French Invasion of Britain

[Earling]

Would taking London even be possible for an invading force on Napoleonic logistics (or lackthereof)?

London has a population by this period of over a million souls and had swollen to cover a vast area. Thats a population twice the size of Paris and five times the size of Moscow to put it in some perspective.

Europe gets her first taste of urban combat?

 

[Thande]

If Boney could get his men to Egypt, the French can get guns to Belfast.

OTL Napoleon's fleet was very nearly intercepted by Nelson in the Med; this only didn't happen because Nelson guessed the fleet's direction wrongly, which was quite understandable considering the quixotic nature of an attack on Egypt. And that was the Med, hardly a British lake. The channel is not so much another kettle of fish as another Bessamer Converter full of whales.

It may sound like we're being patriotically shooting lightning bolts from our eyes, but the situation for an invasion in 1805 was really just not that favourable, especially an invasion coming from France. A French invasion of Britain would have been much more likely to succeed in the 1740s, the 1750s or even the 1770s.

 

[Thande]

Would taking London even be possible for an invading force on Napoleonic logistics (or lackthereof)?

I'm not sure if Napoleon ever encountered a similar situation. Moscow, of course, was mostly evacuated by the Russians. In Spain the French managed urban fighting pretty well against the Spaniards (e.g. in Madrid) but of course this inflamed the countryside.

Faeelin does make a good point that even a temporary French occupation of London would be a massive shock to British economic institutions, and while the French would probably be pushed out soon afterwards, the economy might take years to recover.

 

[Faeelin]

OTL Napoleon's fleet was very nearly intercepted by Nelson in the Med; this only didn't happen because Nelson guessed the fleet's direction wrongly, which was quite understandable considering the quixotic nature of an attack on Egypt. And that was the Med, hardly a British lake. The channel is not so much another kettle of fish as another Bessamer Converter full of whales.

Well, the French got armed transports off of Ireland OTL; a storm kept them from landing.

It may sound like we're being patriotically shooting lightning bolts from our eyes, but the situation for an invasion in 1805 was really just not that favourable, especially an invasion coming from France. A French invasion of Britain would have been much more likely to succeed in the 1740s, the 1750s or even the 1770s.

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.

 

[MrP]

Well, the French got armed transports off of Ireland OTL; a storm kept them from landing.



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.

*scratches noggin*

Well, Nek's been the only overtly patriotic one so far. 67th's provided figures and information on the Army and Militia and how it's likely that they'd overpower the French. If it makes you feel better, I personally feel the mobility of the French could enable the old outflanking manoeuvre - but I was playing a Napoleonic wargame t'other day, so there y'go.

But I haven't seen anyone argue that the Empire will necessarily win and go on to its OTL "glory," just that Boney's invasion is probably, er, boned.

 

[Thande]

Well, the French got armed transports off of Ireland OTL; a storm kept them from landing.

Oh, they could make an initial landing, but once the RN knew they were coming to Ireland, a British blockade would descend. I never said the French couldn't get an army over there, the question is how they could resupply it once it was there, hence my earlier points.

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 haven't got that impression from this thread. I agree that there will be major repercussions, economically and socially. IMO the modern British identity is essentially derived from events in the 1800s and 1810s, so changing that will dramatically change the idea of Britain. Certainly there'll be none of the quiet disdain for blatant displays of patriotism that exists in modern Britain (and pointedly not so in America or Canada, descended from earlier ideas of what it is to be English). One of us looking at the Britain of 2008 in a TL where the French invaded and were repulsed, would probably think it looked like a banana republic, with militarism and flag-waving everywhere...

As for British irregular warfare, there are two possible arguments here. One, that there was little popular resistance when the Jacobites came down in 1745. Two, that the Spanish and Portuguese seemed to pretty much pick it up out of nowhere, too, and they can't have had many more weapons or trained veteran soldiers than Britain did. I tend to the second view, arguing that the Jacobites were seen as legitimatist by many people and an avowed foreign invasion is very different indeed. Republicanism had its (few) admirers in England, if Revolutionary France had tried it; but Napoleonic France had all the negatives of Bourbon France, the old enemy, plus the impudence of a Napoleon. And the maraude, which was one of the primary reasons behind Spanish resistance in TTL, and can only be worse considering the cornerstone of English law.

 

[Nekromans]

*scratches noggin*

Well, Nek's been the only overtly patriotic one so far.

*Looks back*

Well, it was argue pointlessly with Faeelin or stop procrastinating.

 

[Thande]

67th's provided figures and information on the Army and Militia and how it's likely that they'd overpower the French.

67th could provide figures demonstrating how Abyssinia could not possibly have been defeated by the Italians and we'd all be convinced and unable to argue

 

[Faeelin]

As for British irregular warfare, there are two possible arguments here. One, that there was little popular resistance when the Jacobites came down in 1745. Two, that the Spanish and Portuguese seemed to pretty much pick it up out of nowhere, too, and they can't have had many more weapons or trained veteran soldiers than Britain did. I tend to the second view, arguing that the Jacobites were seen as legitimatist by many people and an avowed foreign invasion is very different indeed. Republicanism had its (few) admirers in England, if Revolutionary France had tried it; but Napoleonic France had all the negatives of Bourbon France, the old enemy, plus the impudence of a Napoleon. And the maraude, which was one of the primary reasons behind Spanish resistance in TTL, and can only be worse considering the cornerstone of English law.

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

 

[Thande]

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

Yes he is. Unless you're suggesting he'd try and put some minor German princeling on the throne and claim a continuity of succession, but that doesn't seem like his style.

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.

Oh, they'll be appalled; no-one likes to have a large body of men lying around who know how to use weapons. But it's their country, too. It's not as though we have a massive empire yet we can evacuate to like in every WW2 timeline. Some local notables would collaborate, but the London elite was highly politicised and opposed to Napoleonic ideas for one reason or another (Liberals: because he betrayed the French Revolution; Tories: because he's an upstart who callously overthrows centuries-old institutions in Europe).

 

[Faeelin]

Yes he is. Unless you're suggesting he'd try and put some minor German princeling on the throne and claim a continuity of succession, but that doesn't seem like his style.

Why does he have to? He didn't overthrow the Habsburgs or the Hohenzerellens.

 

[MrP]

*Looks back*

Well, it was argue pointlessly with Faeelin or stop procrastinating.

Naughty!

67th could provide figures demonstrating how Abyssinia could not possibly have been defeated by the Italians and we'd all be convinced and unable to argue

This is inarguable.

 

[Thande]

Why does he have to? He didn't overthrow the Habsburgs or the Hohenzerellens.

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.

 

[Boom22]

Specifically Britain is a group of islands an invasion of Ireland is far moe likely.

 

[Thande]

Specifically Britain is a group of islands an invasion of Ireland is far moe likely.

That is incorrect. The two major islands making up the British Isles consist of Great Britain, and Ireland. Ireland or any other island is not a part of "Britain" except in the wider sense when Britain is used as an abbreviation of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland".

 

[stevep]

Guys

I could see Napoleon getting across if he gets very lucky - or possibly unlucky as I've seen scenarios like that mentioned by 67 Tigers before. One other problem was that the rafts and small boats assembled for the proposed French invasion in 1805 made the Rhine barges in 1940 look seaworthy. As such a lot of the French invasion force will have swimming practice. [Don't know if they had any special arrangements for cavalry or artillery, but if not then little or none of them will get across.

The other problem for the French was that the British were expecting the French and a landing across the narrows. As such not only were the best troops there and Moore but a lot of fortifications and defences. I very much doubt if the French would be able to get any distance inland before overwhelming reinforcements arrive. After that the British have numbers, equipment, motivation and secure supplies, not a good position for the French at all. [A bit like a certain Danubian island but with a much more difficult retreat].

This might change if the French can land elsewhere but that means a markedly longer distance to travel, both for the initial invasion and then any reinforcements and supplies. Unless you have some factor then enables the French to win control of the Channel for an extended period then the force will be out on a very long and slender limb.

I won't go as far as Lord Barham, who did so much to help reform the navy. "I don't say the French can't come, just that they can't come by sea". However its difficult to say, without a major change in circumstances, whether a successful 1805 invasion is any more likely than one in 1940.

Steve

 

[Cockroach]

I've noticed several people have proposed Trafalgar based PoDs... but when you realise that at that stage the ex-Army of England was somewhere in Germany (IIRC Blown-a-part actually thrashed an Austrian army on the same day as Trafalgar) any immediate invasion becomes plain absurd... and if you leave it any longer the British are going to be doing a hell of a lot to reconsittute their fleet (i mean they've got the entire Channel fleet virtually untouched plus god only knows how many old ships laid up in port and new ships ready on the slips)... which pretty much means the frogs would require a second massive naval victory.

 

[Thande]

I've noticed several people have proposed Trafalgar based PoDs... but when you realise that at that stage the ex-Army of England was somewhere in Germany (IIRC Blown-a-part actually thrashed an Austrian army on the same day as Trafalgar) any immediate invasion becomes plain absurd... and if you leave it any longer the British are going to be doing a hell of a lot to reconsittute their fleet (i mean they've got the entire Channel fleet virtually untouched plus god only knows how many old ships laid up in port and new ships ready on the slips)... which pretty much means the frogs would require a second massive naval victory.

Agreed re the date, 1803/4 is the most likely time for any attempt.

 

[Earling]

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.

While I tend to agree Napoleon would go for a revolution in Britain, it should be said that he doesn't out and out have to do so to ensure a permenant victory.

One of the theories why the French Navy struggled to match the British throughout most of the 18th century was that the French merchant marine really suffered throughout.

All Napoleon has to do (or the French any time in the 18th century) is cripple or even better take the Royal Navy almost to a ship, then use it to effectively end the British merchant marine. In a treaty you enforce the British can only have so many ships of the line although that doesn't matter much. More importantly only allow them so much merchant tonnage. I suspect smuggling would abound, ships claiming to be of some German province etc, but you could severely cut down on what existed as for OTL. You enforce this with your current naval superiority.

What does this do? Well, it makes it very difficult for the British to find crew with much experience even if they do build another navy. Building a navy from scratch without a large body of people with experience as sailors is going to be very difficult.

Further more if the French have a large experienced fleet and the British do not, one would guess that re-invasion would be quite possible.

 

[RPW@Cy]

*scratches noggin*

Well, Nek's been the only overtly patriotic one so far. 67th's provided figures and information on the Army and Militia and how it's likely that they'd overpower the French. If it makes you feel better, I personally feel the mobility of the French could enable the old outflanking manoeuvre - but I was playing a Napoleonic wargame t'other day, so there y'go.

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...

But I haven't seen anyone argue that the Empire will necessarily win and go on to its OTL "glory," just that Boney's invasion is probably, er, boned.

Well, quite. I really don't see where this idea that arguing that Napoleon will almost certainly fail if he tries it is equivalent to saying that Britain will shrug off the whole episode and go from strength to strength is coming from, it will certainly be extremely damaging. Likewise, pointing out that Britain had been preparing for this for years and was therefore unlikely to be taken by surprise and collapse in panic is merely an honest interpretation of the historical material available and not jingoistic boasting.