What If Benedict Arnold never changed sides .
- Thread starter Somedevil
- Start date
There have been many, many obnoxious people who have been elected to high office. We just call them polarizing and move on to which team they play for. It can be the same for Arnold.
Well. If you want him to NEVER switch sides, instead of switching twice, your best bet would be for his first wife to be a Loyalist, so he never succumbs to the traitorous revolutionaries...
Arnold distinguished himself once in the Continental Army, his reputation has been inflated by modern contrarians.
Nobody liked Arnold except for George Washington (once), this is the same dude that postwar was chased from his home in Canada by a literal mob with torches and pitchforks.
I wouldn't necessarily say his military reputation is all exaggeration, but that Arnold was arrogant and hot tempered is if anything understated. That's just alienating - especially if he spends his postwar years insisting that without him the Revolution would have been lost (aka, "trading on his military fame").
Looking at his contemporaries (so far as Arnold not being the only arrogant and prickly guy on the side of the rebellion) here to underline 9 Fanged Hummingbird's comment. The guys who really succeeded in politics are not the ones remembered as easily offended hotheads good at making enemies.
Looking at his contemporaries (so far as Arnold not being the only arrogant and prickly guy on the side of the rebellion) here to underline 9 Fanged Hummingbird's comment. The guys who really succeeded in politics are not the ones remembered as easily offended hotheads good at making enemies.
Last edited:
Umbric Man
Kicked
I always figured that there'd be a town or small city named for Arnold if he stayed patriotic all the way through, but based on the above and remembering there's no places named for Horatio Gates.... well, maybe there won't be even that.
Gates, New York is named after Horatio Gates. Gates's downfall was the ruin of his military reputation at Camden. I think the question of whether more or less place are named after Arnold would hinge on whether his military reputation (and therefore his contribution to the Revolution) is bolstered or sunk by the rest of his military career. If he succeeds, he probably would be remembered well in the long run, as he and the people who remember him for the jerk he was die off and romanticism for the Revolution sets in. If he gets humiliated on the battlefield on the other hand, he'll probably get the same fate as Gates.
Things needed for Arnold to stay loyal
1) Recognition and praised
2) promotions to higher rank
3) huge Monetary and property etc etc as rewards,
4) Tolerate his corrupt dealings like how they did to practically most officers
5) Pay his soldiers well so he will not pay them out from his own pocket
6) Give him a huge raise in salary
7) Be not in debt
I think also others but I forgot about them and to lazy to type mpre
1) Recognition and praised
2) promotions to higher rank
3) huge Monetary and property etc etc as rewards,
4) Tolerate his corrupt dealings like how they did to practically most officers
5) Pay his soldiers well so he will not pay them out from his own pocket
6) Give him a huge raise in salary
7) Be not in debt
I think also others but I forgot about them and to lazy to type mpre
The duality of man, ladies and gentlemen!
Now, onto the question.
Honestly? I feel there’s a good chance he could somehow fuck shit up harder for America by staying loyal then otherwise. Not by losing the war, but afterward. I’ve had an idea where he ends up helping Aaron Burr secede, but that’s neither here nor there. No, see, way I see it, Arnold’s a wild card now. We have no clue what he might do. Will he go into politics? Will he stay in the army? Fight in the War of 1812? Lead American troops to help Haiti fight France? Literally anything can happen here. I will note his just wallowing in obscurity after his betrayal is basically his own fault, but without the stigma around his name, he could enjoy some popularity as a revered war hero. With that kind of sway on his side, I... have no idea what he could do.
In any case, let’s debate the merits of one of America’s worst traitors.
If Washington dead in revolution, he is probably the next army chief, popular with the men, he can pressure congress to do what he wants like pay etc etc.
I am honestly going to say "Not very much if you mean something dramatic.."
He's not even close to the only guy who may count as a revered war hero, for one, and several of them are much more popular/likable than he is.
Which is probably going to upset him, but that doesn't exactly make people eager to jump the way he wants.
Why would he be the next army chief? It's not what Washington wants. Its not what his peers want. Its not what Congress wants.
It's not exactly obvious it's what anyone wants but him.
If Arnold is in army, he probably try convince Washington to adopt a more agressive strategy, instead of just running away.
Pitched battles and major engagements to try beat the British instead of Georgie's Fabian strategy.
Probably can even question Washington about the ban on blacks joining the continental army. To like have more manpower, seeing that he can question and try convince everyone they need a more agressive and bolder strategy. That they needed to destroy the British on a battle instead of running away
Even freedom to slaves that will serve the military.
Iirc Arnold's presence practically made the British tremble. He was called the American Hannibal for a reason.
Pitched battles and major engagements to try beat the British instead of Georgie's Fabian strategy.
Probably can even question Washington about the ban on blacks joining the continental army. To like have more manpower, seeing that he can question and try convince everyone they need a more agressive and bolder strategy. That they needed to destroy the British on a battle instead of running away
Even freedom to slaves that will serve the military.
Iirc Arnold's presence practically made the British tremble. He was called the American Hannibal for a reason.
Last edited:
And old one but was mone of my first subscriptions back in the day
The Hero of Saratoga: The Presidency of Benedict Arnold
This timeline was a spurr of the moment, when research for another timeline gave me the idea for this one. The Hero of Saratoga: The Presidency of Benedict Arnold Not gold but only men can make A people great and strong; Men who for truth and honor's sake Stand fast and suffer long. Brave...
www.alternatehistory.com
George Washington's strategy worked, we don't know how well Arnold would've done in the same place (not that he'd have ever been in the same place, other Continental generals had higher precedence and acclaim than Arnold) but we do know Washington was successful and won the war, his use of military intelligence being particularly crucial in discovering British maneuvers and blinding them to his own. An aggressive strategy with a rag-tag army against the British was not a good idea either in hindsight or at the time.
Citation? I've never heard of the British trembling at the presence of Arnold and if anyone deserves to have been called an American Hannibal (and has been) it'd be Daniel Morgan, who crushed a British force at Cowpens using the same strategy employed at Cannae, and who was just as responsible for the American victory at Saratoga as Arnold. A few people called Arnold an "American Hannibal" because of the trek he led the army on through the woods of Maine, during the Quebec Expedition that ended in failure.
Probably Arnold would want a more coheisive and better continental army. Or just an army where he can go ala Bolivar/Napoleon like more high risk high reward strategy
He is called by the British the American Hannibal, aside from that, he was one of the most highly regarded and respected also revered and feared generals by the british in the Amercan side. Problem with the Quebec expedition, where he almost took Quebec city. Problems mainly stopped it from being a success instead a failure iotl
Washington also would've wanted a more cohesive and better Continental Army, but he wasn't a wizard who could make it happen with a flick of a wand and neither was Arnold, that's just not how reality works.
Again, citation on the British calling him the "American Hannibal" and fearing him? These are claims I have never heard and would want proof, he certainly never seemed to have displayed such tactical acumen to warrant such a claim outside of one victory which was not his alone.
Also, "problems stopped it being a success" is such a vapid and empty statement, what failures aren't caused by problems?
EDIT: If the British feared and respected him so much, why didn't he get the pay raise and the promotion that were his conditions for turning traitor? His service in the British Army and treatment by his new comrades do not remotely indicate that they thought of Arnold as a crucial or even helpful ally.
Last edited:
thanks I remeber reading it years ago but will read it again. that tho is way more of a Arnold Wank then I have in my head. In my head I see him being a more mixed fiqure when historians talk about him. Also I feel if he decides to stay in CT post the war I would hope he would help Eastern CT become more looked at outside of just a backwater part of the state for the most part that it is now.
Technically true... but mostly because he thinks Saratoga won the war for the rebels.
Actually it was France deciding after Saratoga that now they should go to war and not care about their finances that changed that war.
I have my suspicions of the viability of the loyalist cause if France joins that war even if the entire Saratoga operation was successful. At least it would be -9K Patriots instead of -7K British soldiers if the operation worked. The loyalists tended to be fearful of patriot reprisals, and often would aid the regulars in secret even in areas recaptured by the British.