Latest PoD for a British Victory in the American Revolution

TFSmith121

Banned
The French began providing aid "unofficially" in 1776

As long as countries like France and Spain were footing the bills and providing critical supplies like gunpowder. Apropos gunpowder: american armies drew 90% of their consumption from France; without France, they can fire a couple of volleys and then they have to resort to swords, clubs and stones (how the battle ends is left as an exercise to the reader).

The French began providing aid "unofficially" in 1776 (after the British retreat from Boston, of course) and then more significantly (Rodrigue Hortalez et Compagnie); then when the Americans won at Saratoga, the French went all in...

So there was a little more to it than that.;)

Again, Britain's rise was a threat to France and the European powers; it is completely rational that they took advantage of the American Revolution, in the same sense the Americans would not have rebelled absent the impact of the Seven Years/French and Indian war in North America.

All of the conflicts above ocurreed in essentially the "same" strategic environment, which is the point; absent the Atlantic world, they are not going to happen -with it, they will.

Best,
 
Again, Britain's rise was a threat to France and the European powers; it is completely rational that they took advantage of the American Revolution, in the same sense the Americans would not have rebelled absent the impact of the Seven Years/French and Indian war in North America.

All of the conflicts above ocurreed in essentially the "same" strategic environment, which is the point; absent the Atlantic world, they are not going to happen -with it, they will.

Best,

Again, taking advantage of the American Revolution is rational; bankrupting yourself in the course of doing so isn't.
 
I'm an American, but I belive that a Patriot total victory was nothing short of a miracle. Honestly, the best PoD would be the Patriots choosing John Hancock, Israel Putnam, Benedict Arnold or Horatio Gates as their general, rather than Washington. Without his leadership or someone equally as strong, the rebellion was surely doomed. I'm not one much for the "great man" view of history, but without Washington, the Patriots really had no one to turn to for a general. John Hancock couldn't actually lead an army, Israel Putnam was about to die, and Horatio Gates and Benedict Arnold... well, the less said about them the better. If Benedict Arnold had become the Patriot general (the most likely outcome), there would probably be many more Patriot surrenders, and certainly none of the decisive victories that won them the war. So, in conclusion, without George Washington, the Patriots either lose, or they win a very partial victory, likely winning only a few northern states.
 
What's with the Gates hate? He did fine at Saratoga.

Horatio Gates did do very fine at Saratoga, but many people believe that he was a little bit of a British sympathizer, as he had close connections with Mr. Arnold. I am not one of them, but he would still not be the first choice of the Patriots, however competent he was. He wasn't their choice over, say, Arnold. He was a good general though, but never one to be the most charismatic and bold leader. Very organized and strategic from what I can gather.
 
Horatio Gates did do very fine at Saratoga, but many people believe that he was a little bit of a British sympathizer, as he had close connections with Mr. Arnold. I am not one of them, but he would still not be the first choice of the Patriots, however competent he was. He wasn't a choice over, say, Mr. Arnold.

He was Arnold's superior, and was put in command of the south whereas Arnold was less to stagnate.

We can point to defeats by all of the American generals, Washington included. I'm not sure how much we can say that Washington was unique.
 
Fabious,
note that France was the only one to go all in. Spain went in deep enough to take back Florida and attempt to take back Gibraltar. they never went in so deep as to destroy themselves. Everyone else sat back and watched Britain twist in the wind. France, though, went balls to the wall, pedal to the metal, hell bent for leather. And what did it get them? a hollow victory that ended up causing them to implode. That, as you said, is not rational.

Almost as soon as they committed, they were looking to get out, realizing this was not going to be a short war. they misjudged, and did so badly. it is not at all ASB to alternate timeline them into thinking before they acted. they're going to aid the patriots. Personally, I don't think the pre 1778 level of aid is enough to win the war, but it will cause Britain a lot of grief in the meanwhile, and that, above all else, should have been the goal. actually having the patriots break free would be gravy, but bleeding the Brits is the meat.
 
He was in overall command at Saratoga, but the actual fighting was mostly handled by his subordinates. When he took a more hands-on approach at Camden, he lost quite badly.

Washington lost at Brandywine, Manhattan, Monmouth.... nobody seems to think he was a terrible general who doomed the Revolution. :D.
 
He had more victories to his name, though. Plus, I don't think any of his defeats were as bad as Camden was.

I don't know; the Revolution was almost destroyed at Manhattan, and he left Philadelphia get seized by the British. Then he spent 3 years essentially doing nothing between Monmouth and Yorktown.
 
I don't know; the Revolution was almost destroyed at Manhattan, and he left Philadelphia get seized by the British. Then he spent 3 years essentially doing nothing between Monmouth and Yorktown.

I think he always managed to get his army out intact, though? Whereas AFAICT Gates' army was pretty thoroughly smashed at Camden.
 
I thought the general (ha ha) consensus is that Washington was a great leader but a meh field commander.

the three years of 'doing nothing' was the strategy: don't be too aggressive and lose a major battle/bide time til a battle can be won. It worked out well for the Patriots. Not so well for their French benefactors .
 
Fabious,
note that France was the only one to go all in. Spain went in deep enough to take back Florida and attempt to take back Gibraltar. they never went in so deep as to destroy themselves. Everyone else sat back and watched Britain twist in the wind. France, though, went balls to the wall, pedal to the metal, hell bent for leather. And what did it get them? a hollow victory that ended up causing them to implode. That, as you said, is not rational.

Almost as soon as they committed, they were looking to get out, realizing this was not going to be a short war. they misjudged, and did so badly. it is not at all ASB to alternate timeline them into thinking before they acted. they're going to aid the patriots. Personally, I don't think the pre 1778 level of aid is enough to win the war, but it will cause Britain a lot of grief in the meanwhile, and that, above all else, should have been the goal. actually having the patriots break free would be gravy, but bleeding the Brits is the meat.
The pre-1778 level of aid (which was coming from both the French and Spanish; the Spanish were much more skeptical of getting involved militarily, but were perfectly willing to funnel significant amounts of money and supplies through various shell companies) was enough for Saratoga, and the war was also becoming increasingly unpopular back in the UK.

Besides, given the well-known hostility of most of Europe (especially, but not exclusively, the Bourbons) to the British at that point, expecting France and Spain not to intervene at some point seems unlikely. They didn't have to go all-in, but the threat was enough to have kept the British on-edge basically the until the shoe dropped, and it was widely expected to drop at some point.
 
Faeelin,
"The Russians didn't want to conquer Vietnam, but surely you wouldn't say the Russians were foolish to arm Vietnam to bleed the US?"

perfect example of what I'm talking about. USSR (actually, I think it was mostly China, USSR was more Korean War, but details aren't important) did NOT declare war on the USA. they gave aid to US foes. France, in the revolution, went beyond giving aid, and declared war on Britain. For most of history, the former the way things were done: give aid to one's enemies, only declare war if necessary. The French were envisioning a short, sweet, war. one final push and a new nation would be birthed. In that scenario, the only thing France gains is a ha-ha Britain, you lost a colony. that is not a reason to take the risk of going to war. the proper play was to aid the patriots as they had been prior to '78 and hope the Patriots had enough gumption to stay the course long enough to force Britain to cave. In the meanwhile, Britain is bled, but France is not.

The difference is that the Vietnamese was committed to fighting the Americans so it was enough that China only provide them with aid. The American Rebels, otoh, were not committed enough to fight for independence. Many of them continuously flirted with quitting or defecting to the British. Not only that but they didn't have majority support of the American population who didn't care who would win the war as long as it was not the Papists.

Rebel leaders like Washington refused France's request to send over a French army to support them in the 13 Colonies because they feared it would galvanize many Rebels and the American population in general to favour the British. That says a lot about the commitment of the Rebels in fighting for independence.

It was only when France got frustrated that the war was taking too long and bankrupting it and when the war fortunes turned badly for the Rebels that the Rebel leaders threw caution to the wind and allowed a French army to come over which led to Yorktown. That says a lot about whether the Rebels could have won the war with just material aid alone.

Britain's big mistake was quitting after Yorktown. Their financial structure was far superior to France's or Spain's. The Dutch had money but were militarily weak and could easily be dealt with. Britain just needed to keep fighting until France bankrupted itself out of the war. Spain was satisfied with the conquests made during the war and would not have minded if Britain kept the 13 Colonies.
 
Top