What events would need to change for America to win the war of 1812?

He'd try - just as he did in 1805. He'd probably make a pigs ear of it again, given that despite being an islander himself he really didn't understand that ships, at the mercy of wind and tide, can't be ordered about to precise timetables the way armies can. The result of this, combined with the inherent superiority of the RN (constantly at sea, and therefore constantly worked-up) over the French and allies (stuck in port, and non too experienced to start with), would almost certainly have been another defeat in detail.

I think you are underestimating what the Continent can build. Without the interruption of Continental troubles, the French and satellites would have over 300 ships of the line. That's a lot of naval power. Or, if you suck at sailing (since no one but the Danes and Spanish in Napoleon's sphere of influences have many left), glorified floating artillery that gets destroyed by the enemy's first barrage because they can't get out of the way of their enemy's guns. But that's a lot of glorified artillery. Can the RN pull off another victory? Well, possibly, and if Napoleon actually takes personal command probably. But it will be harder than the last time.

Control of territory simply wasn't relevant.

I disagree. America can grow food, and there is stuff for powder. So if they didn't mind being 100% broke, they could go into Canada IF the British needed to cannibalize manpower from Canada (as we already noted, the Canadian-British were doing quite well as it was). Britain cannibalizing manpower from Canada could result in Western Canada going to be occupied, while the entire American nation gets struck behind a blockade and falling to a 15th century standard of living. You really only need powder, shot, and food to continue a war at this time, the rest of the economy doing to the dump doesn't matter if the nation is willing to put up with crap living just for the war. Which America did put up with in the 1770s (minus the Loyalists and neutrals who of course didn't like crap living conditions in Patriot controlled territory).

My point is that America is unlikely to gain territory, but territory is important. if they got it.

It is for this reason that I think the many people who think the worst case scenario for the US would have been an early defeat of France have got it the wrong way round. On the contrary, an extended European war would have delayed the onset of the asymmetrical insurance rates that led to pressure to end the American war, potentially long enough to induce the unconditional surrender of the US due to the collapse of its economy.

An extended European war will mean the British central government isn't putting much effort into taking American territory, which I mentioned is important too. With a European war going on, the British aren't likely to do more than take Ohio, some Western territories, and call it a day to let the RN put some economic pressure. There would be no further land operations, if the British got that favorable result they wouldn''t push it. And if they got unfavorable results, they obviously couldn't push it.

The troops would be in Europe in Iberia, or perhaps waiting to counterattack a possible invasion. A protracted European war might not lead to an America victory, but it certainly wouldn't lead to a British victory. Any time British saw they were winning in the American theater, they would probably accept a "ok, how about you take our Western territories and some reparations?" Far from unconditional surrender, the British would be happy with this if Napoleon is causing trouble in Europe.

This is the "European War is going on and Britain is fine" scenario. A "European War is going on and Napoleon is looking scarier" would be better for the Americas. They key to an American victroy is making Parliament think it needs to tap into Canadian manpower for the European front. If we get that, a grift can form. Since War of the Third Coalition PODs like Trafalgar are out (based on the timeline we are working with since impressment was the casuis belli), the best way to make Napoleon scary is a Russian campaign success. That alone probably isn't enough for them to resort to conscription, but if that doesn't make Napoleon "scary enough" I bet a successful Russian Campaign and that giant fleet that was under construction all over the Mediterranean (30 ports! And that's only counting where the ships of the line were being made) was like "really scary and juuust slightly less scary than imminent invasion"
 

Lusitania

Donor
On the contrary - this was the decisive theatre, because British control of the seas shut off the commerce that was essential to maintaining the US economy and, as Planet of Hats pointed out, almost destroyed the US. Control of territory simply wasn't relevant.

It was a draw because the British controlled the seas while Americans were able to “drive” the British from their country. The British had no intention to conquer any land they wanted to force the Americans to the peace negotiations. So their effort succeeded but in giving the Americans these victories it made it seem like the war was a draw.

All wrong - the US won in the western theatre because Perry's destruction of Barclay's flotilla at Presque Isle gave the US control of Lake Erie, and therefore cut the British supply lines.

Here I have to disagree,while American control of Lake Erie weakened the natives the real turning point was the death of tecumseh. He was the force uniting the natives against the Americans and had he survived the American presence in the west would of been in jeopardy.
 
Unless Napoleon is able to secure and control Haiti the rest of French North America was worthless to France. The carribean islands with their sugar plantations were the French top priority. When France lost Haiti he had no interest in French North America and sold it gladly to the US. So for France to be interested and still in control of French North America during war then France has to be able to hold onto Haiti.
Yes I am aware of that. Hence my first statement about France being more successful, in this case at Haiti.
 
Interestingly Napoleon's Parents considered sending him into the Navy and not the Army.
Afterall they were Islanders, as others have mentioned, and his aptitude for mathematics, which made him a good Gunner would have stood him in good stead at sea.

Of course Admiral Bonaparte would give us a very different world than General Bonaparte
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How about nobody says another word about what the outcome come was and find a way for the US to make gains from the war in terms of territory or battles or concessions won. Which I'm sure is what the OP was looking for.
 
How about nobody says another word about what the outcome come was and find a way for the US to make gains from the war in terms of territory or battles or concessions won. Which I'm sure is what the OP was looking for.

Or the Napoleonic Wars go more in favor of France, unlike in our Timeline.

So I made the series of events that still get us a war of 1812 (Third Coalition War butterflies away that) that made the Napoleonic Wars go more in favor of France, and then better for America. Which uis what the OP was looking for.
 
America needs a vastly bigger and more well trained army and a navy that can contest its own waters. Neither of these things was politically feasible without a revolutionary PoD so I say it can't be done. Any incremental gains will just see the British match like for like until you're back to the see-saw of OTL where both sides routinely get thumped when they cross the border.

Under no circumstance would the British be so unprepared that America could occupy Kingston and Montreal, so Britain will always have a strong base of operations to continue the fight. And even if America does occupy bits and pieces of Canada the blockade was driving the country to bankruptcy. If Britain just sits on its hands for an extra year America probably begs for peace even if they're winning on the ground because the economy is imploding.
 

Lusitania

Donor
America needs a vastly bigger and more well trained army and a navy that can contest its own waters. Neither of these things was politically feasible without a revolutionary PoD so I say it can't be done. Any incremental gains will just see the British match like for like until you're back to the see-saw of OTL where both sides routinely get thumped when they cross the border.

Under no circumstance would the British be so unprepared that America could occupy Kingston and Montreal, so Britain will always have a strong base of operations to continue the fight. And even if America does occupy bits and pieces of Canada the blockade was driving the country to bankruptcy. If Britain just sits on its hands for an extra year America probably begs for peace even if they're winning on the ground because the economy is imploding.

What is need is a pod following the revolutionary war when the country came together to make federal government stronger with ability to tax, provide for national army and navy. Otherwise it is just ASB for the ragtag state militias were not capable of invading British North America.
 
Last edited:
Oh please not that chestnut again, in the War of 1812 Britain lost 1554 Merchant ships to the US Navy and Privateers.

And even that figure is seriously overstated, with many ships counted twice, and many recaptured. The real figure is ~1000 British ships lost.

Incidentally, I always think it's funny how defeats for the Indians in the War of 1812 are somehow defeats for Britain, but defeats for the French, Spanish and Dutch in the AWI are not defeats for the Rebels, despite the much more formal relationships between the combatants.
 
A more successful France leads to Napoleon semi-successfully reestablishing an empire in North America. In 1812 with France fighting in Europe again, and the US's ongoing desire for control of the Mississippi unresolved, and France distracted James Madison asks Congress for a declaration of war on France.
With the RN actively blockading French waters Napoleon is unable to send reinforcments, resulting in the US taking New Orleans and being granted control of Louisiana after Napoleanic France collapses.
TBH, if France regained/kept control of Louisiana, I'd expect Britain to take it off them before 1812 anyway.
Furthermore, the US did inflict such high
losses on the British Merchant Marine that
that was one of the reasons, 50 years later,
that the British refused to recognize the CSA
during the ACW. They knew that so doing
would mean another war with the US, & they
wanted to avoid @ all costs their merchant
shipping being badly damaged again.
Britain was quite happy to threaten war when they thought the situation warranted it (e.g., over the Trent affair). Their unwillingness to recognise the CSA is more likely due to the fact that there seemed no strategic reason to do so and the CSA wasn't particularly popular with British public opinion than to any fear of the US.
 
How about nobody says another word about what the outcome come was and find a way for the US to make gains from the war in terms of territory or battles or concessions won. Which I'm sure is what the OP was looking for.
but... arguing about the War of 1812 is so much fun! Well, not really...

But I think we have a rough consensus that the only POD that has any chance of accomplishing the POD is 'Napoleon does so much better in Europe that the UK is unable to aid Canada'.... which is a pretty big and wide ranging POD all on it's own...
 
Top