Napoleonic invasion of Britain

Even if Napoleon does that, and even if it doesn't end badly for him - there's very little chance of him managing to capture anything.

Nor does even capturing a few ships mean he has the experienced crews and officers, which is what he really lacks.
 
Something I've been toying with recently....

Napoleon has a more successful diplomatic relationship with Tsar Alexander (makes his charisma roll, whatever). He secures a firm alliance that leads to Alex putting enough pressure on Prussia and Austria to keep his eastern border secure for the time being. He takes his 600,000 into Spain and Portugal to confront the forces there and attempts a lightning campaign against Portugal's harbors.

How do you beat the largest navy in the world when you have no fleet? Help yourself to their ships. How many vessels are moored along Portugal's coast at this point?

The French navy can't match the British navy alone. The British have more ships, better ships, and better seamen. An alliance between the French navy with the navies of Spain, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries, which all have excellent seamen that the French lack, could be more than enough to defeat the RN. France should simply point out to these maritime countries that Britain has repeatedly violated the freedom of the seas, that it is needed to dismantle the British navy to ensure this freedom. That would require Napoleon to be skilled in diplomacy as he is in generalship, though.
 
The French navy can't match the British navy alone. The British have more ships, better ships, and better seamen. An alliance between the French navy with the navies of Spain, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries, which all have excellent seamen that the French lack, could be more than enough to defeat the RN. France should simply point out to these maritime countries that Britain has repeatedly violated the freedom of the seas, that it is needed to dismantle the British navy to ensure this freedom. That would require Napoleon to be skilled in diplomacy as he is in generalship, though.

Here's an interesting What If and of course as were all talking Alternate
History on the forum, its well within the realms of possibility.

I'm sure many members are aware of the Robert Fulton submarine,
the Nautilius that was first test trialed in dives on the Seine at Rouen,
in the Saint-Gervais dock from the 29th July 1800.
The trials, sponsored by the French Minister of Marine, was to prove
the capabilities of the Nautilius as a weapon of war ( or secret weapon )
against the Royal Naval blockade of French ports during the French
Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars.

Wikipedia quote:
On July 3, 1801 at Le Havre, Fulton took down the revised Nautilus to
the then remarkable depth of 25 feet (7.6 m). With his three crewmen
and two candles burning he remained for an hour without difficulty.
Adding a copper "bomb" (globe) containing 200 ft3 (5.7m3) of air
extended the time underwater for the crew for at least four and a
half hours. However, one of the renovations included
a 1.5 in (38 mm) diameter glass in the dome, whose light he found
sufficient for reading a watch, making candles during daylight activities
unnecessary.
Speed trials put Nautilus at two knots on the surface, and covering
400m in 7 min.
He also discovered that compasses worked underwater exactly as
on land.

The first trial of a carcass destroyed a 40-foot sloop provided by the
Admiralty. Fulton suggested that not only should they be used against
specific ships by submarines, but be set floating into harbors and into
estuaries with the tide to wreak havoc at random.

The overseeing committee enthusiastically recommended the building
of two brass subs, 36 ft (11 m) long, 12 ft (3.7 m) wide, with a crew
of eight, and air for eight hours of submersion.

In September, Napoleon expressed interest in seeing the Nautilus,
only to find that, as it had leaked badly, Fulton had her dismantled and
the more important bits destroyed at the end of the tests.
Despite the many reports of success by reliable witnesses like the
Prefect Marine of Brest, Napoleon decided Fulton was a swindler and
charlatan.
The French navy had no enthusiasm for a weapon they preferred to
think suicidal for the crews (though Fulton had no problems).
Certainly, it would been overwhelmingly destructive for conventional
ships.

Of course the big 'what if' in all this is, what would have happened
if the September trials had proved a big success with Napoleon.
Who would have realised the potential of the submarines 'underwater
stealth capabilities' in sneaking up against the royal navies, Ships of
the Line and blowing them up, out of the water.

Obviously the French wouldn't need to build many. Just enough for
service amongst the French Naval ports of Brest, La Harve and
Toulon. For use against the Royal Navies blockade squadrons.
This would have added a new dimension to the Napoleonic Wars
being a constant threat to the Royal Navies ability, in keeping
the French Navy bottled up in their home ports.
 
The French navy can't match the British navy alone. The British have more ships, better ships, and better seamen. An alliance between the French navy with the navies of Spain, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries, which all have excellent seamen that the French lack, could be more than enough to defeat the RN. France should simply point out to these maritime countries that Britain has repeatedly violated the freedom of the seas, that it is needed to dismantle the British navy to ensure this freedom. That would require Napoleon to be skilled in diplomacy as he is in generalship, though.

Napoleon had full use of the Spanish fleet OTL (until he attacked Spain, anyway). As for the others - the Dutch fleet was broken at Camperdown in 1797, and given that the king of Holland was Napoleon's brother from 1806-10 I doubt getting the support of the survivors was much of an issue OTL. The Danish fleet was broken at Copenhagen in 1807, after which Denmark was at war with Britain anyway. There are a couple of problems with recruiting the Swedes - firstly, although they did indeed have a fine navy, it was optimised for Baltic operations which meant lots of relatively small, shallow draft vessels and relatively few ships of the line of the sort needed to challenge for control of the open seas. And secondly, France was at war with Sweden at the time and the Swedes were relying on the Royal Navy to prevent the French from invading from Denmark ("Regardez cette homme! Il á sauvé la Suede!" - Jean-Baptise Bernadotte, when King of Sweden, commenting on a portrait of Admiral James Saumarez). Trying to rally people to your cause by telling them stories of how Britain is violating people's sovereignity at sea tends to sound less impressive when you are busily attempting to much more directly violate their sovereignity on land.
 
I think the only "successful" invasion of Britain would really be more similar to the British attack on the US: Sacking London, burning the palace, and MAYBE getting some form of peace. There would be no chance for an actual conquest of Britain without the French inventing the 101st airborne division 100 years early.

I don't think a French invasion would have necessitated a drawn-out struggle.
From what I've read, during the period from about 1808-12, there was considerable domestic opposition in Britain to the war, as the British economy was in very bad shape at this time. The Continental System is often portrayed as a failure, but even with Spain opening back up (post-1808) and Russia ceasing to obey it, British exports to the continent dropped sharply. And then in 1809 the British tried to invade the Netherlands with disastrous results. To the British public, the war probably looked endless during this time. The sight of a French force on British soil - coming after 15-20 years of warfare, keep in mind - probably would have galvanized the call for a negotiated peace.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Just that such high morale reinforced all the above and made success even more likely...

A virtuous upward spiral.

Even if one somehow addresses France's issues, that the Royal Navy is a damn tough nut to crack is a serious problem.

Preaching to the choir, I know, but just observing how that element is a given in any scenario no matter what we assume for France.

The French Navy did have a lot of success against the British during the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). The 1763-1783 period was one time when France really did put its energies into improving its naval performance (the conquest of Corsica was partly motivated by the desire to establish a good staging ground). But then the Revolution drove off most of its best officers. If Napoleon could have found a way to reconcile them to his rule (and provided they weren't by now too old to serve), maybe his navy doesn't make the kind of catastrophic mistakes it did at Trafalgar and elsewhere.
 
Top