Napoleon Gets his Global Empire
- Thread starter Dunash
- Start date
Valamyr
Banned
Agreed, and a moderate-sized army made of professional soldiers with land it can pillage to sustain itself will easily, I think, win that contest against the world's best fleet, an ocean away from her bases.
Im no naval expert, but i dont think early 19th century fleets had an autonomy sufficient to maintain such a distance for months. It would at least certainly wouldnt be practical for combat, unlike exploration. The french navy would be so close to its bases that it might be a fair fight.
Im no naval expert, but i dont think early 19th century fleets had an autonomy sufficient to maintain such a distance for months. It would at least certainly wouldnt be practical for combat, unlike exploration. The french navy would be so close to its bases that it might be a fair fight.
Redbeard
Banned
Loosing a few crucial battles
If the RN looses a few crucial battles instead of winning them - everything might be changed, especially after the French had been reinforced with some 30 Spanish Ships-of-the-Line. Imagine Nelson having a bad hair day at Trafalgar and getting a major part of the RN battleline smashed. The French-Spanish fleets now can focus on the Channel and even can expect, with a little rough diplomacy, reinforcement from the 15-20 Danish SotL. Loosing control of the Med. (and Baltic) will not only be economical disaster to UK, but they now also seriously risk being swept way from the channel. If that happens, and you're always only one bad hair day away from defeat, then there is nothing that can stop Nappy from taking the British Isles, and eventually consolidating as the only global power.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
If the RN looses a few crucial battles instead of winning them - everything might be changed, especially after the French had been reinforced with some 30 Spanish Ships-of-the-Line. Imagine Nelson having a bad hair day at Trafalgar and getting a major part of the RN battleline smashed. The French-Spanish fleets now can focus on the Channel and even can expect, with a little rough diplomacy, reinforcement from the 15-20 Danish SotL. Loosing control of the Med. (and Baltic) will not only be economical disaster to UK, but they now also seriously risk being swept way from the channel. If that happens, and you're always only one bad hair day away from defeat, then there is nothing that can stop Nappy from taking the British Isles, and eventually consolidating as the only global power.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Faeelin
Banned
Valamyr said:
I'm not defensive at all; I simply feel that the RN could operate from ports elsewhere, such as in scotland.
Unless the Austrians intervene, and proceed to occupy paris in the intervening time.
Unlikely, but doable.
Steffen said:
Why would the kings of denmark want to see France as Europe's hegemon?
Steffen said:
Perhaps. I just don't see Boney doing it. I'll dig up france's naval record if I can later on.
The only plausible way I can see france winning is if hoche succeeds in ireland, becomes the first consul, while, simulteaneously, George III dies in 1795 after being killed by the mob and his son blows up the navy at spithead and nore.
Then Hoche gets to lead the Army of England.
Incidentally, without Britain, can the US finance industrialization?
Everyone here seems to be assuming that a French army, even a modest one, could easily beat the British army and militia if it could only get across the channel. Is this necessarily true? It's true that the British army wasn't battle-tested like the French, and Britain's minor attempts to intervene directly on the continent had all been failures up to this point. It's also true that the British army (as far as I know) had no first rate generals who could match Napoleon or several other senior French commanders. On the other hand, a good-sized professional army plus a very large number of militia, all fighting to defend their own country, is a force not to be despised.
Paul Spring said:
True. On the third hand (
) by that time, the Revolutionary ( then Imperial ) army had beaten that combinaison a lot of times. Napoleon had not yet squandered the flower of his armies in Russia, and the veterans had been learning their trade in battle since 1792, including in a civil war ( Vendee )Faeelin
Banned
fhaessig said:True. On the third hand (
On the 4th, Napoleon doesn't have to be beaten; just held down long enough for austria to intervene.
Faeelin said:
First, Austria wasn't at its best and had already suffered several defeats, which made it very hesitant to attack France without a lot of backing and encouragement.
Second, Napoleon never intended to ( nor had any need to ) bring the entire Grande Armee to England. More than enough of it to deal with Austria, with quite competent marshalls, were to be left in France ( IIRC, Boulogne at its peak held 130,000 men; Grande Armee was 675,000 ).
Third, without British gold, Austria is not going to war. When french soldiers are on englisk soil, the prospect of getting that gold is not very high. ( Napoleon was in the habit of looting the banks of the countries he invaded, notably the Swiss ones ).
However, all this supposes the channel can be freed of the RN long enough to land in England. DOubtfull, unless the PoD is in 1802 and involves Fulton...
Faeelin
Banned
fhaessig said:
Fortunately, russia was waiting to help out.
fhaessig said:
Cite for this? Most books I've seen indicate that a lot of the army was clustered along the channel.
fhaessig said:
Why not? Austria was not a British puppet, and had been moving towards war for a while.
If Bonaparte can subdue England inside a month, yea. But I'm not convinced he can.
Hmm. England's now gutted; what happens to the industrial revolution?
fhaessig said:
What can fulton do?
The Russians an Austrians weren't fools, with Napoleon threatening to premanently knock out England they'd realise they have one chance to prevent total French domination of Europe, whcih is to intervene NOW.
If this works the postwar settlement would be very interesting. It would be left to Austria and Russia to dictate terms, with France and Britain defeated and Prussia irrelevant.
What could they do about Napoleon or, if he slipped back to lead the defense of France, the French army in Britain?
It's presumably undefeated, can maintain itself reasnobly well off the land for several months and the continental powers can't get at it.
If this works the postwar settlement would be very interesting. It would be left to Austria and Russia to dictate terms, with France and Britain defeated and Prussia irrelevant.
What could they do about Napoleon or, if he slipped back to lead the defense of France, the French army in Britain?
It's presumably undefeated, can maintain itself reasnobly well off the land for several months and the continental powers can't get at it.
The terrain's not ideal for geurilla warfare, and without a regular army to tie them down 100, 000 + French troops should have little difficulty in containing militia troops.