PVT641 | 03 Oct 2018 1:38 p.m. PST |
Gentlemen, How differently do you think that the 1777 Saratoga Campaign would have played out if Carleton had remained in command and not been usurped by Burgoyne? |
cavcrazy | 03 Oct 2018 1:55 p.m. PST |
Carleton was a capable officer for sure, but I don't know how you can ask this question. There is really nothing in his personality that says he would have been any better. It was Gentleman Johnny's campaign to lose from the very start. |
Pan Marek | 03 Oct 2018 2:03 p.m. PST |
With Howe going to Philly, instead of attempting to link up with the northern army, the campaign was doomed from the start. |
advocate | 03 Oct 2018 2:04 p.m. PST |
Having just been reading about it, it seems that Gates, and the American army, were on their top game. Another British commander might have managed to get a decent proportion of his army back to Tinconderoga. Frankly, the British attempted too much with too few, having badly underestimated the opposition. I'm struggling to see how the British might have got to Albany and held it, without the Howe coming there as well. And then what is Washington doing? |
historygamer | 03 Oct 2018 3:21 p.m. PST |
Ditto, ditto and ditto. It was under-resourced and Howe pretty sold them out. That said, even if Howe had stayed there, the Hudson Valley strategy was flawed anyway. |
Bill N | 03 Oct 2018 5:32 p.m. PST |
The British army was able to move up the Hudson and Lakes in their campaign against Montreal in the FIW. American forces were able to do the same thing in their campaign against Quebec in 1775. I don't accept that it wasn't possible for a force from Canada to move in the reverse direction in 1777. Howe's decision to move on Philadelphia was a major blow to the chances of success by Burgoyne. A successful advance on Albany was still possible. There are four variables that I can see increasing the chances of a British success: 1) St. Leger's command is more successful in creating a diversion; 2) The Americans are less successful in mobilizing Continental and militia to reinforce the main army and to threaten British communications; 3) the British are more successful in moving supplies from Canada to the British forces on the Hudson, and 4) The British are able to mobilize sufficient troops to protect their line of communications from the Hudson to the lakes to Canada without weakening their field army. If Carleton as overall commander in Canada is also commanding the advance on Albany then maybe resources in British Canada get reallocated to improve #3 and #4. |
historygamer | 03 Oct 2018 7:36 p.m. PST |
" I don't accept that it wasn't possible for a force from Canada to move in the reverse direction in 1777." I doubt anyone questions that an army could move through the area. Then what? As it turned out the British could never keep a garrison at Fort Ti, let alone the wilds between Albany and Canada. I think Greene proved how vulnerable isolated garrisons were, and he didn't even win most of his battles. |
Winston Smith | 03 Oct 2018 7:59 p.m. PST |
Carleton was not enthusiastic about the Saratoga campaign. (I really doubt anyone called it "The Saratoga Campaign" before it started…) How could anyone with no faith in it do better? |
Old Contemptibles | 03 Oct 2018 8:18 p.m. PST |
|
Old Contemptibles | 03 Oct 2018 8:26 p.m. PST |
Burgoyne's hubris and Howe's poor judgment. Brandywine a pyrrhic victory. The capture of Philadelphia, meaningless. |
advocate | 04 Oct 2018 1:52 a.m. PST |
And the Americans. Just maybe if Gates had not got the command, and the New England militia didn't turn out, and the British did not constantly under-estimate them THEN other British choices might have helped. You can say much the same for the whole war, replacing Gates with Washington. |
42flanker | 04 Oct 2018 2:30 a.m. PST |
"I don't accept that it wasn't possible for a force from Canada to move in the reverse direction in 1777."" Is that not that the presumption that led the British into trouble in the first place ? At what point did it become invalid? Can we identify a key decision that rendered it so (if we leave Howe out of it for the moment)? |
historygamer | 04 Oct 2018 6:45 a.m. PST |
"Burgoyne's hubris and Howe's poor judgment." Well, in Burgoyne's defense, his column of troops was dependent on forces from NY coming to meet him. Without that happening the plan had no chance of working. I think the one take-away from the war is that it lacked an in-theater overall commander – someone who commanded both the Navy and the Army. I believe Gage was the last C-in-C North America, at least for the army. Carleton was on the outs politically, IIRC. Things worked well enough when the Howe brothers were there, but once they both left it quickly fell apart. |
PVT641 | 04 Oct 2018 7:43 a.m. PST |
Personally I think that No the campaign would not have succeeded as far as taking Albany, But I think that Carleton would have been more cautious and we might not have seen the capitulation of the Army. Instead a return to Canada. Maybe hold Ti. Remain a threat against the American interior. Maybe delay French intervention. |
Bill N | 04 Oct 2018 8:33 a.m. PST |
Is that not that the presumption that led the British into trouble in the first place? I would argue that what got Burgoyne into trouble was the assumption that he could get through to Albany with the resources that he had. At what point did it become invalid? Late August/early September. At that point he is facing a growing Northern Army, he isn't getting enough supplies from Canada to sustain his army and he doesn't have enough troops to both protect his communications back to Canada while simultaneously advancing against the Northern Army. |
Pan Marek | 04 Oct 2018 8:35 a.m. PST |
Even if the British took Albany, what good would it do them? They would have been stuck there through an up-state NY winter. What do they eat? |
historygamer | 04 Oct 2018 8:53 a.m. PST |
From my reading it was more of Washington's attack on Germantown that brought about French intervention than Saratoga. The French, Spanish and Dutch were all just waiting to jump into the fray. |
Winston Smith | 04 Oct 2018 9:12 a.m. PST |
Interesting. I had always read the opposite. But it makes sense. Germantown did show there was still a lot of fight in the main army. This is of course similar to Trenton Princeton. |
42flanker | 04 Oct 2018 10:12 a.m. PST |
Germantown was a British victory following hard on Brandywine Creek and the occupation of Philadelphia, the seat of Congress ( even if we know events ultimately rendered these successes meaningless). Surely, the surrender of a British General with his entire expeditionary force, was more persuasive than an ambitious but bungled attack which was quickly repulsed, despite the complacency that allowed Washington's initial assault to push back the British outposts. |
historygamer | 04 Oct 2018 11:45 a.m. PST |
I've read that opinion regarding Germantown in some recent books (or books I recently read). I must say it did surprise me a bit as well as Saratoga was significant. I think Germantown showed the French that the American army could be beaten, but come back and mounted a pretty complicated offensive – too complicated, but none the less showed resolve. This a year after the brilliant Trenton/Princeton battles driving the British out of NJ. Might have been in "The Men Who Lost North America" but I'd have to check. I also believe I have read that thought in more than one book too. |
42flanker | 04 Oct 2018 12:32 p.m. PST |
Well, not entirely out of NJ…. |
Winston Smith | 04 Oct 2018 2:44 p.m. PST |
I would say that the French were looking for an excuse. Germantown was October 4, 1777. Saratoga battles were Sept 19 and Oct 7, 1777. It's very likely that news of both arrived on the same ship in France a few weeks later. (No email, radio or telegraph in 1777.) Even if not on same ship, probably within a week. What's the news? A British force of 7000 men is forced to surrender. That's a pretty small "army" by European standards. An American army roughly twice the size is forced from Philadelphia but keeps on fighting. That's very intriguing. Still fighting even after the capital falls? Hmmmm…. "Very interesting. Revenge! (That's such a French sounding word.) maybe we can get back all that stuff we lost 20 years ago! Canada too! Have to think about that one." My point is that the revanchist French were spoiling for a fight with the high and mighty British, and both Saratoga and Germantown had salutary effects. Both battles showed that the Americans were not going to give in, and most importantly would tie up most of the British while France (and Spain and the Dutch Republic could plot mischief elsewhere. Which they did. Was it Brendan Morrissey (our own Supercilious Maximus) who wrote a nice big book on how Global the American Revolution really was? Bring him back! |
Normal Guy | 04 Oct 2018 8:38 p.m. PST |
Where did Super go? His insights were excellent. |
nevinsrip | 04 Oct 2018 9:45 p.m. PST |
So I asked an expert Hi Bill, I have some thoughts on this (not surprisingly!):- First, we need to remember that the original commander of the expedition was supposed to have been Cornwallis; I rather suspect that he, or Carleton if he had "pulled rank" and gone along, would have moved a bit faster, which might have helped to overwhelm Schuyler's rather meagre forces earlier. That said, the two most recent books on the campaign, including Luzader's excellent work, both exonerate Burgoyne and re-evaluate his "mistakes" as the only viable options open to him. I agree that once Howe decided to play his own game, there was little chance of success, although Clinton's expedition into The Hudson Highlands caused a bit of panic; Albany was just too far for the northern Crown army to get to on its own, regardless of who was in command. More interesting is the question of how much the American Lake Champlain fleet contributed to British failure – not in the massively over-hyped (and completely worthless) battle that Arnold force on his men, which delayed Carleton a whole 24 hours, but in its creation and continued existence that delayed the British capture of Crown Point and Ticonderoga for almost a year. That said, what would the British have done at Fort Ticonderoga over the winter of 1776-77 that would have changed the outcome of the later campaign? It's only supply route from Canada ices up from north to south (cutting it off, whilst leaving besieging forces free to operate), then thaws from south to north (ditto), so any garrison would have been at the mercy of the winter and an emboldened American force anyway, possibly leading to the loss of more troops. I think where Burgoyne lost the game for the Crown was in persuading Germain to entertain, let alone implement, the plan in the first place. Cheers, Bill |
nevinsrip | 04 Oct 2018 10:23 p.m. PST |
Personally, I think that without support from the South the expedition was doomed to failure, no matter who commanded it. I read this over the summer. "With Musket and Tomahawk. The Saratoga Campaign in the Wilderness War of 1777" by Michael O. Logusz I found it to be a bit odd, with some strange observations throughout the book. It's fairly sympathetic to Burgoyne and more or less absolves him of blame. One passage mentioned that the Americans had left notes on the battlefield saying "It ain't over" and that Burgoyne felt a chill up his spine when he encountered one. Huh? How would the author know that? There were a few of these thrown in randomly, throughout the work. As for the book, it was light summer reading in my opinion. I enjoyed it and if you're new to the Campaign, then this would be a good first book to read. Once you wish to delve deeper into the subject then it's time for Luzader and Ketchum. I'm an easy sale, as I'll buy almost any new book concerning the AWI. Anyone else read it? What did you think? |
Winston Smith | 05 Oct 2018 8:17 a.m. PST |
No matter who commanded the expedition, its success depended on the army in New York being the southern jaw of the pincers. |
Winston Smith | 05 Oct 2018 2:27 p.m. PST |
Update. Burgoyne surrendered October 17. So, news of Saratoga AND Germantown could very well have arrived in France simultaneously. The Wikipedia entry mentions that the strength of Gates' army increased by 3000 men from Bemis Heights to the surrender. Ketchum adds that more were arriving daily. With St Leger being stymied, and Howe swanning off to Philadelphia, I don't see how any other British General could have done better. Carleton had no hope for the project in the first place. Cornwallis was with Howe, using all the best troops. Wellington was only 8 years old. |
historygamer | 05 Oct 2018 5:21 p.m. PST |
As in many cases in history, it was a conflict that did not have a military solution. |
advocate | 17 Oct 2018 5:10 a.m. PST |
I don't know, a military solution worked for the Americans… |
historygamer | 17 Oct 2018 5:46 a.m. PST |
Well, actually it was as much of a political solution as a military one. Historians have rightly pointed out that the rebel movement had seized the reins of power – local and state government, the courts, etc., by the time the Crown mustered its army around NYC in 1776. Washington's army (like others) was repeatedly defeated on the battlefields, yet that didn't advance the Royal cause, though it came close – likely the closest point came in the winter of 1776, or late in the war when the value of paper money collapsed – by then it was a race to see who would outlast the other side, not necessarily win on the battlefield as that moment had slipped away in 1776-1777 for the Crown. |
23rdFusilier | 31 Oct 2018 8:21 a.m. PST |
"How differently do you think that the 1777 Saratoga Campaign would have played out if Carleton had remained in command and not been usurped by Burgoyne?" Yes, I think it would have been very different. Judging his Carleton operated in 1775 and 1776 he was more cautious then Burgoyne, and much more aware of his supply issues. He was aware, in May 1777 by letter from Howe (which he passed to Burgoyne) the Howe was moving against Philadelphia. So he would have tempered a advance south with the knowledge that little help would be coming from that direction. I think you would have seen Fort Ticonderoga captured and then Carleton would have consolidated his position on the lake Champlain. No advance towards Albany. Does not sound exciting but then there still would have been a strong British presence in the north and no disaster at Saratoga. |
PVT641 | 31 Oct 2018 10:38 a.m. PST |
23rd Fusilier. I agree totally. |
Winston Smith | 31 Oct 2018 2:25 p.m. PST |
That assumes that Schuyler/Gates/Arnold would not have come for him where he was. Assuming no losses for expeditions that did not take place (Bennington) because he was cautious, the American army was still there and growing. Ketchum gives American numbers after the Saratoga battles that show the British force outnumbered 3:1. With no losses at Bennington, Bemis or Freeman's Farm, Carleton would have still been outnumbered 2:1. If nothing else, this gives us some nice what-if battles to fight if we're tired of doing Freeman's Farm yet again. |
23rdFusilier | 31 Oct 2018 4:39 p.m. PST |
I cannot see Schuyler or Gates mounting a serious attack. Both too cautious. As to numbers the increase in the American numbers come after Bennington, then really increase after first Saratoga. It is possible without those victories the New Englanders would no have turned out. But that is just a guess on my part. As you say it would provide interesting what if battles for the table top. |
Winston Smith | 31 Oct 2018 7:15 p.m. PST |
Congreff Affembled would not permit them to sit still. If they did not move, they would be replaced. Like Schuyler was. |
23rdFusilier | 31 Oct 2018 11:48 p.m. PST |
|