WI: Sir Arthur Wellesley dies in India in 1803?

Being interested in the Napoleonic Wars of late, I have a question: what would be the effects if the future Duke of Wellington died during his military career in India (from 1797-1805)? How would the Napoleonic Wars turn out without him being alive to oversee the Peninsular campaigns?

The Battle of Assaye in 1803, I would say, is the best candidate for his death.
 
:(

Really? No Napoleonic War enthusiasts here?
No one has at least some speculation of what would happen if he died at Assaye?

I am not an expert but I think his death would have plenty of ripple affects, especially the war in India, the war against Napoleon and his time as PM of the UK.

For instance, without the Duke there probably wouldn't have been the Catholic emancipation act during his time as Prime Minister.

Has there been a TL done about this before?
 
On one side, the war would have taken longer and would have been more drawn out- without a succesful conclusion to peninsuler war, he could transfer acroos more troops. Of course, the guerilla warfare would still pin down his forces. If anything, his victories were morale boosters, that gave Britains allies hope that they could win. In the long run however, ithink napoleon couldnt win in the long run. His blockaid system was flawed from the start.

Outside the napoleonic war, things might actully be better for british politics and the army! Why? Because Wellington was the arch-conservitive. He oppsed reform, causing unrest and supported the practice of purchased commisins in the army- stopping the British army from developing like the other major europian armies- so it might be better prepaired for WW1.
 
On one side, the war would have taken longer and would have been more drawn out- without a succesful conclusion to peninsuler war, he could transfer acroos more troops. Of course, the guerilla warfare would still pin down his forces. If anything, his victories were morale boosters, that gave Britains allies hope that they could win. In the long run however, ithink napoleon couldnt win in the long run. His blockaid system was flawed from the start.

Outside the napoleonic war, things might actully be better for british politics and the army! Why? Because Wellington was the arch-conservitive. He oppsed reform, causing unrest and supported the practice of purchased commisins in the army- stopping the British army from developing like the other major europian armies- so it might be better prepaired for WW1.

I think you mean the Crimean. If the army was so naff in 1914, how was the tiny BEF able to make a difference by stopping the Germans from reaching Paris?
 
Outside the napoleonic war, things might actully be better for british politics and the army! Why? Because Wellington was the arch-conservitive. He oppsed reform, causing unrest and supported the practice of purchased commisins in the army- stopping the British army from developing like the other major europian armies- so it might be better prepaired for WW1.

I didn't know that.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I think you mean the Crimean. If the army was so naff in 1914, how was the tiny BEF able to make a difference by stopping the Germans from reaching Paris?

The French carried most of the load. The Russians attacks drew off German corps to the east. And the BEF basically attacked into a gap, which forced the Germans to retire to a shorter line.
 
I think you mean the Crimean. If the army was so naff in 1914, how was the tiny BEF able to make a difference by stopping the Germans from reaching Paris?

what stopped the Germans from reaching Paris was that the logistics for doing so just weren't there.
 
I think you mean the Crimean. If the army was so naff in 1914, how was the tiny BEF able to make a difference by stopping the Germans from reaching Paris?

What i ment to say is yes- it was almost certainly the best trained in Europe- it was also one of the smallest, least prepaired for a long drawn out war and sadly lacking in the innovation department. This is why they lacked the heavy howitzers of the germans, the advanced general staff so it was unable to exploit succss like at the Somme, her generals lacked inititive and her navy allowed itself to be overtaken.

No arthar Wellwsley? No decline of army and navy= better prepaired country and possibly a l;onger lasting empire.
 
I think that if Wellington isn't there, Napoleon would probably have less trouble in handling the Peninsula War. I might be overestimating the Iron Duke, but I'm not sure the British and Spanish would have done such a good job if he wasn't around. Thus, Napoleon wouldn't necessarily have to spend so much ressources in Spain and he could have more troops around. It is also possible he wins in Spain: sure, guerilla warfare was something new to him but it's not enough to win a war.

This gives Napoleon better chances, but of course it still doesn't guarantee a Napoleonic Victory scenario. The Peninsula War was interpreted as a sign of weakness by European powers, which led to the Austrians declaring war in 1809. They were defeated of course, but Napoleon was also beaten personnally at the Battle of Essling during that campaign: it showed he wasn't invincible. And of course, there is also Russia: there are little doubt that Alexander and Napoleon were going to clash at one point.
 
What i ment to say is yes- it was almost certainly the best trained in Europe- it was also one of the smallest, least prepaired for a long drawn out war and sadly lacking in the innovation department. This is why they lacked the heavy howitzers of the germans, the advanced general staff so it was unable to exploit succss like at the Somme, her generals lacked inititive and her navy allowed itself to be overtaken.

No arthar Wellwsley? No decline of army and navy= better prepaired country and possibly a l;onger lasting empire.

There are other reasons for those issues. Most of the backwardness of the army compared to other Europeans was dealt with after the Crimean War. Our army was embarassingly small because we are an island nation, we don't expect invasion, all we need is a big navy. We were unprepared for a drawn out war because the practise of conscription was unprecedented in Britain at the time. Also, we had spent most of the last 50 years fighting against much smaller, untrained, and poorly armed forces in the colonies. Innovation, and preparing for a drawn out conflict weren't necessary. I think the main issue for Britain when coming to the end of the 19th century is that we didn't throw ourselves into the Second Industrial Revolution as readily as we had done with the First. So by the time we got round to WW1, we were way behind the Germans in several scientific fields, especially chemical science.
 
Top