It seems like a risk Napoleon would be willing to take. Like you said, he has experience in said situation that he would be put in (Italy), and he would feel confident in his abilities. Now whether he could actually pull it off is a different story.
Napoleaon gets his 6 hours
- Thread starter Georgie Porgie
- Start date
It seems like a risk Napoleon would be willing to take. Like you said, he has experience in said situation that he would be put in (Italy), and he would feel confident in his abilities. Now whether he could actually pull it off is a different story.
Cyan
Banned
Assuming he gets a well supplied well designed army of 200.000 across and knows that the Royal Navy will block any resupply and bombard any close to shore assets:
1st. March on london.
2nd. Occupy london.
3rd. Ask for terms.
4th A. Get terms, withdraw as the ruler of Europe and by extension, the world.
4th B. Don't get terms, ransack everything that can be moved, kill everyone that can be captured, burn the city to the ground.
5th. Move his by now fully committed army that knows it will be butchered to the last man if it fails, to the outskirts of the next largest UK city at that time, ask for terms again.
4th A.
or
6th. Face the largest combined UK army in history that is at least a million strong of which at least half is incredibly furious Militia units that will fight to the last.
If they lose, its over for them but not him, if they win, they burn the next largest city to the ground, ransack everything, kill everyone and then move to the 3rd largest city and repeat.
Once defeat for the army seems certain, Napoleon and most of his personal staff escape under the quiet of night and catch a small boat back to France where they have been gathering a new army before he landed in the Isles which should be in pretty good condition right now.
Hope to god that you can build a navy strong enough to overtake the RN in the time it takes the UK to rebuild. You probably cant, and the repayment once the UK really gets its act together and lands in France will put the WW2 massacres to shame.
1st. March on london.
2nd. Occupy london.
3rd. Ask for terms.
4th A. Get terms, withdraw as the ruler of Europe and by extension, the world.
4th B. Don't get terms, ransack everything that can be moved, kill everyone that can be captured, burn the city to the ground.
5th. Move his by now fully committed army that knows it will be butchered to the last man if it fails, to the outskirts of the next largest UK city at that time, ask for terms again.
4th A.
or
6th. Face the largest combined UK army in history that is at least a million strong of which at least half is incredibly furious Militia units that will fight to the last.
If they lose, its over for them but not him, if they win, they burn the next largest city to the ground, ransack everything, kill everyone and then move to the 3rd largest city and repeat.
Once defeat for the army seems certain, Napoleon and most of his personal staff escape under the quiet of night and catch a small boat back to France where they have been gathering a new army before he landed in the Isles which should be in pretty good condition right now.
Hope to god that you can build a navy strong enough to overtake the RN in the time it takes the UK to rebuild. You probably cant, and the repayment once the UK really gets its act together and lands in France will put the WW2 massacres to shame.
The terms old Nappy shoudl and Could impose are two different things.
If he is smart enough he will ask for things that will benefit France in the future - thus only little territorial gains - if any,. Mor important is to cripple the British Battle line - take away around 50% of the brit ships - and/or ask the scrapping of a large part of the Navy.
Incite an Irish uprising (befroe negotiations) and demand an Irish state.
Isn't india "owned" by a "company" - so I assume its a no go...
Maybe some small islands in the Caribbean (Jamaica) at most, but Bermudas would offer an nicht opportunity to controll the North Atlantic
IIRC UK had a total population of 10mill. around 1800. - deduct women children and elderly the total force UK could muster could exceed 1 Million with ease (but muster does not mean happily and willingly serving souldiers), but its not the numbers - equipping them would be the larger problem. Militia units would also "break" easily under fire, so larger does not mean better. - I doubt that UK can muster 100K good troops vs Frances 200K - does look bleak for UK.
Not saing it would have been possible as I doubt there is ssomething that would Nappy actually allow to get his army over the pond... But IF he had UK is Toast
If he is smart enough he will ask for things that will benefit France in the future - thus only little territorial gains - if any,. Mor important is to cripple the British Battle line - take away around 50% of the brit ships - and/or ask the scrapping of a large part of the Navy.
Incite an Irish uprising (befroe negotiations) and demand an Irish state.
Isn't india "owned" by a "company" - so I assume its a no go...
Maybe some small islands in the Caribbean (Jamaica) at most, but Bermudas would offer an nicht opportunity to controll the North Atlantic
IIRC UK had a total population of 10mill. around 1800. - deduct women children and elderly the total force UK could muster could exceed 1 Million with ease (but muster does not mean happily and willingly serving souldiers), but its not the numbers - equipping them would be the larger problem. Militia units would also "break" easily under fire, so larger does not mean better. - I doubt that UK can muster 100K good troops vs Frances 200K - does look bleak for UK.
Not saing it would have been possible as I doubt there is ssomething that would Nappy actually allow to get his army over the pond... But IF he had UK is Toast
Moving this forward:
Napoleon lands at Pevensy with his 200,000 troops and the RN quickly take control of the Channel again cutting off supplies.
The French army has to live of the land and devistates the Sussex countryside (spreading into Kent as well).
He moves north towards London where he is met by an army of regular troops and militas under the command of John Moore. The French are defeated but Napoleon and his command staff are able to flee back to France in a small merchant ship landing 2 days later in Calais.
What are the implications for Napoleon? Will the British behave differently at the Congress of Vienna - will they demand reparations for the damage / loss of life in SE England?
Napoleon lands at Pevensy with his 200,000 troops and the RN quickly take control of the Channel again cutting off supplies.
The French army has to live of the land and devistates the Sussex countryside (spreading into Kent as well).
He moves north towards London where he is met by an army of regular troops and militas under the command of John Moore. The French are defeated but Napoleon and his command staff are able to flee back to France in a small merchant ship landing 2 days later in Calais.
What are the implications for Napoleon? Will the British behave differently at the Congress of Vienna - will they demand reparations for the damage / loss of life in SE England?
Napoleon being cut off from supply isn't the major issue it would be for 20th century armies. He can get most of what he needs locally. Particularly since as said Britain isnt' Russia and the Brits can't just burn the fields as they withdraw.
And guerilla war is perfectly possible in 19th century England. Just see France in WW2.
The issue I'd see would be collaborators. If Napoleon is smart and doesn't go for installing a brother or any sillyness and instead plays the Republican France card (if he can)....there could be a lot of British support for getting rid of the monarchy and establishing a republic.
And guerilla war is perfectly possible in 19th century England. Just see France in WW2.
The issue I'd see would be collaborators. If Napoleon is smart and doesn't go for installing a brother or any sillyness and instead plays the Republican France card (if he can)....there could be a lot of British support for getting rid of the monarchy and establishing a republic.
The terms old Nappy shoudl and Could impose are two different things.
If he is smart enough he will ask for things that will benefit France in the future - thus only little territorial gains - if any,. Mor important is to cripple the British Battle line - take away around 50% of the brit ships - and/or ask the scrapping of a large part of the Navy.
Incite an Irish uprising (befroe negotiations) and demand an Irish state.
Isn't india "owned" by a "company" - so I assume its a no go...
Maybe some small islands in the Caribbean (Jamaica) at most, but Bermudas would offer an nicht opportunity to controll the North Atlantic
IIRC UK had a total population of 10mill. around 1800. - deduct women children and elderly the total force UK could muster could exceed 1 Million with ease (but muster does not mean happily and willingly serving souldiers), but its not the numbers - equipping them would be the larger problem. Militia units would also "break" easily under fire, so larger does not mean better. - I doubt that UK can muster 100K good troops vs Frances 200K - does look bleak for UK.
Not saing it would have been possible as I doubt there is ssomething that would Nappy actually allow to get his army over the pond... But IF he had UK is Toast
Assuming Napoleon can land, and can land enough troops and supplies to defeat the available British forces, the British Government might well be amenable to a peace treaty. However, the key term which they would never, ever accept would be limitations or reductions of the Royal Navy. That opens up the possibility of this happening twice, after all...
I don't think that Britain can muster 1 mil troops against Nappy at all. Of those 10 mil in Britain at the time, there are about 2 million Irishmen, who are too anti-English and too far away to join en masse with a British army. There are over 1 mil Brits already under French occupation, which leaves us with less than 7 mil. Since Napoleon would move fast, the British have little time to prepare a large enough army. At the very most, they have enough army to organize 70-80k men, most of them militias who will break and run shortly after seeing 200,000 Frenchmen marching in their direction. If Napoleon manages to land in Britain, there is absolutely no way for the British to win (that is, of course, unless the British prepare really well months ahead).
Try 66,000 regulars, 100,000 militia (which in the British usage means troops trained up to regular standards but for home service only) and something over 200,000 Volunteers (part timers with variable levels of training).
Seriously people should use the search function, we've gone over this plenty of times (those numbers were first cited - by me - in a thread back in January 2008) - even if the French were teleported over the channel they'd have a hard time of it, anything that requires an actual crossing means they're stuffed.
I don't know how Napoleon could have had his 6 or 12 hours. The Brits were not stupid : they knew that if ever a big french army succeeded in crossing the Channel, Britain was doomed.
Because Napoleon was not an idiot either. He perfectly knew that the Royal Navy was much stronger than his own Navy. But in this case, what does one of the greatest generals in History who perfectly knows ancient History do ?
He does the same thing as Alexander the great did against the persan empire : seize control of the harbours that are absolutely vital for sustaining this dominant enemy Navy.
That is why the admiralty gave order to keep control of the Channel and to come back as fast as possible to the Channel if the french Navy tried to pull the RN far away.
Because Napoleon was not an idiot either. He perfectly knew that the Royal Navy was much stronger than his own Navy. But in this case, what does one of the greatest generals in History who perfectly knows ancient History do ?
He does the same thing as Alexander the great did against the persan empire : seize control of the harbours that are absolutely vital for sustaining this dominant enemy Navy.
That is why the admiralty gave order to keep control of the Channel and to come back as fast as possible to the Channel if the french Navy tried to pull the RN far away.
If Napoleon manages to land then i think UK will do as Denmark did when Charles XII landed south of Copenhagen in 1700, sue for peace at once.
Unfortunally for Napoleon such a peace means UK still is a force to be counted with.
If Napoleon manages to land and the UK manages to get an army between him and London and he crushes it then the UK gets a peace but is much weaker.
Peace between France and UK means that the rest of the enemies can be delt with without them getting Brittish aid. Thus peace after Napoleon takes care of Austria
Unfortunally for Napoleon such a peace means UK still is a force to be counted with.
If Napoleon manages to land and the UK manages to get an army between him and London and he crushes it then the UK gets a peace but is much weaker.
Peace between France and UK means that the rest of the enemies can be delt with without them getting Brittish aid. Thus peace after Napoleon takes care of Austria
Why?
Besides that a Napoleon able to land would obviously have divine assistance, the French army isn't invincible - and this isn't Imperialism II, where taking a nation's capital automatically makes it lose.
No. But cutting Britain forces from its main harbours and from its financial center means immediate collapse. Maintening a Navy dominating the seas was much more expensive than maintaining a dominating land army. That's why there was a close link between the development of the City and the development of the Navy.
I'm not sure it was more expensive, but more to the point, taking London does not automatically do this. In six months to a year? Sure. But Napoleon won't have possession of London for six months to a year. And a few weeks at most isn't going to cripple Britain.
Could you explain further on why you think that maintaining a navy was more expensive than maintaining an army in those days? I always thought that armies are more expensive because provisions for equipment, housing, and food required for each person in an army are more difficult, not to mention that there are far more people listed in armies.
If the French can land an army in Britain, then anything can happen, provided that they can maintain peace on the Continent. The French have two options to go about it; go after London directly or, a more patient approach, go after and disrupt the harbours thus weakening the British navy enough for a secure supply line, and then go on with the conquest.
Last edited:
If the French can land an army, they could do it. They've done it numerous times on the Continent. The British army and militia were not exactly up to par to those that the French faced on the Continent.
Last edited: