WI: Wellington commands the British army at the Battle of New Orleans?

WI: Wellington commands the British army at the Battle of New Orleans?

  • Wellington wins

    Votes: 70 64.8%
  • Jackson Wins and Wellington is killed in action

    Votes: 28 25.9%
  • Tie

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Total voters
    108
Yes, but can British sharpshooters really be compared to Tennessee and Kentucky militia men or am i wrong to assume the militia are more skilled?

Remember this isn't the war of independence where the British really didn't have much light infantry. The lesson had been thoroughly learned by this point. On one side you have professional soldiers experienced by 20 years of high intensity warfare against the most sophisticated armies in Europe. Or civilians who go out hunting for the pot?

I'll take the professional soldiers because while the Kentucky militia might be better shots they certainly won't be as used to be shot at or shelled, the later is especially lethal and tended to be deeply terrifying.
 
Re

I'll take the professional soldiers because while the Kentucky militia might be better shots they certainly won't be as used to be shot at or shelled, the later is especially lethal and tended to be deeply terrifying.

You know whats really terrifying an angry Andrew Jackson standing over you!
 
IMO: Wellington would not fight, he would look for a good position among the delta to make Jackson fight him on his own terms. The same strategy Wellington used at Waterloo he would use at New Orleans, he would let Jackson sit in his trenches while he scouted for a place with favorable conditions. Wellington was not the kind of man to launch attacks unless he knew his opponent. AFAIK of course.
 
As many have already said Wellington fights only on Wellingtons terms. His army are highly trained an highly experienced veterans of a war fought against the best armies and keenest tactical minds of Europe and maybe even the world at this point. Napoleon is to jackson as Andre the Giant is to a dude with one year of Karate classes at the Y under his belt. Even if the Kentucky militia are better individual shots than Wellingtons troops, the British and more specifically Wellington are far better at Warfare.

I'd expect Jackson to sit there in his trenches wondering why the British havent attacked yet only to find out that Wellington has found a better position than he has and is now bringing up siege guns to place in his earthworks that can shell his position without fear of effective counter battery fire.
 

Flubber

Banned
As many have already said Wellington fights only on Wellingtons terms.


And as already posted in this thread, while Wellington stated he'd accept a command in North America he also felt he wouldn't be able to much more there than was already being done.

His army are highly trained an highly experienced veterans of a war fought against the best armies and keenest tactical minds of Europe and maybe even the world at this point.

You do realize that nearly all of the UK troops and commanders facing Jackson were veterans of the Wellington's army in the Peninsular campaign? The UK force's main problem was hubris; "We beat Napoleon so slapping around these assclowns will be easy..."

Napoleon is to jackson as Andre the Giant is to a dude with one year of Karate classes at the Y under his belt. Even if the Kentucky militia are better individual shots than Wellingtons troops, the British and more specifically Wellington are far better at Warfare.

I happen to believe that is Pakenham had been able to reach his new command earlier, Jackson would have been forced to abandon and burn New Orleans. As it was he arrived far too late to much effect the campaign and was forced to play a hand which was already dealt.

I'd expect Jackson...

I'd expect people to have a better grasp of the situation.

The US of War of 1812 has over twice the population of the colonies during the Revolution, is far larger geographically, and is far more developed while the UK is using far fewer troops than it did during the Revolution with far less local support. Thanks to the RN, the UK can land almost anywhere in the US it wants and burn almost anything it wants but the UK cannot maintain any presence ashore for any lengthy period of time. The US was simply too big and the UK forces employed too small for any lasting effect. The Chesapeake campaign, where the UK forces at New Orleans had been fighting earlier, showed both those handicaps in spades.

From mid-1813 until the war's end, the UK stooged around Chesapeake Bay accomplishing little beside launching a few punitive raids. While RN basically sailed wherever it wanted to, UK forces ashore had a somewhat different experience. An attempt on the Norfolk shipyards failed because the UK didn't have enough troops on hand. A later attempt on another shipyard further up the Bay failed for the same reason. The UK did put 5,000 or so troops ashore, slap around a scratch US force at Bladensburg, and burn Washington, but that raid accomplished nothing. The UK attempt at the real strategic target on the Chesapeake, Baltimore, was countered easily by the US for several reasons not the least of which that the UK was outnumbered by more than three to one.

Simply put, the UK can hurt the US here and there but it cannot land a knockout blow. Both sides pretty much realized this and that's why the war ended in what can be described as a win-win: Canada remained in the empire and the UK finally withdrew from the Old Northwest.
 
My money is on Jackson. Even if he loses the first stand up battle, there will be fighting as long as he is alive. Backwoods Militias used to asymmetrical warfare would turn the bayous into death traps for the British, and any push towards New Orleans proper will be contested inch by inch by everything Jackson can throw at them. What you have to understand about Jackson is that the man had no give at all in him. I do not doubt he would fight to the death with Wellington in a burning New Orleans, winner take none, if he had to. The man was an avatar of rage and determination, and a canny commander to boot.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
My money is on Jackson. Even if he loses the first stand up battle, there will be fighting as long as he is alive. Backwoods Militias used to asymmetrical warfare would turn the bayous into death traps for the British, and any push towards New Orleans proper will be contested inch by inch by everything Jackson can throw at them. What you have to understand about Jackson is that the man had no give at all in him. I do not doubt he would fight to the death with Wellington in a burning New Orleans, winner take none, if he had to. The man was an avatar of rage and determination, and a canny commander to boot.

Your description of Andrew Jackson is spot on. . . and Wellington still wins.

If you replace "Jackson" with "Soult", you pretty much have the latter phase of the Peninsular War. Wellington still won.

Why? Because he's Wellington.
 
But even if Wellington wins the first battle , what would it matter? Like I said, street fight in a burning city isn't something he would want to go through. That, and every bayou full of sharpshooters and hit and run attacks against his army their entire march. Jackson's men know the terrain much better than wellingtons. I don't think he could make a maneuver that would fail to be reported to the Americans anyway
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Wellington has a more important assignment

at the exact same time, so hard to see why he would be sent to the Gulf.

But to go with the handwavium, what happens if it is Wellington who gets killed, not Pakenham?

What impacts does that have on the next three decades of British history? Notably, who serves as PM from 1828–30? Does Catholic Emancipation pass? Conversely, does reform pass in the 1820s and is suffrage expanded, along the lines of 1832?

One other point - British divisional commanders seem to have had bad odds of surviving a tour in North America in 1812-15; Pakenham, Ross, and Brock all KIA.

Best,
 
IMO: Wellington would not fight, he would look for a good position among the delta to make Jackson fight him on his own terms. The same strategy Wellington used at Waterloo he would use at New Orleans, he would let Jackson sit in his trenches while he scouted for a place with favorable conditions. Wellington was not the kind of man to launch attacks unless he knew his opponent. AFAIK of course.
Wellington is working on a time limit of course, not that he knows it. If NO remains in American hands (and isnt on fire) then technically Jackson hasnt lost. Probably not enough of a victory to make him a war hero and president, but probably enough that alt AH.com discussions about the War of 1812 are likely to revolve around arguments over whether Britain's finest was scared of Jackson, let alone the debate over who won the war (or who started the war, or whether Canada was a recognizable political entity at the time, or whether Britain actually considered it a war).
 
The US of War of 1812 has over twice the population of the colonies during the Revolution, is far larger geographically, and is far more developed while the UK is using far fewer troops than it did during the Revolution with far less local support. Thanks to the RN, the UK can land almost anywhere in the US it wants and burn almost anything it wants but the UK cannot maintain any presence ashore for any lengthy period of time. The US was simply too big and the UK forces employed too small for any lasting effect. The Chesapeake campaign, where the UK forces at New Orleans had been fighting earlier, showed both those handicaps in spades.

From mid-1813 until the war's end, the UK stooged around Chesapeake Bay accomplishing little beside launching a few punitive raids. While RN basically sailed wherever it wanted to, UK forces ashore had a somewhat different experience. An attempt on the Norfolk shipyards failed because the UK didn't have enough troops on hand. A later attempt on another shipyard further up the Bay failed for the same reason. The UK did put 5,000 or so troops ashore, slap around a scratch US force at Bladensburg, and burn Washington, but that raid accomplished nothing. The UK attempt at the real strategic target on the Chesapeake, Baltimore, was countered easily by the US for several reasons not the least of which that the UK was outnumbered by more than three to one.

Simply put, the UK can hurt the US here and there but it cannot land a knockout blow. Both sides pretty much realized this and that's why the war ended in what can be described as a win-win: Canada remained in the empire and the UK finally withdrew from the Old Northwest.

Flubber may have been banned but he got it right. Wellington probably would have won an alt battle of New Orleans, especially if he had his chosen staff and units with him and apart from scuppering Andrew Jackson's political career it would have made no difference. Britain couldn't occupy the Eastern Seaboard even if it wanted to and burning down New Orleans wouldn't have had any more effect than burning Washington.
 
The war of 1812 is virtually unknown in the UK, it's just not on the radar at all. Even at the time it was rather superficial to the main event, a chap called Bonaparte? By the way fighting through fortifications and sieges, ever heard of Badajoz?
 
Top