What If?: Gages Plan Worked During the Siege of Boston?

[The Imp]

Well then, no one should have a problem with this as a "What if Question" since it's not a question.

Looking forward to the rest!

I meant "What If?" in a whimsical day dream kind of way. You know, when the screen get all wobbly and stuff on a TV show.

 

[citedon]

The thought just occurred to me. How much time has been spent on these threads discussing the absurdity of wasting one’s time on “what if” scenarios? Of course I must admit that I have spent a lot of time reading both the “what ifs” and the arguments against them. One reason that I spend so much time on these threads is that I agree with Andrew Jackson: “There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it.” I think that is why many of us are here. I therefore have no problem with “what if” scenarios. They’re no worse than reading some ridiculous novel.

 

[nokmirt]

What if: "What if" scenarios had any basis in rational thought whatsoever?

These troll comments are aggravating, I cannot stand it when people do not have the slightest imagination. You should read some Historical fiction.

The Imp, I wan to to see if you finish what you have to say before I answer fully. But, it sounds like history would have been changed. If Dorchester Heights had been defended and fortified by the British, that would mean the Colonial militia's would have to dislodge them. Washington was planning an attack since September, his plan being two fold, invade Canada and launch an attack on Boston. He knew from his intelligence that the British were not going to attack, until further reinforcements arrived. With the British being entrenched on Dorchester, this would be even more important. I believe, there either would be a battle or a stalemate. Washington, was not sure if the British would remain where they were. He feared an attack an that's why the defensive plan for building trenchworks on Dorchester Heights was adapted, but in this case the British control the heights and are dug in. They would have to be dislodged by the Americans. Without strong artillery, I doubt this would have happened. Still though , the British position was precarious, they had no fresh meat and were low on hay and fodder for their horses. One possibility may have been an amphibious assault by Washington across Back Bay on flat bottomed boats. Or an assault across the ice of the frozen harbor in Winter. At this pont Washington's army had logistical problems of it's own and gunpowder was in very short supply. Troops were being issued spears, in case the British attacked. I am forced to deduce that the Americans wiould not have been able to take Boston, unless by some miracle. But, I would like to read anything further you have to say and see where that leads.

In any case, it brings up the a further question. What would Washington have done if Boston was not able to be taken? I do not believe he could have stayed where he was for long, he may have had to fall back on New York. If British reinforcements had arrived timely, it is possible he may have been routed and destroyed. This is all interesting speculation. The thing about Washington was that he was not a good general, ut a good motivator, and he used intelligence to the utmost. This was an advantage, he generally knew what the British were up to. The British on th other hand were in the dark about Colonial intentions. The main problem at this point is that his army was made up of mostly untrained and undisiciplined militia, with all the supply problems imaginable. They wer not goimg to be able at this point to stand up to a seasoned, well trained British force. Washington needed to have a checkmate situation to make Boston untenable to the British, without Colonial trenches on Dorchester Heights, this would not have been possible.

 

[Louis XXIV]

If I engage in counterfactuals, it's only to demonstrate the absurdity of the premises. I never have and still do not posit that it's possible to derive any sort of meaningful conclusions from them. If you want to play fiction, then you can so do on the Off-Topic forum.

While I think you have valid points about counterfactuals, I would argue that the history forum is still the best place for them since any potential discussion would have to have underlying historical knowledge to support any theoretical conclusions. Whether or not the results will be absurd is in the eye of the beholder. I'd suggest just ignoring the threads. At worse, then they'll only be annoying thread titles.

As for the actual discussion, are we going short term (would it have been possible to take Boston) or long term (the affect on the colonial army if they were unable to take Boston, the strategy of the British, etc). The first might be possible to discuss. The second would have far too many factors to ever get even an educated guess.