Sucessful 1812 Invasion of Canada

Honestly, if I could go back in time and take a poll and find out my views were right would you still refuse it? :p

My problem with your views is that they represent the kind of thinking that ensured that American invasions of Canada would overestimate American strengths and underestimate British ones.

Taking a poll won't change the records of the 41st and other regiments.
 
Still, as I was saying the real question to American victory would be if they could take Quebec in time. If they manage to take the city then pretty much St Lawrence falls. Though, if they would be able to hold it is a matter of another question. Depending how hard the British want it back and how much the Americans alienate the settlers in Canada in response to more then likely over enthusiastic resistance by First Loyalists (then again they are more then likely the ones to face American wrath and so their resistance would be justified).

Though, the Acadia and Nova Scotia areas may actually be able to resist given their geographic isolation and that they received around 30,000 First Loyalist immigrants. Perhaps the British may use it as a springboard to retake the St. Lawrence and Quebec. Given egos at the time neither side would be willing to give up and so fighting will most likely continue to make a much bloodier affair then OTL.
 
I somehow doubt much of anyone in Canada is going to find American wrath 'justified", even if their attitudes weren't as warm as the First Loyalists.

It's not like there's the First Loyalists totally isolated from every other Canadian - you'd be attacking friends and neighbors.
 
I somehow doubt much of anyone in Canada is going to find American wrath 'justified", even if their attitudes weren't as warm as the First Loyalists.

It's not like there's the First Loyalists totally isolated from every other Canadian - you'd be attacking friends and neighbors.

I said the True Loyalists do have point to their resistance given that many were pretty much run out of their homes by the victors of the American Revolution, and now after settling somewhere else they face the same people that ran them out of their first homes again.

Well, the True Loyalists were the 'Elites' within Canada and more then often enough looked down on the Late Loyalists. The True Loyalists identity was high molded and shaped by the American Revolution, while the Late Loyalists mostly just wanted the cheap land and low taxes. And Quakers.
 
I said the True Loyalists do have point to their resistance given that many were pretty much run out of their homes by the victors of the American Revolution, and now after settling somewhere else they face the same people that ran them out of their first homes again.

And my point is that few Canadians are going to feel otherwise - which is to say, targeting the True Loyalists isn't going to inspire enthusiasm for the US amongst the rest of Canada.

Well, the True Loyalists were the 'Elites' within Canada and more then often enough looked down on the Late Loyalists. The True Loyalists identity was high molded and shaped by the American Revolution, while the Late Loyalists mostly just wanted the cheap land and low taxes. And Quakers.

And that's going to make the latter indifferent to what happens to the former why again?

Looting and pillaging troops are rather indiscriminate.
 
And my point is that few Canadians are going to feel otherwise - which is to say, targeting the True Loyalists isn't going to inspire enthusiasm for the US amongst the rest of Canada.



And that's going to make the latter indifferent to what happens to the former why again?

Looting and pillaging troops are rather indiscriminate.

I'm saying the former had more reason then the later to right off the bat oppose American prescence. Then, either the US does alot of things in their occupation to alienate this wide majority of Late Loyalists or they manage a s wing and a miss and manage to anger quite a few of the latter, but not to a wide extent that allows them to integrate into and accept the often proposed 'Republic of Upper Canada'.
 
I'm saying the former had more reason then the later to right off the bat oppose American prescence. Then, either the US does alot of things in their occupation to alienate this wide majority of Late Loyalists or they manage a s wing and a miss and manage to anger quite a few of the latter, but not to a wide extent that allows them to integrate into and accept the often proposed 'Republic of Upper Canada'.

It wouldn't take very much for them to be prefer remaining British subjects, especially as if they had lots of love for the US they'd have stayed there - US taxes and land availability aren't exactly bad in this period.

But the main problem, the problem I don't think you've addressed, is how the US manages to take Quebec in the first place.

Let's say the US concentrates ten thousand men (which would be considerable given US military strength in 1812 - Hull had a fifth of that after all) and tries the lake Champlain route.

How are they making it to Quebec? This is far more than a mere matter of marching just to reach the city, nevermind take it.
 
It wouldn't take very much for them to be prefer remaining British subjects, especially as if they had lots of love for the US they'd have stayed there - US taxes and land availability aren't exactly bad in this period.

But the main problem, the problem I don't think you've addressed, is how the US manages to take Quebec in the first place.

Let's say the US concentrates ten thousand men (which would be considerable given US military strength in 1812 - Hull had a fifth of that after all) and tries the lake Champlain route.

How are they making it to Quebec? This is far more than a mere matter of marching just to reach the city, nevermind take it.
465px-Champlainmap.svg.png


Up the Richelieu and onto the St. Lawrence. From there they can cut off Upper Canada and prevent supplies and pay from going south.
491px-American_attack_on_Quebec.svg.png


The opposite of George Prevost's campaign.
 
Last edited:
Getting out a map is not the same as actually explaining where the supplies come from and other such concerns that anyone who is attempting this campaign would have.

The American Revolutionary campaign is a particularly good example of how NOT to do this. Two months of hell would be an understatement, and that just from the weather and the terrain.
 
Getting out a map is not the same as actually explaining where the supplies come from and other such concerns that anyone who is attempting this campaign would have.

The American Revolutionary campaign is a particularly good example of how NOT to do this. Two months of hell would be an understatement, and that just from the weather and the terrain.

Well, it almost worked for the American campaign. It really could have gone either way.

...and in a siege situation the under supplied, poorly paid, mostly Irish soldiers would have been most likely to revolt to end such a bad situation.
 
Well, it almost worked for the American campaign. It really could have gone either way.

...and in a siege situation the under supplied, poorly paid, mostly Irish soldiers would have been most likely to revolt to end such a bad situation.

It had a very slim chance of possible success if everything had gone off right, and was doomed if that didn't happen. If that's "almost worked", then the British "almost won" at Yorktown and Saratoga.

And in a siege situation, the British (and I use the word intentionally) soldiers are going to act like soldiers. Not fanatics, but not refuse to fight, either.

Of course, the US being in a position to put Quebec under a proper siege (instead of sitting outside hoping for a miracle like in '75) would take some doing as well, so seeing how they would perform in such a situation first requires getting them in such a situation.
 
Why would they act like soldiers? Why would they be loyal to the government that under pays them, under supplies them, takes the harshest of measures to keep them from fleeing across the border, burned down their homeland, and in many cases turned them into Penal Soldiers to avoid the noose while under siege?
 
Why would they act like soldiers? Why would they be loyal to the government that under pays them, under supplies them, takes the harshest of measures to keep them from fleeing across the border, burned down their homeland, and in many cases turned them into Penal Soldiers to avoid the noose while under siege?

Pay:

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/soldier-life.aspx
This mentions a schilling a day for the common private.

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/military/military1.html

This mentions eight pence, and gives some of the reasons soldiers put up with the life in question.

For comparison with the US army?

http://www.1stusinfantry.com/recruitment.html

http://www.carolana.com/NC/1800s/antebellum/war_of_1812_military_units.html

Supplies: Not sure what the standard is.

"Harshest of measures": Specifics and source, if you please.

"Burned down their homeland":? What? The British hardly treated Ireland with kid gloves in 1798, but to say that they just burned it to a cinder is a bit much.

"Penal soldiers"? :rolleyes: There were actual such things as penal regiments historically, that some men joined to avoid prison is not the same thing, and blurring the line is just insulting.
 
Right. Your answers are in your links. Or I've dismissed them earlier in the thread and I am tired of a back and forth badminton here.

Now, sustainability of a British presence in Canada is dependent on their positions in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Reaching them is a harder task then reaching the St. Lawrence with entrenched local resistance likely to be several factors higher then along the St. Lawrence.

A British counter attack would likely spring from here and travel down the river, and once again Quebec City would be the lynch pin in re taking the area. The fate of the Native Americans would probably be much grimer, with no safe zones established by a British presence. Though, I wonder if the Americans would attempt to directly take the Hudson Bay area. Probably not due to its isolation.

The French Habitants are also a not often talked about factor. They were rather lukewarm to everyone at this point. Rather then the often enough scenarios including Canadian incorporation into the United States it seems likely that Canada would form two separate 'republics', essentially protectorates of the United States. Lower Canada would be most subject to further American settlement and would form a third layer of immigration.
 
Top