"What if George Washington was shot during the Revolutionary" Topic

… War? Obstetrician writes an alternate history novel

"If Ronald Gibbs, MD, could step into an alternate timeline, he would trade his research and teaching in obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford Medicine to become a historian specializing in 18th century American history.

It wouldn't be much of a leap. He has read extensively on the Revolutionary War, researched its grisly medical technology and collected maps from the period.

Gibbs talked with me about his affinity for this era of American history and his new self-published novel, The Long Shot: The Secret History of 1776. The book is set in an alternate reality in which Gen. George Washington is shot in the chest, sustaining a potentially fatal wound early in the Revolutionary War…"
Main page
link

Armand

Go, 'British Rangers'!

What? For treason?

What if he was shot in the French And Indian War? That would create a ripple.

Old School, I agree that Frederick The Great would not even bother being influenced by the incident. My point was to point to the American Revolution. If he is killed in the FIW, what would the ripple effect be for the AWI?

What made George Washington indispensable was that always considered himself to be totally dispensable. It was his repeated refusal of dictatorial or royal power that was his greatest deed.

If Ferguson had taken his shot at Brandywine and I can't say for sure, but George Washington was the only man who had the 'Creds'. He only, could have handle/put up with the Conway Cabal like he did. He kept a army in field and with his bold move at Trenton, Trenton II and Princeton save his army and the emerging nation. Also handle the whole Arnold affair, short term enlistments etc. Just think that we been in a whole heep a trouble without G.Washington.

Thanks.

Armand

Agree with Brian – without Washington command of the Continental Army may have gone to the likes of Horatio Gates – which would have been a disaster. Even if Schulyer or Ward had taken command hard to say, capable soldiers as they were, that they could have achieved what Washington did

I agree. GW was NOT Cromwell nor Bonaparte. So the American Rev was one of the few really successful ones.

Without Washington the revolution would have died. He is not called the father of our country for nothing.

Washington may not have been a tactical genius, but he did hold the army together and maintained a (barely) functioning relationship between the Continental Army and the Continental Congress. Few people in all of history could have managed that, and no one alive at the time. (Well, Wellington, but he had not reached the height of his powers yet).

Washing dies (or is incapacitated) late in the revolution, you get a very different US. Washington dies (or is incapacitated) early in the revolution, the British absolutely win.

The novel might be interesting, but from this distance there is a distinct odor of Mary Sue. Quite distinct.

I do not agree. The conflict was to deep, the royal british could not bridge it. If the one or other leader dies or not, that make no big differnce after all.
See the revolutions in france or rusia 1918. Many of the early leaders die, but the revolution moves on.

With a 2+ save I highly doubt it.

I don't see victory as inevitable. There were a number of ways that things could have gone bad.

If America still becomes independent, its capital would have another name, obviously, and there would be no state of Washington.

Nor would there be a statue of the deceased rebel in Trafalgar Square outside the National Portrait Gallery in London.