French Invasion of Britain

[MrP]

Hate to be petulant, but I actually provided figures first - heck, I even provided one of those linky type things. I know I don't have a smany posts to my name as 67th Tigers, but still...

You did, indeed, old boy. I didn't mean to ignore you - was just giving a sampling of things said in thread, not being comprehensive. Sorry!

 

[RPW@Cy]

Two points. First, in Spain Napoleon sought to overthrow the old, legitimate government; which he is not doing in Britain.

from O'Meara's account linked to by 67th Tigers yesterday, quoting Napoleon directly -

"Arrived at London I would have proclaimed a Republic (I was First Consul then,” said he) Liberty, Equality, Sovereignty of the people, abolished the Monarchical Government, the nobility and the House of Peers, the House of Commons I would have retained with a great reform, the property of the nobles I would have declared to be forfeited and to be divided amongst the people, amongst the partizans of the Revolution, a general equality and division of property."

If that doesn't count as overthrowing the "old, legitimate government" then what the heck does?

Secondly, will Britain's elites support spontaneous guerilla warfare? In Spain there was a lot of disquiet about it, and I don't think Britain would be more favorable towards it.

On the one occasion when the French did land in Britain (Fishguard, 1797 - an event which, for all it's comic aspects, really should be studied in detail by anyone presuming to discuss likely British attitudes in the event of an invasion) the "elites" not only called out the peasantry to help fight off the French - one burly housewife by the name of Jemima Nichols managed to round up twelve Frenchmen and force them to surrender when armed with nothing more than a pitchfork - but ordered the lead to be stripped from the roof of St David's Cathedral (with the permission of the Dean) and melted down into musket balls for those men who were demanding firearms. If anything, the elites would be cheering on any peasants who wanted to pitch in.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I disagree. It's not even that people are protesting that Boney couldn't land, which I mostly agree with. It's that once he lands, the British stand valiant, pick up irregular warfare, defeat him, and then have no major repurcessions.

Some possible ones: the militarization of British society and legitimizing violent. This had less than plesant consequences in Latin america.

Economic problems with a devastated southeast England.

The Irish revolt; even if the military wins....

The attitude in this thread is that Britain goes on its merry way of becoming the 19th century's superpower, when this is not at all clear.

I actually have a failed Napoleonic landing TL written (for a parallel-universe story) and Britain becomes a police state and has its own 1848 rebellion.

 

[Faeelin]

from O'Meara's account linked to by 67th Tigers yesterday, quoting Napoleon directly -

I do not think Napoleon's wistful thinking while in exile should necessarily be taken at face value.

Unless you also think that he was also planning on building a united Europe.

If anything, the elites would be cheering on any peasants who wanted to pitch in.

An invasion force of 1400 prisoners doesn't seem like a viable comparison.

I really don't see any reason the reaction would be idifferent than it was in Spain, Italy, or Austria.

 

[Faeelin]

The situation is thoroughly different. With Austria and Prussia, he can knock them back and leave them on the ropes, then knock them back further when they come back for more. With Britain, it's all or nothing. I hate to point out the obvious, but Great Britain is an island. The French have one chance to try and destroy the British state and they'd be fools not to throw everything into it. What, exactly, is Boney going to do if he was to beat us back to a treaty like he did the Austrians? Demand Ireland (or something) be annexed to France and that be the end of it? OK, he did "Versailles-ify" Prussia's army down to 50,000 after the winter war of 1806, but how on earth is he going to enforce it if Britain just ignores the treaty after his army withdraws? 'Cause he'll never get another chance at invasion, that's for certain.

Sure; but he also remembers Egypt, where he was cut off and ultimately defeated.

I tend to think the invasion is a no-go, but that's just me.

Hrmm.

 

[MrP]

An invasion force of 1400 prisoners doesn't seem like a viable comparison.

I really don't see any reason the reaction would be idifferent than it was in Spain, Italy, or Austria.

I dunno if I'd agree there. Since there was such an over-reaction to a ragtag bundle of convicts, then one can deduce that a real invasion by a proper army would create a concomitantly larger backlash.

 

[67th Tigers]

You did, indeed, old boy. I didn't mean to ignore you - was just giving a sampling of things said in thread, not being comprehensive. Sorry!

Sorry, but I saw the link and immediately ignored it. However owns that site has.... issues with the British.

There are important caveats to the data, such as the "Army" not including the artillery, engineers, commisariat etc. It makes comparisons messy.

States as of 1 June 1805

Location​

Strength​

Mediterranean Gibraltar

3,318​

Malta

6,680​

West Indies Leeward Islands

11,904​

Jamaica

3.591​

Bahamas, etc.

589​

North America Canada

1,519​

Nova Scotia

2,367​

East Indies East Indies

11,998​

Ceylon

6,870​

On Passage

12,442​

United Kingdom Great Britain

64,614​

Ireland

29,236​

United Kingdom Militia

76,724​

Figures are Infantry and Cavalry ("Army") only.

The strength of the Army during this period:

The Effective Strength of the British Army, in Rank and File, from the year 1804 to the year 1813.

Year​

Cavalry​

Artillery & Engineers​

Infantry ​

Total​

British Corps​

Foreign & Colonial Corps​

Total​

Militia​

Grand Total​

January 1, 1804

16,729​

14,113​

119,751​

150,593​

133,554​

17,039​

150,593​

85,519​

236,112​

January 1, 1805

20,316​

17,109​

124,531​

161,956​

139,581​

22,375​

161,956​

89,809​

251,765​

January 1, 1806

23,396​

19,546​

142,177​

185,119​

159,076​

26,043​

185,119​

74,653​

259,772​

January 1, 1807

26,261​

20,951​

152,245​

199,457​

163,641​

35,816​

199,457​

76,159​

275,616​

January 1, 1808

26,402​

22,250​

177,775​

226,427​

189,210​

37,217​

226,427​

67,677​

294,104​

January 1, 1809

27,391​

23,563​

183,223​

234,177​

197,230​

36,947​

234,177​

81,577​

315,754​

January 25, 1810

27,740​

24,238​

185,474​

237,452​

199,062​

38,390​

237,452​

72,487​

309,939​

January 25, 1811

27,410​

23,668​

183,516​

234,594​

194,051​

40,543​

234,594​

84,439​

319,033​

January 25, 1812

27,638​

23,824​

192,423​

243,885​

198,004​

45,881​

243,885​

77,055​

320,940​

January 25, 1813

28,931​

25,407​

201,538​

255,876​

203,119​

52,757​

255,876​

71,055​

326,931​

September 25, 1813

29,504​

27,014​

204,279​

260,797​

207,068​

53,729​

260,797​

69,866​

330,663​

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Suddenly I realized that all of you were making a terrible mistake!

At no point did this thread require that the invasion be successful!

 

[RPW@Cy]

I do not think Napoleon's wistful thinking while in exile should necessarily be taken at face value.

Yes, but with all due respect it's still the man's own words about his intentions. Do you have any comparable evidence to support your contention that he was intending no such thing?

An invasion force of 1400 prisoners doesn't seem like a viable comparison.

Except of course that nobody knew how big the force was until after they surrendered and could be counted. When Lord Cawdor (commander of the nearest sizeable militia unit and presumably one of the elites you so despise) was calling out his men and marching against the landing and calling on every able-bodied man in the district to join him all he would have known was that the French had landed in force and were expanding the bridgehead.

I really don't see any reason the reaction would be idifferent than it was in Spain, Italy, or Austria.

Other than the fact it was different the only time a landing actually happened, you mean? And frankly, given that you are presumably expressing scepticism as to the likelihood of large scale popular resistance to an invasion of England, I am baffled as to why Spain is in that list.

 

[Faeelin]

Yes, but with all due respect it's still the man's own words about his intentions. Do you have any comparable evidence to support your contention that he was intending no such thing?

That he never created plans during the invasion itself to replace the Hanoverians?

Again, unless you're willing to believe everything he said during his exile about his years as Emperor, assuming this is necessarily true seems dubious.

Except of course that nobody knew how big the force was until after they surrendered and could be counted. When Lord Cawdor (commander of the nearest sizeable militia unit and presumably one of the elites you so despise)

You're putting words in my mouth; stop that, as they taste like haggis.

Other than the fact it was different the only time a landing actually happened, you mean? And frankly, given that you are presumably expressing scepticism as to the likelihood of large scale popular resistance to an invasion of England, I am baffled as to why Spain is in that list.

Because in Spain there was a considerable amount of disqueiet about mass opposition to the French; in the case of Valencia, fr instance, the local elites actually ended up supporting the French because they found it so disturbing.

And in Spain, the guerilla war helped to legitimize the use of violence in Spanish politics. Both of which are disturbing indications of what will happen in England.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

2) The Penninsular War showed that a combination of guerillas and professional soldiers could go quite well. And Lazare had plenty of experience suppressing the Vendee.

You forgot the third part of the combination, guerillas, professional soldiers, and TOTAL NAVAL SUPREMACY

 

[stevep]

from O'Meara's account linked to by 67th Tigers yesterday, quoting Napoleon directly -

"Arrived at London I would have proclaimed a Republic (I was First Consul then,” said he) Liberty, Equality, Sovereignty of the people, abolished the Monarchical Government, the nobility and the House of Peers, the House of Commons I would have retained with a great reform, the property of the nobles I would have declared to be forfeited and to be divided amongst the people, amongst the partizans of the Revolution, a general equality and division of property."

If that doesn't count as overthrowing the "old, legitimate government" then what the heck does?

As said that was when he was still formally 1st Consul of what was still technically a republic. AS such it might have happened if somehow he had managed a successful invasion then and might have won some local support. [But probably bitterly alienated many more].

However for an invasion in the 1804+ period he is now emperor. As such it is less likely he would use discarded republican terminology and tactics. Even more so as a foreign emperor seeking to invade and conquer Britain he will have no practical '5th column' prospects. Britain, like the other 'reasonably' old established states at the time tends to unite when faced with an external threat and especially a 'natural/traditional' enemy i.e. France in our case. There may well be some collaborators, or others who will seek to weather the storm as best they can but they will only be possible tools when he is in a position where he might look like winning.

Steve