Napoleonic Invasion of Britain: more or less possibility of success then then an Invasion by Nazi Germany?
Napoleonic Sealion
- Thread starter Hermanubis
- Start date
Napoleonic Invasion of Britain: more or less possibility of success then then an Invasion by Nazi Germany?
That picture is hilarious, however at that time England was the Naval envy of the world, so it'd be much less likely to succeed. And you don't think Napolean had enough trouble keeping Italians, Germans, French, and the Spanish under one banner, do you really think he'd WANT to add jolly old England to the mix
About the same - not a chance in a million.
If he were to get the control of the channel for six hours he thought necessary for a crossing (and how he does this is the major problem for the Napoleonic Sealion), then he probably had a better chance - not being constrained by the need for oil, the logistic problem is smaller, but still there.
It's getting across thats the real trouble - as Jervis said 'I do not say he cannot come... Only that he cannot come by sea' - while this was for political consumption, it's not far off
If he were to get the control of the channel for six hours he thought necessary for a crossing (and how he does this is the major problem for the Napoleonic Sealion), then he probably had a better chance - not being constrained by the need for oil, the logistic problem is smaller, but still there.
It's getting across thats the real trouble - as Jervis said 'I do not say he cannot come... Only that he cannot come by sea' - while this was for political consumption, it's not far off
Exists two TLs in Changing the times about a possible Napoleonic Sealion:
http://changingthetimes.alternatehistory.com/samples/NapWar/england_is_ours.htm
http://changingthetimes.alternatehistory.com/samples/NapWar/then_to_the_invasion_be_defiance.htm
As you can see the two both are very different in the consequences.
My opinion after reading the two timelines and thinking about logistics is like larpsidekick, it could be a defeat even a disaster as the TL "then to the invasion be defiance" says.
My sincere opinion is probably the best Sealion possible that not happened in OTL was the prepared by the spanish in 1588.
The others could have probabilities (in fact I am a sealionist) but they have good probabilities to end in disaster.
http://changingthetimes.alternatehistory.com/samples/NapWar/england_is_ours.htm
http://changingthetimes.alternatehistory.com/samples/NapWar/then_to_the_invasion_be_defiance.htm
As you can see the two both are very different in the consequences.
My opinion after reading the two timelines and thinking about logistics is like larpsidekick, it could be a defeat even a disaster as the TL "then to the invasion be defiance" says.
My sincere opinion is probably the best Sealion possible that not happened in OTL was the prepared by the spanish in 1588.
The others could have probabilities (in fact I am a sealionist) but they have good probabilities to end in disaster.
Yes, I suppose Emperor Blair decide to made the pessimistic and optimist view to possible Sealions.
Although personally I found more plaussible the napoleonic disaster.
Auch! jerk: I have the websters dictionary, I suppose refers slang language, and is not precisely a very good opinion about the writer
Although personally I found more plaussible the napoleonic disaster.
Auch! jerk: I have the websters dictionary, I suppose refers slang language, and is not precisely a very good opinion about the writer
Thande
Donor
Under Napoleon...fairly unlikely but not impossible. Seizing the Danish fleet, and having someone more aggressive than Villeneuve in command, would help. Of course the trouble was that Bunonaparte was fond of micro-managing everything, and he never really understood naval warfare.
There is an excellent map released in 1803 which shows everything clearly - the ports the French would use to invade by, the exact distances across the Channel and North Sea, and the military districts in Britain by which the yeomanry and militia were organised to defend. Sadly too big to post here in any real detail.
In reality the French missed their best opportunity to invade Britain in the Revolutionary years, before Napoleon took power. Their best option would have been to amalgamate the Spanish, Dutch and French fleets after Spain changed sides and the Netherlands was conquered. This combined force would have been a match for the Royal Navy. Of course, Britain also realised this, hence why three separate engagements were made (the Glorious First of June, Cape St Vincent, and Camperdown) to gut those three fleets separately, cutting the main risk of invasion down to very little for the remainder of the war, despite the scares of 1803.
There is an excellent map released in 1803 which shows everything clearly - the ports the French would use to invade by, the exact distances across the Channel and North Sea, and the military districts in Britain by which the yeomanry and militia were organised to defend. Sadly too big to post here in any real detail.
In reality the French missed their best opportunity to invade Britain in the Revolutionary years, before Napoleon took power. Their best option would have been to amalgamate the Spanish, Dutch and French fleets after Spain changed sides and the Netherlands was conquered. This combined force would have been a match for the Royal Navy. Of course, Britain also realised this, hence why three separate engagements were made (the Glorious First of June, Cape St Vincent, and Camperdown) to gut those three fleets separately, cutting the main risk of invasion down to very little for the remainder of the war, despite the scares of 1803.
For this to even be plausible it means Trafalgar must be a French victory, preferably with Nelson still dying and with at least one other *major* naval victory to follow up. The best bet they have is to land in either Cornwall or Scotland and work their way south, especially if they can find a Scottish puppet for a kingdom there as many Scots were still livid about the 1740s. Taking Ireland could be a stepping stone and they would love a chance to kick some English a##, but it would also give the UK another crack at a naval victory, possibly isolating the French to the Emerald Isle.
Not impossible, just needs about three good victories to make it work. If Napolean can land, though, I think he takes London very quickly and establishes a European hegemony for at least two generations.
Not impossible, just needs about three good victories to make it work. If Napolean can land, though, I think he takes London very quickly and establishes a European hegemony for at least two generations.
Thande
Donor
No, it means Trafalgar must be avoided altogether (which is what Villeneuve planned). Franco-Spanish victory at Trafalgar is pretty ASB. Oh, the RN could win it less spectacularly than OTL, but by that point in the war it was almost impossible for the RN not to beat a numerically similar enemy. Both for real reasons (better training, more experience, as opposed to the French having been bottled up in ports for years) and psychological ones (by that point, French sailors expected to lose, and thus morale was low). And Villeneuve knew that, which is why he wanted to send Nelson on a wild goose chase to the West Indies and try to secure the Channel while he was away.
After all, Napoleon said that he only needed to control the Channel for six hours - enough to move one big army across - to beat Britain. Doesn't matter if the RN comes back after those six hours and sweeps all his escorts and empty transports away - that won't change the fact that a big, experienced, continental-sized Napoleonic army would smash everything Britain had in the home islands at that point.
Thande
Donor
That is a good point. However, the French had decent intelligence and I think they were planning to land away from strongpoints. They would have besieged the coastal fortifications from the land side and tied them up rather than trying to force them in descents (amphibious assaults).
Don't forget that they did manage one desultory landing in Wales OTL, so it's not a case of having to go straight across. Air power meant the Nazis' (and the Allies' in Overlord) options later on were far more limited.
Auch! jerk: I have the websters dictionary, I suppose refers slang language, and is not precisely a very good opinion about the writer
If anyone would know what a jerk he is, it'd be me, for I am him and he is me.
-even if Trafalgar is avoided, there must be at least two major naval defeats for the UK to even open up the Channel IMHO
-Yes Austria is where Napolean's army is, but moving ships to the Channel will take time, and I think the best chance for Napolean to invade is either 1803 or 1808 before the Grand Armee would be organized for the UK
-Yes Austria is where Napolean's army is, but moving ships to the Channel will take time, and I think the best chance for Napolean to invade is either 1803 or 1808 before the Grand Armee would be organized for the UK
Napoleon certainly said that, but are we really required to take his word for it? After all, consider what has to be achieved in those six hours. Even assuming the barges are fully loaded with men and supplies in anticipation so that no time is wasted in loading, you still have to get out of harbour, form up, cross approximately 30 miles of open sea as the crow flies (rather more sailing miles once currents are taken into account), approach the landing beaches and disembark 100,000+ men, tens of thousands of horses and hundreds of cannon. And this is assuming absolutely no interference from the Royal Navy (hardly likely - even if by some miracle of seamanship and martial prowess the main battle line of the RN is removed from the table for the relevant period there will still be dozens if not hundreds of smaller vessels - frigates, brigs, even sloops and armed merchantmen) that will be perfectly capable of inflicting chaos on the invasion fleet) - seriously, does six hours really sound like anything like enough to achieve all this?
Ignoring for the moment that the adjective "experienced" certainly does not apply to amphibious operations, then quite possibly. Though whether the assortment of men, equipment and terrified beasts that managed to survive the crossing only to get thrown ashore in more or less random order and forced immediately to fight fixed defences with damp powder and no command structure in place would qualify for this description is another matter, of course.
Though of course any attempt to outflank the defences probably requires more manoeuvrability than the invasion fleet is capably of, and will certainly add to the time spent at sea. If Napoleon is serious about trying to get across in six hours, then he more or less has to go for a straight line crossing, which puts him squarely into the most heavily defended stretch of coast.
The Welsh landing was also only about 1,500 men though, and was the sort of fiasco that would have people crying foul if any of our more serious writers incorporated it in an AH (I mean, seriously - an invasion force surrendering because they mistook Welsh peasant women in red shawls and tall black hats for Grenadier Guardsmen??) - but then real history, unlike AH, is not required to make sense.
It did however have one potentially significant lesson for a future invasion, in that the invasion was successfully contained and the invaders forced to surrender entirely as a result of the efforts of the local militia and before any regulars arrived on the scene. In other words the automatic assumption that tends to get made that the militia would break and run when confronted by Napoleonic regulars is not a safe one to make and is not supported by the evidence of the only time the militia were required to confront French regulars OTL.