A rare Alt-Hist question by CdM

[CountDeMoney]

What if the Duke of Wellington was born a generation earlier, and was given the North American command to crush the rebels during the American War for Independence?  Would he have made a difference?  Would he have destroyed Washington and Greene?  Would Alexander Hamilton have stabbed him in the face? Does it even matter?

[The Brain]

Jaron.

Would Wellington as PM have handled the American question better?

[Josquius]

One man does not make a difference.

[The Brain]

One man does not make a difference.

3 men - 2 men = ?

[CountDeMoney]

One man does not make a difference.

On the battlefield it does.

[Faeelin]

I realize this is a trap of some sort, but really, why the Cornwallis hate? He was a perfectly capable commander, as his successes in India demonstrate.

[jimmy olsen]

I think it would have made a difference, Howe could have crushed Washington if he had gone in for the kill.

[Viking]

Beating the Rebels in the field was never sufficient, as History did show us. The British did almost routinely beat the colonials at will. Having a non-chronological Wellington or Wolf command the British forces instead of Cornwallis probably would not have made much of a difference. Replacing Gage and Lord North with more a diplomatic commander/leader however might have had a real effect. 

[CountDeMoney]

The British did almost routinely beat the colonials at will.

That is an inaccurate statement.

[jimmy olsen]

Beating the Rebels in the field was never sufficient, as History did show us. The British did almost routinely beat the colonials at will. Having a non-chronological Wellington or Wolf command the British forces instead of Cornwallis probably would not have made much of a difference. Replacing Gage and Lord North with more a diplomatic commander/leader however might have had a real effect.

Washington and his army could have been annihilated at New York, that would have ended the rebellion right there.

[grumbler]

Washington and his army could have been annihilated at New York, that would have ended the rebellion right there.
[/quote]Only if they stayed and fought, as they did, which they might not have done had they faced a different commander.

The bottom line is that Wellington's strength was battlefield command, and the Brits had plenty of good battlefield commanders as it was.  Wellington would not likely have lost like Burgoyne, perhaps.

Now, if you replace Gates with Arnold, you have a whole new ball game.

[Razgovory]

One man does not make a difference.

3 men - 2 men = ?

[jimmy olsen]

Only if they stayed and fought, as they did, which they might not have done had they faced a different commander.

Politically, wouldn't it have been necessary for Washington to attempt to defend New York, no matter who was in command of the British?

[Alatriste]

One man does not make a difference.

Oh yes, he does. Comparing the performance of British armies during the wars of the Revolution and the Empire (1792-1815) with and without Wellington in command is very instructive at the respect... and to quote Boney himself, "in war it's not men, but the man who counts. It wasn't the army that protected Prussia for seven years: It was Frederick the Great".

* * *

Regarding the American War, the British didn't lack victories in the field but couldn't destroy the rebel armies nor profit from those victories in a political sense, and I can't see how Wellington could have changed that.

- Logistics would tie his hands just like Gage's, Howe's, Clinton's and Cornwallis' were; Wellington was if anything more cautious than them regarding supplies and conservation of forces.

- The rebels would still have all their advantages. Unlimited space to retreat and rebuild, local recruits, international support, quite a few sympathizers in Britain, and all the time in the world.

- London's policy would be the same, with all its bad influence on the field and on the American Loyalists.

- And the strategic situation would be the same too. Fighting not only against the rebels, but against France, Spain and Holland too, faced with the hostility of most other European powers, and hamstrung from the start by a difficult economic situation, the British simply did never had the numbers needed to occupy the vast area covered by the 13 colonies, much less to conquer them, and even less to accomplish such a task and at the same time defend Canada, the Caribbean, Gibraltar, Minorca, India... it was hopeless.

Only early political concessions could have ended the rebellion, even an improbable crushing military defeat in 1775 or 1776 would have meant little in the long run. And even if somehow the British had managed to suppress the reballion they would only have succeeded at making America a festering wound garrisoned at huge expense, a permanent source of weakness for Britain, the Loyalists would have to be rewarded for their support... and still the damned colonists would keep trying with all their might to avoid paying taxes!

[Richard Hakluyt]

For a British "victory" I think we would need Pitt the Younger to have been earlier too. The scenario then runs like this, Wellington scores some early victories and gives the colonials a bloody nose. Pitt then offers an olive branch and makes many generous concessions to the colonials (recall that Pitt and others were against the war as they believed that the colonials had indeed been badly treated). Let us imagine that Pitt and his government manage to come up with something like Dominion status for the American colonies, maybe this could have been the basis for an arrangement acceptable to all.