American Revolution help?

I'm working on a TL and I was wondering if anyone had any maps showing Clinton's positions in New York City near the end of the war?

And, if anyone could, possibly proofread the first couple chapters?
 
I'm not sure I follow you? New York City was just about the most fortified place on Earth this side of Gibraltar. Add on the North Government's obsession with maintaining the blockade of America's ports (along with raids on Franco-Spanish-Dutch possessions solely for the purpose for destroying supplies meant for Washington's army), and it seems that the Big Apple at least will be very safe for the British.
 
do you want a map with Clinton's positions in NY city or the NY state?

about the proofread i can do that if you want

In the city, if you could.

Okay cool, I'll send you it later, on my mobile right now.

I'm not sure I follow you? New York City was just about the most fortified place on Earth this side of Gibraltar. Add on the North Government's obsession with maintaining the blockade of America's ports (along with raids on Franco-Spanish-Dutch possessions solely for the purpose for destroying supplies meant for Washington's army), and it seems that the Big Apple at least will be very safe for the British.

With an incompetent admiral patrolling New York City's harbors and a relatively stubborn and aggressive general replacing Washington, I don't think the defenses will matter to said general.
 
With an incompetent admiral patrolling New York City's harbors and a relatively stubborn and aggressive general replacing Washington, I don't think the defenses will matter to said general.

Well, they had the incompetent in Arbuthnot, but IMO you'd need a fast moving [like the "Long Island Express" hurricane that pulverized Eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1938(?)] Category 5 hurricane, driving the British fleets due north/northwest directly onto the shores/rocks/reefs to clear the tri-state area for Continental water-borne operations. (2)

2) You'd probably need the storm to "stall" at that point, just to make a "perfect storm" to maximize damage to the British fleets by keeping the driving force pushing them into the shore. OTOH, the topography of NY harbor may not allow for this. After all, "Any port in a storm". H

Though having this happen just as Clinton was preparing to rescue Cornwallis, or just after the British had completed their conquest of New York City, would have left them highly vulnerable to such a natural disaster.

A stubborn and aggressive general replacing Washington (assuming George stops a bullet) willing to assault New York City?

Hmm. I really can't think of ANYONE with the right combination of:

1) criminal incompetence
2) recklessness
3) stupid overconfidence
4) stubbornness
5) aggressiveness
6) the support of Congress
7) has the supreme confidence OF his men
8) has supreme confidence IN his men

List me every general that served in the Continental Army in the ARW, and I'll show you how NONE of them have all 8 "virtues".:rolleyes: The closest IMO are Nathaniel Greene:) and Benedict Arnold:(:rolleyes::eek::mad::mad::mad::mad:. And even then Greene lacks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Arnold lacks 1, 3, 6, and 8.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Assaulting New York City was something that would have been ridiculous to even contemplate. It would be like assaulting Washington DC in the Civil War, except for the fact that you'd need a navy and would have none to speak of, and that you would need at least a 4 to 1 numerical superiority, which you wouldn't have. It would be insane to even contemplate an assault on Manhattan Island (or Staten Island, for that matter).

An invasion of Long Island would be possible, but quite inadvisable, as you could take Long Island after a quite bloody fight and then have no way to resupply it once the British Navy wakes up, and then have to deal with the fact that to do so would likely denude the Hudson defenses, which were also mostly impregnable by this point in the war for the British to attack, assuming they were manned.
 
The US couldn't do this alone.

They would need France to help. in 1781, with a few thousand French soldiers on hand, George Washington urged Rochembeau to help his take New York.

This was ridiculous as there were probably 30,000 British Regulars and armed Loyalists in Manhattan, Long and Staten Islands.

It is possible, though very unlikely, that a French fleet MIGHT get momentarily naval superiority (no French admiral had any intention of gambling a major fleet to try, it would denude the wealthy Caribbean of protection) to allow for an invasion.

Without MASSIVE French reinforcements, I'm thinking 15-20 thousand regulars (impossible), this is strictly not feasible with 10,000 American regulars, maybe an equal amount of militia and 4-5 thousand French soldiers on hand.

Fortunately, Washington turned his attention to the Virginia campaign and marched south with Rochembeau to a little place called Yorktown, effectively ending the war.

New York was handed back in generous British peace.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
This was ridiculous as there were probably 30,000 British Regulars and armed Loyalists in Manhattan, Long and Staten Islands.

Not that many. After the detachment of the force to retake the Southern colonies and the diversion of other troops to the Caribbean to protect them against the French, I think it was between 10,000 and 15,000 British troops in New York. But the point you're making is still valid.
 
Also, Manhattan would have been Gibraltar x100, and assured permanent hostility from the nation that spanned the Eastern Seaboard.

This is actually one of the subplots from one of my timelines.

-After the 7 Years War, most of Quebec's population is expelled, Acadian style. New Englanders emigrate up and Quebec joins the rebellion.
-With Nova Scotia also in rebellion, the British wind up in same position in 1781 as OTL, holding New York but no Canada (except Newfoundland).
- Lacking any place to send 60,000+ (probably many more), they demand in the peace a "reservation" for loyalists, naming the Tri-Islands of Manhattan, Long and Statan Islands (and Newfoundland).
-France, Spain and Netherlands feeling (rightly) that the US has won enough and can live without a few islands. They aren't going to fight for another year in hopes of getting the colonists one tenth of 1% more land.
-Constantly harrassed by Loyalists in New York to reconquer America, Britain does an early version of the 1812 "Impressments", halting trade on the Hudson, etc, etc, etc, basically keeping the Americans mad.
- Eventually a war breaks out, probably in alliance with Revolutionary France.

I compare the Tri-Islands of New York less with Gibraltar than with Hong Kong. Eventually American would take those islands, it is only a matter of time.
 
The reason Washington didn't attack NYC wasn't because he didn't want to, because he certainly did. but he lacked the support of Rochambeau and some subordinates. Washington was determined to take NYC, if I recall correctly he was initially reluctant to move south to Yorktown.
 
This is actually one of the subplots from one of my timelines.

-After the 7 Years War, most of Quebec's population is expelled, Acadian style. New Englanders emigrate up and Quebec joins the rebellion.

IDK, New England already had serious issues with LOCs with Canada. Also, the development level of Canada at the time was more at the level of 1690, not 1775. One huge reason why the Canadians weren't interested in independence.

-With Nova Scotia also in rebellion, the British wind up in same position in 1781 as OTL, holding New York but no Canada (except Newfoundland).

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Labrador are impossible to hold (the British MUST have Halifax to conduct any kind of war against the Rebels) against an enemy with naval supremacy. New Brunswick is another matter.

- Lacking any place to send 60,000+ (probably many more), they demand in the peace a "reservation" for loyalists, naming the Tri-Islands of Manhattan, Long and Staten Islands (and Newfoundland).

Loyalists were sent to the UK too.

New York City is the living heart of the United States of America, and were it not for American sectionalism would have always been and now today our national capital. Such a "reservation" would never be agreed to by the Second Continental Congress, and in this even France and Spain would agree. For the Spanish the precedent of Gibraltar and the Balearics, and for the French the memories were too fresh even in the Middle Ages of Calais and Aquitaine.

-France, Spain and Netherlands feeling (rightly) that the US has won enough and can live without a few islands. They aren't going to fight for another year in hopes of getting the colonists one tenth of 1% more land.

Couldn't disagree more. How much of London (or Southampton), Paris (or Brest), and Madrid (or Cadiz) represent a "territorial percentage" of their respective countries? Oh, but WHAT a strategic percentage. Pre-Age of Steam/Railroads, you are effectively bisecting the USA between its then most populous region (New England) and the rest of the country. Reads like an "Ulster Solution". If the British are strong enough to get a deal like this, then they'll keep on fighting anyway.

-Constantly harassed by Loyalists in New York to reconquer America, Britain does an early version of the 1812 "Impressments", halting trade on the Hudson, etc, etc, etc, basically keeping the Americans mad.

Well, keeping in the spirit of this "mad scenario", one would wonder what Britain loses in the outside world holding on to this "1/10th of 1% land". Britain loses the Spanish Campaign?:eek: Or at least never achieves its mission of being a bleeding sore for the French? And the USA certainly ITTL won't have a miserable militia force as OTL.

- Eventually a war breaks out, probably in alliance with Revolutionary France.

You mean Napoleonic France? Please don't say "butterfly". That's too easy a fallback when dealing with ATLs and The Corsican.;)

I compare the Tri-Islands of New York less with Gibraltar than with Hong Kong. Eventually American would take those islands, it is only a matter of time.

Agreed. Incredibly.

Probably during the Napoleonic Wars. With Britain facing the danger of invasion (forget 20-20 hindsight people!) there's no way Parliament will allow such a running sore to continue (defending a City-State 3000 miles from home without Gibraltar's natural defenses?).

Delays the Loyalist Exodus until the earliest years of the first decade of the 1800s, but that's it. Not if Britain wants to fight Nappy everywhere else in the world. Its not like the British have a huge army to fight with at this time in the Napoleonic Wars.

Okay, in face of all this, what is a more probable place to attack, excluding the south (lost to the Tories)?

The Tories alone had as much of a chance of taking the Southern American Colonies as the Patriots had of taking Quebec. Ferguson did a spectacular job of raising American Tory support in the South, that's true. But even if he didn't have Banastre Tarleton cutting his legs off professionally at every opportunity, then some other "fire & sword solution" senior officer would have filled in that natural gap of strategic/operational thinking instead.:(

Or I am misunderstanding your meaning here?:confused:

The reason Washington didn't attack NYC wasn't because he didn't want to, because he certainly did. but he lacked the support of Rochambeau and some subordinates. Washington was determined to take NYC, if I recall correctly he was initially reluctant to move south to Yorktown.

When it became obvious to Washington that the French would not support a campaign against NYC, he asked for their support for a campaign against Charleston and Savannah. Problem: Charleston could always be taken back by the British once they gained naval supremacy (while Virginia and North Carolina and the interiors of SC and GA could not). In the Age of Sail and no railroads, Savannah is useless with an enemy controlling Charleston.

The French knew this, and made it clear to Washington that they HAD to reinforce the West Indies immediately. Yorktown's victory was due to the total miscalculation by Graves and Clinton that the French would never strip the defenses of the Caribbean for one day.
 
Last edited:
Okay, what I meant was, Horatio Gates is planning an attack that will end the war and cover up his mistakes at the Battle of Camden. The South, effectively under Cornwallis' control after Gates pulled Greene north out of both fear of a northern attack and consolidation of forces, and cites Greene's failure to win when explaining his decision to Congress. It now looks like the British are winning the South, the French have pulled some forces out of Rochambeaus command, and the leaders of the Revolution are increasingly distrusting Gates' effectiveness. Where does he attack? New York, due to his aggressiveness and stubbornness? Or somewhere else?
 
Some of the Men-At-Arms series books do a good job breaking out this kind of detail. The books are aimed at technology, uniforms, military organization, etc but often get into this type of detail.

Some spin-offs concentrate on campaigns. This one is real good.

It deals with 1776 but there should be similar books for 1781.


New York 1776: The Continentals' first battle (Campaign)

Mar 18, 2008 by David Smith and Graham Turner

Paperback


$16.85$21.95
Only 3 left in stock - order soon.
More Buying Choices
$11.55used & new(44 offers)

Kindle Edition


$10.99
Auto-delivered wirelessly
 
Top