U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:15 AM
 
13,138 posts, read 37,890,642 times
Reputation: 12207

Advertisements

For those who've studied the American Revolutionary War i'm curious as to what ever did become of Great Britain's Generals i.e. Howe, Gage, Clinton, Cornwallis and others top officers after the war. I assume they were forced to retired (sacked)? Did any of them go into politics or start some kind of business venture and become either rich or poor and impoverish? Did any of the younger officer core during the war rise in ranks to lead Great Britain against Napoleon some 10 years later in 1793 in the ''First Coalition'' of nations that opposed him etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:24 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,238 posts, read 19,659,477 times
Reputation: 10225
Cornwallis served ably as the governor of India and later of Ireland.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,387,913 times
Reputation: 36331
Didn't they "just fade away?"

Edit---By the way, I just found out something I never knew before. I had always thought McArthur made up that line in a speech, and the hit song was written afterwards to capitalize on the line. But actually, the song came first, and McArthur was quoting from it.

Now back to the main topic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Bolton,UK
294 posts, read 642,240 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 FOOT 3 View Post
For those who've studied the American Revolutionary War i'm curious as to what ever did become of Great Britain's Generals i.e. Howe, Gage, Clinton, Cornwallis and others top officers after the war. I assume they were forced to retired (sacked)? Did any of them go into politics or start some kind of business venture and become either rich or poor and impoverish? Did any of the younger officer core during the war rise in ranks to lead Great Britain against Napoleon some 10 years later in 1793 in the ''First Coalition'' of nations that opposed him etc.
Cornwallis:

Cornwallis was born in London, the son of the first Earl Cornwallis, and educated at Eton. He began his military career in the Grenadier Guards at the age of eighteen.. He became a major general in 1775 and arrived in New York in 1776 where he became second in command to Henry Clinton two years later. In 1781, Cornwallis seriously depleted his army and supplies while achieving a series of tactical victories in the South and was forced to withdraw to Yorktown, Virginia ignoring Clinton's suggestions to either stay in the Carolinas or join the British troops in New York. In September of 1781, the American and French troops met Comte de Gasse and twenty-nine French ships in Chesapeake Bay and laid siege to Cornwallis and the British troops in Yorktown. On October 17, 1781 Cornwallis surrenders. Lord Cornwallis continues on to a successful military career, becoming the governor of India in 1786 and the governor-general of Ireland in 1797. He returned to India in 1805, where he died quietly.

Gage:

Gage was born in Firle, England, the descendant of a French nobleman who came to England with William the Conqueror. He was educated at Westminister School and became an ensign in the British Army in 1740. In 1751, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and was ordered to America to serve under General Edward Braddock in the French and Indian War (part of the Seven Years War). He served in Braddock's disastrous Pennsylvania campaign of 1755, becoming an acquaintance of George Washington during the expedition. After the French surrender in 1760 Gage became governor of Montreal. In 1761 he was promoted to major general, and in 1763 he became commander-in-chief in America, assuming his post in New York City. In 1774, after a brief stay in England, Gage was sent back to America as both commander-in-chief and governor of Massachusetts, serving in this capacity during the events leading to the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Out of favor with the English government after failing to quell the American rebellion, Gage was recalled to England in late 1775. Gage endured years of financial and personal hardship until he was made a full general when Germain left office in 1782. His papers, including many military and political documents, are housed in the Clements Library.

Clinton:

Henry Clinton replaced William Howe as Commander of the British forces in America in 1778. During the next four years, he disputed admirals, generals, and Secretary of State George Germain, and became known for his intelligent planning and ineffectual execution. In May 1782, several months after Yorktown, Clinton turned his command over to Sir Guy Carleton. Clinton spent most of his postwar years fighting a paper war with his enemies in the army, navy, and government.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 13,013,789 times
Reputation: 10088
I've long wondered what might have happened had the British generals and admirals cooperated better, and spent less time feuding and asking to go home. It might have gone very hard with the Colonials. For the first three years of conflict the British had the golden advantage of swift and unfettered sea movement between theatres, giving them a strategic redeployment capacity denied to the Colonials.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2009, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Bolton,UK
294 posts, read 642,240 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
I've long wondered what might have happened had the British generals and admirals cooperated better, and spent less time feuding and asking to go home. It might have gone very hard with the Colonials. .
I think the outcome would have been just the same as history recorded.
If the British had won the war of independence, the colonials would have took up guerrilla(sp) warfare,which over the months even years would have worn the British army down. dont forget, the British could not rely on reinforcements coming in 24 hours. more like 3 months
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2009, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 13,013,789 times
Reputation: 10088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotter67 View Post
I think the outcome would have been just the same as history recorded.
If the British had won the war of independence, the colonials would have took up guerrilla(sp) warfare,which over the months even years would have worn the British army down. dont forget, the British could not rely on reinforcements coming in 24 hours. more like 3 months
I'm not so sure that the Colonials wouldn't have eventually grown weary and thrown in the towel. It seems fairly clear to me that absent French intervention, the Colonial cause could have failed in 1778; had the Royal Navy succeeded in taking off Lord Cornwallis from Yorktown, one of the stronger Crown forces would have been preserved for action, and at a time when the Colonials were desperately fatigued of war. One should remember how difficult it was to keep the militias, Rebel and Tory alike, in the field for any length of time. My point is that that at several points, the Colonial cause was in dire peril. Better cooperation and energy from the British generals could have tipped the scales too far for even Washington's charisma to retrieve.

My read of the British home perspective would probably be the strongest argument for the idea that holding onto the Colonies was ultimately a doomed hope. It seems (you'd probably know better than I) that no small percentage of the English public and Parliament considered the war fratricidal--Briton killing Briton, if you will. It was also a costly struggle for a British nation with a significant national debt, the sort of slow, never-healing abscess that debilitates desire to continue the struggle (as modern Americans ought to know from Vietnam, for example). One could take the position that, so long as significant action continued (even large-scale guerrilla action, which I'm not convinced would have continued), the British would eventually say: "Oh, very well. If you insist upon foregoing the benefits of membership in the world's most prosperous mercantile power, then we shan't detain you a moment longer. Sod off at your leisure, and let us see how well you fare with no one to look after you except those you can influence with your non-existent naval power. You wanted a competitor instead of a partner; let it be so, and devil take the hindmost."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2009, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Bolton,UK
294 posts, read 642,240 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
My read of the British home perspective would probably be the strongest argument for the idea that holding onto the Colonies was ultimately a doomed hope. It seems (you'd probably know better than I) that no small percentage of the English public and Parliament considered the war fratricidal--Briton killing Briton, if you will. It was also a costly struggle for a British nation with a significant national debt, the sort of slow, never-healing abscess that debilitates desire to continue the struggle (as modern Americans ought to know from Vietnam, for example). One could take the position that, so long as significant action continued (even large-scale guerrilla action, which I'm not convinced would have continued), the British would eventually say: "Oh, very well. If you insist upon foregoing the benefits of membership in the world's most prosperous mercantile power, then we shan't detain you a moment longer. Sod off at your leisure, and let us see how well you fare with no one to look after you except those you can influence with your non-existent naval power. You wanted a competitor instead of a partner; let it be so, and devil take the hindmost."
Good reply J_k_k.

If I'm honest ,we learned very little of the war of independence when i was at school. (my username is the date of my birth) so it was awhile ago what i learned about the war was from books.

For sure the war was Briton V Briton,the colonials still classed themselves as Englishmen. I still think if the colonials did take up Guerrilla warfare for let say 3 years, it would have worn down the British. why? The British were already showing interest in today's South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, that meant more manpower and more armies onto foreign soil.

Anyway, if i could change History all you colonials would still be Singing God Save the Queen
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2009, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 13,013,789 times
Reputation: 10088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotter67 View Post
For sure the war was Briton V Briton,the colonials still classed themselves as Englishmen. I still think if the colonials did take up Guerrilla warfare for let say 3 years, it would have worn down the British. why? The British were already showing interest in today's South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, that meant more manpower and more armies onto foreign soil.

Anyway, if i could change History all you colonials would still be Singing God Save the Queen
The funny part is that people here still suppose that Paul Revere rode around yelling "The British are coming!" That would make as much sense as riding around Seattle crying "The Americans are coming!" What he most likely said was "The Regulars are out," because 'regulars' made a distinction between temporary militia serving in an emergency and full-time members of an army. There yet being no Continental Regulars, 'the Regulars' could mean only one thing. It was time to gather at Lexington so that we could scatter with the first volley and make an ignominious showing in our the war's first confrontation at arms.

It is interesting how swiftly the rest of the world began to call us 'Americans'. I see numerous pre-1800 references naming us that. Now, of course, we get flak from the other peoples of the Americas, notably Canadians, who in some cases think we just arrogated that label to ourselves in ignorance of all the other citizens of the Americas. If we did so, we had a lot of help. Plus, we were one of the first nations in the Americas (might actually have been the first) to obtain independence from European colonizers.

I don't know the words to 'God Save the Queen,' but I did once stand at attention as it was played during a Royal visit to my college campus (the officer cadets were invited to volunteer as auxiliary security to help the Federal security contingent, it being reasonable to suppose that we probably would not cause an incident, and happening to have uniforms). I could see the Queen as her entourage passed by my position on the way out, though not very well, as you aren't supposed to move your eyes at Parade Rest. She was wearing one of those blue dog dish hats. I had not realized a) how short she was, and b) how forceful a speaker she could be. In pictures she tends to resemble an exceptionally dignified and well-dressed grandma, but she doesn't sound like the average granny. Or didn't in 1983 (I believe it was). Obviously she was a shade younger then.

My ancestors would approve of your sentiment, at least on my mom's mom's side. (The Irish on my father's, I suspect, not so much.) 29th (Worcestershire) Foot, spent all their time on shipboard just missing first the War of 1812 and then Waterloo. That branch didn't come to the USA until about 1840, whereupon my distinguished British veteran ancestor proceeded to drink himself to death in Wisconsin (a tradition, it seems, that the state has continued with great gusto to this day).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2009, 04:28 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,238 posts, read 19,659,477 times
Reputation: 10225
The British were better at guerilla war than the Americans were. Oriskany, Blue Licks, Cherry Valley, Wyoming Valley, Crawford's defeat---these should ring a bell.

Had the war wound down to a guerilla stage the Brits would then have had the time are resources to set light bobs, Tory rangers and Indians on the loose big time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:56 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top