Napoleon invades Britain instead of Russia

Maoistic

Banned
Let's say that the very Grand Armee Napoleon gathered for his invasion of Russia was instead completely redirected for an invasion of Great Britain. What would have happened? Would Napoleon be successful in conquering or at least defeating Britain and subdue it, or would the British crush the invasion?
 
It drowns when it tries to march across the English Channel. Trafalgar saw the French navy smashed and with it any hope of an invasion of Britain.
 
It drowns when it tries to march across the English Channel. Trafalgar saw the French navy smashed and with it any hope of an invasion of Britain.

I admittedly don't know lots about the Napoleonic Wars, but this argument always seems a little flawed to me. There's seven years between Trafalgar in 1805 and the Invasion of Russia in 1812 - using that later date for the sake of argument. Ample time for Napoleon to build a new fleet should he be so inclined surely? I mean, the ships of the line that France lost in the 1790s and early 1800s, for example, didn't take seven years to build. Something like the 118 gun L'Orient that was lost at the Nile only took three years from being laid down to commission. Trafalgar was a blow, no doubt, but are we really confident in saying that it was a blow that the French Empire couldn't recover from for at least a decade?
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
I admittedly don't know lots about the Napoleonic Wars, but this argument always seems a little flawed to me. There's seven years between Trafalgar in 1805 and the Invasion of Russia in 1812 - using that later date for the sake of argument. Ample time for Napoleon to build a new fleet should he be so inclined surely? I mean, the ships of the line that France lost in the 1790s and early 1800s, for example, didn't take seven years to build. Something like the 118 gun L'Orient that was lost at the Nile only took three years from being laid down to commission. Trafalgar was a blow, no doubt, but are we really confident in saying that it was a blow that the French Empire couldn't recover from for at least a decade?

Frances problem was not building boats but having the crews able to man them, it takes time and effort to train a crew and in general the French suffered from a lack of decent crew from Midshipmen level to Officers that the British didn't.

Even if France rearms the British are going to come gunning for the fleet before it can reach a decent level of operational readiness and ability.
 
I admittedly don't know lots about the Napoleonic Wars, but this argument always seems a little flawed to me. There's seven years between Trafalgar in 1805 and the Invasion of Russia in 1812 - using that later date for the sake of argument. Ample time for Napoleon to build a new fleet should he be so inclined surely? I mean, the ships of the line that France lost in the 1790s and early 1800s, for example, didn't take seven years to build. Something like the 118 gun L'Orient that was lost at the Nile only took three years from being laid down to commission. Trafalgar was a blow, no doubt, but are we really confident in saying that it was a blow that the French Empire couldn't recover from for at least a decade?

The time to build the fleet and the infastructure for it, an army organized for the invasion of Britain, AND still accomplish the dizzying list of feats he did on the Continent to the point he could feel safe leaving an undefeated Russia in his rear? (Who, let's remember, could easily snatch up all the marbles he'd gathered in Eastern Europe if the Grand Armee is busy in Britain)? No. Nappy only has so much time and resources, which only go so far.
 
As @Artaxerxes says the key difference was that the Royal Navy was far more skillful thanks to the experience of maintaining the blockade and ample gunnery practise, the French were penned up in port and had much less gunpowder to practice firing with. As to building up the French fleet they only had so many shipyards so while they could build some ships between 1805 and 1812 they couldn't build a whole fleet anymore than the USA could rebuild the current US Navy in 7 years. You also have the broader problem that post Trafalgar Napoleon basically gave up the naval competition and cut the French navies budget and concentrated resources on the army. If he chooses differently the French army will be weaker with fewer men and cannon which might see the various land wars between 1805 and 1812 go differently.
 
Napoleon simply could not get an army across the Channel. The RN were not only blockading ports, they were raiding them, cutting out or burning moored ships. And single RN ships happily took on daft odds, out-sailed and out-gunned most opposition, caused disproportionate damage...

Must also be said that Napoleon was a 'General', not an 'Admiral'. His fleet did catch the RN a few times, but it rarely ended well...
 
It is an absurd idea in reality, but I'd love to see Napoleon go "Bugger the fleet", and just do an Alexander The Great and build a massive bloody causeway between Calais and Dover - fortified with cannons and emplacements as it went.

I dread to think how long it would take to build, but it'd be a true wonder to see. 20 miles of rock shipped from across continental Europe? It'd be a horror.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
It is an absurd idea in reality, but I'd love to see Napoleon go "Bugger the fleet", and just do an Alexander The Great and build a massive bloody causeway between Calais and Dover - fortified with cannons and emplacements as it went.

I dread to think how long it would take to build, but it'd be a true wonder to see. 20 miles of rock shipped from across continental Europe? It'd be a horror.


"Let us move Italy into the channel! Finally a use for it!"
 
You'd need to win Trafalgar. I don't see it happening otherwise. Trafalgar more importantly than the ships was a massive loss in experience and sailors.

It's the same sort of situation you see with Japan after Midway. With all that experience gone it becomes harder to train and develop a healthy navy.
 
I admittedly don't know lots about the Napoleonic Wars, but this argument always seems a little flawed to me. There's seven years between Trafalgar in 1805 and the Invasion of Russia in 1812 - using that later date for the sake of argument. Ample time for Napoleon to build a new fleet should he be so inclined surely? I mean, the ships of the line that France lost in the 1790s and early 1800s, for example, didn't take seven years to build. Something like the 118 gun L'Orient that was lost at the Nile only took three years from being laid down to commission. Trafalgar was a blow, no doubt, but are we really confident in saying that it was a blow that the French Empire couldn't recover from for at least a decade?

The problem is that, without experience sailing their ships in open waters, the French sailors will be at a massive disadvantage in battle. That's why, historically speaking, it's generally been easier to replace armies than fleets during wartime.
 
The British were quite proactive with preventing any naval threats. Just look at poor Denmark-Norway, neutral (well, at least nominally) until the British took issue with them having the last decent fleet on Continental Europe.
 
The problem is that, without experience sailing their ships in open waters, the French sailors will be at a massive disadvantage in battle. That's why, historically speaking, it's generally been easier to replace armies than fleets during wartime.

Adding to the problem was that the main French means of hitting back at the British while they tried to rebuild their fleets were privateers. Now these did inflict some damage on the British but mostly it tied up warships and resources in arranging and safe guarding convoys. The downside to the French however was that the British were equally adept at hunting privateers. So that some 27,000 French seamen would be prisoners in Britain in 1814. Thus even after Trafalgar the attrition of talent from warships, privateers and an ever diminishing number of merchantmen was ongoing.
 
Frances problem was not building boats but having the crews able to man them, it takes time and effort to train a crew and in general the French suffered from a lack of decent crew from Midshipmen level to Officers that the British didn't.

Even if France rearms the British are going to come gunning for the fleet before it can reach a decent level of operational readiness and ability.

One of France´s main weaknesses during the Revolution and the Empire was not being able to re-invent its naval officers corps. The Army leadership was largely changed and rejuvenated by the influx of former Junior Officers, NCOs or civilians. In the Navy, the leadership was never rejuvenated in the same proportions. The flag officers were former officers of the Royal (French) Navy, well-educated but lacking the combat abilities of the british ones
 
Top