Could Britain have won the Southern Theater of American Revolutionary War?

[Saphroneth]

Fixed that for you.

Best,

Pardon?
I don't know what you're trying to do with the "fixed that".
My setup doesn't require die-hard imperialists. It just requires the Continental Army to be defeated early and/or easily, and for most people to be, essentially, neutral.

 

[Faeelin]

But the American/French will never be able to take New York, so Clinton has a safe base to operate from. Can't Clinton in theory then send troops to help Cornwallis if Washington decides to head south?

Why wouldn't they be able to take it? Its position came close to being untenable several times in 1778; suppose Cornwallis gets trashed at Monmouth, or trashed at Sandy Hook, or the British troops in Rhode Island have to surrender...

In OTL there were over 20k British troops in New York, while Cornwallis was under siege at Yorktown. Couldn't some be spared?

No, those were kept there to stave off an American attack. I think this number is a bit high, actually...

Back to the topic at hand:

Cornwallis nearly managed to take over four states with under 10K troops. How much could more reinforcements have meant?

But he didn't manage to take them over, did he? The British position in the southern states was built on sand.

 

[TFSmith121]

Wars at transoceanic ranges are not cheap, in

Pardon?
I don't know what you're trying to do with the "fixed that".
My setup doesn't require die-hard imperialists. It just requires the Continental Army to be defeated early and/or easily, and for most people to be, essentially, neutral.

Wars of conquest, especially at trans-oceanic ranges, are not cheap, in treasure or blood - especially against peer competitors.

And especially in an era of great power politics in Europe that, invariably, led to overstretch and war by proxy in the Western Hemisphere - "enemy of my enemy" etc.

Which is why there are so few of them, and why (for example) the efforts by the European powers to hold on to their empires in the Western Hemisphere (absent political consent) all ended in bloody failure.

Your ability to gloss over the "how" in your final sentence above might also be seen as a fairly significant point against your argument.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Wars of conquest, especially at trans-oceanic ranges, are not cheap, in treasure or blood - especially against peer competitors.

And especially in an era of great power politics in Europe that, invariably, led to overstretch and war by proxy in the Western Hemisphere - "enemy of my enemy" etc.

Which is why there are so few of them, and why (for example) the efforts by the European powers to hold on to their empires in the Western Hemisphere (absent political consent) all ended in bloody failure.

Your ability to gloss over the "how" in your final sentence above might also be seen as a fairly significant point against your argument.

Best,

So, as usual, you're falling back on this very broad-scope view, and also calling it a war of conquest.
My whole point is to avoid it being a war of conquest by limiting things to guerilla warfare, and not much of that.
As to defeating the continental army, there's at least one possibility mentioned in this very thread.

Actually, number 2 is more plausible than you may think. During the Battle of Long Island (August 27, 1776), the Continental army of 10,000 men were facing an army of 32,000 men under the command of William Howe. The Americans lost the battle, but George Washington was able to escape during night time while a fog had covered his retreat. Washington escaped across the East River into Manhattan. Howe could've easily split his army. One to hold Washington's army in place while another was put into position to prevent Washington from retreating into Manhattan. With the army surrounded, it would be forced to surrender. Losing such a large force might force the Continental Congress to surrender. Remember that in September 11th, 1776, there was a Peace conference with the Continental Congress in the hopes of ending the war peaceful. Maybe those at the Continental Congress might've decided that continual fighting was useless, and they might surrender?

There are others - a better handled Boston.
This is the force of which is said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army#cite_note-2 Throughout its existence, the Army was troubled by poor logistics, inadequate training, short-term enlistments, interstate rivalries, and Congress's inability to compel the states to provide food, money or supplies. In the beginning, soldiers enlisted for a year, largely motivated by patriotism; but as the war dragged on, bounties and other incentives became more commonplace. Two major mutinies late in the war drastically diminished the reliability of two of the main units, and there were constant discipline problems.

That is not a force it is ASB to defeat.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

That is not a force it is ASB to defeat.

It's not even a force capable of winning on it's own! The rather poor nature of the Continental Army is well known, and if it weren't for the intervention of the French and Spanish empires (who would not have intervened if the rebels showed they were incapable of actually distracting the British) they would have been dead in the water by 1780 (IMO).

 

[TFSmith121]

Look, crushing Scots and Irish a day away from

So, as usual, you're falling back on this very broad-scope view, and also calling it a war of conquest.
My whole point is to avoid it being a war of conquest by limiting things to guerilla warfare, and not much of that.
As to defeating the continental army, there's at least one possibility mentioned in this very thread.


There are others - a better handled Boston.
This is the force of which is said:



That is not a force it is ASB to defeat.

Look, crushing Scots and Irish rebels a day or two away from English population centers by sea is one thing; trying to do it 3,000 miles across the bounding main of the North Atlantic is another.

And when the "loyal" population was close to militarily being a non-factor, historically, sort of difficult to describe the conflict as one of liberation, non?

At different times during the Revolutionary War, the British managed to occupy Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City - none of which won them anything but heartache, ultimately.

The British did their damndest to win the conflict for six years (1775-81) - and they still lost, which suggests there was something more in play than doughty redcoats and flighty rebels, don't you think?

And as far as defeating the Continental Army, considering the Americans forced one British army to withdraw from Boston simply by showing up, and destroyed another at Saratoga absent any Frenchmen or Spaniards being on the field, seems defeating such was not as simple as waving one's hands and saying "huzzah!" three times...

Again, considering the reality that 90 percent of the population of the Western Hemisphere today lives under something resembling a republican (small r) government today, as opposed to having a member of the lucky zygote club as head of state, one would suggest there was something fatally flawed about European monarchies trying to hold on to the Western Hemisphere...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Saratoga ring a bell?

It's not even a force capable of winning on it's own! The rather poor nature of the Continental Army is well known, and if it weren't for the intervention of the French and Spanish empires (who would not have intervened if the rebels showed they were incapable of actually distracting the British) they would have been dead in the water by 1780 (IMO).

Saratoga ring a bell?

Or the British retreat from Boston?

Any Frenchmen or Spaniards in the field for those examples of British martial supremacy?

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Look, crushing Scots and Irish rebels a day or two away from English population centers by sea is one thing; trying to do it 3,000 miles across the bounding main of the North Atlantic is another.

And when the "loyal" population was close to militarily being a non-factor, historically, sort of difficult to describe the conflict as one of liberation, non?

At different times during the Revolutionary War, the British managed to occupy Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City - none of which won them anything but heartache, ultimately.

The British did their damndest to win the conflict for six years (1775-81) - and they still lost, which suggests there was something more in play than doughty redcoats and flighty rebels, don't you think?

And as far as defeating the Continental Army, considering the Americans forced one British army to withdraw from Boston simply by showing up, and destroyed another at Saratoga absent any Frenchmen or Spaniards being on the field, seems defeating such was not as simple as waving one's hands and saying "huzzah!" three times...

Again, considering the reality that 90 percent of the population of the Western Hemisphere today lives under something resembling a republican (small r) government today, as opposed to having a member of the lucky zygote club as head of state, one would suggest there was something fatally flawed about European monarchies trying to hold on to the Western Hemisphere...

Best,

Sorry - do you actually consider that the Continental Army was undefeatable?
That's what you're strongly implying.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

Sorry - do you actually consider that the Continental Army was undefeatable?
That's what you're strongly implying.

Given how often they lost that would be quite an odd thing to argue.

 

[Saphroneth]

Given how often they lost that would be quite an odd thing to argue.

Which is why I hope he's not actually saying that.

 

[TFSmith121]

Which one? There were, after all, at least four or five:

Sorry - do you actually consider that the Continental Army was undefeatable? That's what you're strongly implying.

Washington's army at Boston?

Gates' northern army during the upper New York campaign?

Washington's army in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania?

Green's southern army in Georgia and the Carolinas?

Washington's army in Virginia? And Rochambeau's expeditionary force?

When? In what theater? In what period of the war?

The British won their share of military victories in the Western Hemisphere, yet they (generally) lost the campaigns they embarked on, and they lost the war, obviously... as did the French, Spanish, and Portuguese when they tried to hold on to (or regain) their Western Hemisphere empires, for that matter.

Again, one would think there were larger issues in play than simply this commander or that, certainly on the British side, in 1775-83...

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

What about the first one? The first attempt by the Continental Congress to form an army.
Or the second one.

Either the Continental Army of 1775 or the Continental Army of 1776. Are those undefeatable?
That is, the ones that I was fucking well talking about. The ones in the time period 1775-6, before the French came in, because my whole argument was that it would be possible for them to not!

And I would appreciate a straight answer. Do you think they are undefeatable - yes or no? And I don't necessarily just mean in the OTL engagements, but also in cases where there wasn't an engagement but could have been - such as one where the Continental Army was all but out of gunpowder (it happened) and a British general forcing an attack would have led to their surrender for the lack of anything to fight with?
And in general.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Which is why I hope he's not actually saying that.

Well he tends to forget that the nascent American rebellion failed to drive the British from their territory on their own (even with the substantial aid of the French) and failed to drive them from North America, which you would think would be what should happen were TF's thesis true, but of course it's not.

(Also he seems to forget French, Spanish, and Dutch funds and arms keeping the rebels afloat)

 

[TFSmith121]

The British retreated from Boston, true?

What about the first one? The first attempt by the Continental Congress to form an army.
Or the second one.

Either the Continental Army of 1775 or the Continental Army of 1776. Are those undefeatable?
That is, the ones that I was fucking well talking about. The ones in the time period 1775-6, before the French came in, because my whole argument was that it would be possible for them to not!

The British retreated from Boston after an 11-months-long campaign in 1776, true?

And the British took New York City after a 2-3 months campaign (depending on whether one considers Harlem Heights the last battle of the New York campaign or the first of the New Jersey-Pennsylvania campaign), so the historical record seems pretty clear neither the British nor the Americans were "undefeatable" on the battlefield in this period.

The British and Americans also swapped victories in Lower Canada in 1775-76, so there's another point of comparison.

What impact the tactical element has on the operational, much less strategic, is much less clear, given that the same "defeated" Continental Army in 1776 was still able to "defeat" British forces at Trenton, Princeton, and Saratoga, absent a Frenchman or Spaniard...

Saratoga, of course, was in 1777, and the Franco-American alliance was not signed until 1778, so the 1776 limit on "the French coming in" seems a little arbitrary.

Given that the OP was "Could Britain have won the Southern Theater of American Revolutionary War" with an end state described simply as "decisive victory" (undefined) and "whether the British could have won in the south and how victory could have been achieved." (also undefined) pointing out the strategic and operational problems the British (like all the other European powers) had in any attempt to achieve a "decisive victory" in the Western Hemisphere against their rebelling brethren hardly seems worth an epithet, does it?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

And the "nascent American rebellion" of course,

Well he tends to forget that the nascent American rebellion failed to drive the British from their territory on their own (even with the substantial aid of the French) and failed to drive them from North America, which you would think would be what should happen were TF's thesis true, but of course it's not.

(Also he seems to forget French, Spanish, and Dutch funds and arms keeping the rebels afloat)

And the "nascent American rebellion" of course, would have broken out absent the realities of European power politics?

Cripes, the Western Hemisphere European empires would not have existed without European power politics.

You may as well ask if gravity defeated the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese empires in their bids to maintain political control of their Western Hemisphere empires in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries...

We do all agree that the laws of physics are the same in the eastern and western hemispheres, right? And by extension, politics, economics, and international relations?

Or does Britain have some special ability to circumvent those and "throw away endless funds on profitless wars" as someone with a better turn of phrase than myself has said?

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

The British retreated from Boston after an 11-months-long campaign in 1776, true?

And the British took New York City after a 2-3 months campaign (depending on whether one considers Harlem Heights the last battle of the New York campaign or the first of the New Jersey-Pennsylvania campaign), so the historical record seems pretty clear neither the British nor the Americans were "undefeatable" on the battlefield in this period.

The British and Americans also swapped victories in Lower Canada in 1775-76, so there's another point of comparison.

What impact the tactical element has on the operational, much less strategic, is much less clear, given that the same "defeated" Continental Army in 1776 was still able to "defeat" British forces at Trenton, Princeton, and Saratoga, absent a Frenchman or Spaniard...

Saratoga, of course, was in 1777, and the Franco-American alliance was not signed until 1778, so the 1776 limit on "the French coming in" seems a little arbitrary.

Given that the OP was "Could Britain have won the Southern Theater of Ammerican Revolutionary War" with an end state described simply as "decisive victory" (undefined) and "whether the British could have won in the south and how victory could have been achieved." (also undefined) pointing out the strategic and operational problems the British (like all the other European powers) had in any attempt to achieve a "decisive victory" in the Western Hemisphere against their rebelling brethren hardly seems worth an epithet, does it?

Best,

Okay, you know what?
This is a direct question to you, and I hope you'll at least deign to answer this one rather than spinning off half a dozen rhetorical questions.

How far back a PoD do you think is necessary to prevent The United States of America being a global superpower?
(Defined here as either the only, or one of the only two-to-three, states which no other can be reasonably compared to - such as the USSR in the Cold War, or the USA today.)

 

[TFSmith121]

Definitions (just so we agree):

Okay, you know what?
This is a direct question to you, and I hope you'll at least deign to answer this one rather than spinning off half a dozen rhetorical questions.

How far back a PoD do you think is necessary to prevent The United States of America being a global superpower?
(Defined here as either the only, or one of the only two-to-three, states which no other can be reasonably compared to - such as the USSR in the Cold War, or the USA today.)

1. United States of America - meaning a nation state with a direct line of political connection to the independent nation defined as such in the Declaration of Independence promulgated in July, 1776? (see below):

2. Global superpower - defined as among the most "militarily" powerful states with which no other can be reasonably compared to - such as the USSR in the Cold War, or the USA today. (I would include the "militarily" since obviously that is your yardstick, if you are including the USSR)

3. Being a global superpower - having achieved the status outlined in 2, above.

Do we agree?

Also, of course, what this has to do with the OP's question is a fair question, is it not? You probably should post this separately as your own.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

1. United States of America - meaning a nation state with a direct line of political connection to the independent nation defined as such in the Declaration of Independence promulgated in July, 1776? (see below):

2. Global superpower - defined as among the most "militarily" powerful states with which no other can be reasonably compared to - such as the USSR in the Cold War, or the USA today. (I would include the "militarily" since obviously that is your yardstick, if you are including the USSR)

3. Being a global superpower - having achieved the status outlined in 2, above.

Do we agree?

Also, of course, what this has to do with the OP's question is a fair question, is it not? You probably should post this separately as your own.

Best,

1) Well, yeah... the definition should be obvious, though, unless you're planning on splitting a hair the size of the moon-rabbit.
2) The USA and USSR were considered superpowers when the term was defined. Let's just say "above the capabilities of the great powers in terms of influence - militarily, economically, or both". Of the highest category.
3) Yes.

And the reason I'm asking will become clear.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sorry - one more question:

1) Well, yeah... the definition should be obvious, though, unless you're planning on splitting a hair the size of the moon-rabbit.
2) The USA and USSR were considered superpowers when the term was defined. Let's just say "above the capabilities of the great powers in terms of influence - militarily, economically, or both". Of the highest category.
3) Yes.

And the reason I'm asking will become clear.

Given 1-3, above, this is your baseline question, right?

4. How far back a PoD do you think is necessary to prevent The United States of America being a global superpower?

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Given 1-3, above, this is your baseline question, right?

4. How far back a PoD do you think is necessary to prevent The United States of America being a global superpower?

Best,

Yes. (I can only see this as stalling... unless, again, you're planning on doing something ridiculous with the letter of the definitions.)