British with more European land commitments in Napoleonic Wars

WI, besides the Anglo-Portuguese army (under Moore, then Wellington) in Spain 1808-14, London had also been able to deploy other land armies to other parts of Europe to fight Napoleon & his allies ? WI say the Walcheren expedition of 1809 had been more successful (say if somehow there was no fever), if more combined expeditions had been made against Denmark after 1803, or if British expeditionary forces had a greater role in Sicily or perhaps even the Italian mainland ?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The British Army had a number of commitments, including 80,000 men for various garrisons (India, West Indies, Canada, Nova Scotia, Gibraltar, Malta etc.) 134,000 men for home (as a counterforce against any invasion and an element for internal security) leaving at most 90,000 troops in the "disposable force", i.e. for continental warfare.

The problem was largely the casualty rate. The West Indies, for example, consumed 352,000 men as casualties (less than 10% injuries) to keep them British. The British had the men (more than 200,000 British troops served in the Peninsula for example, but that consumed 20-25,000 men per year), but were in the field constantly. Prussia, as a counterpoint, didn't have any of these prolonged campaigns to wear down her manpower.

As another point, as a percentage of manpower, the British had the highest military participation ratio in Europe. Including Volunteers (the British equivalent of National Guards) and the Navy fully 1 in 5 adult males was in the armed forces. As a comparison, in France, Austria and Russia the MPR is 1 in 14, in Prussia, "the state with an army" it was 1 in 10, half that of Britain.

The Navy was manned by 150,000 men (including Sea Fencibles), something Prussia etc. didn't have to worry about.

Now, the British can get a lot more involved. There were of course many expeditionary forces, but I think the OP is thinking about a rerun of Marlborough, with a British Army (potentially 90,000 strong) landing in Germany and campaigning alongside German allies. Yes, it's viable, but it is perhaps higher risk.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Wasn't there an Italian expedition in 1805 in concert with Russia and Austria?

Yes, Britain bought a Russian Army of 75,000 (for £4m pa) and a Swedish force of 12,000 (for £150,000 pa) in 1805. The attempts to place forces on the continent were muddled though, mainly by continual attempts to keep troops at home lest Napoleon invade.

The British planned to land 30,000 troops in Northern Germany to liberate Hanover, gather up the loyal Hanoverians and link up with the Prussians. Another force of 6,000 under ISTR Sir John Moore were to campaign in Italy.

A problem is the simple lack of shipping: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9Ue8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46
 
Hmmmm are Spain and Italy similar topography wise? From what I've read it seems that had the British concentrated on Italy rather than Hanover they could have negated the French advantage in artillery and cavalry.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Hmmmm are Spain and Italy similar topography wise? From what I've read it seems that had the British concentrated on Italy rather than Hanover they could have negated the French advantage in artillery and cavalry.

Italy is better horse country in parts, although the hills in parts make it very infantry orientated. The problem is likely one of shipping, Italy is a lot further away than Hanover.

Also, at least in Germany there's a chance of recalling the troops for home defence. Those in Spain, Italy etc. are gone for that purpose.

If the British choose, and there is sufficient time to allow the movement, the British could (by sending the entire disposable force into Hanover) put 50,000 bayonets, 10,000 sabres and several hundred guns onto the continent in 1805-6.

This is a very significant force indeed. It is likely that it's commanders (drawn from the home station) may include:

Army Command and Staff
General Sir David Dundas (GOC South)
General Francis Earl of Moira (GOC North Britain, possible 2i/c)

Division (or Corps) Commanders:
Lieutenant General John Earl of Chatham (GOC Eastern District)
Lieutenant General Francis Dundas (Commanding Army Corps, Kent)
Lieutenant General George Don (Commanding Army Corps, Sussex)
Lieutenant General HRH Ernest Duke of Cumberland (GOC Southwest) - note this is the future King of Hanover
Lieutenant General Sir Hew Dalrymple (GOC North)
Lieutenant General Harry Burrard (Commanding a Division in London)
Lieutenant General HRH Adolphus Duke of Cambridge (GOC Home)
Lieutenant General Banastre Tarleton (GOC Severn)
Lieutenant General Richard Vyse (GOC York)
Lieutenant General Francis William, Duke of Gloucester (GOC NW)
Lieutenant General John Simcoe (GOC West)
Lieutenant General Francis Gwynn (GOC South-Inland)


Major General Arthur Wellesey served in the real 1805 Hanover expedition as brigade commander, and would do so ITTL
 
Top