Revisiting Jeffery Amherst recently I thought I'd bump this. Online biographies have given me a clearer picture of the man, and I have requested at least one of the two biographies on him for my birthday next month, so, anyway, in the hopes of sparking a bit of a debate:
Amherst was not a tactical wizard, nor in truth a strategic genius (though he wasn't bad at that), his expertese lay instead in the world of logistics. His modus operandi was to build up his supplies, to build up a large and irresistable force, to aim to take strategic points and to keep hold of them once he had done so. He planned thoroughly and he kept on top of events as they unfolded, and he left nothing to chance when it came to supplies and transport. Glacial though his movements may have been he was the man responsible for the conquest of French North America and he had never suffered a major defeat - though some will, uncharitably, say that's because he fought no battles outside seiges. His campaign to take Montreal is a brilliant piece of administrative generalship, what is more is was conducted with, what is termed as, an America Army consisting of British regulars, Colonist troops and Native Americans, showing that he could work with people he had a low opinion for if needed.
Amherst's approach to war was ideal for America at the time. A large untamed continent could not be dealt with by just marching hither and thither with little planning put into logistics. If you marched into the North American interior you had to be sure that you were going to have everything you needed and weren't going to get cut off from friendly forces elsewhere. By relying on overwhelming numbers and firepower, and advancing only on important strategic targets within easy reach of his base of operations, and fortifying the positions once he took them before moving on, he ensured that his advance, no matter how slow, was unstoppable.
Between the fall from favour of Duke of Marlborough and rise of the Duke of Wellington, Amherst was probably the most able administrator at the highest level of command that the British had.
If Amherst had commanded in the American Revolutionary War, and done so with full commitment to the British/Loyalist Cause, then there is little doubt in my mind that he would manage to gain control of a number of Colonies/Statesand be immovable from them, regardless of whether he did this by coming down from Canada into the New England States or by taking control of Middle America from the loyalist territories in that region like New York.
Having said that, he might be defeated in open battle and forced to surrender, since we have no real way of knowing how astute his tactical mind was, but on that subject, the way Amherst allowed the tactically highly capable Wolfe to handle such matters at Louisbourg would suggest that Amherst was able to recognize the abilities of his subordinates and prepared to delegate such responsibilities to them so as to make up for any of his own failings.
