What Would Have Been the Best British Strategy in the Revolutionary War?

A lot of historians actually think Burgoyne might have won at Saratoga if Howe tried to take Philadelphia by land (as he thought when he proposed his plan to London). The reason is that Henry Clinton wanted to launch a rescue operation but it was too little too late due to the fact that he was concerned that Washington might attack Manhattan Island, which would be a worse defeat than OTL Burgoyne's loss. If Howe is on land, he is between Clinton and Washington, and Clinton would have sent his rescue operation a month early and with a lot more force that would have probably defeated Gates and Arnold.

Of course, if Burgoyne was a better commander, he could win without using help. Seriously... I don't understand why some British historians call him an above average tactician of his time (with confidence bigger than his actual skill) when he lost. He might be a gentleman, but he's a loser in my eyes.

Bottom line is that the British don't need to abandon New York at the start of the war, as someone who suggested starting in the south would do. An expeditiary force of 3,000 men should easily be able to boost the loyalist holdings in the South (although, not take fortified places like Charlestown... but they can keep the loyalists safe while action in the Hudson happen)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
... but they can keep the loyalists safe while action in the Hudson happen)

The trick though in protecting loyalists is protecting and arming them where they are *with* their property. Small enclaves don't cut it. Small enclaves protect a few loyalist property holders, and serve as a refuge for more, but those people have had to run away from their property.

The British from start to finish did not have enough troop numbers to protect anywhere near a majority of Loyalists *in the communities where they lived* given the dispersed population patterns in the colonies. And the Loyalists, never had the numbers to do a successful rising against the town and state militias and continental army in Patriot territory, even if they had gotten more "inspired" by better British support.
 
The British from start to finish did not have enough troop numbers to protect anywhere near a majority of Loyalists *in the communities where they lived* given the dispersed population patterns in the colonies. And the Loyalists, never had the numbers to do a successful rising against the town and state militias and continental army in Patriot territory, even if they had gotten more "inspired" by better British support.

Yes and no. The Loyalists and the rebels at the start of the war were not far off in numbers (rebels slightly outnumbering them, with a plurality of the population neutral). Therefore, they should only need a little support to defend themselves against some state militias. NE militias, no (those were borderline Continental Army level of dedication to the cause, discipline, aim, and speed). The NJ militia? Probably the armed loyalists actually outnumbered the armed Patriots given that a lot of their Patriots were in the Hudson at the Saratoga Campaign.

In Georgia, the Loyalists outnumbered the Patriots 4 to 3 by modern estimates (plurality neutrals). In New York, Loyalists actually formed a plurality, but the more organized rebels (who had control over the colonial beauracray) quickly muzzled them until Howe came to NYC. And even then, because he took almost the entire field army on a sea trip, most of the ones armed couldn't do anything but defend the base.

My suggested operation could protect a lot of the loyalists in rural Georgia and South Carolina (where the Patriots often left them be as they were not worth the trouble) and with a successful Saratoga campaign, Howe could start working down New York and New Jersey, freeing loyalists from rebel rule.
 
Top