Would there be a yorktown battle if....

would there be a yorktown battle if de Grasse and the French fleet had not been able to journey to Chesapeake Bay?

OTL, Washington wanted to assault NYC, but was dissuaded because de Grasse was coming from the Caribbean to coordinate with a battle on Cornwallis (digging in at Yorktown). de Grasse was only able to journey to Chesapeake because the Spanish agreed to protect the Caribbean while most of the French fleet went north. the Spanish also raised significant funding in Cuba for the mission. Let's say the Spanish, for whatever reason, don't back the French at that juncture. Reasons don't need to make sense.

So, no French fleet to defeat and blockade Yorktown. Additionally, de Grasse dropped off some troops for the land siege. Sans the fleet, does Washington stay in NY, perhaps attempting a (likely disastrous) assault? Does Yorktown simply become a failed siege by much smaller American forces, leaving cornwallis free to resume terrorizing the mid atlantic once his troops are rested and resupplied? What happens then? Most folks always point out that no French fleet means Cornwallis can be evacuated (still seen as a loss for the Brits), but is that faulty logic? Would Washington be persuaded to join the siege if Cornwallis' lines of sea communication are still unencumbered?
 

FrozenMix

Banned
Without a fleet to trap Cornwallis, he simply evacuates from Yorktown if things get bad and probably retreat down to Charleston or Wilmington, or maybe he goes up to New York and assaults the Hudson Valley, which of course would be simple to do if Washington is stuck marching North.

Winter was approaching, so I cannot say for sure what they would achieve, but likely a seizure of the Hudson Valley and possible a penetration towards Philadelphia or Albany would really make the American cause suffer. An invasion of New England, while likely as unpleasant as one of New Jersey in terms of dealing with constant militia assaults and a difficulty in establishing political control, might be possible with enough men.

The bottom line is that Greene likely still seizes the backcountry and threatens Charleston by the start of 1782, but Cornwallis being deployed North allows the British to try again in that part o the country.

There would be no point in attacking Cornwallis if the French cannot hold the Chesapeake. Maybe Washington decides to launch a general assault of the base before Cornwallis can evacuate, but to do that, it would take him longer to march down as he could not use naval transport to send the French and heavier American units down the Chesapeake. An assault of that magnitude would have a chance for success but likely at a high cost.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, the obvious strategy is what the Americans did

would there be a yorktown battle if de Grasse and the French fleet had not been able to journey to Chesapeake Bay?

OTL, Washington wanted to assault NYC, but was dissuaded because de Grasse was coming from the Caribbean to coordinate with a battle on Cornwallis (digging in at Yorktown). de Grasse was only able to journey to Chesapeake because the Spanish agreed to protect the Caribbean while most of the French fleet went north. the Spanish also raised significant funding in Cuba for the mission. Let's say the Spanish, for whatever reason, don't back the French at that juncture. Reasons don't need to make sense.

So, no French fleet to defeat and blockade Yorktown. Additionally, de Grasse dropped off some troops for the land siege. Sans the fleet, does Washington stay in NY, perhaps attempting a (likely disastrous) assault? Does Yorktown simply become a failed siege by much smaller American forces, leaving cornwallis free to resume terrorizing the mid atlantic once his troops are rested and resupplied? What happens then? Most folks always point out that no French fleet means Cornwallis can be evacuated (still seen as a loss for the Brits), but is that faulty logic? Would Washington be persuaded to join the siege if Cornwallis' lines of sea communication are still unencumbered?


Well, the obvious strategy is what the Americans did sucessfully repeatedly in 1775-83, which is draw the British inland, raise the countryside against them, and hit them on favorable ground to the offensive - or even better, draw the British into an assault on American troops on their own ground.

Given the American record in upstate and western New York (Oriskany, Bennington, Bemis Heights-Freeman's Farm-Saratoga), the Mid-Atlantic (Trenton, obviously), and the south (Cowpens and Guilford Court House, certainly in terms of the losses sustained by the British), basically the British really have no answer.

The British invaded the south for a reason - basically, because they thought the local population was sympathetic enough to the British cause to make a difference, but they were not and it did not.

The British can try and go Roman, of course, but that generally does nothing but raise even more opposition.

Best,
 
If Cornwallis escapes to the north, he's just another army bottled up in New York, and the South is liberated as OTL by Nathaniel Greene.

If he retreats to the the south, he's likely to either get bottled up somewhere (as both American and French numbers are increasing, while his own numbers are not) or get lured in land and suffer heavy casualties in another major conflict. If he's bottled up, the Americans still pick off the various remaining British garrisons inland.

Either way the British cause is losing steam (both in the colonies and at home), and it's just a matter of time before they have to cave.
 
Top