Questions about a decisive British victory in the War of 1812

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, but if "a Europe that's peaceful" is the baseline,

Well yes, there's going to be a need to Europe over the Americas for Britain to defend their interests their. But, if there is peace in Europe, the resources can and will shift towards the North America theatre. There wouldn't be as much focus as there would the Napoleonic Wars, but there wouldn't have to be as such. Depending on what victory the UK is after (And really, it'd only be a limited one), the manpower and resources could be gathered to gain the advantage without sacrificing everything in a Europe that's peaceful.


Yes, but if "a Europe that's peaceful" is the baseline, then good luck finding a period in the Nineteenth Century where that's true.

"Congress" Europe barely lasted to the 1820s, and which point the Eastern Question came into play as a foundational issue for Britain and Russia until 1919; the conflict between Austria and Prussia over primacy in Central Europe was brewing at the same time, and remained in play until the 1860s; the consolidation of Germany and Italy were strategic concerns for the powers until they happened (again, 1860s), and as soon as the fight between Prussia and Austria was resolved in the 1860s, the Franco-German rivalry came into play and remained as the central issue on the Continent until 1945; at the same time, the Russo-German rivalry came into existence and lasted just as long...and those are all inter-state questions.

The intra-state issues - the revolutions of '48, Hungary, Poland, etc - were another different set of issues, all of which offered another set of potential deltas for conflict.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Yes, but if "a Europe that's peaceful" is the baseline, then good luck finding a period in the Nineteenth Century where that's true.

"Congress" Europe barely lasted to the 1820s, and which point the Eastern Question came into play as a foundational issue for Britain and Russia until 1919; the conflict between Austria and Prussia over primacy in Central Europe was brewing at the same time, and remained in play until the 1860s; the consolidation of Germany and Italy were strategic concerns for the powers until they happened (again, 1860s), and as soon as the fight between Prussia and Austria was resolved in the 1860s, the Franco-German rivalry came into play and remained as the central issue on the Continent until 1945; at the same time, the Russo-German rivalry came into existence and lasted just as long...and those are all inter-state questions.

The intra-state issues - the revolutions of '48, Hungary, Poland, etc - were another different set of issues, all of which offered another set of potential deltas for conflict.

Best,

And those intrastate questions tie in nicely with some of the interstate ones.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
They certainly do; Europe in the Nineteenth Century was

And those intrastate questions tie in nicely with some of the interstate ones.

They certainly do; Europe in the Nineteenth Century was as dynamic in terms of national creation as it ever had been; the unifications of Germany and Italy alone were events of continental (and world-wide) significance.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Actually, OTL the British and Americans were relatively comparable in ship building capacity on the Lakes. Its just that the US siezed the initiative, got effective control of the lakes, and held them. In fact, the largest vessel built on the Lakes was British, a first rater named the StLawrence. Its just that it wasnt finished before the war was over.

Also, because the US controlled LAke Ontario early, the Brits couldnt ship supplies west by water, which made the ship building effort on the upper lakes far less efficient.

Even so, if the British commander on Erie had stayed around another ?day? He would have caught Perry's unarmed shipped crossing the bar and slaughtered them.

Really, with a couple of changes in personel and/or a wee bit of luck, the British could easiily have siezed and kept control of the Lakes. It was a very near run thing iotl.


As for keeping the US out of the former Louisiana Purchase, the Brits could demob their Napoleonic War armies in the new territories, together with their families (who otl were mostly abandoned to starve, as soldiers marriages were not officially recognized).

This, together with the preexisting French and Native population would be enough to police American settlers coming west for land.


My TL adds more Canadian settlers, which helps, but it really is doable with otl population figures.

You just need Britain to CARE enough, really. Which may be the toughest thing.

I can see Britain making a more favourable border in the North easily enough, but Britain grabbing Louisiana is almost certainly going to create a future war. You'd need a POD that created conditions where Britain really wanted to hem in and punish the USA for them to ask for it in the treaty.
 
An indecisive victory turned out to be in Britain's long term interests. If it had annexed some American territory then that may have fostered a permanent enmity between them like what happened between France and Germany after Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine. Which in the long term could cost them the whole of Canada.
 
An indecisive victory turned out to be in Britain's long term interests. If it had annexed some American territory then that may have fostered a permanent enmity between them like what happened between France and Germany after Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine. Which in the long term could cost them the whole of Canada.

That depends on what they ask for.

I think northern territorial adjustments wouldn't ruffle too many feathers since most of the territory in question was sparsely settled or had a sizable pro-British contingent. Wisconsin, Michigan, northern Maine and northern New York could all be justified with Barclay winning the Battle of Lake Erie (either catching Perry crossing the sand bar or the battle itself) and Proctor being able to lure Harrison out of Fort Megs and defeating him there.

An Indian state would be more so, with westerners (especially Kentucky) super angry about the whole affair. Louisiana would be ghe same, everyone would view it as Britain imposing its will and hemming in the republic.
 
An indecisive victory turned out to be in Britain's long term interests. If it had annexed some American territory then that may have fostered a permanent enmity between them like what happened between France and Germany after Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine. Which in the long term could cost them the whole of Canada.

But, unlike A-L, Louisiana held little cultural and historical value to the US (or Britain for that matter). Even a total takeover, thereby blocking US access to the Pacific, would not have such a profound effect, given that it was viewed as "useless".
 
Yes, but if "a Europe that's peaceful" is the baseline, then good luck finding a period in the Nineteenth Century where that's true.

"Congress" Europe barely lasted to the 1820s, and which point the Eastern Question came into play as a foundational issue for Britain and Russia until 1919; the conflict between Austria and Prussia over primacy in Central Europe was brewing at the same time, and remained in play until the 1860s; the consolidation of Germany and Italy were strategic concerns for the powers until they happened (again, 1860s), and as soon as the fight between Prussia and Austria was resolved in the 1860s, the Franco-German rivalry came into play and remained as the central issue on the Continent until 1945; at the same time, the Russo-German rivalry came into existence and lasted just as long...and those are all inter-state questions.

The intra-state issues - the revolutions of '48, Hungary, Poland, etc - were another different set of issues, all of which offered another set of potential deltas for conflict.

Best,

Since the general idea is a fundamental difference in how Europe develops, those crises aren't going to be applicable to this situation really. New things can spring up, but you'd see it very different. With a Napoleonic France that's not going on any major invasions without Napoleon himself to encourage it, the major problem will be the East, although that could be settled itself in the peace treaty.

Europe is always going to be the place where the UK focuses, but that doesn't meant everything's going to play out as it did in OTL when the circumstances change as the OP suggested.

Really, the peace the UK would be after would be more for the Northern Border being settled in their favour and perhaps a Native American client state along the Great Lakes. Louisiana is all but a pipe dream. The Dead Skunk Timeline gives a good idea of what might have happened with some really bad luck, bad choices and misunderstandings.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
So you're suggesting a First Empire France that

Since the general idea is a fundamental difference in how Europe develops, those crises aren't going to be applicable to this situation really. New things can spring up, but you'd see it very different. With a Napoleonic France that's not going on any major invasions without Napoleon himself to encourage it, the major problem will be the East, although that could be settled itself in the peace treaty.

So you're suggesting a First Empire France (under who, Joseph? Louis? Bernadotte?) that survives as conducive to a stable Europe in the first half of the Nineteenth Century?

That seems like quite a leap.

Especially given how short the life of the restored Bourbon, Orleans, and 2nd Empire monarchies were, historically.

If anything, I think the British would have even MORE on their plates in such a situation. First Empire France will have ambitions in the low countries, and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas, at the least, as well as the Rhineland - and all of those lead directly to conflicts with Austria, Prussia, Britain, or all three.

Best,
 
So you're suggesting a First Empire France (under who, Joseph? Louis? Bernadotte?) that survives as conducive to a stable Europe in the first half of the Nineteenth Century?

That seems like quite a leap.

Especially given how short the life of the restored Bourbon, Orleans, and 2nd Empire monarchies were, historically.

If anything, I think the British would have even MORE on their plates in such a situation. First Empire France will have ambitions in the low countries, and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas, at the least, as well as the Rhineland - and all of those lead directly to conflicts with Austria, Prussia, Britain, or all three.

Best,

Would have most been a Regency of sorts while awaiting for Napoleon II. Not sure how Bernadotte could have played a part in 1811 onwards, he was in Sweden at the time. A mixture of the previous power players such as the Marshalls, Fouche and Talleyrand would have most likely found a way to get himself in via some means. None of these men had the overweaning ambition that Napoleon had, being against the invasion of Russia for a start. They'd have been more open to peace than Napoleon was at the period, especially in light of his death. A peace of sorts would have likely fell over Europe at this point, Napoleon had been the main instigator of tensions with the UK, the invasion of Spain (Which Joseph would have most likely been very happy to abandon), the Continental Blockade and others were due to Napoleon's design rather than the others.

With Napoleon having died at some point 1811-1812, a lot of these factors would diminish enough for peace to be made. If it's early enough in 1811, then the invasion of Russia would not have happened for a start, or not have happened to the extent it did at very least.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Maybe, but the French were looking to dominate

Would have most been a Regency of sorts while awaiting for Napoleon II...If it's early enough in 1811, then the invasion of Russia would not have happened for a start, or not have happened to the extent it did at very least.

Maybe, but the French were looking to dominate Europe in this period, even before Napoleon; Louis XVI and the ancien regime weren't exactly unambitious about that before le deluge, and the various governments of the First Republic were certainly not reticent about playing the great power game - especially since they had a revolutionary doctrine to export that was, initially, fairly successful.

I don't see a settlement that satisfies the French, British, Austrians, etc in the period 1790-1820 without a fight to exhaustion, that essentially would include the Allies marching into Paris. The failure of the Peace of Amiens is prime evidence of that....

Now, having the Peace of Amiens last would be interesting...not sure how that could happen, however. Maybe make that your point where Napoleon I dies and go from there...

And like I said, even if you get an equivalent of the Congress of Vienna in 1811-12, the Eastern Question broke open with Greek independence in the 1820s...and then the question of who runs Germany opens up, etc etc.

And if there is a CofV equivalent in 1811 or so, presumably the Impressment Acts and the like stop with peace, so the US doesn't go to war; as far as the other European powers go, the Spanish and Portuguese tried to reimpose rule from Europe in the Western Hemisphere after Vienna, historically, and pretty much failed across the board. About the best the Spanish could do was Morillo's 11,000-strong expeditionary force, which was insignificant anywhere but (eventually) Cuba.

Any European expeditions to the Western Hemisphere after 1800 are going to resemble the scene in Heart of Darkness where a French gunboat is idly lobbing shells at the African coastline...

Best,
 
Last edited:
But, unlike A-L, Louisiana held little cultural and historical value to the US (or Britain for that matter). Even a total takeover, thereby blocking US access to the Pacific, would not have such a profound effect, given that it was viewed as "useless".

the americans were actually mostly interested in new orleans, so maybe a peace deal where they are allowed to keep new orleans and some area around it, but the rest of Louisiana going to the british might not even be viewed as too bad.
 
Maybe, but the French were looking to dominate Europe in this period, even before Napoleon; Louis XVI and the ancien regime weren't exactly unambitious about that before le deluge, and the various governments of the First Republic were certainly not reticent about playing the great power game - especially since they had a revolutionary doctrine to export that was, initially, fairly successful.

I kinda see France really not looking to rock the boat in this scenario and eager for peace. If Napoleon dies, they basically lose their biggest advantage as such and would probably be happy to make peace in the short to mid-term just to avoid getting dogpiled. After a few years of consolidation, they'd get back into the game easy enough.

Now, having the Peace of Amiens last would be interesting...not sure how that could happen, however. Maybe make that your point where Napoleon I dies and go from there...

That'd be the hard point in just making either side willing to agree to their terms first. If you manage to get the French or British be the first to make the needed steps, you might get the chance then.

And like I said, even if you get an equivalent of the Congress of Vienna in 1811-12, the Eastern Question broke open with Greek independence in the 1820s...and then the question of who runs Germany opens up, etc etc.

Without the Russian invasion during 1813, Germany could well stay in France's own area of influence for the time being. Although a gradual move to independence could happen sooner rather than later, it'd take a while for all the needed elements to come together.

And if there is a CofV equivalent in 1811 or so, presumably the Impressment Acts and the like stop with peace, so the US doesn't go to war; as far as the other European powers go, the Spanish and Portuguese tried to reimpose rule from Europe in the Western Hemisphere after Vienna, historically, and pretty much failed across the board. About the best the Spanish could do was Morillo's 11,000-strong expeditionary force, which was insignificant anywhere but (eventually) Cuba.

Would depend on the time it took to make the peace but the exact timing could prevent a war, true enough. And I wasn't arguing about Spain or Portugal, going to have to get rid of Ferdinand to give the former a ghost of a chance.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Perhaps; just seems fairly a-historical in a Europe where every nation

I kinda see France really not looking to rock the boat in this scenario and eager for peace. If Napoleon dies, they basically lose their biggest advantage as such and would probably be happy to make peace in the short to mid-term just to avoid getting dogpiled. After a few years of consolidation, they'd get back into the game easy enough....Would depend on the time it took to make the peace but the exact timing could prevent a war, true enough.

Perhaps; just seems fairly a-historical in a Europe where practically every nation state had a claim on their neighbors, and vice-versa; and where they were all armed to the teeth.

Like I said, there was always something more important for the powers to address in Europe, or the Mediterranean, rather than the Western Hemisphere - especially when practically every button, bullet, and bayonet had to shipped 3,000 miles across the Atlantic.

Best,
 
the americans were actually mostly interested in new orleans, so maybe a peace deal where they are allowed to keep new orleans and some area around it, but the rest of Louisiana going to the british might not even be viewed as too bad.

Unworkable. The US needs New Orleans as the outlet of the Ohio-Mississippi-Missouri River system. For a foreign power to tell the US that they can't have New Orleans would be like in an ASB world where all the major rivers of European Russia emptied into the Eastern Gulf of Finland someone telling the Russians that they "couldn't have" a city where St.Petersburg sits today. If in such a world the Russians "could have" such a city, they'd make sure that they MADE one anyway.

Also, without New Orleans the rest of Louisiana is indefensible from advancement from the USA eventually. The LOCs from Canada are too remote. Rails, river traffic, ports, make the US LOCs unstoppable. As to speculation that the USA would see less immigration in a losing War of 1812, it might decrease for a time, but with the LOCs, climate, general social and economic opportunity, and all those ports to enter compared to Canada, the flow of immigration would right itself fairly quickly.
 
Top