Napoleonic invasion of Britain
- Thread starter Socialist
- Start date
How would the army have got there? Since 1805 the Royal Navy had been unrivalled on the sea, more or less, so there's very little ability to mount an invasion.
The likelihood is that his army gets its supply chain cut off by the Royal Navy and Napoleon gets captured by the redcoats.
To get a successful invasion to work, you need the French to not just match the British at sea, but to actually have naval supremacy. You'd need a point of difference 50-60 years earlier for this to happen, which would probably butterfly away Napoleon. And even if didn't you'd need the French to be able to somehow afford OTL army, large enough to defend from Prussia/Austria/Russia as well as a huge navy. It's pretty hard.
To get a successful invasion to work, you need the French to not just match the British at sea, but to actually have naval supremacy. You'd need a point of difference 50-60 years earlier for this to happen, which would probably butterfly away Napoleon. And even if didn't you'd need the French to be able to somehow afford OTL army, large enough to defend from Prussia/Austria/Russia as well as a huge navy. It's pretty hard.
mowque
Banned
Lots and lots of reasons. I've read a fair number of books on the topic.
But to the OP: If it was possible Napoleon would have tried.
Human.
Consistently through out the 18th century, we see French warships which are well gunned, well designed, and well constructed - many being taken into the Royal Navy when captured.
But the performance of the French navy's leaderships is consistently inferior - I am not sure if that is a matter of inferior tactics or some other quality.
Mowque: Any recommendations? I've read a little, but far less than I'd like.
Consistently through out the 18th century, we see French warships which are well gunned, well designed, and well constructed - many being taken into the Royal Navy when captured.
But the performance of the French navy's leaderships is consistently inferior - I am not sure if that is a matter of inferior tactics or some other quality.
Mowque: Any recommendations? I've read a little, but far less than I'd like.
A good Admiral for French Navy?
Maybe not French.. Spanish,Italian or,why not American.
mowque
Banned
It isn't going to matter, although it would help. The British have better crews, a better management system back home, a much deeper well of marine based population to draw from, a government who understand the sea, and a gigantic merchant marine to influence said government to put the Navy first.
By the time you actually get to the battle, it is all fixed.
Seconding this despite being the less pessimistic. You might be able to change a few battles - the French did win the occasional battle - and they may if you're lucky be crucial ones - but France isn't a naval nation.
From what I can tell, it wasn't easy for the Royal Navy to meet its challenges (the task it has is pretty big even for the best navy in the world), but it had the resources to do so.
The French navy never got that kind of support. And by never I mean in none of the conflicts with Britain, not just under Napoleon.
Napoleon being inspired to do something about it might happen, but it seems like one of the less likely ways to change his decisions.
Incidentally, where are the French getting the shipping if somehow the Royal Navy is beaten? Is this also impossible?
Shipping a large army across the Channel isn't much easier in the early 1800s than the 1940s.
Last edited:
If it was even attempted I have a feeling this is going to be the biggest military disaster in history for the French. Even if they were able to win at Trafalgar supply lines and the like make an invasion next to impossible.
Would winning at Trafalgar make the British more likely to go for a peace though? That is the best outcome if it were to occur and thats pushing it.
Would winning at Trafalgar make the British more likely to go for a peace though? That is the best outcome if it were to occur and thats pushing it.
Earl_of_Somerset
Banned
maybe have Denmark-Norways fleet survive the British onslaught, and they can be used to get the french across and support them?
For Napoleon to be actually successful in invading Britain in 1812, you would need the French to get a fleet out of nowhere, which is rather ASB.
The problem is the Landing, not the Invasion in itself. I'm pretty sure Nappy would have enough men and skills to submit Britain if he were to land. However, for the Landing to happen, the French Imperial Navy need to rival if not be stronger than the British Royal Navy.
The French had built a pretty good Navy when they supported the American Revolution. Problem is that, partially because of the French Revolution, most of the good French commanders went in exile or were beheaded and they didn't found very good successors (in the navy at least, contrary to the land army).
Plus, the French Navy suffered two major defeats during the French Revolutionnary Wars and Napoelonic Wars, both at the hands of Admiral Horatio Nelson : the Battle of the Nile (or Naval Battle of Aboukir) in 1796, which doomed Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign, and the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, which doomed Napoleon's planned invasion of Britain. In both of these battles, the French lost a lot of good ships which were either sunk or captured by the British, leaving the French Navy as a shadow of its previous glory. If you could avoid both Battles, the French Navy could match the British one.
Another solution would be for the Trafalgar Campaign to go differently. Napoleon had quite a good plan at the beginning : lure the British away from their precious Home Islands, then invade. For it to succeed, you would have the French to be more lucky and braver : if Ganteaume's fleet had been able to leave Brest and join with Villeneuve earlier, it could have been trouble for the British. Villeneuve not turning back to Cadix after a naval battle against the British near Brest could also help.
Getting rid of Nelson by having him die early would be another solution, but I don't think his death would be enough. Nelson was the best admiral of his time, but he probably wasn't the only good one the British had.
The problem is the Landing, not the Invasion in itself. I'm pretty sure Nappy would have enough men and skills to submit Britain if he were to land. However, for the Landing to happen, the French Imperial Navy need to rival if not be stronger than the British Royal Navy.
The French had built a pretty good Navy when they supported the American Revolution. Problem is that, partially because of the French Revolution, most of the good French commanders went in exile or were beheaded and they didn't found very good successors (in the navy at least, contrary to the land army).
Plus, the French Navy suffered two major defeats during the French Revolutionnary Wars and Napoelonic Wars, both at the hands of Admiral Horatio Nelson : the Battle of the Nile (or Naval Battle of Aboukir) in 1796, which doomed Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign, and the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, which doomed Napoleon's planned invasion of Britain. In both of these battles, the French lost a lot of good ships which were either sunk or captured by the British, leaving the French Navy as a shadow of its previous glory. If you could avoid both Battles, the French Navy could match the British one.
Another solution would be for the Trafalgar Campaign to go differently. Napoleon had quite a good plan at the beginning : lure the British away from their precious Home Islands, then invade. For it to succeed, you would have the French to be more lucky and braver : if Ganteaume's fleet had been able to leave Brest and join with Villeneuve earlier, it could have been trouble for the British. Villeneuve not turning back to Cadix after a naval battle against the British near Brest could also help.
Getting rid of Nelson by having him die early would be another solution, but I don't think his death would be enough. Nelson was the best admiral of his time, but he probably wasn't the only good one the British had.
The French ships weren't bad, but like mentioned earlier Napoleon could also use the fleets and expertise of Spain, the Dutch, Denmark-Norway. It will be a matter of resources, however a France, which still faces serious threats on the continent (Russia, Prussia, Austria and problems in discontent conquered areas), might not have enough resources available, which are needed to achieve naval superiority.
Could you have the Royal Navy hit by a storm like the one that hit the French in 1744?
Earl_of_Somerset
Banned
Have the Americans send over a fleet to help 
Aren't they at war with Britian at the same time as the french were?
Or an even Better idea....
Convince the British through a double agent that the French were invading not the most direct place...
Maybe the French are really planning to take Ireland and restore the Jacobites? Maybe they invade the Penninsula in SW England?
Aren't they at war with Britian at the same time as the french were?Or an even Better idea....
Convince the British through a double agent that the French were invading not the most direct place...
Maybe the French are really planning to take Ireland and restore the Jacobites? Maybe they invade the Penninsula in SW England?
mowque
Banned
Have the Americans send over a fleet to help
Or an even Better idea....
Convince the British through a double agent that the French were invading not the most direct place...
Maybe the French are really planning to take Ireland and restore the Jacobites? Maybe they invade the Penninsula in SW England?
Doesn't matter. Any French fleet at sea is viewed as the The Threat for the UK. Even if they want to go on a pleasure cruise to the Caribbean (which, as mentioned above was Napoleon's original plan).
And the American fleet is a joke (for this type of deal) in this period, so cancel that idea.
Men of Honour is a pretty good book. It breaks down the social and psychologlical differnences between the French and British navies and explains how these were a deciding factor in why the British won at Trafalgar.