DBWI: British win war of 1812

I know this seems ASB, but I think that it is possible. It is true that the USA had a large advantage. The British were busy with Napoleon, Canada had about 1/10th of the American population, and the US army was much larger and fighting on its own continent. However, Britain had some advantages. They had almost complete naval superiority and Canada used to be anti-american. (it still was for some time after the annexation). In addition, the British could have potentially exploited sentiment in New England that strongly opposed the war and even contemplated secession.

In my opinion, something has to be done to cow the powerful US military before the war. The US army in the region was much larger, and nearly as well trained as the British, with good morale. They were fighting the "second war of independence" after all. Something has to be done to weaken the morale and lower the training of the US army before the war, as the British could never have a numbers advantage.

Finally, what do you think about the plausibility of a British victory and what would be the results of that victory? Would New England have seceded? What about territorial changes? The British could have taken much of the Northwest Territory, as it was sparsely settled. What is your opinion on this?
 
I've read that Canadians were relatively apathetic about supporting the Brits before US troops liberated them. Had US troops behaved more like invaders/conquerors than liberators...say burning York and Newark, kicking civilians out into the winter to die of hypothermia or similar, you might have seen Canadians harden into a resistance, which could lead to all kinds of issues. I mean Sullivan actually warned Congress as much before the war that in that eventuality it wasn't unlikely that the US would see similar burnings of, let's say, prominent government buildings in retaliation.

“Let us not be deceived. A war of invasion may invite a retort of invasion. When we visit the peaceable, and, to us, innocent colonies of Great Britain with the horrors of war can we be assured that our own coast will not be visited with like horrors?”

So in this ATL you could have him prove prophetic, and given how much Americans love to dwell on past American faults and failures his words would probably be quite famous to this day.
 
OOC: Wasn't it more of a stalemate in the sense that nothing really got done, than a Brit victory? Sure, we torched DC and whatnot, but in the end, it returned to status quo antebellum, or whatever the words are.
 
OOC: Wasn't it more of a stalemate in the sense that nothing really got done, than a Brit victory? Sure, we torched DC and whatnot, but in the end, it returned to status quo antebellum, or whatever the words are.

Ooc: A defensive victory is a victory nonetheless.
 
Ooc: A defensive victory is a victory nonetheless.

Tecumseh, had he not been killed by American troops in a battle involving British, Canadian and Native Americans vs US Regulars and Militia (The Battle of the Thames) would disagree

Basically the US invaded Canada, failed, the British invaded part of the now US midwest, succeeded (1812) The Americans took back the Midwest (1813-14) achieved stalemate around Buffalo, repulsed invasions at New Orleans and upper New York, and while unable to stop a raid on a medium sized town (DC) stopped it cold at Baltimore ( an actual city). More stalemate

Some damage at sea occurred (both sides lost a fair number of merchant ships), money was spent, the US and British decided that talking was better than fighting from then on, and neither got what they wanted at the peace table and simply decided that as Napoleon was in Elba, continuing the war over impressment and freedom of the seas was a moot point. Canada was saved, the Indians crushed, the US lost no territory.

Sounds like a draw to me...

A British victory requires something above to change significantly as of course would an American victory (and American victory probably requires Napoleon to win big somehow which might not be the best result in any event)
 
Tecumseh, had he not been killed by American troops in a battle involving British, Canadian and Native Americans vs US Regulars and Militia (The Battle of the Thames) would disagree

Basically the US invaded Canada, failed, the British invaded part of the now US midwest, succeeded (1812) The Americans took back the Midwest (1813-14) achieved stalemate around Buffalo, repulsed invasions at New Orleans and upper New York, and while unable to stop a raid on a medium sized town (DC) stopped it cold at Baltimore ( an actual city). More stalemate

Some damage at sea occurred (both sides lost a fair number of merchant ships), money was spent, the US and British decided that talking was better than fighting from then on, and neither got what they wanted at the peace table and simply decided that as Napoleon was in Elba, continuing the war over impressment and freedom of the seas was a moot point. Canada was saved, the Indians crushed, the US lost no territory.

Sounds like a draw to me...

A British victory requires something above to change significantly as of course would an American victory (and American victory probably requires Napoleon to win big somehow which might not be the best result in any event)

So, the Persian wars were a draw?
 
So, the Persian wars were a draw?

until Alexander the Great came along.... don't forget the Persians provided money and other assistance to several of the Greek cities for decades after and did manage to conquer the Greek cities in Asia AND kept them until Alexander

and Alexander was Macedonian
 
until Alexander the Great came along.... don't forget the Persians provided money and other assistance to several of the Greek cities for decades after and did manage to conquer the Greek cities in Asia AND kept them until Alexander

and Alexander was Macedonian
And Macedonians were greeks and are now Bulgarians that were convinced they are not Bulgarians, kinda like how the Dutch are Germans that are convinced they are not Germans (and no I'm not implying either state should have to unite with their respective ethnically related neighbors, I'm just pointing it out)
On a more relevant note, you could argue that 1812 was a draw or a limited American defeat, both positions have some validity.
 
Last edited:
In a British victory, we might see the Indian barrier state the UK wanted.

Either way, I feel back for all those that left Canada after America conquer it. First the American Revolution Loyalist, and then America's wins again, and many pick to head to some other part of the Empire, or go back to the UK itself. The other White Dominions might have lower population, and won't dislike both the Americans, and the British (Failing to fight the US after all.)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think the big key to a victory is probably an early defence and then the heavy use of the Royal Navy to do proper blockade work. That'd result in a situation where the US economy simply collapses first - people often don't realize how much trade was coastal in the US in those days.
You could also contest most of the Lakes - both sides are basically building their ports from scratch, the logistical difficulties are roughly comparable. I think you could even throw together a ship of the line pretty quickly with all those British carpenters you could import, the reason ships of the line take so long is often the need to season them.
 
chuckle, not according to a lot of the Greeks
O'rrly? cause an awful lot of them seem to think of the most famous Macedonian of all time to be greek and an awful lot of historical Macedon lies within Greece and has been populated by ethnic greeks for a very long time.
 
O'rrly? cause an awful lot of them seem to think of the most famous Macedonian of all time to be greek and an awful lot of historical Macedon lies within Greece and has been populated by ethnic greeks for a very long time.

sure, AFTER he started the Hellenic Age, but prior to that his family and his people were quasi barbarians. Nothing like success to earn acceptance into the family so to speak.
 
sure, AFTER he started the Hellenic Age, but prior to that his family and his people were quasi barbarians. Nothing like success to earn acceptance into the family so to speak.
It's not like it matters if the other Greeks thought of them as greeks or not, if they thought of themselves as greeks and were ethnic greeks (honestly the ethnic thing is even a bit iffy considering how much of the genetic make up of eastern Germany was made up of Germanized slavs) I see no reason not to call them greeks
 

Deleted member 97083

considering how much of the genetic make up of eastern Germany was made up of Germanized slavs) I see no reason not to call them greeks
Well that, and many genetic studies take the current post-Cold War borders as a given reference material, so the people who lived in Silesia and were relocated west by the Soviets, are considered to have been since time immemorial in Germany.
 
Well that, and most genetic studies take the current post-Cold War borders as a given reference material, so the people who lived in Silesia and were relocated west by the Soviets, are considered to have been since time immemorial in Germany.
True but that really isn't terrible important considering the area they were kicked out of used to be considered eastern Germany (by the Germans at least)
My main point is ethnicity is a lot more malleable than many people seem to think.
 
Top