How would the War of 1812 end had Brock lived at Queenston Heights?

[Eric]

I've been pondering a question of history. What, Major-General Isaac Brock had not died in his charge at Queenston Heights during the War of 1812? We all know his death was a crushing blow to British military leadership during the war, he was a successful, wily, intrepid and agressive general, he prepared the country for War in 1812, crippling the American invasion with quick victories at Fort Mackinac and Detroit. How would the War's end result be changed if, instead of dying with a sharpshooter's bullet in his breast, Brock led the charge, recaptured the cannons at the Heights and turned them on the Americans invaders, Queenston Heights becoming his greatest victory yet. What if the British goverment gave him command of all forces in Canada, along with a fresh division of 8,500 regulars, which he bolsters with 3,500 militia and 435 Native warriors under Tecumseh, 12,435 fighting men in all, a force which he dubs "The Army of the Canadas" along with instructions to recapture the rebellious American colonies. How would history be changed?

[therussian]

I doubt much would have changed. Had a complete English victory occured in North America, it's effects would be negated by what was happening in Europe. Britain had a bigger problem there than in North America. The troops would soon be recalled to Europe to combat Napoleon in France and Spain, and there would be nothing to stop the Americans from reclaiming their territories again.


That's how I look at it.

[Removed_user_012521]

What if scenarios are trully pointless and endless.

[Eric]

And that's why they're just so damn fun! Plus Sir Isaac Brock is a personal hero of mine, and the War of 1812 is full of what-ifs and could-of-should-of-didn'ts.

[Justinian]

What if the British goverment gave him command of all forces in Canada, along with a fresh division of 8,500 regulars, which he bolsters with 3,500 militia and 435 Native warriors under Tecumseh, 12,435 fighting men in all, a force which he dubs "The Army of the Canadas" along with instructions to recapture the rebellious American colonies. How would history be changed?

Sounding more like an RTS player than a historian.

If we can imagine that Britain would actually divert 8,500 of its regulars from Europe to Canada, which is rather far-fetched, then essentially he would have invaded the United States and had much the same situation the United States had invading Canada.

[Eric]

Well, 8,500 is rather trifle when you consider that at the height of the Napoleonic Wars, 1812, Britain could field 320,000 soldiers. So the number would decrease to 311,500 soldiers, that's still an impressive enough army.

[Farnan]

Well, 8,500 is rather trifle when you consider that at the height of the Napoleonic Wars, 1812, Britain could field 320,000 soldiers. So the number would decrease to 311,500 soldiers, that's still an impressive enough army.

Source?

[Eric]

This is an accurate enough site I believe for the period we're discussing

[Last Roman]

So it would have been the revolution all over. Britain couldn't keep a sizeable force in America when there wasn't any trouble in Europe, how could they when Napoleon was running around? I think the end result would have been the same as in real life: a draw

[Sétanta]

I find it hard to believe they would have let a Canadian lead the attack on America. Sorry, but they were colonials too.

That and they wouldn't put 8000+ soldiers under that command in place of another Army.

[Scar Face]

I find it hard to believe they would have let a Canadian lead the attack on America. Sorry, but they were colonials too.

That and they wouldn't put 8000+ soldiers under that command in place of another Army.

Brock, was from Geurnsey. Which is a bunch of small islands above France. Also, the British High Command, was not worried about Canada rebelling. Canada had in the revolution, fought against the Americans, it wasn't that the Canadians couldn't achieve freedom, it was that they didn't want to. Britain knew that, they weren't paranoid about Canada in the least. Also, if Brock was successful at Queenston heights, then it is very likely they would place another 8000+ soilders to Brock, maybe not in an Invasion of America, but in the defense of Canada, yes.

However if Brock did invade America I think he would have initial success, but through sheer weight of numbers, lack of supplies, and commitment from the government, he would be pushed back. Britain was far to busy in Europe to actually fund a campaign against America. Regardless of the General leading it, the Campaign would require immense resources and manpower. Something Britain could not, and would not give to Brock.

[Ringeck]

My guess is that an even better (it wasn't bad as it was) canadian/british war effort would have ended the war of 1812 even earlier than it was, perhaps in conditions slightly less favorable to the U.S. than the case was in real life. After all, the british were fighting Boney, the Adolf Hitler of their age (at least he was perceived much in the same way as old one-ball wonder by the brits at the time) back home and trying desperately to build a new coalition after Napoleon's invasion of Russia. And L'Empereur would always be the main target, not a bunch of colonials whining about trade embargos, press-ganging and the nonfulfilment of obscure treaties :original:

[LaSallian]

(Yes I know the thread is over 3 years old, but the war is almost 200 years old, so i think its OK to comment...)

My opinion, is that if Brock had lived through Queenstown Heights that he would most probably had a little more success than Henry Procter did in ensuring that Amherstburg's Right Division received adequate troop re-enforcements. Although, I do believe that Procter did the best strategically that he could in the circumstances in Commanding the right division. He was drastically undermanned, both in regular army and seamen. Additionally his troops and allies were starving most of the time due to a lack of supplies and the fact that militia farmers were forced to neglect their crops to take up arms. He wrote numerous requests during his campaign to General Prevost, the Commander of Upper Canada requesting re-enforcements, but those appeals fell on deaf ears due to Prevost's insistance on defensive actions and concern about Lower Canada's security. Procter's Divison consisted of very few regulars, and was dependent upon the very unreliable local militias and the tempermental Native contingent. Procter adhered closely to Brock's ideals of Native co-operation and the goal of a Native homeland in the Michigan territory (even if it was only to act as a buffer bewteen The USA and Upper Canada).

However, I think that Proctor was not a good Battlefield tactician, he made several errors which cost battles, Fort Meigs and Moraviantown spring to mind.

I believe that if Proctor (or Brock if had lived) had received the required Seamen and supplies to man an adequate presence on Lake Erie and sufficient British Regular troops then the right Division would have conducted more offensive operations in Michigan and Ohio. If successful I think that these operations would have either extended the duration of the war because the Americans would have continued to fight for these territories, or would have forced them to seek peace an earlier agreement at Ghent.

I believe that Prevost's defensive policy proved more damaging to Upper Canada and the promise of a Native Homeland than the American offensive actions ever were.

(Thanks for the thread, always love discussions like this)

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

That's what I call a bump!