Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the ineffective ''Siege of Boston'' British Secretary of America Lord Germain sacked the British Commander of North America Lt. General Gage and sent over Lt. General Howe as the new Commander in Chief along with Generals Cornwallis and Burgoyne as his second in commands.
While i realise that both Burgoyne and Cornwallis finally lost and surrendered (Battles of Saratoga and Yorktown) in their respected last battles at least they seemed to give charge and fight where as Howe didn't seem to have any fight in him as he was always asking Germain for more troops and when he did attack he botched several attempts to capture and/or kill Washington and his Continental army.
Any thoughts about if instead Cornwallis was installed Commander in Chief in October 1775 would we possibly had a different outcome and possibly be a commonweath nation today?
Cornwallis was far more aggressive than Howe and given the same situations around New York as Howe faced would probably have bagged Washington and his army. And that would'a been that.
Might you be over crediting Cornwallis? His record in the Revolutionary War includes:
The repulse at Charleston in 1776.
Competent division command in the flanking attack on Long Island.
Outstanding performance in the capture of Fort Lee
Failure to catch Washington's army when it retreated west of New Jersey
Out foxed, out marched and out fought at Trenton.
Good division command at Brandywine and Germantown
Drawn battle at Monmouth
Defeat of Gates at Camden
Bogged down by rebel guerrilla tactics and forced to retreat from Southern Campaign
Boxed in and left helpless at Yorktown when naval evacuation plan failed.
I'd rule the above a mixed record, triumphs and humiliations.
So...maybe Cornwallis would have captured Washington in Brooklyn, maybe not. It was certainly worth trying given the possible reward of a successful assault, and Howe didn't think it worth the bloodshed.
Cornwallis wasn't at Trenton; you meant Princeton perhaps? And didn't Clinton command at Monmouth?
It was Cornwallis's aggression that led to his failure against Greene; an aggression that may very well have bagged Washington were Cornwallis in Howe's place. One thing you can say about Cornwallis, he wasn't afraid to march and fight.
How could Cornwallis have known the one time a French fleet beat a British one would be when his ass was in the sling?
Cornwallis wasn't at Trenton; you meant Princeton perhaps? And didn't Clinton command at Monmouth?
It was Cornwallis's aggression that led to his failure against Greene; an aggression that may very well have bagged Washington were Cornwallis in Howe's place. One thing you can say about Cornwallis, he wasn't afraid to march and fight.
How could Cornwallis have known the one time a French fleet beat a British one would be when his ass was in the sling?
I think he was a capable soldier.
Clinton commanded the retreating army, Cornwallis commanded the rear guard and they were the only British troops engaged at Monmouth. Clinton was not present and made no contribution. So, yes, Clinton was in command, but it is like saying Lee was in command during Jackson's valley Campaign.
Yes, I meant Princeton, not Trenton.
Cornwallis did indeed have aggressiveness going for him and had he been in command on Long Island, it seems likely that he would have ordered an assault.
The Continental Army had its flanks resting on the East River and the only available option would have been a straight forward attack. The Americans ran when they were flanked at Gowanus Heights, but there were no flanks to attack on Brooklyn Heights, and nowhere for the Americans to run. In such a situation, I think that the Continentals would have put up a pretty good fight, as they did at Bunker Hill. There is no certainty that an attack would have not been repulsed at a great cost to the Brits. Howe was confident that the Royal Navy would prevent any sort of evacuation attempt, and thus thought he had the time for a leisurely, low casualty siege. He stated this in his report on the battle.
I think that the situation demanded that the assault be tried, victory in the war was at stake, I cannot imagine the revolution continuing with the Continental Army captured and Washington swinging from a rope. That it would have worked...who can say?
After i posed this question on here i had the opportunity to watch yesturday the 6 hour show narrated by Edward Herrman titled ''Liberty The American Revolution'' and so one big question i have is why didn't Howe go up the Hudson river to join Burgoyne and yes he did attack Philadelphia but he lost an army with a commanding General at Saratoga.
I will give Howe some slack on allowing Washington to escape across the East River as they were saying that in the 1770's the rules of engagement then were to firstly not shoot directly at officers in battle and secondly to allow your defeated opponent the honor to surrender in which Howe assumed Washington would surrender the following day.
why didn't Howe go up the Hudson river to join Burgoyne and yes he did attack Philadelphia but he lost an army with a commanding General at Saratoga.
Burgoyne planned a campaign which included supporting actions from Howe, and won approval for his plans from the Germaine. All of this was done without consulting Howe.
Then Howe independently submitted plans for his Philadelphia campaign, and these were also approved by Germaine, who apparently formed the idea that Howe would be finished in time to still cooperate with Burgoyne. Howe took Gemaine's approval as a license to pursue his own agenda without any obligations toward Burgoyne, who was under the impression that Howe would be marching on Albany to link up with him.
It was a grand scale clusterf..k with Germaine as the chief architect of the disaster.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,654,334 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 Foot 3
Any thoughts about if instead Cornwallis was installed Commander in Chief in October 1775 would we possibly had a different outcome and possibly be a commonweath nation today?
They would have eventually been beaten down by guerrilla warfare. It's tough to march troops in a pretty formation when every quarter mile some farmer/peasant/patriot/rebel is taking pot shots at you......
They would have eventually been beaten down by guerrilla warfare. It's tough to march troops in a pretty formation when every quarter mile some farmer/peasant/patriot/rebel is taking pot shots at you......
Often that potshotting farmer ended up skewered by a British "Light Bob" who'd circled round behind him. Actually the Brits were as good as, if not better, at open order and irregular warfare as we were. Every British regular battalion had a light company that was used as skirmishers, flankers and bushwhackers and as the war progressed entire battalions were used in the role. The British soldier late in the war often wore a short jacket, a round hat or a cap, and sturdy brown duck trousers. Hair was cut short and a hatchet or tomahawk was often carried. Remember, the Brits had prior experience in this mode of warfare in the French and Indian War. Augustus Howe, the brother of William, was killed leading British Regular light infantry in a battle with the French near Fort Carillon.
The Brits also had Tory units and Indian allies that were quite skilled in irregular warfare.
Indeed, it's easier to think of battles in which the Brits bushwhacked us than battles in which we bushwhacked them. The supposedly last battle of the Revolution was at Blue Licks Kentucky where a Kentucky militia force blundered into an ambush set by a force of Brits and Great Lakes Indians that had come down from Detroit, raided near Lexington and was hot-footing it back to the Ohio. Imagine that, the supposedly experienced frontiersmen ambushed on the own ground by an Irishman.
Burgoyne planned a campaign which included supporting actions from Howe, and won approval for his plans from the Germaine. All of this was done without consulting Howe.
Then Howe independently submitted plans for his Philadelphia campaign, and these were also approved by Germaine, who apparently formed the idea that Howe would be finished in time to still cooperate with Burgoyne. Howe took Gemaine's approval as a license to pursue his own agenda without any obligations toward Burgoyne, who was under the impression that Howe would be marching on Albany to link up with him.
It was a grand scale clusterf..k with Germaine as the chief architect of the disaster.
O.k. i see .... miss communication between the commanders there.
Also i assume that Burgoyne totally miscalculated the terrain from the end of Lake Champlain to Saratoga as i assume that while he knew it was dense forest however he must have thought that the ground was mostly dry and solid and instead it took him over a month to cross 23 miles as they had to build some 40 bridges and pontoons to go from lake to lake and creek to creek etc. Also bringing some 2000 woman and children really slowed his force down as again that didn't make sense if he knew that he was crossing some 100 lakes etc .. with full needless wagon trains going for several miles.
I chuckled at the remarks from the german soldier who kept a diary and how he mentioned that they (Husseins) were terrified of the snakes that were always crawling in their tents late at nite coming out from the numerous marshes all around them during that excursion with Burgoyne's troops.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
