local militas.
And still they matched the US blow for blow.
However, the UK was capable of delivering far more blows than the US.
A full out war would be as one sided as a modern UK-US war. But in reverse.
Last edited: