What if the British had won the Battle of Yorktown 1781?

This post may seem a little childish, but I seriously think that Britain could have won the battle, considering they still had 7000 men at the scene. However, this would only have been possible through the use of underhand tactics. Victory would neither have been sportsmanlike, nor glamorous, but if I had been in charge of the British forces I would have been immortalised as the greatest military tactician who ever lived. After losing the redoubts and enduring a thumping from the French artillery, the British, with seemingly no relief on its way, were forced to capitulate. Then a formal surrender took place in which the British marched in ceremony before the American and French forces and trampled their arms.

Here's where I would have stepped in. The allies are expecting the British procession to march by fully armed, right? Close enough for a musket ball? Well why not march right by and shoot them! I would have promised a formal surrender to the allies, but then confided to my most trusted officers my real intention; a double-crossing. The British troops would be instructed to parade out as expected, but with loaded muskets and fixed bayonets. They would hold fire until the crucial time, namely when the column passed where Washington, Rochambeau and the officers were waiting. And then... Bam! A devastating close-range volley of musket fire all along the British coloumn, slaughtering the allied command and shattering the lines of French and American troops either side. Then simply a matter of a bayonet charge to see the remainder off the field and there you have it! The greatest turn-around victory in the history of mankind!

With Washington, Rochambeau and de Grasse assassinated, the Revolutionary war effort would have been thrown into dissary. The French presence in America would effectively evaporate, and the ever more disillusioned British Parliament would have been given the confidence to see the war through. British victory at Yorktown would also mean no Battle of the Chesapeake, thereby retaining British control of the American coast. Some say the war was as good as over after Saratoga, but I think this would really have shaken things up. Britian might have saved her colonies and jewel in the Empire to become the single greatest super power of the world. And all thanks to yours truly!

Thank you, thank you.

IOTL the Brits had to capitulate, which weakened them a lot. What'd the Americans do ITTL? Retreat with losses, or capitulate?

I have my doubts and in any case the British were led by Gentlemen who kept their word, the same as the French.

The Americans didn't quite get it (see Congresses betrayal and the convention army) and they found the French and British generals holding balls after the defeat to be quite odd (in addition to the French lending the British money and trading popular books).

It was a more civilised age in that respect.

If you want the Britsih to win Yorktown just have reinforcements be sent early enough or have Cornwallis chase of the smaller army before Washington and the French arrive.

WitchHunterGeneral said:

This post may seem a little childish

Click to expand...

It does. Trust me.

, but I seriously think that Britain could have won the battle, considering they still had 7000 men at the scene.

Click to expand...

And no hope for resupply, for food, for reinforcements...

if I had been in charge of the British forces I would have been immortalised as the greatest military tactician who ever lived.

Click to expand...

Or as the bloody fool who insured that no British group larger than a squad ever got a chance to surrender alive. The one who who insured that no treaty would ever be trusted, no loan trustworthy, for all would know that when a British leader makes a promise, he only intends to kill you.

And humble too you are.

Here's where I would have stepped in. The allies are expecting the British procession to march by fully armed, right? Close enough for a musket ball?

Click to expand...

I don't have a source, but I'm pretty sure there were inspectors who insured that surrendering troops wouldn't pull this sort of thing. Guns would be empty, and no shot or powder would be held.

Well why not march right by and shoot them! I would have promised a formal surrender to the allies, but then confided to my most trusted officers my real intention; a double-crossing. The British troops would be instructed to parade out as expected,

Click to expand...

Wonderful idea. Now how are you going to make sure that the spies who work for you, the sympathizers in your men, and you own officers with their women, won't spill the beans? Far more than one British plan fell flat from the start because the officer's mistress had a maid servant who had a friend who...

but with loaded muskets and fixed bayonets.

Click to expand...

At which point the American and French troops, armed with loaded rifle and cannon, behind earthworks, notice that the agreement isn't going as told, and one nervous private, intimidated by gleaming bayonet...

They would hold fire until the crucial time, namely when the column passed where Washington, Rochambeau and the officers were waiting. And then... Bam!

Click to expand...

You've just shot yourself? Since, you know, you were well ahead of your troops?

A devastating close-range volley of musket fire all along the British coloumn, slaughtering the allied command and shattering the lines of French and American troops either side. Then simply a matter of a bayonet charge to see the remainder off the field and there you have it! The greatest turn-around victory in the history of mankind!

Click to expand...

Until, you know, your men get turned into jelly when grape shot pours through the ranks as you men try to lower their muskets down, which isn't easy in column formation for the very good reason that the muskets are over half as tall as you.

With Washington, Rochambeau and de Grasse assassinated, the Revolutionary war effort would have been thrown into dissary.

Click to expand...

Debatable. This wasn't the only army, and Washington's greatest achievements were in the Presidency, not on the battle field.

The French presence in America would effectively evaporate,

Click to expand...

You mean all those other troops, ships, cannons, and such suddenly dissappear? And what happens to the british troops for the rest of the war whenever they are surrounded by US troops?

and the ever more disillusioned British Parliament would have been given the confidence to see the war through.

Click to expand...

Because, you know, costly and unpopular wars suddenly reverse their course after news of a war crime gets out. I mean, everyone knows that the Tet Offensive marked the turn around for the Vietnam War.

British victory at Yorktown would also mean no Battle of the Chesapeake, thereby retaining British control of the American coast. Some say the war was as good as over after Saratoga, but I think this would really have shaken things up.

Click to expand...

Quite so. Nearly every single passive inhabitant and a number of the loyalists in North America will see that those loud Revolutionaries really did know what they were talking about when they said that Britain doesn't give two damns about the colonist's life and liberty. And hey, did you hear about that other small town? I hear The Butcher burned it to the ground, after the Red Coats grabbed and raped the women after killing the men and boys before them...

Britian might have saved her colonies and jewel in the Empire to become the single greatest super power of the world.

Click to expand...

Because not only do you have a bunch of angry Irish isle, you have an angry colonial population, with political terrorism rife throughout the colonies?

British victory...

Treachery such as this would win the battle--but Britain's reputation would be (perhaps forecver) besmirched.
I suspect that some senior officers, so ordered, would refuse to obey...amd if they DID obey, would the junior officers?

And--with the British army triumphant at the cost of its honor, what action in Britain? At a minimum, the senior officers dismissed in disgrace--and quite likely either hanged, or handed over to the Americans--this would be pure and simple murder.

Could the Empire even survive if it did not make amends for this? The aristocracy and the army both would be so disgusted with these treacherous officers and any that supported them that the moral authority of the heirachy would be in shambles, the opposition would be very noisy in Parliament--a chance to take power.

If the Empire does survive this, its chances of carring out serious diplomacy with other civilized nations would be gone, British forces would not be allowed to surrender with dignity by their enemies (if at all)

Basicly, it might well have a similar effect on the power structure if, when surrendering to a civilized army, the senior general ordered a gas attack. He might win...but what happens afterwards?
And what happens in the USA?

NHBL said:

Treachery such as this would win the battle--but Britain's reputation would be (perhaps forecver) besmirched.
I suspect that some senior officers, so ordered, would refuse to obey...amd if they DID obey, would the junior officers?

Click to expand...

Which is why I brought up the possibility of spies. Quite likely, if one officer thought that it was too abhorent then he might "accidentally" let it slip to someone who could work with it. That would be a way to nip it in the bud, but for the rest of this I'll work on the assumption that this won't happen.

Another possibility is that, if the massacre happens (assume that it is a victory, but that the rebel army mostly survives and retreats frantically), there could be desertions and betrayals across the British forces in North America.

More idealistic British troops (if any remain) could become less enthusiastic in returning the colonies to the fold, and thus their performance would drop.

Loyalist militias would easily face desertions as people without rock-hard loyalties might join the now-more-attractive rebels (who have the world's biggest propoganda coup against British imperialism), or at least go home. Without loyalist support, British troops are in deep trouble.

The third, and most important, is the reaction of the "neutrals". The ones who generally acted for both sides or neither, who helped whichever side was winning or oppossed the worse of the two. After a treacherous act such as this, expect a large number of the neutral (even into Canada, I would think) to support the Revolutionaries against the British.

Imagine if the quieter Canadian sections rose up due to the outrage, drawing diminishing British troops (fewer loyalist militias) across even more land for simple occupation?

And--with the British army triumphant at the cost of its honor, what action in Britain? At a minimum, the senior officers dismissed in disgrace--and quite likely either hanged, or handed over to the Americans--this would be pure and simple murder.

Click to expand...

Could the Empire even survive if it did not make amends for this? The aristocracy and the army both would be so disgusted with these treacherous officers and any that supported them that the moral authority of the heirachy would be in shambles, the opposition would be very noisy in Parliament--a chance to take power.

Click to expand...

Very true. History has shown that armies that don't respect their leaders don't function well. History has also shown that no legitimate concern is unusable by the political opposition.

If the Empire does survive this, its chances of carring out serious diplomacy with other civilized nations would be gone, British forces would not be allowed to surrender with dignity by their enemies (if at all)

Click to expand...

While the part about surrender echoes my earlier thoughts, diplomacy isn't going to be gone forever. If Britain, through the opposition's policies, does its best to make "amends", face could gradually be regained and the act be passed off eventually to a few bad officers and properly obediant troops.

What "amends" includes, however, is up for debate, and depend on various factors.

In the case of the French troops, certain concessions are in order. Full military honors/apology for the French troops, perhaps a softer peace for France when the bigger war is over (more territories still French?), and such. Things that save face, but wouldn't radically upset the balance of power.

For the US, however, things are a bit different. When the Opposition is rebuffed by a possible last reconcilliation attempt, they could simply end the war there. It's been a long, expensive, unpopular war, the only victory recently has been the greatest shame for Britain in generations... give them their independence! They would have gotten it if not for the Treachery, and now we are the blackest villans in the world. Give them a generous peace, so that face for affairs in Europe can be regained.

Who knows how far "amends" would go? Some people have mentioned that Britain thought Canada would eventually be swallowed by the US; why wait and not give it to them now, especially if the Treachery motivated Canadian militia and prominant people to come to support the Revolution/oppose Britain?




Mind you, that very likely borders on Ameriwank, but this isn't exactly a realistic scenario, and stranger things have happened in the past.

Basicly, it might well have a similar effect on the power structure if, when surrendering to a civilized army, the senior general ordered a gas attack. He might win...but what happens afterwards?
And what happens in the USA?

Click to expand...

Assuming that this was just a victory (the rebel armies withdraw, British forces can't pursue/aren't annihalated in the attempt), the war would go on. The American forces had gotten to become professionals, so they likely won't be squashed. The war remains costly, is even more unpopular, and now Britain is under pressure to make ammends. Independence is gained, still with generous terms (perhaps even more generous, though short of revolt/massive riots obtaining parts of Canada is pushing it to the extremes).

However, Britain will be blackened for generations amoung Americans. The French-US alliance will likely continue in spirit, with the US giving tactic aid and support to French opposition to the evil empire. "Yanking the Lion's Tail" would be a staple of American politics from the beginning, and Reconciliation will be much later.

George Washington, of course, won't be present. The butterflies there are enormous. Still, the Constitutional Convention can find another chairman, another Founding Father (Hamilton? Jefferson?) would reign for the first four years, and the precedents and traditions would be different.

Resorting to treachery would wipe out what honour was brought by the war, which, given the Keppel affair already, wasn't much.

If Yorktown was won by honest means as Darkling suggests, then at least the 51st Yorkshire Light Infantry would walk away from the ARW without a single defeat to their name

Realistically by 1781 it's too late for a total victory, although if a hammer blow is inflicted against the French here, perhaps this could lead to Britain retaining some of the territories still occupied at the war's end, like New York.

@Dean jr: AFAIK Washington won quite some battles. Just from my head: Trenton. OK, he did even more as a president, but that doesn't mean he was bad as a general.

Max Sinister said:

@Dean jr: AFAIK Washington won quite some battles. Just from my head: Trenton. OK, he did even more as a president, but that doesn't mean he was bad as a general.

Click to expand...

Washington won 2 out of the 11 battles he commanded ISTR, Trenton and Yorktown.

Thande said:

Realistically by 1781 it's too late for a total victory, although if a hammer blow is inflicted against the French here, perhaps this could lead to Britain retaining some of the territories still occupied at the war's end, like New York.

Click to expand...

There is a question how much longer the American army can remain a field force, Congress had already cut military spending and there had been several mutinies including one which began a march on Congress.

If the war continues for too long the Americans may lose by default and the colonies fall into anarchy.

By 1781, the Americans had 13,000 troops in the continental army (down 8,000 on the previous year due to a congress enforced cutback and the mass mutiny of just about of the entire Pennsylvania line - all 6 regiments) the British by comparison had 47,000 troops in North America and 150,000 worldwide.

In 1781 Washington wrote that unless the French saved them they had no prospect for victory only a "bewildered and gloomy" defensive campaign.

If after a Britsih victory at Yorktown the French lose interest the Americans would never be able to face the Britsih in the field again, the army will continue to mutiny, public opinion would continue to side against the war (the war was at it's least popular in 1781) and eventually something would crack.

At best the Americans are going to lose Georgia, South Carolina, possibly North Carolina (depends how the Britsih spend the next few years until a peace), everything outside of the boundary of New York colony then (the Adirondack mountains as a boundary), New York city, possibly the entirety of New York colony, Maine, parts of New Jersey, maybe Newport, all the Northwest territory and most likely everything in the south in the Indian reserve going to either Britain or Spain.

It would end up looking something like this (grey could go either way to the power with the colour on the area)



If Britain maintained all of New York then we could very well see two separate confederations, New England and the Middle colonies.

Darkling said:

There is a question how much longer the American army can remain a field force, Congress had already cut military spending and there had been several mutinies including one which began a march on Congress.

If the war continues for too long the Americans may lose by default and the colonies fall into anarchy.

By 1781, the Americans had 13,000 troops in the continental army (down 8,000 on the previous year due to a congress enforced cutback and the mass mutiny of just about of the entire Pennsylvania line - all 6 regiments) the British by comparison had 47,000 troops in North America and 150,000 worldwide.

In 1781 Washington wrote that unless the French saved them they had no prospect for victory only a "bewildered and gloomy" defensive campaign.

If after a Britsih victory at Yorktown the French lose interest the Americans would never be able to face the Britsih in the field again, the army will continue to mutiny, public opinion would continue to side against the war (the war was at it's least popular in 1781) and eventually something would crack.

At best the Americans are going to lose Georgia, South Carolina, possibly North Carolina (depends how the Britsih spend the next few years until a peace), everything outside of the boundary of New York colony then (the Adirondack mountains as a boundary), New York city, possibly the entirety of New York colony, Maine, parts of New Jersey, maybe Newport, all the Northwest territory and most likely everything in the south in the Indian reserve going to either Britain or Spain.

It would end up looking something like this (grey could go either way to the power with the colour on the area)

If Britain maintained all of New York then we could very well see two separate confederations, New England and the Middle colonies.

Click to expand...

My point was that by now there was a sufficiently large proportion of colonial public opinion that they're probably not going to go back to being colonies even if there's a total British victory. Probably a large percentage of the colonial population would flee westward and establish some sort of "free" state in the Ohio country etc.

hmm... WI the English won the naval battle against the French, so the French fleet couldn't blockade Yorktown? That wouldn't win the battle, but it would allow Cornwallis to escape... how'd that affect the war?

You would accomplish 2 or 3 things.

1. In an age of civility you would give England the reputation of being an uncivilized ruthless nation that no one could ever trust. A rogue nation that no one would want to have anything to do with them. It would take England a very long time to overcome that reputation.

2. This doesn't mean you have won the war. Instead you have turned it into an angry guerilla war. You have also reduced the wealth and productivity of England's wealthiest and most productive colonies.

3. You have turned The American Colonists into a much angrier, much more resistant, much more violent population that is even much more determined to free themselves from Brittish rule. Even most loyalists would no longer be loyalist. The American Colonists can probably count on all the aid they need from other European countries in their effort to get rid of the Brittish and gain their independence.

4. Oh yes one other thing. For all you've done for England you will probably be called home to England and promptly hanged if not drawn and quartered, that is if The Americans don't get their hands on you first.

This is one of the PoD's that ignores not just military realities, logistics, politics and trade needs, but also places current ethics into the place of ethics of the era.

Were those kinds of tactics in place in the 1780's the British force would have been handled the way that surrendering troops are handled today. Result: No difference.

IF the British leadership had committed such a breach of the Laws of War, it is likely that the Royal Army would have hung them, lest warfare decend back to the barbarity of the middle ages. As has been noted, failing to do so would have resulted in carnage on the battlefield, with no quarter ever being offered to British forces. The poster seems to be unaware that the British forces had a large number of women & children as part of the baggage train, all of whom would become legitimate targets in the case of such treachery.(No quarter meant that EVERYONE would be wiped out. That is why the Laws of War had evolved, not as treaties like the current Geneva Accords, but as acknowledged rules of behavior.).

War is not a game. It is as real as things get. You remove the self imposed barriers that limit the savagery, and the whole of civilization is likely to follow.

You might win that battle but nobody would ever trust the British again and the war would get much worse as the loyalists defected in disgust.

Banastre Tarlton's men allegedly cut down defenceless, surrendering Americans in cold blood. News of this spread like wildfire, but the repercussions were not that great. I've never heard of any retributions or slaughters in response to it. Tarlton's only penalty was not being invited to dine with the American officers after the battle of Yorktown. Boo hoo. Why couldn't my hypothetical victory at Yorktown be like this? Frowned upon by the revolutionaries, who nevertheless are too intimidated or professional to counter with likewise tactics.

Dave Howery said:

hmm... WI the English won the naval battle against the French, so the French fleet couldn't blockade Yorktown? That wouldn't win the battle, but it would allow Cornwallis to escape... how'd that affect the war?

Click to expand...

Probably prolong the war a bit, not necessarily change the results.

Longterm effects are more interesting and bad for Britain. If Cornwallis doesn't surrender he probably doesn't get sent to India in (sort of) disgrace and so British India doesn't get one of its more able administrators right when it needs it.

Also, Pitt the Younger instituted a massive shipbuilding and modernisation programme for the RN after the ARW based on the fact that the Royal Navy had suffered shock defeats to the French during the war. If the naval battle off Yorktown was a British victory, there might be less of this programme which is trouble for a few years later when the RN that faces Revolutionary France is a bit less huge and professional...

because Tarleton hadn't surrendered.... his massacres, despicable as they were, occurred in 'hot pursuit' of a fleeing enemy... frowned upon, but not really forbidden in the rules of war... your scenario is an out and out violation...

Dave Howery said:

because Tarleton hadn't surrendered.... his massacres, despicable as they were, occurred in 'hot pursuit' of a fleeing enemy... frowned upon, but not really forbidden in the rules of war... your scenario is an out and out violation...

Click to expand...

Tarleton certainly wasn't lambasted at home for the incidents in the American War (which I believe were dismissed as propaganda or at least not considered very important). He lived into the 1820s and was considered quite respectable, best known for inventing/popularising a better cavalry helmet.

Dave Howery said:

hmm... WI the English won the naval battle against the French, so the French fleet couldn't blockade Yorktown? That wouldn't win the battle, but it would allow Cornwallis to escape... how'd that affect the war?

Click to expand...

Escape was the plan before Washington moved to Yorktown, because it was known Washington was going to march on New York, so the British were going to concentrate there for a climatic battle. Rochambeau persueded Washington to hit Yorktown instead.

When the French and American Armies turned east rather than north Clinton tried to dispatch half his army as reinforcements, and fight a set piece there, but the French fleet prevented that.

So if DeGrasse had been damaged enough to withdraw, the British may well have finally destroyed Washingtons army at Yorktown.

Another WI to consider is what if Washington did go north?