Napoleaon gets his 6 hours
- Thread starter Georgie Porgie
- Start date
Take 200,000 in the Grand Armee and leave them fighting in Britain - who (and how many) faces off against Austria and Russia (and probably Prussia too)
If Napoleon is able to land 200,000 troops in England, that means he can cross the English Channel at will.
But Napoleon is not going to be able to fight England with that 200,000 and fight Austria/Prussia/Russia with whatever else is raised at the same time.
Napoleon the man can only be in one place at a time.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Napoleon being somewhere doesn't exactly guarantee victory, either. But for this to even happen, the Royal Navy has to be completely trashed.
Also, with Russia the capital was not exactly Moscow, well over a century I think in several hundred mile away Petersburg. So what if they burn it. Almost all the really nice stuff is in Petersburg. Moscow just had the really old stuff and could use a lot of urban renewal.
At that time, Prussia's neutrality had been bought. The price was Hanover. What caused Prussia to go to war in 1806 was the settlement that Napoleon imposed in Germany after defeating Austria and Russia at Austerlitz.
And I say it again. France and its allies had ample reserves if needed. You could have Napoleon on one front and another marshall on another front.
Plus there are possibilities that, without Cadiz and Trafalgar, Napoleon Lansing in Britain in summer. And so if the british defeat seems certain, the coalition may well vanish, prefering to accept letting France and Britain settle alone their century-long conflict.
If Napoleon follows his 1805 deployments then we can expect European France to be defended bu Massena, St Cyr and Joseph - the ample reserves would be outnumbered by the Austro-Russian forces. And if Britain is invaded what is to stop Prussia from taking Hannover in any event.
Do you think winning wars and battle is a mere issue of number of troops ?
From 1796 to 1806, Napoleon always had a numerical disadvantage in its campaigns and battles. This did not prevent him, nor Davout (who won the battle of Auerstedt against a prussian army that numbered 3 times as many soldiers as his own army), nor other french marshall from winning the battles.
Do you know how many troops there were in the austrian and russian armies that fought at Austerlitz ? 85,000 ...
Such armies with 85,000 troops or 150,000 troops could do everything but invading napoleonic France.
From 1796 to 1806, Napoleon always had a numerical disadvantage in its campaigns and battles. This did not prevent him, nor Davout (who won the battle of Auerstedt against a prussian army that numbered 3 times as many soldiers as his own army), nor other french marshall from winning the battles.
Do you know how many troops there were in the austrian and russian armies that fought at Austerlitz ? 85,000 ...
Such armies with 85,000 troops or 150,000 troops could do everything but invading napoleonic France.
What happened in the Peninsula war? What happened in Russia?
Napoleon cannot fight in Britain and in France at the same time. French Marshalls were good but not unbeatable as 1813 proved as well.
Strategically Napoleon was prone to flights of fancy in terms of what the army could achieve (Egypt, Russia, to some extent Spain).
How long would the Grande Armee remain in Britain if Mack and the Russians (about 150,000, ignoring Charles 95,000) invaded Eastern France. Directly opposing them would be Brune with 30,000 and miscellaneous garrisons.
In Italy Charles would outnumber Massena circa 2:1
Do you think winning battles is merely a case of a French accent?
I could very well tease you too with your british accent and say to you it's not because you don't want Britain to lose that Britain is undefeatable in this alternate history.
The russians and the austrians did not enter this war in order to protect Britain.
The austrians did because they did not accept the settlement Napoleon had imposed in Germany in 1803.
The russians did for their own reasons, among which Napoleon was conflicting them in the Mediterranean and in Italy. But the general case was not protecting Britain : it was about franco-russian conflict and the personal opinion of Russia's new czar (Alexandre I).
If Britain is invaded by such a big army, it is beheaded and that's all. So it takes its loss and accepts a settlement. The same way as Athens finally lost the peloponesian war.
In the peninsula war, it was guerilla warfare. And the french only began losing in the last part of 1812 and 1813 in close link with the disastrous napoleonic campaign in Russia.
What happened in Russia ? Napoleon gave up a good strategy and changed it for a disastrous and absurd one (in fact it was not even a strategy) : going as deep as possible into Russia in order to have a pitched battle with the russian army that was retreating before him.
The Grand Army, or call it the Army for England, was not all the troops napoleonic France and its allies had.
The russians and the austrians did not enter this war in order to protect Britain.
The austrians did because they did not accept the settlement Napoleon had imposed in Germany in 1803.
The russians did for their own reasons, among which Napoleon was conflicting them in the Mediterranean and in Italy. But the general case was not protecting Britain : it was about franco-russian conflict and the personal opinion of Russia's new czar (Alexandre I).
If Britain is invaded by such a big army, it is beheaded and that's all. So it takes its loss and accepts a settlement. The same way as Athens finally lost the peloponesian war.
In the peninsula war, it was guerilla warfare. And the french only began losing in the last part of 1812 and 1813 in close link with the disastrous napoleonic campaign in Russia.
What happened in Russia ? Napoleon gave up a good strategy and changed it for a disastrous and absurd one (in fact it was not even a strategy) : going as deep as possible into Russia in order to have a pitched battle with the russian army that was retreating before him.
The Grand Army, or call it the Army for England, was not all the troops napoleonic France and its allies had.
All true - but I gave a summary of the French field armies and balance of forces. Tell me why Austria and Russia would not take the opportunity of a French invasion of England to achieve their own goals. Similarly why wouldn't Prussia take what the French had promised them and go for more if they percieved Britain as being weakened.
I don't believe Britain is invincible given a Napoleonic landing - although for them to surrender unconditionally Napoleon would have had to destroy the Royal Navy which I find unlikely to the point of being ASB. What I do beleive is that even if Napoleon could supply his troops across the channel then he would be logistically as far from Paris as he was in Moscow
And that would have consequences. Look at what happened in Spain - the Austrians decided to go to war in 1809 partly because of the involvement of the French in Spain
This is the crux of the matter. If Napoleon gets control of the Channel, Britain is screwed. If he only gets a six hour or twelve hour window due to some unlikely combination of events, before the Royal Navy regain control, any invasion is doomed. Naval supremacy is everything.
There is still a very good chance for Austria and Russia to take its chance. But in 1805, they did not mobilize as much as would have been necessary.
And if Napoleon had landed 200,000 troops in Britain, then he would have at least ex post takes control of the Channel since he would have been in position to deprive the royal navy of all its vital harbours in Britain.
And if Napoleon had landed 200,000 troops in Britain, then he would have at least ex post takes control of the Channel since he would have been in position to deprive the royal navy of all its vital harbours in Britain.