American War of Independance

[enigma]

Was having a conversation with Jackson last night about the above war. He confirmed for me (as well as enlightening me on the subject in general) that there was around 20 000 British and auxiliary (Hessians etc) sitting off on New York while Cornwallis fought the war and eventually got bottled up in Yorktown and the war ended.

What from the little ive read and what i was told it sounds like a half assed campaign, with the rebels not crushed when the army had the chance or hunted down etc etc

The question is then, if the men stationed up north had been committed sooner, some more ships sent from home so that some pathetic French fleet couldn’t squash the ships stationed around America and cut off Cornwallis supplies, could have the war have been won?

If the Continental Army and the militias had been defeated (from what ive been told, they where poorly armed and trained, had low morale, mass desertions and had little money to pay the rank and file), would have colonies stayed under British rule until other colonies like Canada, Australia etc where given partial rule and then self rule?

Or would the case be a series of "civil wars" fought until King and country released them (due to political pressure, loss of support for the war, debts, huge casualties etc) or the/a Continental Army finally beat the British led troops.

Just to note, it would seem the "patriots" (traitorous bastards :p) had around 40% support from the population and the army and militias fielded around 250 000 men over the 8 years but never more then 90 000 at one time.
Whereas the British it would seem had the support of up to 20% support from the population. Had 50 000 "loyalists" (loyal, heroic people standing up for king and country, fighting agaisnt evil, injustice and ready to put down the rebellious scum :p) and around 70 000 "loyalists" left the colonies after the war, for other colonies or the Motherland.

It would seem that the British army stood at around 60 000 men (plus the loyalists?) in America by '79.
1 third of which where Hessians, it would also seem that 30 000 Hessians where hired/raised so perhaps the number raises to 90k troops (then add on the loyalists?)? … however they are spread out in Canada, New York, Yorktown and other major cities.

Anyhoo thoughts?

[Ripper]

probably, they would have stayed under british rule and eventually be relesed, like Scotland or Wales.

[OliverMarshall]

In the WW2 History Section?:confused: :p

Scotland and Wales have not been released ;)

They just have their own parliments. ;)

Things would probablly have changed for the better and the US would be like Canada now, with perhaps the US and Canada combined for one big country? The British Empire might still be around and WW2 and WW1 (if they had happened, would have ended alot quicker.

[BillSpargo]

Bloody Americans colonials, under-taxed, over-fed and over there.:p

[Lt.Buck]

the English were to busy with Napoleon to send any of there good troops there

[OliverMarshall]

This was way before Napoleon.;)

The American Revolution was before the French one. But whaqt you said is about true, aswell as fighting the Americans they were also fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch. Meanwhile also colonising other areas.

[NicholasJohnson]

the English were to busy with Napoleon to send any of there good troops there

ROFL ;)


But whaqt you said is about true, aswell as fighting the Americans they were also fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch. Meanwhile also colonising other areas.

This also sums it up quite well. The British Empire was getting stretched thin by all these problems happening at once (not to mention losing money).

[enigma]

Bah, the Royal Navy could beet them all with their hands tied behind there backs!

Checking out some sources, it would seem when the Rebels struck and destroyed our precious tea the only war the British Empire was fighting was the Oudh Campaign (1776) in India.

This was followed by the War with France and Spain from 78-83, so we had quite some time to reinforce, divert ships and crush them ... however that did not happen.

Sources state we had over 100 ships of the line but these where old and not in good nic.

However this widespread war you all speak of is well after 78, it involves failed French and English (as in those bloody rebels :p ) attempts to take British positions but got a licking.

A Spanish siege of Gibraltar, which lasted for 3 years, involved the Spanish fleet getting smashed, and there troops not winning.

The West Indies saw alot of action but mostly involved the British showing there rivals how to fight.

Spain was able to take Florida after capturing outposts etc all down there and at the mouth of the Mississippi.

There was also the "risk" of an invasion of Albion by the Spanish and French, but there fleets got wrecked and thus no threat.

The war split over into India against some French backed Indian government, bloody but inclusive (one would imagine this would not draw that many troops or any other military power away from fighting the French, Spanish and the rebels, due to the, if they where still active at the time, East India company or if they had fell by this time, not sure on the dates there, the British India Army – British troops, Ghurkhas, Sepoys, enough to handle anything really.

Britannia then struck at the Dutch who where openly trading with the Rebels .... they destroyed them! Essentially killing their economy.

Following this all, the "big" naval battle between the French and Royal Navy was inclusive ... a draw but since both fleets moved away from the river ... another French force was able to capture it.

So we have .... Spain thumped, France thumped, Holland thumped but the Americans gain there independence as the British government voted to end the war due to the loss of troops who surrendered.


So what happened in the end .... Britain comes out on top!

France is economically destroyed, so is Holland. Spain makes some gains, but doesn’t gain Gibraltar back, has her fleet mashed up and will soon be stabbed in the back by the yanks.
Britannia loses the colonies but gained an monopoly in the trading market with the Americans.
France then fell and lead to the raise of that small fat Corsican guy :p


So in the end, is it British Generals on the ground and the Admiralty who are to blame for inept planning, conducting of the war and how they had kept the ships in the theatre in shape?
The lack of "manpower", being able to take cities but not having the troops to strike home on the rebels?
Fear of not wanting to hurt our own countrymen as badly as the people in Scotland and Ireland had been treated?

A combination of all? (as it would seem the French, Spanish, Dutch, Indian help in diverting resources wasn’t as bad as it would seem, other then the French fleet being able to blockade the port and land a contingent of troops which lead to the surrender at Yorktown)


Meanwhile also colonising other areas
Which takes what, a few ships and a few hundred troops ... not like its a major drain on resources.

[xplosiv]

Thanks for the info Enigma, very interesting ;)

I've always been lead to believe that the main reasons for British defeat in the American war of independance were (in a nutshell):

The lack of manpower in any given area, the Brits were spread thin. (According to battle, by R.G Grant) Most battles were little more than skirmishes which usually ended in a tie. (Due to lack of resources etc) It was the closing battles which truely decided who was going to be the victor.
The war being unpopular with the British people. As you have said it may have been because we didn't like the idea of attacking our own people and sympathised with them (even if they are rebellious towards the empire :P). Little backing from home would have lowered morale too.


By the final battle at Yorktown in 1781, most British leaders were ready to accept the Declaration Of Independence. With neither side able to command the resources to bring it total victory, hostilities ground to a halt gradually.

A revoulution on American soil would have given them the advantage. Although we began with superior numbers, the colonial numbers would have been constantly growing.
European support. Holland, Spain and of course the dastardly French jumping on the opportunity to hassle the Brits :P were all coming to the colonies aid. All working for the same goals I guess (all wanting their share in the time of empires).
Colonists were at first employing hit and run tactics. This soon changed when Washington hired a Prussian officer to make a professional army along European lines. Proved to be very successful. (Colonials were still known to use guerrila tactics at times though, which must've been annoying for us!).

[2ltben]

Which takes what, a few ships and a few hundred troops ... not like its a major drain on resources.
The American Revolution was more or less caused by the French and Indian War and the English taking Canada.

And xplosiv, when Washington arrived in Boston after the outbreak of the war he nearly resigned. Luckily Steuben was there.

As for the troops tied up elsewhere, that's more or less a factor of why war lasted two years after Yorktown. The British didn't even pull its troops out of the Northwest Territory, breaching the Treaty of Paris, but the Americans didn't pursue it all that much because they were breaching it as well. When Cornwallis's southern campaign broke out, Washington wrote to the Comte de Rochambeau, "I am of Opinion, that under these Circumstances, we ought to throw a sufficient Garrison into W Point; leave some Continental Troops and Militia to cover the Country contiguous to New York, and transport the Remainder (both French and American) to Virginia, should the Enemy still keep a Force there."