Wellington in America 1812 (alternate history) (1 Viewer)

[JFalk]

Anyone a Wellington fan here? I just got done reading a book about Wellington and Napoleon at Waterloo, but from the British perspective. It dealt with some of the political situations going on before Napoleon came back to France, all of which are quite interesting. The book is called Wellington at Waterloo by Jac Weller.

The book really painted a Hero's picture of Wellington and I can't help but wonder what "if" the Duke was sent to fight against the former colonies in America. Has anyone else wondered if the outcome of 1812 might have been different if Wellington was commanding British forces against the former colonies?

 

[sirsydney]

The outcome would have been the same but Wellington would have died at New Orleans instead of Pakenham
Steve

 

[Wraith]

The outcome would have been the same but Wellington would have died at New Orleans instead of Pakenham
Steve

 

[maddadicus]

And Napoleon would have won at Waterloo and we would all be speaking french...Sometimes ,things are meant to be...Michael

 

[wellington]

Truthfully.....England thought of both wars as small Civil Wars and therefore didn't put very much resources to them at all......if they had the outcome would have been different for the American Revolution and the War of 1812......We did VERY well in 1812 thanks to the Generals not to mention Sir Issac Brock the hero of that war in Canada and the dedicated proffessional British/Canadian troops and Native allies.



WELLINGTON

 

[Ecthelion]

I know this thread is kind of old, but I felt like I wanted to say something interesting. Wellington himself was averse to war in North America. 1) He saw no legitimate claim to American territory for Great Britain, the war of 1812 having been initiated by the U.S. for British infringements on international neutral rights; 2) Europe's wars were still considered more important (in proximity to the British homeland as well as the significant threat posed by Napoleon) and therefore merited more resources (and also the top talent went there instead of the Americas, which was also a very long overseas trip).

That being said, if Wellington had been dispatched to North America, I think it would have depended on when he arrived that would make the difference. By war's close in 1814, the Americans had started acquitting themselves well on the battlefield, which was not the case when the war began. Wellington would not have been as familiar with the American commanders and their tactics, or even the terrain (Wellington fought against Napoleon multiple times between 1800-1815), and so I think it would still be a toss-up as to whether or not Wellington could have forced American into submitting to British policies - not to mention that Great Britain was not initially aiming for any sort of conquest, and therefore their aims were more nebulous until negotiations for the Treaty of Ghent started.

But by removing Wellington, whose tactical genius proved crucial in the important moments of Waterloo, Napoleon would probably have won despite his tactical errors there - Blücher would not have had any British commander to whom he would have made reinforcement promises (as it turned out, his Prussian forces were pretty much the difference in sealing the deal for the Allied forces against Napoleon, who still almost won at Waterloo - Blücher did not run because he had already promised Wellington, with whom he developed a shared mutual professional courtesy and respect, that he would join up with him), and after being handily routed at Ligny, the wounded (physically and psychologically, since they had just recently revamped and upgraded) Prussians would probably have retreated away from Waterloo instead of backing up the British there, who had their hands full with the wily French Imperial forces.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Wellington had two enormous advantages over the french in the Penninsular Campaign, which were the difference between victory and defeat (1) the Spanish and Portugeuse Guerillas who harried the French supply lines, and (2) the fact that his light infantry was armed with rifles, while the French Voulitgeurs (why did the French call their light infantry Vaulters?) had only smooth bore muskets.

Were Wellington to have fought a major campaign in the southern United States, the Americans would have had these advantages, not Wellington. Further, as Wellington was want to ride his horse along the battle lines, and American sharpshooters were encouraged to kill any enemy officers in range, it is highly unlikely that Wellington would have survived his first attack on an American position. The British fighting in the United States in the Revolution and the War of 1812 were in the same position as the French in Spain and Russia, The British in Afghanistan (when 5 troops out of a 10,000 man force under Elphistone made it back to India in 1842), the Nazi's in Russia, the Russians in Afghanistan or the United States in Vietnam or Iraq: a hated occupying force whose every soldier was a target of opportunity for the populace they would have to subjugate.

And for these very reasons the American invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 failed miserably.

Similarly, when after an American gunboat siezed two Confederate envoys off a British ship, and the Hawks in Paliament wanted to send Sir Garnet Wosely with 50,000 men (most of whom had never heard a shot fired in anger) to invade New York from Canada during the Civil War, (had Lincoln not released the envoys) that expedition would have ended in disaster. Could you imagine 50,000 troops who had never faced a foe armed with anything more menacing than an Ashanti tribesman's spear marching a couple of hundred miles through thick woods while being sniped at constantly, only to face a pitched battle with 100,000 veterans of Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredricksburg and our Peninsular Campaign in Northern Virginia on ground of our chosing in upstate New York? Anytime you have to attempt to take and hold a hostile country, with exposed supply lines, facing guerilla tactics as well as expert marksmen who are capable of decimating your officer corps, you are not going to win. Period.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Wellington had two enormous advantages over the french in the Penninsular Campaign, which were the difference between victory and defeat (1) the Spanish and Portugeuse Guerillas who harried the French supply lines, and (2) the fact that his light infantry was armed with rifles, while the French Voulitgeurs (why did the French call their light infantry Vaulters?) had only smooth bore muskets.

Were Wellington to have fought a major campaign in the southern United States, the Americans would have had these advantages, not Wellington. Further, as Wellington was want to ride his horse along the battle lines, and American sharpshooters were encouraged to kill any enemy officers in range, it is highly unlikely that Wellington would have survived his first attack on an American position. The British fighting in the United States in the Revolution and the War of 1812 were in the same position as the French in Spain and Russia, The British in Afghanistan (when 5 troops out of a 10,000 man force under Elphistone made it back to India in 1842), the Nazi's in Russia, the Russians in Afghanistan or the United States in Vietnam or Iraq: a hated occupying force whose every soldier was a target of opportunity for the populace they would have to subjugate.

And for these very reasons the American invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 failed miserably.

Similarly, when after an American gunboat siezed two Confederate envoys off a British ship, and the Hawks in Paliament wanted to send Sir Garnet Wosely with 50,000 men (most of whom had never heard a shot fired in anger) to invade New York from Canada during the Civil War, (had Lincoln not released the envoys) that expedition would have ended in disaster. Could you imagine 50,000 troops who had never faced a foe armed with anything more menacing than an Ashanti tribesman's spear marching a couple of hundred miles through thick woods while being sniped at constantly, only to face a pitched battle with 100,000 veterans of Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredricksburg and our Peninsular Campaign in Northern Virginia on ground of our chosing in upstate New York? Anytime you have to attempt to take and hold a hostile country, with exposed supply lines, facing guerilla tactics as well as expert marksmen who are capable of decimating your officer corps, you are not going to win. Period.

Well then.....hmmmmph.....There's certainly no way of arguing about this rather emphatic post, is there..??

Cheers
H

 

[Shiloh]

Similarly, when after an American gunboat siezed two Confederate envoys off a British ship, and the Hawks in Paliament wanted to send Sir Garnet Wosely with 50,000 men (most of whom had never heard a shot fired in anger) to invade New York from Canada during the Civil War, (had Lincoln not released the envoys) that expedition would have ended in disaster. Could you imagine 50,000 troops who had never faced a foe armed with anything more menacing than an Ashanti tribesman's spear marching a couple of hundred miles through thick woods while being sniped at constantly, only to face a pitched battle with 100,000 veterans of Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredricksburg and our Peninsular Campaign in Northern Virginia on ground of our chosing in upstate New York? Anytime you have to attempt to take and hold a hostile country, with exposed supply lines, facing guerilla tactics as well as expert marksmen who are capable of decimating your officer corps, you are not going to win. Period.

I usually don't post anymore but this is so far off I just can't take it. The Trent affair occured in Nov 1861 when a US Navy Ship took off CSA envoys Mason and Slidell from the British mail packet Trent. The Union at this time would have had to use all available troop to muster 100,000 to oppose a British Invasion and there no way they would have left the Washington DC area because the southern gentlemen would have taken advantage of this to invade(to liberate Maryland). So the British would have at best, faced thrown together untrained units and whatever units that could have been transfered from the Western theater ( approxmiately 20,000). Plus in 1861 the only combat veterans the Union had were of the Bull Run debacle. All in all this would have spelled disaster for the Union and Lincoln knew it, that is why he released the envoys. While these British units may have been untested I guarantee they were highly trained and led by very competent commanders. So I will have to say this Myth is busted IMHO. Later Shiloh

 

[Louis Badolato]

I usually don't post anymore but this is so far off I just can't take it. The Trent affair occured in Nov 1861 when a US Navy Ship took off CSA envoys Mason and Slidell from the British mail packet Trent. The Union at this time would have had to use all available troop to muster 100,000 to oppose a British Invasion and there no way they would have left the Washington DC area because the southern gentlemen would have taken advantage of this to invade(to liberate Maryland). So the British would have at best, faced thrown together untrained units and whatever units that could have been transfered from the Western theater ( approxmiately 20,000). Plus in 1861 the only combat veterans the Union had were of the Bull Run debacle. All in all this would have spelled disaster for the Union and Lincoln knew it, that is why he released the envoys. While these British units may have been untested I guarantee they were highly trained and led by very competent commanders. So I will have to say this Myth is busted IMHO. Later Shiloh

And just how long would it have taken the Brits to come up with the 50,000 man force, pulled out of their colonial possessions, ship it to Canada, and march it down into New York once they decided to act at some time after November, 1861? Maybe by 1863? Late 1862? And by then the Army of the Patomac alone fielded half a million veterans, didn't it? And the Brits were still using Crimean War tactics against a Union Army that had learned (the hard way) to fight a modern war with tactics the Brits would not learn (the hard way) until WWI. And British commanders were always very competent? Lets see, Elphinstone in 1842, Gough at Chilleanwallah, Chelmsford at Isandlawana, just about every British Commander except for Hector (Fighting Mac) MacDonald and maybe Kitchener in the Sudan? And well trained? Not in modern warfare and marksmenship (they level of marksmen ship in the mid-19th Century was so low in the British military, that they had to retrain their entire army at shooting accurately and fast entering the 20th Century - sadly this well trained army was lost in the mud and blood of Flanders due to their "very competent" commanders. Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. My money would be on the late 1862 early 1863 Yanks. After all Shiloh, the handed an excellent confederate army a whooping at a place called Gettysburg in July of 1863 in a defensive fight.

 

[Shiloh]

I was using your numbers not mine. I found an article with the following numbers about a Trent war British strength.
Forces available for North America, circa April May 1862 (Heck there are 40,000 infantry just setting in England without even using any from the colonies.) Plus the British are still the superpower of the seas and could move considerable forces and material in say 6 months.
Before major expansions get underway, the regular British Army could put the following in theatre:
182,000 Infantry
26,000 Cavalry
8,000 Gunners
7,000 Logistics
2,500 Engineers
Total: 225,500
The Canadians themselves could contribute:
5,000 Active Militia
15,000 Volunteer Militia
14,000 Sedentary Militia (out of 38,000)

The Maritimes themselves could contribute:
1,000 Active Militia (from Newfoundland)
5,000 Volunteer Militia
55,000 Sedentary Militia
For another 95,000

Plus the half a million Union veterans have yet to subdue 250,000 underfed ill equiped rebel forces sitting just to there south and British naval power undoubtly would have broken the naval blockade of southern ports allowing war material to flow and Confederate forces to gain strength.
The hard lessons have not been learned yet Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, and Cold Harbor are still in the future. At Gettysburg the Union forces did to the Confederates what had been done to them, proving the south really didn't get it either. I will give you the point that not all British commanders were competent but neither were they all incompetent how else would they have been a superpower and still expanding? I also believe their tactics would have changed as they do in every war.
We both agree as to target area, must stab at the industrial heart in order to hurt the beast. The thing I most wonder about, if the British had occupied New York how would the Irish react?I believe it would have made the draft riots look like a Sunday picnic. So I continue to disagree with you but it has been an enjoyable discussion. Later

 

[Dickbuttons]

Be serious -- do you really believe the Brits wanted to send 50,000 plus men over to the U.S., and get bogged down in a two or three year prolonged war. Especially when their two prior forays into the "colonies" with the same goal in mind (1776 & 1812) didn't fare that well!!!!!

 

[Capitolron]

Shiloh - great to see you post here again. And thank you for giving the facts to the ridiculous argument that the Union Forces in 1862 could have successfully fought a TWO FRONT Eastern War.

I was sitting this one out - but what the heck

One thing our yankee friend seems to have forgotten that the command structure of the Union Forces from 1861 - to mid 1863 was a disaster. I certainly dont think that Command Structure could have handled a two front war focusing on Washington, DC.

Let us also not forget that the Grand Boys in Grey were kicking some serious A@@ in the Eastern Front at that time and if England had joined the War effort and invaded - it would have been a bigger boost to the spirit and posture of the Confederate Forces under Bobby Lee !

Its all well and fine to pretend that the Union was this successful war machine during the entire war - but it wasnt and if a foreign power had joined the southern fight in the same way the French joined the American fight in the AWI - well lets just say things would have gotten very interesting.

Just my two cents

 

[Shiloh]

Be serious -- do you really believe the Brits wanted to send 50,000 plus men over to the U.S., and get bogged down in a two or three year prolonged war. Especially when their two prior forays into the "colonies" with the same goal in mind (1776 & 1812) didn't fare that well!!!!!

No I doubt whether they would have commited ground forces over this matter ever. For good or bad during this period they seemed to be more worried about economics. So at most they would have suspended trade and harassed US ships. As for the other 2 previous forays, in neither case did they commit there full military might and in the later one they burned our capitol.

 

[Tex]

The one thing I would point out is that (granted, I don't know about 1863 or '62) by 1865, the US Navy was even larger, numerically speaking than that of England. A good portion of those ships were, of course, merchantmen hastily converted for blockade duty, but there were 50 monitors (some with multiple turrets) in service by 1865. So supposing Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Charles F Adams somehow screwed up, the South hadn't lost Gettysburg and Vickburg, and the Brits did decide to intervene on the South's behalf, if it were late in the war, they would have a formidable enemy in the Union Navy.
I have always found that ACW was the first test of American military industrial might. Before the war, the US army was pathetic and small--by 1865, according to what I have read, the US NAvy and Army were (at least numerically) superior to all in Europe. But, in a very short matter of time, the Navy had been reduced to the point where Chile seemed threatening, and the Army was again made in to a constabulary force.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Shiloh - great to see you post here again. And thank you for giving the facts to the ridiculous argument that the Union Forces in 1862 could have successfully fought a TWO FRONT Eastern War.

I was sitting this one out - but what the heck

One thing our yankee friend seems to have forgotten that the command structure of the Union Forces from 1861 - to mid 1863 was a disaster. I certainly dont think that Command Structure could have handled a two front war focusing on Washington, DC.

Let us also not forget that the Grand Boys in Grey were kicking some serious A@@ in the Eastern Front at that time and if England had joined the War effort and invaded - it would have been a bigger boost to the spirit and posture of the Confederate Forces under Bobby Lee !

Its all well and fine to pretend that the Union was this successful war machine during the entire war - but it wasnt and if a foreign power had joined the southern fight in the same way the French joined the American fight in the AWI - well lets just say things would have gotten very interesting.

Just my two cents

Ron,

Your Southern boys were winning defensive battles, where they chose the ground. Any student of military history is aware that it is nearly impossible to attack using Napoleonic tactics against an entrenched defense with rifles instead of smooth bore muskets - just ask lee's right arm, James Longstreet. Now put the english on the attack, on ground of the Union's choosing, and imagine Gettysburg a few months earlier.

Also remember that the Union would have had a huge advantage in logistics, as we could use the extensive rail road system in New York State to move our troops, communication, because of the well established telegraph system, and in shear numbers of cannons and ammunition (as we produced it right there, and could easily transport it via railway). Then remember that the Brits had attempted this exact tactic during the Revolutionary War, against totally untrained militia led by amature generals, resulting in what was at that time one of the greatest disasters in British military history.

Finally, a little reminder to you Confederate sympathisers: you lost the war.

 

[Capitolron]

Louis

Your Union Generals in 1861 - 1862 could scratch there *** without someone holding their hand.

The fun thing about what ifs is "what if ? "

As for losing the war - well, who said it was over !

Ron

 

[Robert E. Lee]

Well Louis if I remember correctly when Lee fought with Jackson there was only one major battle where the Confederates entrenched and that was Fredricksburg. If it wasen't for the blundering incompetant Burnside you had as a General you could have seized the town early and the heights preventing Lee from fortifying.

There were plenty of times that the Army of the Potomic could have crushed Lee like at Sharpsburg. However, McClellan was overly cautious and Lee was a master of strategy.

It was actually the Union which decided to entrench at Chanchelorsville after they gave up a perfect opportunity to crush Lee. Lee decided to exploit the weakness in Joe Hookers line and one an astounding victory for the Confederacy. So I really do not think complaining about entrenchments in the early to mid war is an acceptable excuse for the union armys poor management and fighting.

I think it is a bit pathetic to fireback about winning the war considering
The North had more crops
The North had more industry
The North contained all the cotton mills
The North started with an army
The North started with a Navy
The North had overwhelming manpower
The North had more railroads

It is like a citizen of Britain saying to a Zulu "We won the war"

 

[Peter Reuss]

This is a fun thread! Nothing like what-ifs!

Here are my thoughts. A British invasion would have posed challenges for the north. Whether is would have split the army enough to allow the South to mount an effective invasion is debatable given the challenges of attack vs. defense.

A British invasion, however, would have galvanized the north's ambivelent population for war. They would have had much more reason to prolong a fight! The South's 'We just want to be left alone' policy would have been less effective. With Britain involved, their only way to win the war would have been military. Without Britain, they hoped to hold off the North long enough for Northern opinion to swing against the way (which amazingly didn't happen and Lincoln got re-elected, but it was touch and go for a while).

In the end, Lincoln didn't want to take the risk so he backed down.

 

[Peter Reuss]

It is like a citizen of Britain saying to a Zulu "We won the war"

A bit of an overstatement...at least in the Civil War both sides started with similar arms.

The South did have something that the North didn't. Passion! it's easier to fight against perceived oppression than to fight to keep a nation whole. That passion allowed the South to put all their resources into the war in a way the North did not do.

Again, the South hoped to hold out until the North quit caring. They had hope in the short run where the resource question wouldn't come into play as much. The longer the war went on, the less of a chance they had.