How to achieve a British "victory" in the war of 1812?

[Richter von Manthofen]

There are numerous threads that have a British victory in this war as prerequisite and most are clogged up with Posts that "prove" thats impossible. The original Story (e.g. What happens in Europpe after such a Story) is soon forgotten in those threads.

People who think this way need not post in this thread as I want to "research" ways to make it happen.

The "victory" need not be a total, but the British side must have suceeded in a way the "colonists" clearly have lost and the development of what we today know as the US is severely delayed and/or changed.

Ideally we could Focus on specific PODs one at a time and determine how they affect the war.

Early PODs preferred, but late are welcome too.

 

[wcv215]

Napoleon dies in Russia, ending the Napoleonic Wars several years early, leaving Britain free to turn significant strength toward the war with America.

 

[Colonel Levnekov]

Basically, just have how Decades of Darkness play out. Jefferson dies, which leaves Madison in the presidency. Then, have everything go wrong for the United States, and have the Northeast secede.

And have everything go right for the British. For example, have them sink a majority of America's fleet out in the Atlantic, and have them pull a Washington on the Southern coastal cities.
The end result is a US without its financial centers, and one that has slaveholders as a majority.

 

[TFSmith121]

Napoleon left Russia in October, 1812;

You do know the British and French fought each other before Napoleon's rise to power, right?

Also, of course, Napoleon left Russia in October, 1812; the Anglo-American war had broken out in June, 1812.

The battle of Dresden was fought in August, 1813, just to put things into perspective as to perhaps why the British were not exactly in a position to surrender Europe to the French.

But nonetheless, the concept is that sometime in the winter of 1812-13 the British and French negotiate a peace that leaves France in control of most or all of the following:

And yet after surrendering all their interests on the continent, they continue to impress Americans for the RN?

Not following something here.

Best,

 

[wcv215]

snip

Who said anything about negotiating peace? I quite clearly suggested Napoleon dying in Russia, and his withdrawal comes well after the declaration of war, meaning there is time for Napbeoleon to catch an illness and die, or be injured by being thrown from his horse and dying, etc. A dead Napoleon means the war with France is well on its way to being over, and Britain can concentrate far more of its strength, not necessarily all or even most of it, but the US could barely hold its own OTL against Britain barely trying.

To the OP: That doesn't really slow US development though honestly. Britain isn't reconquering the US, at most it would result in the US losing parts of the Northwest. More likely IMO Britain beats the US down, gives some of that territory to their native allies, then makes peace. There just isn't anything to be gained by crushing the US to the point the country is falling apart.

 

[CarribeanViking]

Baltimore, Baltimore. The failure to push the blade home there, metaphorically, is what drew the war out into a no- score victory for the defending side.

To do that, you need to change two men, one who doesn't die and one who loses his place to the one who didn't.

Working backwards from the most impressive attack on a defended port of the early nineteenth century, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Basque_Roads would have been much more of a success if Gambier hadn't wet himself, or hadn't been there to do so;

If almost anyone other than him had been in charge of the Channel Fleet at the time- and there certainly were better men to hand- Aix Roads could have been far more successful;

Thomas Cochrane would not have been sacked, and he might still have been in the navy (touchy bugger that he was) to apply his talents, suitably elaborated upon, to Fort Henry. Arsenic fume grenades or some such this time, probably.

Something like the assault on the Basque Roads, move in to attack Baltimore, momentum maintained, centre of defence fallen, peace treaty dictated at gunpoint, job done.

If Gardner hadn't died, Saumarez had been given his due, Troubridge had been recalled in time, or any of a dozen men at least who realistically could have been given the job- and millions who could have done better, St. Vincent's fabled midshipman's shirt on a marlinespike would have been more of a naval officer than Gambier- no problem at all.

The right man(iac) could have been in the right place at the right time, and outright British victory achieved- for what it would have been worth.

New England joined on to Canada? Border drawn further South? (Come to us, midwest, your coasts don't love you, come and be part of Canada, we have maple syrup.)

 

[GdwnsnHo]

So, shortlist

1) Prevent the capture of the Caledonia and Detroit, changing the fleet compositions in the lakes, in Britains favour as far as I can see.

2) Prevent the release of Daniel Dobbins from Detroit - his advice to the US Navy lead to the construction of the shipyard at Presque Isle, and appears to have been the most knowledgeable person regarding the Lakes - which could very well take away a major naval facility, weakening the Americans, and allowing Britain to win on the Lakes.

3) Kill Napoleon before he gets to Elba. It prevents the hundred days, and Britain can focus purely on the (still fighting) Americans. Bringing in the veteran forces and Generals from Europe, to improve the command structures in America - and increase the number of boots on the ground - should further stack the game in Britains favor.

Not to say that these are going to flat out win the war - but it should lead to Britain retain its Native Allies, deploy forces out west via the Lakes to assist them. It boosts their forces in the west, leaves America vulnerable to attack on the coasts, and will certainly skew Ghent/AltGhent.

Now there are certainly other PoD's, but these are mine

Oh wait, also - that storm on August 25th 1814 can just not happen too. Dunno if that helps much, but it could lead to a significant morale hit from having the capital entirely destroyed.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Napoleon dies in Russia, ending the Napoleonic Wars several years early, leaving Britain free to turn significant strength toward the war with America.

Basically, just have how Decades of Darkness play out. Jefferson dies, which leaves Madison in the presidency. Then, have everything go wrong for the United States, and have the Northeast secede.

These are both good points in how the war could alternatively play out with a set of good PODs.

And have everything go right for the British. For example, have them sink a majority of America's fleet out in the Atlantic, and have them pull a Washington on the Southern coastal cities.
The end result is a US without its financial centers, and one that has slaveholders as a majority.

Well look at OTL, everything that really could go wrong almost did. The American performance can be chalked up to gross incompetence and absolutely abysmal planning by the War Department. On the seas the US Fleet was basically a non-entity with the Royal Navy able to come and go along the US coast as it pleased.

It was on the Great Lakes where the American Navy actually made a difference, especially Lake Erie. The best POD's early on would revolve around British victories on those lakes. On Lake Erie preventing Barclay from being wounded in OTL's battle and you most likely pull off a win (especially if Charlotte and Detroit don't collide). The number of times Yeo and Chauncey failed to come to blows on Lake Ontario (with a list of absurd excuses as long as you can imagine) borders on ridiculous. However, the relative strengths and weaknesses of each squadron are somewhat known in 1813 and if the British are being more aggressive you just might get Yeo pressured into actually seeking battle.

However, let's just say that the Americans under Dearborn decide to attack Kingston instead of York. This would force some sort of decisive battle in late May on Lake Ontario. The British have over 2,000 men at Kingston OTL (maybe more with an 1812 POD and direct threat to Kingston) and the Americans hoped to have 7,000, but in reality due to mismanagement and disease OTL had less than 6,000. Let's say they arrive at an even 6,000 number here.

Now here Kingston will still be defended by batteries, forts, and blockhouses, but Yeo's squadron is also in port with the newly constructed Wolfe but maybe not the Isaac Brock (no attack on York means she isn't burned like OTL).

Chauncey has more ships, but the weight of armament favors the British 127 (or 106 subtract Isaac Brock and assuming Brock has the same armament as Wolfe) for the British (especially if some schooners are detached from the American squadron to protect the transports) and 95 for the Americans. Now both Chauncey and Yeo would be forced to seek battle here, Chauncey to protect the landing forces and Yeo to try and destroy them.

Personally I would give the advantage to Yeo, but even if he is bested he can fall back under the guns of Kingston while having more than likely inflicted considerable damage on Chauncey's fleet. On land the Americans are under the direction of Dearborn, and depending on the events on the Lake are either compelled to assault the works, or settle in for a siege. However, with a desperate fight on the lake Dearborn will probably be compelled to assault the works at Kingston. However, without the support of Chauncey's squadron it will be dicey and since he must divide his force to assault Kingston from both ends, will be in a difficult position.

Let us say then that the battle on the Lake is a defeat for the Americans due to the superior British weight in guns with Yeo choosing to engage on the lakes but feigning retreat leading Chauncey into the guns on Mississauga Point. On land perhaps the Americans succeed in driving the defenders from Point Henry while they are stymied around the town. The defeat of Chauncey's ships would compel an America evacuation but would likely result in the capture of at least one of the forces on land (we'll say the men at Point Henry are successfully evacuated while those assaulting Kingston proper are compelled to surrender thanks to the presence of Yeo's ships).

Chauncey suffers the loss of his flag, as well as Sylph and Scourge being captured. The smaller schooners Julia, Growler, and Ontario being captured or sunk. The British however lose Royal George as it strikes the shoals in Cataraqui Bay while the Wolfe is seriously damaged in the fighting with Madison and the schooner Sir Sydney Smith is lost as well.

This leaves the British with a temporary disadvantage in the immediate aftermath in terms of ships (but assuming they are reinforced by Isaac Brock then they have the advantage again) but with a crushing victory on land with perhaps over some 2,000 Americans killed, wounded or captured. This throws the Americans in the region firmly on the defensive and with reinforcement to Prevost's forces would leave Sackett's Harbor open to a like assault.

However the British may next devote their energies to assaults on Lake Champlain which may be better from the strategic POV.

For the aftermath of this 1813 battle let us assume then that Napoleon is indeed dead in Russia, freeing up British troops earlier. That would leave more time to construct a fleet on Lake Champlain which makes an alt-Plattsburgh a much less close affair. Perhaps Sackett's Harbor falls to a British assault as well (with the construction of larger vessels at Kingston they outnumber and outgun the Americans).

More speculation is necessary yes but after some disaster at Kingston the British options on Lake Ontario are pretty good, enough to really turn the strategic situation around.

 

[The Gunslinger]

The Caledonia and Detroit/Adams not getting captured is an easy POD for Lake Erie. Barclay might be able to beat Chauncey if he catches him crossing the bar (he did OTL, but assumed they had already crossed).

If the weather is a little better in the spring of 1813 Procter could have easily seized Fort Meigs while it was still being built. Or have his attempt to lure Wilkinson out by pretending be assaulting Clay's relief column succeed (many of Wilkinson's subordinates almost ran out out to do just this).

Fort Meigs does a few things, any assault through Upper Canada has to go through there. And it emboldens the Indians, many of whom abandoned the cause after the British lifted the siege. And if Fort Meigs holds, and the British maintain strength on lake Erie, Fort Stephenson might have to be abandoned for want of supplies.

Another POD is simply having Brock survive Queenston Heights. He was a better tactician than either Prevost or Procter and was more well liked the Indians. Granted, he probably still won't survive the war given how he likes to lead from the front.

Another good POD is having the raid on Sacketts Harbour go better and most of it gets burned/looted and gives the Anglo-Canadians a huge boost there for the remainder of the war as well as on the Niagara frontier.

There's a lot of easy PODs.

 

[edgeworthy]

For a good scenario, and I know I mentioned it in the previous thread, try reading Redcoat's Revenge by Col. David Fitz-Enz USA(Ret.)

(Available on amazon.com, where it manages to average 4.3 stars, possibly despite its content, the used options are affordable)

Its a heavy on the One Man Principle AH, Wellington accepts the command of BNA, with a POD based on Plattsburgh.

The Duke, who was afterall virtually invincible, plans the campaign with his usual care and flexibility. He also has more troops and a more far reaching authority. And Andy Jackson is defeated at a Second Battle of Saratoga.

The author takes time to explain the changes, not all in Britain's favour, America is able to gain some very questionable extended credit.
He has a clear understanding of the logistics, and the mechanics of, especially the British, military. (I suspect any errors are down to poor editing).

The outcome is as bad for the US as 1870-71 was for France.

You really have to read the book to appreciate it. Although you can read the first three chapters here.

 

[DAv]

I'd agree that some different personnel on hand will help. John Moore is a potential commander who could improve British chances in the region. Have him get away from Corunna with his life, and you've got a chance there. He was of the opinion that Spain was a lost cause so he'd have reason to go to North American.

 

[Alternator]

At the highest level, there's two things that must be changed for Britain to secure a significant victory:

1) They need to feel secure enough in Europe to be willing to commit significantly more forces into the American theater. This would require Napoleon to be defeated, decisively, much earlier than IOTL; in practical terms, Napoleon probably needs to die in battle, and then his army needs to be crushed.

2) The British need to find a reason to consider the expense worthwhile. They weren't looking to really do much more than put an upstart in its place and limit its future growth somewhat, so even if they were capable of committing the forces needed to utterly crush the American military, there still isn't a motive to spend that kind of money.

It's important to remember that when you're fighting across an ocean, that means transporting troops, supplying troops, waiting an extended period for reinforcements, etc. Home field advantage is HUGE and it's part of why the Americans were never able to successfully invade Canada (badly organized invasions would never have been needed otherwise). Also, over the long term, the Americans were going to keep expanding and there's not much the British could have done about it; population growth favored the USA over BNA.

For a concept that meets both:

1) The Russian/Prussian army doesn't take the bait at Lützen, and Napoleon's Pyrrhic victory instead becomes a minor defeat. Instead of another costly victory at Bautzen, the following engagement is a similar victory for the Sixth Coalition - higher casualties for the French, who are forced to yield the field.

This could lead to Austria deciding to join the Sixth Coalition sooner (with no temporary truce to delay things) and significantly speed up Napoleon's defeat. This saves the British some blood, but more importantly saves them a massive amount of money, which could then (with the right nudge) be used to pay for the war with America. By the time Napoleon was defeated IOTL and Britain could send more veterans, the American military had significantly improved in quality; sending them sooner means weaker enemy forces.

2) Having beaten the United States militarily, Britain is left with two options. If they offer a generous peace, there's no more hard feelings than IOTL, and the Pax Britannia sets in. If the terms are harsh, however, the USA is likely to seek revenge, and over the long term there's not much the British can really do about it - there's just not enough people in Canada, and their Indian allies aren't going to do much more than slow down US expansion. Said expansion could be stopped militarily, of course, but that means either a well-defended border (very expensive when held across another continent) or Round Three between the two nations.

A) If the British decide to inflict harsh terms, you're likely to see much stronger American-French ties; IOTL relations were quite friendly when Napoleon III wasn't in power, and the French prevented the British from freely restricting the American expansion to limit British power. Given an unfriendly relationship between the US and Britain rather than an ambivalent one, there's the makings of a beautiful alliance.

Where the butterflies would lead is anybody's guess. The US is going to keep pushing westward and, with their ever-increasing population, they're going to succeed; tense relations with Britain could lead to formal recognition of whatever alt-Confederacy forms (slavery was going to blow up big sooner or later, and a changed War of 1812 won't affect that), and if the French are an ally of the Union that could escalate quickly.

B) If the British are generous, or simply don't win clearly enough to inflict harsh terms, then at best US growth will just be temporarily slowed. Some of the disputed borders would be resolved more favorably for Britain, and a possible surviving Indian Confederacy would certainly slow down settlers, but the key factors in US expansion were the weakness of Mexico and the lack of population in western Canada; it's not going to permanently weaken the US.



An oddball way to force the British into waging serious war on the United States would be for the Federalists to somehow retain power in 1800. Adams oversaw the buildup of a pretty good navy, easily enough to beat back anything the British could reasonably spare in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, but Jefferson didn't bother maintaining it. Allow that navy to be improved and expanded upon, and suddenly the US is a regional naval power well able to defend itself from British impressment. If the British are still desperate enough for sailors to continue the policy with the US, the war takes a MUCH different turn - no longer a minor sideshow, now the US can pose a naval threat to Canada, and must be crushed quickly.

Much, MUCH more costly, and could very well secure Napoleon's ultimate victory due to the British not being able to bankroll the various Coalitions.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's important to remember that when you're fighting across an ocean, that means transporting troops, supplying troops, waiting an extended period for reinforcements, etc.

Sorry, just wanted to pick at this statement.
It cost about as much to ship things across the atlantic at this time as it took to move things about thirty miles overland. The British are arguably going to find it easier to supply BNA's ports as supply nodes than they would find it trying to get supplies to central Ireland.

 

[TFSmith121]

Time

Sorry, just wanted to pick at this statement.
It cost about as much to ship things across the atlantic at this time as it took to move things about thirty miles overland. The British are arguably going to find it easier to supply BNA's ports as supply nodes than they would find it trying to get supplies to central Ireland.

One can ride overland or even march overland 30 miles in a day.

The North Atlantic can not be crossed in a day.

Likewise, crossing the North Atlantic and getting from landfall inland to - say - Montreal, much less lakes Erie or Ontario takes more than day.

Costs include more than simply cash expenditures.

 

[TFSmith121]

Awful lot of great man syndrome

For a good scenario, and I know I mentioned it in the previous thread, try reading Redcoat's Revenge by Col. David Fitz-Enz USA(Ret.)

(Available on amazon.com, where it manages to average 4.3 stars, possibly despite its content, the used options are affordable)

Its a heavy on the One Man Principle AH, Wellington accepts the command of BNA, with a POD based on Plattsburgh.

The Duke, who was afterall virtually invincible, plans the campaign with his usual care and flexibility. He also has more troops and a more far reaching authority. And Andy Jackson is defeated at a Second Battle of Saratoga.

The author takes time to explain the changes, not all in Britain's favour, America is able to gain some very questionable extended credit.
He has a clear understanding of the logistics, and the mechanics of, especially the British, military. (I suspect any errors are down to poor editing).

The outcome is as bad for the US as 1870-71 was for France.

You really have to read the book to appreciate it. Although you can read the first three chapters here.

Awful lot of great man syndrome; the obvious "stick your arm in a bucket of water; now pull it out; that's how important you are" metaphor comes to mind.

The problem with invincible generals is that everyone thought Burgoyne, Prevost, Ross, and Pakenham were world-beaters at one point, as well.

When the plots turn on deus ex machina to the nth degree, ye olde suspensione ofe disbeliefe gets a bit ... unbelievable.

I mean, it is possible to be dealt a winning hand - take your pick of what you want - but it is pretty damn unlikely.

Generally, one has to work for it...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

The French were still fighting even after the collapse

Who said anything about negotiating peace? I quite clearly suggested Napoleon dying in Russia, and his withdrawal comes well after the declaration of war, meaning there is time for Napbeoleon to catch an illness and die, or be injured by being thrown from his horse and dying, etc. A dead Napoleon means the war with France is well on its way to being over, and Britain can concentrate far more of its strength, not necessarily all or even most of it, but the US could barely hold its own OTL against Britain barely trying.

To the OP: That doesn't really slow US development though honestly. Britain isn't reconquering the US, at most it would result in the US losing parts of the Northwest. More likely IMO Britain beats the US down, gives some of that territory to their native allies, then makes peace. There just isn't anything to be gained by crushing the US to the point the country is falling apart.

The French continued to fight - and quite successfully, as witness Dresden - in 1813, even after the losses in Russia. And there was most certainly more to France and the Empire than the Emperor, who - after all - had an heir by 1812.

It is entirely possible for a regency and some sort of sucessor for Napoleon; it wasn't like the French didn't have a lot more successful generals than the British ever had.

Best,

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Thanks for the input.

As far as I see there are two Major lines of thought:

1. Europe goes quite different - while I agree that would make a different timeline, I am not sure it would guarantee a British victory in NA - even OTL the Brits could have fought after Nappys defeat in 1814 - they did NOT invest too much (and I can hardly see a French defeat earlier than 1814 - at least not in a timeling that would be TOO different from OTL - that said NAppy dying in russia aor NOT going to Russia are things I am NOT looking for - nonetheless thanks for those ideas too. On another line of thought - how much resources could the Brits draw from the European Theater without endangering the Overall war effort there. IF am am not totally misunderstanding things much of Wellingtons forcesa on teh Peninsula and later in Belgium were not British troops, but Spanish and Portuguese and in Belgium Dutch and GErman troops.

Napoleon was beaten on the continent mainly be Russian Austrian and German (Prussian,...) - would 5-10K Britsih troops and supplies make that big difference? - They would make a difference in NA - especially if those are experienced troops with experienced leaders?

2. The lakes - after reading a bit about those lakeside battles I agree that there are quite a few possibilities how thing could have gone differently.

----

Things worse for the US - well its hard to believe there could be more incompetence - would different presidents mean a different policy (but would this lead to a no war Scenario instead of the TL we know). Secession of New England - would it really happen. I believe if you kill off one leader or two that might Change things, but in Democracies that might not Change the direction a Country goes, just who leads the way

 

[Saphroneth]

The reason why seaborne logistics is not as much of a problem for the Brits as it seems looking at a map is that you can carry thousands of tonnes of supplies in only a few ships, and move it at a constant speed (more or less), and deliver it with equal ease to anywhere you can get the ship. (It's the reason that coastal shipping existed, for a start.)
Land travel can be quick, for small loads - but before long you get to where you need to use ox carts, and those move slowly, especially over poor roads as existed in the North American interior in 1812.
That means that the logistics race is basically getting supplies inland from the shipping node in Canada versus getting them inland from the US coastal city supplying them. (It accelerated a lot with the Erie canal, but that's a few years off.)

The issue of speed would be a problem were the war not over twenty times as long as the decision cycle takes, too.

It'd be interesting to compare the time it took a reinforcement regiment or two from New York or Philadelphia to get to the Lakes versus how long it took one to be shipped over from the British Isles. I can't imagine it would be outrageously one sided.

 

[RodentRevolution]

One can ride overland or even march overland 30 miles in a day.

The North Atlantic can not be crossed in a day.

Likewise, crossing the North Atlantic and getting from landfall inland to - say - Montreal, much less lakes Erie or Ontario takes more than day.

Costs include more than simply cash expenditures.

Logistics question for the great and wise one, how many one ton horse drawn wagon does it take to occupy 30 miles of road space? Second question if a wagon train occupies ten miles of road space what is the maximum distance that the wagon train as a whole can cover in a day?

 

[Saphroneth]

Also I just looked it up.
It is absolutely possible to get from a ship to Montreal in less than a day even in the pre-canal eras - the impassable rapids are actually AT the island of Montreal.