Napoleon invades England

[MerryPrankster]

The very fine tactic of standing in a thin line atop a hill, shooting a volley into the French as they deploy from column into line to shoot at you, then charging into them with gravity, your bayonet and several hundred screaming friends on your side.

That's what it was? I thought the French columns were like rectangles moving narrow-end first, and British columns were like rectangles moving wide-end first.

The narrow French column was good at punching holes through Austrian and Prussian lines, but the British column could pour more ammo into the French ranks.

 

[DGNT]

I was under the impression the British public was so terrified of Napoleon that they used him to scare their kids. With the Great Evil on their home soil, they might be willing to accept all sorts of things.

Would the Brits need to destroy that much territory to starve Napoleon's army? Britain's land mass is so small that Boney could be more easily cornered somewhere than in Russia, where he had lots of room to manuever.

But when it comes to having your farm burned down and all your sheep killed, how scary is Napoleon compared to the redcoats with torches? As I understand it capitolism was a stronger force than nationalism for a while in the UK.
Think of somebody from the government coming to your home and saying something along the lines of, "Theres a bunch of terrorists living in the area, were going to burn down all these homes so they dont have anywhere to get food and shelter from."
Not QUITE the same scenario, but you get the idea.

I imagine they would need to destroy a significant portion of the farmlands in southern England, not to mention the ports, shipyards, foundries, and all that. Since a lot of the British industry is concentrated in the south, the British economy would be in serious trouble.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Couldn't they just herd the sheep somewhere else? If they killed them, they'd have to carry them, and that involves transport.

Furthermore, a lot of the industrial stuff could be moved if they have sufficient warning, and set up somewhere else. Think the USSR moving all its gear to the Urals in WWII.

Hmm...as a consequence of this policy, an industrialized Scotland or a revived North?

 

[DGNT]

Couldn't they just herd the sheep somewhere else? If they killed them, they'd have to carry them, and that involves transport.

Furthermore, a lot of the industrial stuff could be moved if they have sufficient warning, and set up somewhere else. Think the USSR moving all its gear to the Urals in WWII.

Hmm...as a consequence of this policy, an industrialized Scotland or a revived North?

Sheep move slowly, and not very far either. It would be a great risk to be caught moving them by the French.

Industry now and industry in 1940 are WAYYYYY different. The Soviets had sophisticated (by 1855 standards) trains. They also had cars and trucks and millions of people willing to haul stuff on their backs because Stalin told them to.
I doubt the British could convience their citizens to do so without seriously upsetting some people.

 

[Johnnyreb]

No doubt the British economy would have been wrecked, but that wasn't so important to the war against Napoleon in 1805. At that stage, Austria, Prussia and Russia could still raise armies without resorting to British loans.

And no-one's talked about the effect on French forces in England when the Austrians decide to move against France, which they would have done, sooner or later, in due time, when convenient.

Getting back to the British Army, the reason I dismiss it is because it's 1805, not 1810 or 1815. The only fighting record they had was the disastrous campaign in the Netherlands. The reforms initiated by the Duke of York (a much, much better administrator than he was a soldier) had not fully taken effect.

No doubt Sir John Moore could have moved his expert force from Shornecliffe, but it was very small compared to the Grand Armee. All the British soldiers of talent were relatively junior officers at the time.

 

[MrP]

That's what it was? I thought the French columns were like rectangles moving narrow-end first, and British columns were like rectangles moving wide-end first.

The narrow French column was good at punching holes through Austrian and Prussian lines, but the British column could pour more ammo into the French ranks.

AFAIK, what I said is the most recent research/opinion on the subject. Of course, having the infantry in formations two deep is better for pouring fire onto the enemy than three deep, and shouldn't be dismissed.

The British were also well-served by light infantry. Continental powers facing France never got their lights up to the peaks that the British and French managed. IIRC, for the British it's a development of AWI tactics and a response to the French tactics. For the French it's a result of having large untrained units (at the start of the Revolutionary Wars). So the bravest sharpshooters got pushed out in front with orders to disrupt the enemy firing line. Their opponent's either wasted fire on the skirmishers or lost their officers and NCOs. Either way, by the time the large deep French formation (40 men wide wasn't an unusual size for a column, IIRC, then maybe 10 ranks behind them) reached them, they had either no firepower to stop the main body, or no commanders to reform them.

The Brits deployed large swarms of skirmishers, too. These functioned in much the same manner as the French lights, and also served the purpose of warding the voltigeurs away. It wasn't always the case that the British fought defensively from the tops of hills - I was oversimplifying. Salamanca's an excellent example of a British attack that smashes the French.

 

[Admiral_Ritt]

You don't need to Invade England to defeat her. All you need is
for Napoleon to strangle their Economy. Remember the Young USA
was an ally of Napoleon. The UK navy could not be everywhere.
what was needed was new Merchant ship designs. Of the type
that clipper ships were, Fast and maneouvarble. These combined
with shallow draft coastal barges, (by handling goods at minor anchorages and small ports) could have alieviated the strains
on napoleon's restive allies on the continent caused by Naval blockades on the major ports by the UK.

Remember Napoleon had to fight the England for both Military and enomic
reasons.

 

[Johnnyreb]

Sorry, Admiral, the British had over 250 warships at sea at that time and were adding to them at the rate of 2 or 3 a month. As for merchantmen, the British already had the types you mention (they were called East Indiamen) were acquainted with how they behaved and would have simply adjusted their tactics. Besides, Napoleon did not have the time to build a new merchant fleet.

As for coastwise traffic, the RN frigate captains became expert at "cutting out."

BTW was the USA an ally of Napoleon? During 1812 (that is, 6 years later) certainly, although N did not lift a finger to help them. At other times there would simply have been diplomatic relations, which is not the same thing.

Everyone is right about British infantry tactics, the double line, the volleys the skirmishers. But the real key to the tactics, as they evolved, was a kind of psychological warfare.

The British were rigidly trained (by flogging, naturally) to keep dead silent in ranks as the enemy approached. Then there would be 3 volleys, a disciplined cheer (Hip-hip-hoorah) then a short countercharge.

It was the silence that unnerved the French. No other nation did this. Stendahl speaks of his hero's surprise when bullets start flying. Victor Hugo referred to "that cold infantry."

 

[Sgt Detritus]

It's theoretically possible that the French might have had a better shot had they landed in Ireland instead, and brought some of the Wild Geese from the abortive rebellion of 1798 along. Possibly it could have stirred a rising in Ireland. And if Napoleon had also brought along a Stuart pretender, it's conceivable there might have been similar disturbances in Scotland.

In 1805 the Jacobite "claimant" to the throne was Bonnie Prince Charlie's brother Henry aka Henry IX. He was 80 in 1805 and would only live for another 2 years. Next in line was Henry's second cousin King Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia

 

[Johnnyreb]

The French tried landing in Ireland twice. On both occasions, the Irish patriots failed to appear in anything like the numbers enthusiastically promised by the Wild Geese, and the French ended up losing valuable ships.

In fact, that was the occasion when Pellew's frigate "Indefatigable" engaged a French battleship and sank it, as well as causing the wreckage of two more in the Brest Roads. That was the calibre of the frigate captains the Navy had at the time and I guess the French finally decided the outflanking manoevre game wasn't worth the candle.

There is a myth about Scotland, which is that they are all hairy Catholic men in kilts living in mountain glens, thirsting to drench their claymores in Protestant English blood. Actually, a huge majority of the population lived in the Lowlands, were Calvinist and had no particular sympathy for the Stuarts. They were more interested in making money and probably wouldn't have known one end of a claymore from the other. That's not to say they were tremendously attached to the English Hanoverians - they were usually content to wait out to see who won.

 

[Faeelin]

The French tried landing in Ireland twice. On both occasions, the Irish patriots failed to appear in anything like the numbers enthusiastically promised by the Wild Geese, and the French ended up losing valuable ships.

Let's not oversimplify.

There was something of a disturbance in Ireland in the 1790s which occurred as a result of the French invasion, and had, I think, some influence on British-Irish relations.

 

[Stalker]

I am, I would agree here with Johnnyreb, by 1805 the Jacobite are not just a bunch of dreamers who lost all support from the Catholic scotts, even of those of Highland clans, Lowlanders as Protestants themseves wil be reluctunt to interfere with all this crap.
What if Napoleon had managed to land his forces at Dover or in Cornwall - the atter is less pausible for the British would use nerrowness to the defile for their advantage. Here the examples of Waterloo are most appropriate.
The British had several Highlands regiments of Scottish fusiliers in 17 (? AFAIR) squares on the top of the small plateau. These brave men fought pretty well but that was not enough to keep them from being smashed by the frontal attack of weakened badly and having lost their trot by that unfortunate cuirassiers under command of Michel Ney. The French attack, desperate as it was in the final cut of the battle made the Alied line to start tearing apart but the French no more had force to advance. The Engish skirmishing lines were formidable shooters but they were weak against the fast cavalry attack - Napoleon knew that much - that's probably he ordered to attack the Duke Wellington's centre with massive cavalry. The Highlanders squares screening redcoats skirmishers were smashed but they fulfilled their task - the French cavalry was worn out. Relief played its bad joke on the French. An the rain during the night before the battle, too, contributed to the final defeat of Napoleon. But for the rain, he had not to wait until 10 a.m. to start the attack. Shoud the French started the battle only 2 hours earlier, Blucher would have arrived on the ashes of Hougoumont and seen the frightened refugees in red coats swarming the roads in attempt to survive.
And then already it would be Cambronne's turn to cry out: "Brave Engishmen, you've fought well, now surrender with honour!", and one of british officers wouf respond to that: "Sh...t!" and died bravely and foolishly in the salvoes of the New Guard.
1) There's the fact that Napoleon knew British tactics and tricks
2) His troops back in 1805 were much more experienced in fighting than the British without war in Portuga and Spain
3) His troops had extremely high morale and were probably the toughest fighters in Europe in massive dogfight (Napoleon was surprised when he saw the expertise of the same level in Russian grenadiers in the battle of Preussisch Eilau) while the British were genarally the better shooters.
4) Grouchy would hardly be entrusted to lead something more than the division because there the whole Pleiad of formidable generals still alive on the year 1805.

So, my guess, with all respect to Engish army, that if RN somehow were unable to intercept the Envasion Fleet, the Grand Armee is expected to be in London in one-two weeks after landing having defeated whatever British forces brought before it.

Say, the way Britain is firm is on seas, that holds the truth for the French' firmness on land at that time.