They pretty much did take all but Boston, they briefly held Boston, but Boston is in New England, the British had issues with holding territory in New EnglandWhat would have happened if England had used their one biggest strength, the Royal Navy to take the harbors of the Colonists? With Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Charlotte and Savannah all occupied could this have been the war winning strategy that was missed?
They did do that rather regularly. I mean, look at New York and such.
What would have happened if England had used their one biggest strength, the Royal Navy to take the harbors of the Colonists? With Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Charlotte and Savannah all occupied could this have been the war winning strategy that was missed?
they did...they even burned down half of washington dc in th war of 1812 ( to 14), but they lacked any major force on teh continent to actually hold areas...they dominated the sea but could nver establish a long term base to push in
That's harder than you think, especially when they have to face off with the French and Spanish navies as wellThe Royal Navy never made a sustained effort to take the harbor ports, they controlled NYC throughout the war and occupied Philly but never all US ports and left most of them alone, The Royal Navy had enough ships to force a total blockade of the entire East Coast, strangling the Colonists and starving them into submission.
No they didn't they made no concerted attempt to stop imports which would have had a drastic effect on the Union's ability to prosecute the war.