WI- Saratoga is a British victory?

TFSmith121

Banned
Take a look at the mileage, terrain, climate, and demographics

Is it possible that one result of an unlikely British victory at Saratoga might be that TFSmith grows up to be a British Empire Exceptionalist?

Take a look at the mileage, terrain, climate, and demographics in eastern New York, Vermont, and southwest Quebec as they were in the 1770s and get back to me, friend.

Best,
 
Even today it's 600 miles on the Interstate from New York City to Montreal.
Yes, but it is not 600 miles from Brooklyn to west point by river.

The distances are such, and the transportation and communications were so poor in the 1770s, that you're asking for an impossibility, certainly with the forces historically at hand for the British in North America at this point.

If Bourgoyne, as in otl, is moving from Canada, we will get a "Saratoga" British victory in this scenario. In otl, a small is force of mostly loyal patriots destroyed the Hudson rivervally forts. Howes force, in otl, beat Washington at Brandywine. Howe would at least have the same amount, if not more troops for an attack up the Hudson in this ATL, the area is much more loyal than pennsylvania, and the would have better support from the navy than they did in otl.

There's a reason that when the British invaded New France in the 1760s they did it from the sea.

Best,
Quebeec yes, the attack on Carillon, in 1758 (Ticonderoga) was by river from New York. It was not bad logistics made that attack faile. And Howe does not need to go to Ticonderoga. The bad communication works both ways, as the rebel commanders do not know were, or how strong the Bourgoyne is, just that he is coming from the canadas. That, for a commander that absolutely needs to keep his army more or less intact, and paired with what we do know about Washington as a general should tell us a how the campaign will go.
 
Look, i am not saying this would win the Loyalists the war, (as in all north american turns into super canada). They still do not have the boots to occupy every places that they would need to do this. Things are going to change, post war north america could look different than in otl sure, France is still needed to beat the loyalists, so when how they move in is important. And how the war ends will effect the Rebel Stat, the British and the French.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet the British are still trying to coordinate three forces

Yes, but it is not 600 miles from Brooklyn to west point by river.

If Bourgoyne, as in otl, is moving from Canada, we will get a "Saratoga" British victory in this scenario. In otl, a small is force of mostly loyal patriots destroyed the Hudson rivervally forts. Howes force, in otl, beat Washington at Brandywine. Howe would at least have the same amount, if not more troops for an attack up the Hudson in this ATL, the area is much more loyal than pennsylvania, and the would have better support from the navy than they did in otl.

Quebeec yes, the attack on Carillon, in 1758 (Ticonderoga) was by river from New York. It was not bad logistics made that attack faile. And Howe does not need to go to Ticonderoga. The bad communication works both ways, as the rebel commanders do not know were, or how strong the Bourgoyne is, just that he is coming from the canadas. That, for a commander that absolutely needs to keep his army more or less intact, and paired with what we do know about Washington as a general should tell us a how the campaign will go.

Think about a round trip for Burgoyne's or Howe's supply echelon.

Then think about the reality the British are still trying to coordinate three forces separated by that many miles (even farther for St. Leger) via a water route (ocean and river) many times that, and with the central, coordinating headquarters (if one can call it that) under Germain in London.

And in an era of communications at the pace of a sailing ship or messenger on horseback.

And it is all aimed at a local enemy operating on interior lines.

Good luck with that.

Best,
 
Think about a round trip for Burgoyne's or Howe's supply echelon.

Then think about the reality the British are still trying to coordinate three forces separated by that many miles (even farther for St. Leger) via a water route (ocean and river) many times that, and with the central, coordinating headquarters (if one can call it that) under Germain in London.

And in an era of communications at the pace of a sailing ship or messenger on horseback.

And it is all aimed at a local enemy operating on interior lines.

Good luck with that.

Best,

Today, at 10 knots, albany to new york city is about 13h, the hudson is deep enough that you could sail at least fifth rates up to West Point if not further, the reason there is a west point. Coordination is good, but not necessary. Internal line are very valuable, but not so much for messangers by boat or horse, and the Hudsonvally in 77 is among the most loyalist areas in the US.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Consider why Howe and Burgoyne failed

Today, at 10 knots, albany to new york city is about 13h, the hudson is deep enough that you could sail at least fifth rates up to West Point if not further, the reason there is a west point. Coordination is good, but not necessary. Internal line are very valuable, but not so much for messangers by boat or horse, and the Hudsonvally in 77 is among the most loyalist areas in the US.

Consider why Howe and Burgoyne failed to coordinate their offensives.

An overland offensive from Montreal south throws away the British seapower mobility advantage, and still ends up with a British army advancing into a sack against the Americans.

Howe trying to move upriver requires the British to take and hold a salient roughly 150 miles in length, along a navigable River that is flanked by American strongholds to the east and west. They'd need garrisons everywhere, if, in fact, they could actually win in the field against Gates, Arnold, Stark, Herkimer, met al ... Which, historically, they could not manage to do...

There's something about a bridge too far...

Best,
 
Last edited:
Consider why Howe and Burgoyne failed to coordinate their offensives.

But they do not really need a highly coordinated offensive.

An overland offensive from Montreal south throws away the British seapower mobility advantage, and still ends up with a British army advancing into a sack against the Americans.

Point of the tread is what if British victory at Saratoga. Not if it was possible, but what if it happens.

Howe trying to move upriver requires the British to take and hold a salient roughly 150 miles in length, along a navigable

Why? If they can put enough naval power on the river, why do they need to secure the hole part of it? The American strongholds feel to a small force of loyalist (not regulars) and hessian in otl, why would they be harder to take in ATL?

in fact, they could actually win in the field against Gates, Arnold, Stark, Herkimer, met al ... Which, historically, they could not manage to do...
ummh, really, last time i checked the British did mange a few field victorys during the war, off course most of the time the redcoats were utterly destroyed and routed every time they meet the rebels in a field engagm...

There's something about a bridge too far...

Yes, the crown could never reconquer the rebels bye force, to much ground, too few boots, but a successful Hudson campaign?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If the point of the three pronged attack

But they do not really need a highly coordinated offensive. Point of the tread is what if British victory at Saratoga. Not if it was possible, but what if it happens. Why? If they can put enough naval power on the river, why do they need to secure the hole part of it? The American strongholds feel to a small force of loyalist (not regulars) and hessian in otl, why would they be harder to take in ATL? ummh, really, last time i checked the British did mange a few field victorys during the war, off course most of the time the redcoats were utterly destroyed and routed every time they meet the rebels in a field engagm...Yes, the crown could never reconquer the rebels bye force, to much ground, too few boots, but a successful Hudson campaign?

If the point of the three pronged attack is to try and stretch the American forces - as it is, of course, the Americans decisively beat two of the three British forces - then, yes, they really do, as the lack of coordination between Burgoyne and St. Leger and Howe historically led to multiple failures at Oriskany and Saratoga.

And war, of course, is what sets the stage for politics, and one - generally - needs some sort of explanation as to why and how the military balance as it was up to a given point of departure somehow changes.

Of course, one can say "the commanders assigned historically simply do better than they did in reality," but that's something of a handwave.

Best,
 
Sigh. Yet another interesting thread ruined by TFSmith121's American Exceptionalism. Post after post of America Uber Alles (which is apparently preordained) and attacking the POD itself rather than discussing what its effects might be. Tell me TFSmith121 - is there a single scenario you acknowledge as plausible where the British do better in the American Revolutionary War?
 
Hey guys, I'm honoured the thread drew so much interest (my most popular what if question I've asked :eek:) and i've been reading everything, hadn't really had time to respond to everything so i apologize for that but just refrain from picking fights in the thread

And as i said before, I have figured out how i kinda want to do the story/timeline, i just don't have an idea on when it will come out due to college starting on Monday granted depending on this wicked snowstorm i may have classes cancelled *Fingers crossed*
 
Hey guys, I'm honoured the thread drew so much interest (my most popular what if question I've asked :eek:) and i've been reading everything, hadn't really had time to respond to everything so i apologize for that but just refrain from picking fights in the thread

And as i said before, I have figured out how i kinda want to do the story/timeline, i just don't have an idea on when it will come out due to college starting on Monday granted depending on this wicked snowstorm i may have classes cancelled *Fingers crossed*

If you're looking to just make the British do better, set your butterflies in the British headquarters and send different, better generals. There's no military victory for the British to win here - the colonists are just too spread out - but racking up a string of (mostly) victories will break morale, and THAT would have won the conflict (or at least created better terms from the British perspective).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
What's that quote from Monsarrat in The Cruel Sea

Sigh. Yet another interesting thread ruined by TFSmith121's American Exceptionalism. Post after post of America Uber Alles (which is apparently preordained) and attacking the POD itself rather than discussing what its effects might be. Tell me TFSmith121 - is there a single scenario you acknowledge as plausible where the British do better in the American Revolutionary War?


What's that quote from Monsarrat in The Cruel Sea? IIRC, Compass Rose has just sunk a u-boat with a particular strategem and then rescues the survivors, and the senior surviving German officer says something like "if you hadn't tricked us we would have gotten you" and the RN officer protagonist - Lockwood, IIRC - says something back along the lines of "this is war, leutenant ... Perhaps it is too hard for you."

Literature, even speculative fiction, is the same way; suspension of belief is not an easy needle to thread.

As far as the "British doing better in the Revolutionary War" it depends greatly upon the departure point; given the resources, commanders, and overall strategic situation as it was in 1775-77, the 1777 campaign that led to Saratoga, Oriskany, Freeman's Farm, Bemis Heights, and Bennington is too late, for obvious reasons.

Best,
 
And war, of course, is what sets the stage for politics, and one - generally - needs some sort of explanation as to why and how the military balance as it was up to a given point of departure somehow changes.

Of course, one can say "the commanders assigned historically simply do better than they did in reality," but that's something of a handwave.

I agree to this, fully, but:

If the point of the three pronged attack is to try and stretch the American forces - as it is, of course, the Americans decisively beat two of the three British forces - then, yes, they really do, as the lack of coordination between Burgoyne and St. Leger and Howe historically led to multiple failures at Oriskany and Saratoga.

Right, so in ATL Barry still moves with his 700 ish Europeans and 800 natives, and still start his siege in august, Burgoyne moves from Montreal with about 8000, gets ambushed by washingtons army at the skirmish/battle at first Saratoga, stil otl, Burgoyne repulse this ambush. This is OTL.

If Howe had started moving up the Hudson is what i am talking about. If First Saratog is a bigger British victory than in otl, it is harder to get Oriskany (but Barry was supposed to be a diversion), there is also a question where to get a force large enough to block howe, even giving him half of what he used in the Phili campainge, that is still about 9-10000 troops, with naval support
 
Top