PC of British government relocating to New World after Napoleonic victory

i just got Napoleons Legacy for Vic2 and I would like to know how plausible the North American situation is there. In this world, Britain was invaded and replaced by a Republic friendly to France. The British government made its capital Ottawa and invaded the US to make New England and Northwest Territory independent. Would this be the most likely outcome of Napoleon winning in Europe?
 
Assuming Napoleon does conquer Britain (which isn't that likely) and the government escaped Canada is probably the most likely place it would go. However, I don't know how long the Britain-in-exile would last. Canada isn't very populated at this point and as far as I'm aware most of the population is French. Add that with the USA at its border and I doubt that Britain-in-exile would last much longer.
 
Assuming Napoleon does conquer Britain (which isn't that likely) and the government escaped Canada is probably the most likely place it would go. However, I don't know how long the Britain-in-exile would last. Canada isn't very populated at this point and as far as I'm aware most of the population is French. Add that with the USA at its border and I doubt that Britain-in-exile would last much longer.

Furthermore, there's no way the British have the military force to wage a war of conquest on New England in Canada. If they existed in Britain, why and how did they get shipped over the Atlantic with 1800's sailing ships while France has the naval dominance to move an army across the channel?
 
Furthermore, there's no way the British have the military force to wage a war of conquest on New England in Canada. If they existed in Britain, why and how did they get shipped over the Atlantic with 1800's sailing ships while France has the naval dominance to move an army across the channel?

If France has either a narrow margin of superiority, enough to defeat the Channel fleet, but not enough to intercept the defeated navy from fleeing Britain, or is actually near match and less than match, enough to ferry over a French army with a lucky Revolutionary Wind and take the Royal Navy homeports from landside but no naval dominance, where would the Royal Navy go?

Considering the small population of Canada and the predictable hostility of French Canadians and USA, could Royal Navy and Family decide they'd prefer West Indies? East Indies?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
i just got Napoleons Legacy for Vic2 and I would like to know how plausible the North American situation is there. In this world, Britain was invaded and replaced by a Republic friendly to France. The British government made its capital Ottawa and invaded the US to make New England and Northwest Territory independent. Would this be the most likely outcome of Napoleon winning in Europe?
I have never seen that situation very plausible. The mod makers were probably inspired by Decades of Darkness that has New England revolting against the US during the war of 1812. The problem is that scenario is not a Napoleonic victory scenario, but a Britiwank in the early years, and basically a Dixiewank later (with the South dominating the US). It doesn't fit well at all in a scenario where the Brits lose the Napoleonic wars.
 
How much of the government are we considering escaping? The Royal Family and the main leaders in Parliament? I am actually wondering how a collaborationist regime would go. I see Napoleon possibly wanting to make himself King of England (versus Great Britain) due to it basically making it official that he was the greatest leader of France in history. Still, more likely he tries to get the Prince Regent under his sway. You guys think it Nappy conquered Britain he would keep Parliament around? I am wondering who would be a Prime Minister for that.
 
How much of the government are we considering escaping? The Royal Family and the main leaders in Parliament? I am actually wondering how a collaborationist regime would go. I see Napoleon possibly wanting to make himself King of England (versus Great Britain) due to it basically making it official that he was the greatest leader of France in history. Still, more likely he tries to get the Prince Regent under his sway. You guys think it Nappy conquered Britain he would keep Parliament around? I am wondering who would be a Prime Minister for that.

The usual scenario was putting a "sister state" in place. Napoléon's own way was to mould the institutions onto French (well, Napoleonic) ones. Others, like Talleyrand, pleaded for more adaptability. In Westphalia, arguably, the most "french" of puppet states, the institutions were : a King, four ministers, a State Council tasked with preparing the bills and the elected Estates (among specific groups of landowners, traders and industrialists and scientists). In Britain, the Commons would become a Legislative Corps, the Lords a (non hereditary) Conservative Senate, the quarter sessions comital assemblies.
 
If France has either a narrow margin of superiority, enough to defeat the Channel fleet, but not enough to intercept the defeated navy from fleeing Britain, or is actually near match and less than match, enough to ferry over a French army with a lucky Revolutionary Wind and take the Royal Navy homeports from landside but no naval dominance, where would the Royal Navy go?

Considering the small population of Canada and the predictable hostility of French Canadians and USA, could Royal Navy and Family decide they'd prefer West Indies? East Indies?

British India/The Company Raj, in my opinion. You have a fairly well-established and stable Anglo-Saxon political and economic organization there, with not insuitable sites for the Imperial splendor of a comfortable exile worthy of the dignitaries that are likely to escape. They have wealth, a large army and armed naval force to supplement the Royal Navy, and with healthy breathing/buffer space between them and hostile powers. With the British government re-located, they could also have the proximity to help stabilize British rule and spread British institutions over the region, head off any French attempts to mess with their hegemony, ect. In the long run, they're also in a far better position for when Nappy does finally slip up and present and oppritunity they can exploit to eventually weaken his hold on the Isles or chip away at the integrity of his Empire, to say nothing of avoiding being extinquished in the meantime.
 
Furthermore, there's no way the British have the military force to wage a war of conquest on New England in Canada. If they existed in Britain, why and how did they get shipped over the Atlantic with 1800's sailing ships while France has the naval dominance to move an army across the channel?

Napoleon only needs to open up for a month, then he can get his men and enough supplies to last awhile. In OTL, the British Mediterranean fleet was larger than the Home Fleet in guns, tonnage, and ships and the Mediterranean fleet could be called for the evacuation if they have a TPK at Trafalgar. Although if they lose Trafalgar, the better move is ask the Mediterranean squad to replace the home fleet and secure the channel to block a crossing.
 
Napoleon only needs to open up for a month, then he can get his men and enough supplies to last awhile. In OTL, the British Mediterranean fleet was larger than the Home Fleet in guns, tonnage, and ships and the Mediterranean fleet could be called for the evacuation if they have a TPK at Trafalgar. Although if they lose Trafalgar, the better move is ask the Mediterranean squad to replace the home fleet and secure the channel to block a crossing.

Napoleon not EVER being able to ship an army across the Channel wasen't what I was critiqueing: I'm hardly one to buy into the myth that "Britannia Rules the Waves" is an ironclad fact of history (Though, you do need the second half of that statement to be true for the first half to also be so: Britain can't be a superpower without firm control of her home waters). Rather, it was two other points one of which you covered yourself.

A) Priorities. The British Mediterranean forces, if they still exist in large enough quantities to stage a successful evacuation of what would be needed to set up the pre-requesit position in Canada to not only fend off the French and Americans, establish firm control over the region's native and French Canadian majority, and stage a successful conquest of New England, than they would quickly move to replace the home fleet and cut Napoleon's army off from the Continent to choke it of reinforcements and supplies. At that point, its a game of attrition and since we've already established the British have a strong military force organized and supplies stockpiled (in such a way that they can pull off the very complex maneuver of a trans-Atlantic flight, so not exactly in so disorganized a state as to be incapable of a more conventional, defensive military campaign on their own, familiar terrain with a supportive populace) they'd have little trouble winning.

B) If, on the other hand, those forces don't exist in this scenario (Say the British Med. fleet gets a sufficently bloody nose, or the land military forces raised are too small), then the government-in-exile can't pull off the feats the timeline says they do even if you can somehow smuggle the Royal Family, a few parliamentarians, and a handful of Redcoats to Canada. Maybe they could hold out for a few years, but in this case they're in the position the stranded French are in Scenario A: trapped in a hostile land with hostile locals, with no likelihood of reinforcement and highly limited local sources of supplies, up against an opponent with an effectively unlimited ability to rejuvenate itself and a strong motivation to continue the war and in the diplomatically favorable position to the other relevant powers (The Americans, being aligned with the Franco-Spainish).

Its the co-existance of two mutually exclusive British positions, rather than the viability of either of the two on their own merit, that's the problem with the timeline.
 
Don't quote me on this as I am not entirely certain of the events. But from what I have seen, the British Union is a result of revolution after the "hot" part of the Great French wars during what we would call a "cold" war stalement with the French Empire on the continent. Napoleon is able to consolidate there and as I see it there could not have been an effective peninsular campaign. More Brits must have been available for NA such that they obtain their objectives there, hence the native confederacy. Revolution in Britain during the 20's I suppose results in the monarchy and their supporters with the bulk of the RN and loyalist militias. Evacuating to NA to regroup and n control of the overseas empire. It wouldn't be Ottawa/Bytown in my opinion as that was basically undeveloped crown land until well into the century. More likely it's QC. This is basically where it starts relative to the Empire and the Union. The US appears to have had exacerbated sectional division subsequent to the more decisive British win 1815.
 
In my opinion? This is basically Canada with an Indian appendage, one that the United States could probably pretty easily defeat with any degree of military preparedness. I'm sure Napoleonic Europe would be happy to render aid in that endeavor.
 
Top