WI Washington was killed at Princeton

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

Ok, finally an idea occurs to me. Hopefully a short timeline may come from this.
I have been reading recently, mostly because of my interest in my grandfather's regiment, The Royal Leicestershire Regiment, about the Battle of Princeton, 3rd January 1777, at which time they were known as the 17th Foot.

Shortly after Washington arrived, he saw the militia under Brigadier John Cadwalader turn and run, having themselves seen the rout of Brigadier Hugh Mercer's men by Colonel Mawhood and the 17th.
Washington rode over to them, calling "Parade with us my brave fellows! There is but a handful of the enemy and we shall have them directly!"
This prevented the flight of Cadwalader's men, who formed up again to face the British.
Washington then rode forwards to direct an advance, whilst Mawhood maneuvered out of the American's artillery range. At this point, Washington was within thirty yards of the 17th and 55th Foot. Fortunately, in the next exchange of fire, he was not killed, despite standing out, mounted on his horse.

What if this exchange had killed Washington?
Would the American force collapse?
What would the later ramifications be? As I understand it, most of the soldier's in his army had been persuaded to stay on despite their enlistments expiring at the end of 1776; would the force simply dissipate?

Would other changes need to happen to ensure a British victory?

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

I have one other small POD, in order to give the tl some sort of focus - The survival of the Hon. Willie Leslie, who was a captain in the 17th and the second son of the Earl of Leven. I think this tl will be mostly from his POV... Any other recommendations of people interesting to look into, such as Col Mawhood, would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

Bump, perhaps?

 

[Saphroneth]

The death of Washington would, as I understand it, significantly harm the chances of the US managing to field an army as opposed to guerilla warfare. That's a path which leads to a bleeding sore for several years before finally dying down, perhaps, but it's not a path which leads to outright independence (since no French support in terms of direct military intervention).

That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

The death of Washington would, as I understand it, significantly harm the chances of the US managing to field an army as opposed to guerilla warfare. That's a path which leads to a bleeding sore for several years before finally dying down, perhaps, but it's not a path which leads to outright independence (since no French support in terms of direct military intervention).

I feel that, after the death of Washington the US will have lost a huge talisman, and there will to fight might be greatly diminished.
Is it now just a case of mopping up?
Which other Generals would definitely not surrender yet? Who is still an issue?

 

[Saphroneth]

I feel that, after the death of Washington the US will have lost a huge talisman, and there will to fight might be greatly diminished.
Is it now just a case of mopping up?
Which other Generals would definitely not surrender yet? Who is still an issue?

I'm not especially expert on the Revolutionary period, but one name which does come to mind is Benedict Arnold - though TTL he might still be passed over for promotion since Washington was actually supportive of him. The Congress might well descend further into politicization than OTL.

Strange thing about Arnold, actually, Washington repeatedly refused to let him resign!


But if the Continental Army falls apart, then the US is in trouble in its attempts to get diplomatic recognition.

 

[TFSmith121]

Great men and the longue durée

1) What if this exchange had killed Washington?
2) Would the American force collapse?
3) What would the later ramifications be? As I understand it, most of the soldier's in his army had been persuaded to stay on despite their enlistments expiring at the end of 1776; would the force simply dissipate?4) Would other changes need to happen to ensure a British victory?

1) That would be unfortunate;
2) No;
3) Limited; Greene takes command, mostly likely;
4) It's too late; North and Germain blew any chance of a British "victory" long before Princeton.

Best,

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

1) That would be unfortunate;
2) No;
3) Limited; Greene takes command, mostly likely;
4) It's too late; North and Germain blew any chance of a British "victory" long before Princeton.

Best,

1) Well, quite, haha.
2)Surely, if Washington is killed moments after having attempted to rally Cadwalader's fleeing men? Why should they not continue running? Would this not lead to the collapse of the American right flank? I also thought that morale, though bolstered by the recent victory at Trenton, was still quite low...
3) Does Greene have the same standing in the psyche of most of the men who had been fighting for Washington?
4) Firstly, how so? Could you elaborate?
Secondly, if so, what is the best result the Brits can have if they hold New Jersey?

 

[TFSmith121]

1) Indeed

1) Well, quite, haha.
2)Surely, if Washington is killed moments after having attempted to rally Cadwalader's fleeing men? Why should they not continue running? Would this not lead to the collapse of the American right flank? I also thought that morale, though bolstered by the recent victory at Trenton, was still quite low...
3) Does Greene have the same standing in the psyche of most of the men who had been fighting for Washington?
4) Firstly, how so? Could you elaborate?
Secondly, if so, what is the best result the Brits can have if they hold New Jersey?

1) Indeed.
2) It is unknowable, but Cadwalader and any number of other officers were on the field or at hand (including Sullivan, Greene, Stirling, Roche de Fermoy, Mercer, and St. Clair; the senior colonels included Sargent, Stark, and Glover) as was Washington's staff (Reed, Mifflin, Knox, Trumbull, and Pallfrey, among others); armies rarely fall to pieces because a single man, even a commanding officer, is killed - at times, it has as much a rallying effect as if the same officer remains in action. In addition, both Dickinson and Ewing, although not on the battlefield, were deployed nearby. The British at Princeton were, of course, surprised, just as the Hessians had been at Trenton. Doesn't say a lot for their commanders' situational awareness, much less their ability to react to change on the battlefield.
3) Greene was very well regarded by the army and Congress; he'd risen from private to major general in roughly 24 months.
4) Given the forces available, not compromising with the Americans was idiotic; trying to coerce them by force was suicidal. North and Germain were among the worst civilians leaders Britain ever had in the modern era.

The British can't hold New Jersey; they might be able to garrison the northern half, at which point they face the same problem they faced historically - not enough troops to occupy a hostile country - except now with even more territory to try and hold down. Same situation as in southeasertern Pennsylvania as after the British occupation of Philadelphia, which, ultimately, they gave up on.

Best,

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

So, it seems to be the consensus that by early 1777 Britain cannot win the war - Is there any way to come to a compromise that would not be seen as a loss for the British?

 

[Saphroneth]

So, it seems to be the consensus that by early 1777 Britain cannot win the war - Is there any way to come to a compromise that would not be seen as a loss for the British?

That's not really a consensus, that's just one person...

Anyway. Negotiation is possible, expected even, if anyone other than Lord North was in charge. Attitudes evolve over time, and I'm not sure that by early 1777 the colonists were set on independence - especially if they got MPs out of the deal, as a Whig might have done.

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

I think that I should like to see an America still under a British flag, but with representation in London. How do we negate North?

 

[galveston bay]

I always felt that Washington was the one indispensable man. I have a hard time seeing the army holding together at Valley Forge without him.

So maybe not an immediate effect but ultimately his loss seems like it would be fatal to holding together a main force army to back up all the militia.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think that I should like to see an America still under a British flag, but with representation in London. How do we negate North?

North pretty much got appointed rather than being elected, so just have him do something which makes the King get rid of him.

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

North pretty much got appointed rather than being elected, so just have him do something which makes the King get rid of him.

From what I know of George III, he was quite a family man... was North the sort to have affairs? Would that be enough to cause some sort of rift between him and the king?
I should really like for him to be replaced by Rockingham, 5 years earlier than OTL...

 

[unprincipled peter]

The commander of the American forces killed means a different conduct of the war. Now, when you combine this with the first commander (now dead) being a man considered one of the greatest leaders this country has seen, um yeah, it's NOT going to be next man up, not much is altered.

Militarily, Washington can be replaced (of course, there's no guarantee that his replacement won't be worse). A huge part of the patriot victory was related to morale and resolve, and on that front, Washington played an immense role. It's too simplistic to say Washington dead, everything falls apart, but the guy played an important part in holding things together at several critical junctures.

As Saproneth says, inevitable victory is NOT consensus. '77 was a critical year. Change the commander, and lose a top leader in the opening days, things can go massively different. there are still forces/situations/movements that have to be accounted for, but you can legitimately have the end result be whatever you want it to be.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Greene was very well regarded by the army and Congress; he'd risen from private to major general in roughly 24 months.

Yes, but he was under a bit of a cloud at the time of the Trenton-Princeton campaign on account of the fall of Fort Washington. He was later specified (apparently) as the successor in command in case anything happened to Washington, but was this true at the time of Trenton-Princeton? Wouldn't it more likely at this point to be Gates?

 

[TFSmith121]

"Diplomacy in the Revolutionary War"

So, it seems to be the consensus that by early 1777 Britain cannot win the war - Is there any way to come to a compromise that would not be seen as a loss for the British?

There were efforts at at a diplomatic solution in the Revolutionary War; like most such efforts in wartime, by the time the losing side was ready to offer the winning side something, the offer was too little and too late.

There were attempts in 1776, 1777, and 1780. The first was for a ceasefire type settlement when the Americans had already declared independence. The second was for representation in Parliament after Saratoga and before the French declared war (Carlisle Peace Commission). The third was a year before Yorktown and still didn't offer full recognition of the American goals.

Any of the above offers might have made a difference in 1774, but the British would no more have make them at that point as recognize Irish or Scottish independence

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Gates was with the northern army, IIRC;

Yes, but he was under a bit of a cloud at the time of the Trenton-Princeton campaign on account of the fall of Fort Washington. He was later specified (apparently) as the successor in command in case anything happened to Washington, but was this true at the time of Trenton-Princeton? Wouldn't it more likely at this point to be Gates?

Gates was assigned to the northern army, (although at the time of Trenton and Princeton he was in Baltimore, IIRC), and the idea that the British were capable of attacking in New York in the spring, moving north from the city and south from Montreal, was certainly understood; Greene actually was one of two major generals with Washington's central army during the New Jersey campaign.

Greene is more likely then anyone else.

Best,

 

[Strathmore_and_Kinghorne]

To return to what seems the biggest hindrance to peace talks and, hopefully, reuniting the former colonies with Britain: how to remove Lord North?