2. There is still the ports of Iceland. remember, the danes are nuetral but they are british leaning as of right now. and for the british not giving up, there are 3 reasons:

Oh yes, Iceland, the country famous for its endless forests (for timber), textile industry (for sails), dockyards, and ammunition factories. And also for its proximity to the English channel. Is this serious?


1. King George III and Parliament would rather face the black death than admit defeat and request peace with Napoleon (Most likely leading to the french annexation/puppetization of England)

In much the same way that OTL Napoléon would, in 1815, rather face the black death than admit defeat, you mean? Well, if the Hanoverian family want to flee, good for them, but now it's them and what army? (to the point: how do they pay them without London ?) What arms factories, recruiting grounds, etc.? Note that with the South of England, Masséna is in control not only of the biggest part of the population and industry and the logistical hub, but also has in hand the officer academies, dockyards, etc. The typical Londoner merchant now has a choice between living under Masséna (and now being able to trade with the continent again, etc.) and joining the fleeing king (and not being paid for it, and soon getting killed by the, up to now, invincible French army). Most thoughts of rebelion will be very much procrastinated...

The Austrians, Prussians etc. capitulated for much less than this. (The Russians had a large, decentralized country, still 1 capital city remaining, and were supported by English gold; none of this apply to TTL Britain). Basically, once there was no longer a significant British army between Masséna and London, the Londoners are going to force their king to choose between negociating (as king of the United Kingdom) or fighting on (as king of Northern Ireland, maybe?).

If you really want to throw the French out, your better bet would be to first negociate and then stage some kind of Sicilian Vespers; however even this is so obvious that I cannot imagine Napoléon not taking some measures against it (obvious solution: royal hostages).

3. and for the peace conference, by now France has invaded Austria, Italy, England, Spain, Germany, Poland, and even Russia. .

Your main POD was Gibraltar being a Franco-Spanish victory. How are France and Spain at war?
 
Oh yes, Iceland, the country famous for its endless forests (for timber), textile industry (for sails), dockyards, and ammunition factories. And also for its proximity to the English channel. Is this serious?





In much the same way that OTL Napoléon would, in 1815, rather face the black death than admit defeat, you mean? Well, if the Hanoverian family want to flee, good for them, but now it's them and what army? (to the point: how do they pay them without London ?) What arms factories, recruiting grounds, etc.? Note that with the South of England, Masséna is in control not only of the biggest part of the population and industry and the logistical hub, but also has in hand the officer academies, dockyards, etc. The typical Londoner merchant now has a choice between living under Masséna (and now being able to trade with the continent again, etc.) and joining the fleeing king (and not being paid for it, and soon getting killed by the, up to now, invincible French army). Most thoughts of rebelion will be very much procrastinated...

The Austrians, Prussians etc. capitulated for much less than this. (The Russians had a large, decentralized country, still 1 capital city remaining, and were supported by English gold; none of this apply to TTL Britain). Basically, once there was no longer a significant British army between Masséna and London, the Londoners are going to force their king to choose between negociating (as king of the United Kingdom) or fighting on (as king of Northern Ireland, maybe?).

If you really want to throw the French out, your better bet would be to first negociate and then stage some kind of Sicilian Vespers; however even this is so obvious that I cannot imagine Napoléon not taking some measures against it (obvious solution: royal hostages).



Your main POD was Gibraltar being a Franco-Spanish victory. How are France and Spain at war?


Iceland isn't close to the English channel. But it's a port. By now the royal Navy will take anything they can get to at least cut Massena off from France.

The one problem the army has now is Beresford whom is quite brutal. He has a policy of keep fighting till London has been retaken, not to mention the underground English guerilla movement in England that will be covered in the next update. Once Massena is out, they would love to make peace. Also, please remember via the treaty of Moscow ITTL, The US has stopped supporting Napoleon and France and re-opened trade with the British. It may not be much, but with American trade reaching Scottish ports, the British do have a, albeit somewhat limited, way to pay the armed forces.

Finally, peninsular war still happens as Nappy is disappointed in the Spanish army's performance against Portugal (Even a Trafalgar POD sees no way to improve Spain's army at this time. Ever since the WoAS, their army has had a downward spiral, not to mention the king rn is one of the worst in Spanish history. So Napoleon basically says "F**k it, they were useful for Trafalgar but now they're a burden. I'm going to puppet them."

Really by now the only choice for Europe and France is to fight or surrender completely and they all know it.
 
1. King George III and Parliament would rather face the black death than admit defeat and request peace with Napoleon (Most likely leading to the french annexation/puppetization of England).

This feels like a bit of mythologizing. Sure, as long as the British dominate the seas and France can't invade, they'll fight. But if the French army is in their capital city, that's very different. There was a fair amount of public opinion in Britain calling for peace OTL; TTL there would be more.

What I think is more plausible is Britain being forced to accept a terrible peace deal for them, which leaves them preparing for a new war almost as soon as the ink has dried.
 
Iceland isn't close to the English channel. But it's a port. By now the royal Navy will take anything they can get to at least cut Massena off from France.


Finally, peninsular war still happens as Nappy is disappointed in the Spanish army's performance against Portugal

If Britain is invaded, then it suddenly becomes the principal theatre and everybody forgets about Portugal. The war there will soon stop for lack of British support, and even if it goes on, Napoléon has simply no reason to invade an ally.

Once the French are in England and winning so much that they will be tired of winning (this was the hard part, really), the only thing that could still distract them is a concerted invasion of France, which would probably need at least two of the big continental powers to be doable.
 
This feels like a bit of mythologizing. Sure, as long as the British dominate the seas and France can't invade, they'll fight. But if the French army is in their capital city, that's very different. There was a fair amount of public opinion in Britain calling for peace OTL; TTL there would be more.
True, up to a point, but what Massena would mainly have seized from a military point of view would have been shipyards and population centres. The British still hold the coal and the iron and the manufacturing towns of Yorkshire and the midlands and the breadbasket of East Anglia. So they can still feed and equip an army and raise more soldiers. Massena now essentially can't - and will have a civilian population in the territory that he controls. that gets more and more restive as food gets scarce. And Britain still has a Navy even after a disastrous Trafalgar (too disastrous to be plausible in my view -OTL Britain was outnumbered 27 ships to 33 and still sank 20 ships and lost none- but let that go) and can re-establish dominance of the English Channel
 
True, up to a point, but what Massena would mainly have seized from a military point of view would have been shipyards and population centres. The British still hold the coal and the iron and the manufacturing towns of Yorkshire and the midlands and the breadbasket of East Anglia. So they can still feed and equip an army and raise more soldiers. Massena now essentially can't - and will have a civilian population in the territory that he controls. that gets more and more restive as food gets scarce. And Britain still has a Navy even after a disastrous Trafalgar (too disastrous to be plausible in my view -OTL Britain was outnumbered 27 ships to 33 and still sank 20 ships and lost none- but let that go) and can re-establish dominance of the English Channel

That seems to be looking at it from a WW2 perspective of fighting to the very last man. I don't think that was how a lot of governments wanted to fight back then. It seems like most had a strong aversion to fighting on their home soil (probably because soldiers so often "lived off the land", which couldn't have been fun for the people living there). Russia's scorched earth tactics caught Napoleon off-guard as they were so unusual for back then.

In the era of the French Revolution you also had the concern of popular risings at home. Part of the reason for Britain to make peace is not only to lick its wounds and regroup, but also to make sure the forces of order are still strong nationwide and none of the revolutionary "contagion" has spread.
 
A couple of thoughts:

1) Big Ben didn't exist yet, did it?

2) What happened to the tens of thousands of British militia. Now, as an American, I know militia forces holding their own in pitched battles against a professional military army fighting overseas is absurd, but...
 
A couple of thoughts:

1) Big Ben didn't exist yet, did it?

2) What happened to the tens of thousands of British militia. Now, as an American, I know militia forces holding their own in pitched battles against a professional military army fighting overseas is absurd, but...

Yeah, big Ben didn't exist back then. It was Westminster palace. I had read something that said big Ben was built in the 1700s or maybe I misread it..

Also, what do you mean by the second question? Little confused by the wording.
 
Top