WI: British commanders during American Revolution

WI: British Commanders

  • Duke of Cumberland and Robert Clive can turn around the war for the British

    Votes: 13 61.9%
  • The American's win just as fast

    Votes: 8 38.1%
  • The American's win faster.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Wandering around in the interior can be Clive's job, hes the adventure who goes to far off continents. Cumberland just needs to obliderate Washington's army at Monmouth.

If Cumberland or Clive are appointed to command at all, it's probably going to be before 1778.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Still, I applaud you for a very interesting thread. Again, if any ATL commander focused more on Virginia from the beginning, however, I think that alone would add a few points in the British's favor. With the power of hindsight, I think occupying as much as Virginia as possible, then turning North - while simply disrupting the Deep South with raids and slave rebellions as OTL - would be the best scenario for a classical military British victory. (Still, not it anyway 100% guaranteed) But, since the North was the early epicenter of the rebellion, it's going to be hard to imagine the British not focusing on that theater first - outside of a truly prescient commander who can see how debilitating leaving the Virginian powerhouse relatively unscathed in the early war was.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Powerhouse?

What pray tell about Virginia was more of a powerhouse than New England or New York?

Virginia was the wealthiest and most populous colony in North America at the time. Granted, a significant portion of its population was slaves, but in terms of the number of men it could field and the amount of war material and other goods it could buy / produce / import (thanks to relatively lax blockade), it was #1 And if not being the center of intellectual capital in North America, it was definitely a contender for the position at the time. I also believe (but am not 100% sure, trying to look it up) it's the state that committed the most of its residents to warfare outside of their state during the revolution, on the Patriot side at least.
 
Last edited:
Virginia was the wealthiest and most populous colony in North America at the time. Granted, a significant portion of its population was slaves, but in terms of the number of men it could field and the amount of war material and other goods it could buy / produce / import (thanks to relatively lax blockade), it was #1 And if not being the center of intellectual capital in North America, it was definitely a contender for the position at the time.

But how does it compare to New England on the whole?

I'm willing to accept that it outweighed Massachusetts, but I'm not sure if it was more important than the Northern colonies (New England).
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
But how does it compare to New England on the whole?

I'm willing to accept that it outweighed Massachusetts, but I'm not sure if it was more important than the Northern colonies (New England).

Well, no, it doesn't outweigh New England as a whole. ((But I do think Virginia is probably worth any two New England states, in terms of population, at least, if not economy.) However, the Continental Congress and Continental Army not withstanding, the American Revolution was still fought heavily on a state by state basis, with state militias playing a heavy role. The Continental Army was of paramount importance, but in the end, it was more analogous to "Allied Forces" in WWI and WWII than a national force - although even that is affording American forces of the era most uniformity in action, purpose and command than is probably warranted, OTL. So, I think you're question is kind of like asking did the U.S. Contribute More to WWII or the British Commonwealth? Granted, when you group several states together, that might appear one way. But the American Revolution was definitely a bunch of distinguishable states allied in a fight against a common enemy, and in so much as this is the case, Virginia stands out as the strongest among them at the time.

The New Englanders were the first to fight, but even historically, it was a battle in Virginia that proved decisive.
 
Last edited:
Only after a battle in New York brought in the French.

And I think it was at least as uniform in "action, purpose, and command" as the Allied forces in WWII, probably more so - a Virginian commanding troops from New Hampshire to the Carolinas (I'm not sure if any of the Georgians that fought in the Revolution were ever under his command).

But the reason I lump New England together is that the area is small enough that you can focus on multiple colonies/states at once, unlike in Virginia.
 
Top