18th century Sea Mammal

The 1588 Armada lost.

But the 1688 Armada won. William arrived in Torbay with IIRC 21 000 effective soldiers (19 000 sailors stayed aboard).

A subsequent English government would have been (at least somewhat) more popular, and could have got more supporters to fight - whether to win or to die.

Was there any point between 1688 and 1811 where French Navy could realistically have landed 21 000 or more effective soldiers in England - like in 1745, 1779 or 1805?

How many men would France have needed, at those points, to take London and the British Navy homeports of Portsmouth and Rochester by overland attack?
 
Was there any point between 1688 and 1811 where French Navy could realistically have landed 21 000 or more effective soldiers in England - like in 1745, 1779 or 1805?

How many men would France have needed, at those points, to take London and the British Navy homeports of Portsmouth and Rochester by overland attack?

Its realistic providing you defeat the British fleet first, which of course is not impossible.

The only alternative is to draw them away in some fashion then rush the Channel, but whilst feasible its not terribly likely

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Wasn't the Armada in 1779 the closest to being successful? It was a joint Franco-Spanish venture that would've landed 40,000 troops in Britain, but disease sapped their strength and forced the ships back into port. It certainly worried the British, as they made hasty improvements to the coastal defenses of Dover and I even think the Militia Regiments were called into service in case the army did land.
 
Wasn't the Armada in 1779 the closest to being successful? It was a joint Franco-Spanish venture that would've landed 40,000 troops in Britain, but disease sapped their strength and forced the ships back into port. It certainly worried the British, as they made hasty improvements to the coastal defenses of Dover and I even think the Militia Regiments were called into service in case the army did land.
The 1744 one was very close too, but got destroyed by a storm. Of course that was less than 15 000 men, but all of Britain only had 10 000 troops guarding it.
 
The 1744 one was very close too, but got destroyed by a storm. Of course that was less than 15 000 men, but all of Britain only had 10 000 troops guarding it.

1744 would be even better, as it's before the Militia Act that was passed during the Seven Years War. Before that, Britain had no reservist forces, so if the 15,000 troops had landed and took London, they probably would've been fairly secure. In 1779, 40,000 troops may go far, but George III could probably flee to York or even Edinburgh and rally the reservist regiments. He'd probably be able to build up a force that could take out the 40,000 man army. 1744 is also good as they have a suitable replacement for the Hannoverians. Bonnie Price hasn't completely ruined himself yet...
 
Plainly the Royal Navy was likely to have beaten any other sea force in an actual battle.

Howeve there must be over a thousand miles ofcoast in England and Wales and there was no radar and communication was poor. Could an invading army arrive before the Navy knew it was on theway??
 
How many schemes would involve landing in Ireland, and capitalizing on anti-English sentiment there to multiply their army, defend the Irish base, and launch a more massive wave of attacks over the short distances across the Irish Sea? To be sure the English defense is helped by the very short ranges from their western ports, and the initial expedition has to run a somewhat longer gauntlet, unless they can land with surprise. But couldn't the sheer mass of available Irish recruits, particularly for a Catholic power like France, tip the balance in favor of this sort of invasion?

At the very least they might be able to drive the Anglo-Scots (ie "British") out of Ireland and hold it indefinitely as a base threatening Great Britain and athwart their sea route to America even if the attempted invasion of GB itself fails. Of course the nearby British would be trying to get Ireland back, and it might be more costly than profitable to hold Ireland (and attempts to make Ireland pay for itself would most likely alienate the Irish again in short order). So I guess the enterprise only makes sense if there is a plan to subdue or at least neutralize Great Britain. That would be the plan anyway. Certainly the British were well aware of this danger and their policy included preventing it.

So is that why one doesn't hear of such a scheme in the indicated timeframe, and instead it all seems a matter of landing a few tens of thousands of invaders to take London directly?
 
Top