TFSmith121
Banned
You going to remove George III, as well?
You going to remove George III, as well?
Best,
You going to remove George III, as well?
Best,
WI Washington was killed at Princeton
- Thread starter Strathmore_and_Kinghorne
- Start date
removing King George III, and several of his ministers is not an undue strain of credibility as a POD. "The Madness of King George" after all was true enough.
The American Revolution without the King and some of his ministers (who are featured prominently in Tuchmans "The March of Folly") and with George Washington being killed in 1777 in battle would be an interesting timeline.
It might even be winnable for the British
The American Revolution without the King and some of his ministers (who are featured prominently in Tuchmans "The March of Folly") and with George Washington being killed in 1777 in battle would be an interesting timeline.
It might even be winnable for the British
If possible I'd rather not simply remove him, but... is a small bout of porphyria possible as early as 1777?
The issue is, as much as I like George III, finding him a very interesting individual, his actions towards the Americans were... ill-advised. However, they were better than I reckon most other monarchs may have acted...
The issue is, as much as I like George III, finding him a very interesting individual, his actions towards the Americans were... ill-advised. However, they were better than I reckon most other monarchs may have acted...
Ok, so it looks that Lord Chatham (Pitt the Elder) was North's preferred option to take over from him when he asked to resign after Saratoga... is there a reason he might want to resign earlier - he certainly seems to have wished to resign several times in this period.
With Lord Chatham in charge, would we see more readiness to talk? I understand he supported the colonial position before the declaration of independence...
Would he be able to bring other Whigs, say Rockingham and Grafton etc. on side?
With Lord Chatham in charge, would we see more readiness to talk? I understand he supported the colonial position before the declaration of independence...
Would he be able to bring other Whigs, say Rockingham and Grafton etc. on side?
TFSmith121
Banned
The thing is, after 1776 AND Saratoga, why would the Americans
The thing is, after 1776 AND Saratoga, why would the Americans anything less than independence?
Best,
The thing is, after 1776 AND Saratoga, why would the Americans anything less than independence?
Best,
Firstly, I'm not suggesting North resign after Saratoga - we might not have Saratoga occur the same, or at all. I'm asking whether we might find another reason for him to want to resign, at some point in the first months of '77. Secondly, if the British win at Princeton, they have NY and NJ (yes, they are stretched thin, but if North's replacement is pushing for peace talks, why does that matter?) then has 1776 been all that successful for the Americans?
The Continental Army was pretty near exhaustion by the Yorktown Campaign. I have seen in several sources that French gold made the movement to Yorktown possible. A peace due to exhaustion isn't impossible. It would require some substantial British concessions, and of course the big American concession of remaining under the Crown as well as of course lots of pardons all around.
It really was a near run thing.
If the Franco-American forces had not been able to bag Cornwallis, and there are several potential POD where they might not have, how long could have things continued? Both sides were at the point of exhaustion, economically in the case of the Franco-Americans, and politically and militarily for the British.
For that matter, if West Point had fallen due to Arnold's treachery OR Gates had been appointed commander of the Continental Army and Washington relieved (the Conway Conspiracy), or as stated, Washington had fallen in battle, the cause of American independence gets dicey in a hurry. While Greene, Anthony Wayne, and Morgan were all good commanders, we also had the other Lee, Gates, and some others who were morally corrupt or simply bad generals. The problem was that the Continental Congress frequently had a hard time telling the good generals from the bad ones. Without Washington I think the cause is in deep trouble, perhaps fatally so, no matter the situation in London.
And it was Washington who gave Steuben the opportunity to train the Army at Valley Forge, which really did make it a force of regulars able to stand and deal out punishment and more importantly take it from the British regulars. I suspect without Washington the Army doesn't give Steuben a chance.
TFSmith121
Banned
Saw this:
Saw this:
Ok, so it looks that Lord Chatham (Pitt the Elder) was North's preferred option to take over from him when he asked to resign after Saratoga.
And presumed that was the time frame you were talking about.
As far as 1776 goes, the Continental Congress, which is, after all, more legitimate in terms of representation than any legislature anywhere else at this point, had already declared independence.
Which speaks to the larger issues - the Americans were no longer "British" (if they ever had been) and any potential future where what historically became the United States and the United Kingdom are not separate nations depends on some sort of trans-oceanic federation (which seems pretty much impossible on time and distance reasons, much less economic and political priorities and representation) and, ultimately, ends up with the British becoming "American."
Which seems unlikely, to say the least.
Even the Irish didn't want to be British, and it seems the Scots have occasional doubts as well. Hard to imagine the English wanting to be American.
Best,
Saw this:
Ok, so it looks that Lord Chatham (Pitt the Elder) was North's preferred option to take over from him when he asked to resign after Saratoga.
And presumed that was the time frame you were talking about.
As far as 1776 goes, the Continental Congress, which is, after all, more legitimate in terms of representation than any legislature anywhere else at this point, had already declared independence.
Which speaks to the larger issues - the Americans were no longer "British" (if they ever had been) and any potential future where what historically became the United States and the United Kingdom are not separate nations depends on some sort of trans-oceanic federation (which seems pretty much impossible on time and distance reasons, much less economic and political priorities and representation) and, ultimately, ends up with the British becoming "American."
Which seems unlikely, to say the least.
Even the Irish didn't want to be British, and it seems the Scots have occasional doubts as well. Hard to imagine the English wanting to be American.
Best,
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Understand your points, and not dismissing them, but
Understand your points, and not dismissing them, but the American Revolution, obviously was about much more than one individual's leadership, however inspiring, and would succeed or fail absent that same individual's leadership.
There are great men, I will agree, but they become recognized as such because of much larger forces being in play; and from that perspective (the longue durée, essentially) there was no willingness in England to recognize the political, economic, demographic, and geographic realities the end of the Anglo-French confrontation over the future of North America had made manifest.
The Americans wanted more than England/Britain's system of governance would, or could, give them in the Eighteenth Century; and so without a political solutuion, war was the obvious resort. Once that was underway, any sort of "deal" offered by the British was too little, too late, as witness the fates of the various peace proposals before 1783.
My two francs.
Best,
Understand your points, and not dismissing them, but the American Revolution, obviously was about much more than one individual's leadership, however inspiring, and would succeed or fail absent that same individual's leadership.
There are great men, I will agree, but they become recognized as such because of much larger forces being in play; and from that perspective (the longue durée, essentially) there was no willingness in England to recognize the political, economic, demographic, and geographic realities the end of the Anglo-French confrontation over the future of North America had made manifest.
The Americans wanted more than England/Britain's system of governance would, or could, give them in the Eighteenth Century; and so without a political solutuion, war was the obvious resort. Once that was underway, any sort of "deal" offered by the British was too little, too late, as witness the fates of the various peace proposals before 1783.
My two francs.
Best,
Last edited:
The issue seems to me to be the Tory government - Had the Whigs been in power things would not have made it this far, I don't believe, except for the problem of George III's obstinacy.
On a related note - how quickly could news spread from America to London?
TFSmith121
Banned
Maybe, but time and distance, even today, would
Maybe, but time and distance, even today, would defeat almost anything imaginable in terms of a "peaceful" settlement absent independence.
Cripes, Pakistan couldn't manage it in the 1947-71 period.
Travel time by sea between the (presumably) London and (presumably) Philadelphia, in the Eighteenth Century? One way - probably four weeks, at best...
Round-trip, with some time for discussion at both ends? Probably 8-12 weeks.
There was a reason New Orleans was fought in 1815, after all.
Best,
Maybe, but time and distance, even today, would defeat almost anything imaginable in terms of a "peaceful" settlement absent independence.
Cripes, Pakistan couldn't manage it in the 1947-71 period.
Travel time by sea between the (presumably) London and (presumably) Philadelphia, in the Eighteenth Century? One way - probably four weeks, at best...
Round-trip, with some time for discussion at both ends? Probably 8-12 weeks.
There was a reason New Orleans was fought in 1815, after all.
Best,
Last edited:
Thanks - Is it conceivable for the news of the loss at Trenton to reach London long before news of a victory at Princeton? Say if the first report made it in time for one ship, and the next missed it?
TFSmith121
Banned
Certainly possible.
Certainly possible.
You looking for some sort of "glass half-full" concept?
Best,
Certainly possible.
You looking for some sort of "glass half-full" concept?
Best,
I've been reading into Lord North after you mentioned how he and Germain were (besides Georgie 3) the worst stumbling blocks for the British interests; it seems that North repeatedly looked for excuses to resign.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer, a job that North really does not seem to have relished, as well as PM, would a significantly damning report of the actions of the Hessian mercenaries at Trenton reaching London without news of a victory and the death of Washington at Princeton provide a good enough excuse for Lord North to step aside?
The problem is still that George hates any of the candidates I should really like to see become PM, namely Chatham, Rockingham or Grafton.
TFSmith121
Banned
There are a lot of reasons the Americans fought
There are a lot of reasons the Americans fought; George III, North, and Germain certainly come close to the top of the list.
Knocking them all off would be quite the thumb on the scale.
Best,
There are a lot of reasons the Americans fought; George III, North, and Germain certainly come close to the top of the list.
Knocking them all off would be quite the thumb on the scale.
Best,
In one source I found that he had a brief episode in 1765 and high levels of arsenic is his system after some studies on his hair follicles.
If, somehow, he developed seizures and they were an ongoing issue, I believe that may have a chance for others to believe he is unfit. Little rusty in regard to medical practice of the time but it's worth a shot...
Really? I'd always thought it kicked of in the mid '80s.... oh.
A timeline to kick this off
Thurs, 26th December, 1776 – Washington catches Johann Rahl’s Hessians, killing 22, and capturing the remainder. Rahl loses his life in this action.
Mon, 30th December, 1776 – General Howe’s damning report of the Battle of Trenton, indicating that he believed the Hessians to be suffering the after-effects of Christmas merriment, is dispatched to London aboard a British Merchantman. It arrives in London on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1777. [1]
Tues, 31st December, 1776 – General Washington addresses his men, requesting that they remain fighting for him, despite their expiring enlistments, for another 6 weeks. This seems to persuade them at the time.
Thurs, 2nd January, 1777 – General Cornwallis marches from Princeton towards Trenton with 8,000 of his men, leaving behind Col. Mawhood, with 1,200 men of the 17th, 40th and 55th regiments of Foot, the 16th Light Dragoons, and some 6 guns to defend the city.
Cornwallis meets some resistance in the form of skirmishes with Washington’s men, slowing his march somewhat, so that by the time he arrives it is nearly nightfall. Three times he attempts to cross the Assunpink Bridge, but he is forced to call of the attack on the American defences on the other side until the morning.
Washington takes advantage of the frozen ground to move his artillery and approximately 4,500 men, mostly militia, towards Princeton under cover of darkness.
Fri, 3rd January, 1777 - Some of the militia flee at around 2 o’clock in the morning, under the impression that Cornwallis had managed to encircle them.
Following Cornwallis orders to meet him at Assunpink in the morning, Mawhood sets out with the 17th and 55th towards the river, leaving the 40th just outside Princeton, only to find that Washington has come into position parallel to the road he would be taking. Wheeling back to face him, Mawhood meets Brigadier Mercer’s column of militia with the 17th Foot and 16th Light Dragoons in the orchard of one William Clark sending some of the 55th on to Princeton to fetch the 40th. Mercer’s men are quickly defeated with a bayonet charge at about 8 o’clock, the Brigadier himself being unhorsed and brutally bayonetted [2] by the redcoats, some believing him to be Washington himself. Mercer’s second-in-command, Haslet, is killed by a bullet to the head.
Cadwalader’s brigade is the next to arrive, and is just as easily repulsed, and, seeing the Mercer’s men fleeing the field, they too turn to run. At this moment, Washington himself arrives with the Virginia Continentals and Col. Hand’s Rifleman, then rides forward to rally the fleeing militia, calling "Parade with us my brave fellows! There is but a handful of the enemy and we shall have them directly!"
Mawhood withdraws his men slightly, in order to move out of range of Washington’s artillery fire, while Washington orders the Virginians and Riflemen to move to his right, along with Hitchcock’s New England Continentals, who have just arrived. However, in organising the next volley of fire, Washington is shot fatally, through the neck. [3]
Seeing their General fall, most of the militia, only recently prevented from routing, turn tail and run. The 40th and remainder of the 55th return to Clark’s orchard, and break the resistance from the two line regiments. Cadwalader, trying to hold his militia, is overrun and captured by Capt. Leslie of the 17th. [4]
When Cornwallis realises that he has been out-manoeuvred, he sends General Alexander Leslie’s 1,000 men to assist in sweeping the remainders of Washington’s force from the field, and then to bring Mawhood’s men down to meet with the remainder of Cornwallis’ force.
[1] OTL, this report would have probably been sent with the report of the loss at Princeton. The first POD is that the report is sent back on an earlier ship.
[2] OTL, Mercer received multiple (probably seven) stab wounds when he was unhorsed.
[3] The central POD here, is obviously that Washington is slain whilst directing a volley – in OTL, he rode right to the front line, within 30yds of the British, and there is a record of one of his officers, John Fitzgerald, covering his eyes with his hat in fear of seeing the General killed. Following the death of their talismanic commanding officer, many of the men he had persuaded to stay, and all those he had just rallied back, continue to flee.
[4] The third POD is one which I hope will help with my narrative (we’ll see…) Capt. Leslie was, in OTL, killed in the very opening moments of the battle. Here, his luck is interchanged with Washington’s, as it were.
Thurs, 26th December, 1776 – Washington catches Johann Rahl’s Hessians, killing 22, and capturing the remainder. Rahl loses his life in this action.
Mon, 30th December, 1776 – General Howe’s damning report of the Battle of Trenton, indicating that he believed the Hessians to be suffering the after-effects of Christmas merriment, is dispatched to London aboard a British Merchantman. It arrives in London on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1777. [1]
Tues, 31st December, 1776 – General Washington addresses his men, requesting that they remain fighting for him, despite their expiring enlistments, for another 6 weeks. This seems to persuade them at the time.
Thurs, 2nd January, 1777 – General Cornwallis marches from Princeton towards Trenton with 8,000 of his men, leaving behind Col. Mawhood, with 1,200 men of the 17th, 40th and 55th regiments of Foot, the 16th Light Dragoons, and some 6 guns to defend the city.
Cornwallis meets some resistance in the form of skirmishes with Washington’s men, slowing his march somewhat, so that by the time he arrives it is nearly nightfall. Three times he attempts to cross the Assunpink Bridge, but he is forced to call of the attack on the American defences on the other side until the morning.
Washington takes advantage of the frozen ground to move his artillery and approximately 4,500 men, mostly militia, towards Princeton under cover of darkness.
Fri, 3rd January, 1777 - Some of the militia flee at around 2 o’clock in the morning, under the impression that Cornwallis had managed to encircle them.
Following Cornwallis orders to meet him at Assunpink in the morning, Mawhood sets out with the 17th and 55th towards the river, leaving the 40th just outside Princeton, only to find that Washington has come into position parallel to the road he would be taking. Wheeling back to face him, Mawhood meets Brigadier Mercer’s column of militia with the 17th Foot and 16th Light Dragoons in the orchard of one William Clark sending some of the 55th on to Princeton to fetch the 40th. Mercer’s men are quickly defeated with a bayonet charge at about 8 o’clock, the Brigadier himself being unhorsed and brutally bayonetted [2] by the redcoats, some believing him to be Washington himself. Mercer’s second-in-command, Haslet, is killed by a bullet to the head.
Cadwalader’s brigade is the next to arrive, and is just as easily repulsed, and, seeing the Mercer’s men fleeing the field, they too turn to run. At this moment, Washington himself arrives with the Virginia Continentals and Col. Hand’s Rifleman, then rides forward to rally the fleeing militia, calling "Parade with us my brave fellows! There is but a handful of the enemy and we shall have them directly!"
Mawhood withdraws his men slightly, in order to move out of range of Washington’s artillery fire, while Washington orders the Virginians and Riflemen to move to his right, along with Hitchcock’s New England Continentals, who have just arrived. However, in organising the next volley of fire, Washington is shot fatally, through the neck. [3]
Seeing their General fall, most of the militia, only recently prevented from routing, turn tail and run. The 40th and remainder of the 55th return to Clark’s orchard, and break the resistance from the two line regiments. Cadwalader, trying to hold his militia, is overrun and captured by Capt. Leslie of the 17th. [4]
When Cornwallis realises that he has been out-manoeuvred, he sends General Alexander Leslie’s 1,000 men to assist in sweeping the remainders of Washington’s force from the field, and then to bring Mawhood’s men down to meet with the remainder of Cornwallis’ force.
[1] OTL, this report would have probably been sent with the report of the loss at Princeton. The first POD is that the report is sent back on an earlier ship.
[2] OTL, Mercer received multiple (probably seven) stab wounds when he was unhorsed.
[3] The central POD here, is obviously that Washington is slain whilst directing a volley – in OTL, he rode right to the front line, within 30yds of the British, and there is a record of one of his officers, John Fitzgerald, covering his eyes with his hat in fear of seeing the General killed. Following the death of their talismanic commanding officer, many of the men he had persuaded to stay, and all those he had just rallied back, continue to flee.
[4] The third POD is one which I hope will help with my narrative (we’ll see…) Capt. Leslie was, in OTL, killed in the very opening moments of the battle. Here, his luck is interchanged with Washington’s, as it were.
Penny for The Guy
Banned
Asd long as you're at it...
Could you do something nice with Rockingham and Burke?
Could you do something nice with Rockingham and Burke?
Could you do something nice with Rockingham and Burke?
I'll certainly look into it, yes.