1744 French Invasion of England

OTL the French planned a brilliant descent on England. The descent consisted of 14 ships of line, lots of transports, 12,000 soldiers, and Maurice de Saxe. The goal of the fleet was to seize the Channel for a few days and funnel the invasion force into Kent where they were opposed by 7,000 men (dispersed throughout the region). The invasion was supposed to be launched on the 25th of January, but delays pushed it back 13 days to February 8th. Then a storm came down the Channel and wrecked the British fleet, French fleet, and Dunkirk invasion force.

But what if the French had launched the invasion on the 25th of January, because they were able to get their supplies together faster, etc. 13 days isn't too much of a stretch. Andd according to experts on the War of the Austrian Succession, had the invasion been launched on time the British would have been caught off caught. And the British fleet was also further to the east in the North Sea at the time, so the French would have had more than a few days to control the Channel and deliver the invasion force.

Once ashore Maurice de Saxe and his French army would have had superiority in numbers (12,000 concentrated vs 7,000 dispersed). They also have superiority in skill and the like (this was a contingent of French veteran professional soldiers while the British army in general was highly inexperienced at the time, especially the home guard) and superiority in leadership (the French had Maurice, the British had maybe Cope). So it seems likely that the French would be able to win a victory or victories in Kent before marching towards London. At London they would still likely have superiority, but it would be lessened and would be lessening every day as the British mobilized more resources and the French are unable to be reinforced from the Continent.

The stated goal of the French invasion was to install a Jacobite monarchy, but what if in light of growing resistance from the English and finding that the supposed Jacobite support was far less than expected the French decide to abandon the Jacobite cause for a negotiated settlement. What would the French ask for in such a settlement and what would the British government be willing to accept.
 
OTL the French planned a brilliant descent on England. The descent consisted of 14 ships of line, lots of transports, 12,000 soldiers, and Maurice de Saxe. The goal of the fleet was to seize the Channel for a few days and funnel the invasion force into Kent where they were opposed by 7,000 men (dispersed throughout the region). The invasion was supposed to be launched on the 25th of January, but delays pushed it back 13 days to February 8th. Then a storm came down the Channel and wrecked the British fleet, French fleet, and Dunkirk invasion force.

But what if the French had launched the invasion on the 25th of January, because they were able to get their supplies together faster, etc. 13 days isn't too much of a stretch. Andd according to experts on the War of the Austrian Succession, had the invasion been launched on time the British would have been caught off caught. And the British fleet was also further to the east in the North Sea at the time, so the French would have had more than a few days to control the Channel and deliver the invasion force.

Once ashore Maurice de Saxe and his French army would have had superiority in numbers (12,000 concentrated vs 7,000 dispersed). They also have superiority in skill and the like (this was a contingent of French veteran professional soldiers while the British army in general was highly inexperienced at the time, especially the home guard) and superiority in leadership (the French had Maurice, the British had maybe Cope). So it seems likely that the French would be able to win a victory or victories in Kent before marching towards London. At London they would still likely have superiority, but it would be lessened and would be lessening every day as the British mobilized more resources and the French are unable to be reinforced from the Continent.

The stated goal of the French invasion was to install a Jacobite monarchy, but what if in light of growing resistance from the English and finding that the supposed Jacobite support was far less than expected the French decide to abandon the Jacobite cause for a negotiated settlement. What would the French ask for in such a settlement and what would the British government be willing to accept.
Nothing.The British get their acts together,mobilize a much larger army,get their armies back from overseas and then destroy the French army since the French couldn't be reinforced.
 
Nothing.The British get their acts together,mobilize a much larger army,get their armies back from overseas and then destroy the French army since the French couldn't be reinforced.

I disagree.

It was already panick mode when the young pretender led his expedition like an amateur because the Hanover dynasty's legitimacy was contested and its supports were fragile. It was not like under George III or later where the dynasty enjoyed high popularity and support.

So if a well-led military invasion crossed then the Channel, it has a very high probability of being an end-gamer for England-Britain. It will mean that the wooden fortress on which Britain invested so much has failed and fallen. It will cause a meltdown of the City.

So all this will be equivalent to being beheaded for Britain. I think Britain will very pragmatically come to terms as it was ready to do OTL at the end of the war of austrian succession.

OTL, Britain was going to accept that France annex the austrian Netherlands and this did not happen for the only reason that the french misinterpretated british policy and thought annexing these territories would cause à new war with Britain (while in fact It was the mere fact that France was a too strong competitor that caused Britain to go to the french jugular).

But if they win such a crushing strategic victory, I think there can't be will such a misinterpretation : the french will realize the extent of their victory and they will cash in.

They will of course annex the austrian Netherlands and get significant gains in India at the expense of the the british.

That will probably not be all the price to pay and there could also be some kind of other french gained such as handing back Acadia and Newfoundland, and the Hudson bay that Britain had gained in 1713. The french may even demand and obtain most of present-day Maine and the north of present-day New Hampshire and Vermont in order to secure a better ice-free sea access for their american colonies.

Britain may also lose its Asiento with Bourbon spanish empire.

And if the french are but merely clever, they will favor a return to the pre-1603 situation, restoring the Stuarts in Scotland and letting the weakened and disgraced (by such a defeat) Hanovers reign in England.
 
Last edited:
There was a good thread on this a little while back: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1744-no-protestant-wind.345205/

General consensus was roughly what Matteo says: French push aside token forces to have firm control of S-E England. Parliament forced to flee, Bank of England looted, stock exchange forced to close. No one willing to finance the British war effort anymore. Complete disaster basically.

If the British assemble more men they are likely to be ill-equiped and trained, fighting against crack French troops. Its almost certainly game over for Britain within a couple of weeks if the French get ashore in good order and substantial force - which really shows why the RN was so important. The real question is can the French navy secure such overwhelming superiority as to guarantee an unmolsested supply chain across the Channel for long enough? I personally doubt if that part is really possible (though more plausible if the Spanish and/or Dutch for whatever reason are providing naval support).

Regarding terms, the French can have just about anything - if the Spanish help then they will need to get back their home territories in British possession. Certain parts of the British Antilles like Trinidad, Barbados, etc will probably go to France and Spain, and possibly the Northern territories will be restored to conditions c1713. Of course, the British drop out of the war and will be prevented (both for economic reasons and in the treaty) from funding Austria's war effort any more. This gives the French a good chance to turn all their attention to Austria and crush her badly in 1745.
 
Gibraltar and Minorca seem obvious to me.

I am not sure at all concerning Limbardia. Depends on who holds it. The austrian sur OTL were able to take it back and they had but briefly lost control of Lombardia.
 
1) Amphibious landings are always harder than they look on paper.
2) They weren't aiming for the Isle of Thanet, so they couldn't succeed. :) ('1066 and All That' reference)
 
I'm not sure how happy Charles would be if his return to the throne is done so with a brutal peace treaty which strips Britain of its empire. Though considering he was up for the 1759 invasion perhaps not. Still if he takes the throne to a populace angry and upset with him could you see a French garrison staying behind?
 
No. They could not occupy such a big country as England with some 6 million people.

That sur why the most sustainable solution is Stuarts in Scotland (and Ireland ?) and Hanovers in England.
 
No. They could not occupy such a big country as England with some 6 million people.

That sur why the most sustainable solution is Stuarts in Scotland (and Ireland ?) and Hanovers in England.

Clearly I'm not talking about a full occupation but a French army to help Charles quell any dissent seems almost necessary. Otherwise another Cromwell or a different pretender army.
 
French aims were to restore the Stuarts and get Britain out of the War of Austrian Succession. It wasn't a war of plunder. The OP states the Stuarts don't get the necessary support (I think that's unrealistic. a rousing success militarily will bring the Jacobites out in force. they were pretty tepid in the following years uprising, but that was because the outcome was in doubt. but the OP is that Jacobites stay home, so...). France then goes for aim 2: get Britain to call it quits on the continent, and a few goodies such as anything contested (like Acadia) gets ruled in France's favor. they're going to get while the getting is good, before Britain rises up against them. they can't control the country, so if they can't install a new regime, they quickly make a deal with the old one (who are going to be very eager to make a deal before the country decides George needs to go as well as the French). Either way, there's not going to be any wholesale plunder of the British Empire.
 
Clearly I'm not talking about a full occupation but a French army to help Charles quell any dissent seems almost necessary. Otherwise another Cromwell or a different pretender army.
If it keep Britain busy for some time them fighting each other rather then France is a win win.
 
Top