AHC: Britain defeats Napoleonic France alone

Let us say that, in an alternate timeline, the Peninsular War never occurs, and that Napoleon either decides not to invade Russia, or, if he does, then he emerges victorious and Russia is brought back into the Continental System.

With these events in place, your challenge is therefore to have Britain defeat the French Empire alone, without a Continental ally.

(This thread is largely inspired by this one which was around in the After 1900 section several months ago on whether or not Britain could win WW2 alone).
 
I highly doubt it is possible unless French economy completely collapses and there is a huge crop failure. Grand Armée was simply too large, well equipped and disciplined for Britain to defeat.
 

longsword14

Banned
With these events in place, your challenge is therefore to have Britain defeat the French Empire alone, without a Continental ally.
Where is this force going to land ? The Peninsular War was the best that the British Army could have expected, and even then without things going down the bin in the east there would have been no possibility of actually reaching France.
If France never came across the Pyrenees, there is not a chance that the French Army can actualy be taken on by Britain.
 
Perhaps a worse Year Without a Summer could do that?
Yes, of course. If the war is still raging in 1916, Britain will continue the blockade meaning unlike the UK, France can't import food. But even then the British will have to get really lucky to decisively defeat Grand Armée.
 
Where is this force going to land ? The Peninsular War was the best that the British Army could have expected, and even then without things going down the bin in the east there would have been no possibility of actually reaching France.
If France never came across the Pyrenees, there is not a chance that the French Army can actualy be taken on by Britain.

In fairness, British (and Russian) troops did in previous Coalitions attempt some "descents" in the Low Countries without having a worthwhile local ally, but all of those ended badly/underwhelmingly.
 
In fairness, British (and Russian) troops did in previous Coalitions attempt some "descents" in the Low Countries without having a worthwhile local ally, but all of those ended badly/underwhelmingly.

They actually gave it one last go in 1809, and it ended exactly as ignominiously as the others. Other than more attempts to pick away there or in Naples, I don't know what else they could do, really.
 
How soon does need to happen?
Britain will need at least a decade to improve their finances to fund another war.
There's also the fact that any collapse, or appearance of, of French power is going to invite in European countries anyway as allies.
 
Honestly, I don't know if it'd go either way.

Any medium-term peace is going to leave Britain short on customers, but very capable at sea, and likely the sole (effective) European Colonial power. (It'd be very interesting to see all those overseas colonies coming under British control - like South Africa).

However, I think economics are the danger here. The Continental System cannot hold. It just can't. All those overseas goods? Britain can just partner with the rest of the world. The Continent will smuggle, anyone unhappy will leave for the Americas or Britain. Meanwhile, Britain doesn't have to invade the continent. It'll break away from France if it tries to enforce the Continental System. Russia will always be the hardest to control, and it'll require the Grande Armee to go over again and again to reign it in.

Gibraltar will be the key though. Britain will have to throw so many resources there, that it'd likely need to start considering intervening in the Moroccan Civil War to ensure they have friends on the other side of the Strait. (Which could have all sorts of impacts - a Pro-British Morocco? Easily the start of having the British AND the Ottomans endorsing Barbary Mediterranean Piracy if only to limit the French.

If that window leads to an Ottoman-British alliance AGAINST France? Now you have your landing site. Plus, if we assume British control of India persists, a genuinely colossal Indo-British Army could be fielded, and transported to Egypt, and then to the Balkans. An Indo-British/Ottoman army in the South, and the British raiding the North, with the possibility of the Russians (or others) rebelling in the meantime. That is how Britain could win against Napoleon in this scenario.

Admittedly that is a cheat as I'm using the Ottomans, but if you want to be pedantic, replace the Ottomans with "Any site that the Indo-British Army can land at" (S.Spain perhaps?).
 
It’s not possible. If France has made peace with the rest of Europe, it wins. Period.

I don't think so, although France at peace with Europe makes it the favorite to win. If Napoleonic France has made peace with the rest of Europe it wins. I've seen countries blow wars when they had a 3 to 1 resource lead, no internal fighting, tactically defensive boarders, and a minor technological edge. It can be done with good old human stupidity and while Napoleon never knew when to quit when he was ahead, he does not meet that requirement needed to fuck this up once in the OP's situation
 
Top