He was kind of in a unique position being the first person really in charge of British North America. Would he be the type to recommend the changes needed to avert the ARW?
How would Edward Braddock surviving change things?
- Thread starter Hierophant
- Start date
Would it really effect the American theater of French and Indian War? Does Braddock have the authority to try and make the colonies work together better during war time?
Flubber
Banned
If his expedition to Fort Duquesne doesn't end in disaster or isn't launched at all, I believe there would be profound effects in the course of the Seven Years' War in North America.
There was no need for the many campaigns against Ft. Duquesne. The region was of little consequence strategically to either British North America or New France. The primary reason why the UK and colonies tried again and again to take the fort was to "avenge" Braddock's defeat there and the only reason Braddock had marched in the first place was because Virginia had essentially hijacked the empire's strategic aims to protect her Ohio valley land claims.
Remove the strategic incubus of Duquesne and the UK/Colonies can concentrate much sooner on the actually important regions of upstate/western New York and the Maritimes. That might shorten the war in North America.
He could recommend whatever he wants, I would strongly doubt it would change anything. Even Gen. Gage, who suggested taking strong measures against the colonies, was panicking and recommending the British ministry repeal the Coercive Acts as an emergency measure by 1775, but this was completely ignored.
Pulling a Braddock
If both Braddock and Washington survive I think it would lessen Washington's acclaim after the fiasco. He rode back and forth after the battle holding the forces of the British and colonials together.
Having less fame at the beginning of the Revolution may lead to some one else being picked as the American commander. Gates perhaps? Warren? or Lee?
Perhaps Braddock is court-martialed? By dying he avoided such measures. By surviving he could be worse off. Getting into a messy situation could be known in America nowadays as "Pulling a Braddock".
If both Braddock and Washington survive I think it would lessen Washington's acclaim after the fiasco. He rode back and forth after the battle holding the forces of the British and colonials together.
Having less fame at the beginning of the Revolution may lead to some one else being picked as the American commander. Gates perhaps? Warren? or Lee?
Perhaps Braddock is court-martialed? By dying he avoided such measures. By surviving he could be worse off. Getting into a messy situation could be known in America nowadays as "Pulling a Braddock".
Virgina certainly had a long interest in the Ohio. & in that it appears they feared competition from westward expanding Pennsylvania. But I digress. Virginias interest was illustrated by the two armed expeditions led by Washington previous to Braddocks effort, and the instigation of many other expeditions to Duquense and other points in the upper Ohio, Kentucky, and Appalacia in general.
Washingtons real reputation came from the less spectacular but more sucessful years organizing and sustaining the frontier posts and patrols after British captured Fort Duquesne. From 1759 through 1763 he kept the frontier outposts manned and supplied giving a feeling of security to the Virginia farmers & embryonic piedmont towns. While the reality of Indian raids had been greatly reduced with the defeat of the French army in the upper Ohio the fear among the Virginians was real and Washington gained and matured his organizational skills and reputation by keeping a underfunded militia force standing guard on the frontier. This was not lost to a number of prominent leaders of Virginia who recognize Washingtons growing competence at a task few wanted a fewer were any good at.
Probablly bankrupted. Although aristocracy Bradock & his family were not particulary wealthy. Like most British generals he had to pay for much of the underfunded campaign costs with his name against credit. He & his peers depended on handsome rewards from the grateful Crown when they won battles. If they lost they would have to dig into their own personal funds to cover much of the debt covering the campaigns cost. Braddock had little in the family purse and would have had to go begging to his friends and political connections for pay off the creditors of the campaigns supply costs.
My understanding of the man is that he had little understanding of the colonies and the conditions there, and had little interest in learning. I suspect he would have been a disaster if he had lived.
As opposed to the other British leaders & their policies for the colonies?
The ones actually in the colonies? General Gage was a lot of things, but not willfully ignorant. Same about Governor Hutchinson in Massachusetts.