Question: Would the British ever accept 54’40” or fight?

In terms of logistics,I think the US is better,given that NA is their home turf.There’s also the fact that land in NA is probably more vital to US interest than it is to the UK.
Is the US land logistics better than British American (Canadian) land logistics + British Pacific logistics?
The US potential loss would be bigger than the British potential loss.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
If Britain wants to waste money on a fight over some unpopulated North American wilderness then the USA is toast.
New England screams bloody murder over destroyed shipping and whaling, the South screams bloody murder over blocked exports of its cash crops, so after the nearest elections there is a change of Administration and the USA pleads for peace.
 
No they did not. Not once did Britain try to use troops as you suggest.
Wrong. They used them like that against China in the Opium Wars, just as one example.

Given the absurdity of trying to supply logistics by land across North America, it seems like that's the likely source for at least some of the troops needed.
 

longsword14

Banned
Wrong. They used them like that against China in the Opium Wars, just as one example.
Unlimited manpower indeed. A couple thousand at best, and that too is not a guarantee for overseas service.
Britain never thought of their colonial troops in that way. Their abundance in manpower never felt like that to the British. They never considered using them in such a manner.
You would think that if it were as you say then there would have been a sudden change in British planning for war once they had taken over large parts of India.
 
Wrong. They used them like that against China in the Opium Wars, just as one example.

Given the absurdity of trying to supply logistics by land across North America, it seems like that's the likely source for at least some of the troops needed.

Less than 10,000 each time, to my recollection. And pre-WWI, I defy you to name a single example that didn't take place in either Asia or East Africa, and even those in limited numbers. They weren't in the Crimea, only white units from India fought the Boers, they just weren't there in situations when "unlimited manpower" would have come in handy.
 
That is equally true for the US.

Also, the US for decades had made clear that the 49th parallel was their maximum demand in Oregon. For a long time, the British refused to accept even that. Now Americans suddenly demand something they had never claimed before and Britain is supposed to just roll over and accept the total exclusion of British North America from the Pacific--where it was always assumed that it would have some connection, however uncertain it was where the exact borders would be?

The British were willing to accept that Fort Vancouver, in what is now Vancouver, WA, might eventually come under American control, and for that reason founded Fort Victoria in 1843. Suddenly upping American demands to put that too in US hands would not IMO be received by the British with the equanimity some people here seem to expect.
 
Less than 10,000 each time, to my recollection. And pre-WWI, I defy you to name a single example that didn't take place in either Asia or East Africa, and even those in limited numbers. They weren't in the Crimea, only white units from India fought the Boers, they just weren't there in situations when "unlimited manpower" would have come in handy.
But a couple of thousand is more than enough in Oregon Country at that point.
And that territory IS Asia/Pacific logistically.
 
I think the origin of those troops might be less important than the fact that the British have the logistical edge over the U.S. if it comes to war.
 
But a couple of thousand is more than enough in Oregon Country at that point.
And that territory IS Asia/Pacific logistically.

Yes, because one end of the Pacific may as well be next door to the other. It's not like the distance between Hawaii and San Francisco is 2300 miles. From there to China is nearly double that distance, and another 1600 from Hong Kong to Calcutta. So, from Calcutta to San Francisco is over four times that between there and Hong Kong. Yeah, no.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because one end of the Pacific may as well be next door to the other. It's not like the distance between Hawaii and San Francisco is 2300 miles. From there to China is nearly double that distance, and another 1600 from Hong Kong to Calcutta. So, from Calcutta to San Francisco is over four times that between there and Hong Kong. Yeah, no.
I think the origin of those troops might be less important than the fact that the British have the logistical edge over the U.S. if it comes to war.
 
Well, perhaps, but he originally spoke of “unlimited manpower”, which is beyond silly.
Silly but not necessarily beyond, considering British naval logistics could eventually see them deployed if for some reason the war lasts longer than we think plausible. The key words being "eventually" and "longer".
 
Silly but not necessarily beyond, considering British naval logistics could eventually see them deployed if for some reason the war lasts longer than we think plausible. The key words being "eventually" and "longer".

As I said before, they still didn't see use in the Crimea or South Africa, despite how protracted those got. Naval logistics are better than those by land, but they're not the panacea people think they were. You still need to get off the boats eventually, and horses and extraordinarily difficult to transport by boat, so if anything, you're worse off than a land-based force once you start moving inland.
 
As I said before, they still didn't see use in the Crimea or South Africa, despite how protracted those got. Naval logistics are better than those by land, but they're not the panacea people think they were. You still need to get off the boats eventually, and horses and extraordinarily difficult to transport by boat, so if anything, you're worse off than a land-based force once you start moving inland.
Crimea and SA were shorter than I had in mind but I see your point.

Still, the main use I had in mind for the Navy were its supplies and firing capability rather than troop transport.
 
Yes, because one end of the Pacific may as well be next door to the other.

They might as well be. Put it this way - Lewis and Clark took 28 months to walk from one side of the American continent to the other, more or less in a direct line. Sir Francis Drake took 33 months to circumnavigate the planet, taking a course that was anything but a straight line, and engaging in near-constant offensive action against the Spanish en route. He reached what is now the Pacific coast of Canada in 18 months. Strategically, the proposed theatre of operations was closer to London (or Calcutta) than Washington D.C.
 

longsword14

Banned
And pre-WWI, I defy you to name a single example that didn't take place in either Asia or East Africa, and even those in limited numbers.
There were instances of sepoys refusing to serve in long expeditions. One such instance was during a deployment for Burma.
 
This is a supremely pointless debate. The person who can supply the area by sea will win. And that will be Britain. Going overland in an Era where Britain can get the natives riled up and nip at the American resource train means almost certain defeat.

The original American settlers who arrived barely made it there and would have starved without the HBC lending them credit and supplies. The army might fare better, but will face more opposition every step of the way.

The theater is inconsequential though. If America holds Kingston or Montreal Britain will yield. If Britain sacks Baltimore or Albany, America will yield.
 
Top