(Successful) Invasions of France Across the English Channel

The English take their military tenability like a slogan: "Unconquered since 1066." Since that date, any French force attempting to brave the English Channel and subjugate the British Isles has failed spectacularly (ask Villenueve). Ironically, the French have just as respected a tradition of being unconquered from the channel as well (I don't count the Normandy Landings, since, well, it wasn't the French who were being invaded). I've seen innumerable threads devoted to how many times the French could have successfully invaded England, but I haven't seen any of the converse. So, I was wondering, what are some times, after the Hundred Years War, that an invading force from England crossing the channel into France could expect to find reasonable success an a campaign against the French?
 
Possibly early revolution on their own.

With allies, involvement in the Franco-Prussian War, or on the CPs in WWI may be possible, but I can't see why it would be done.

In any case, after the defeat of the French in the Seven Years War.
 
The problem is that the rough parity of Britain and France is very recent. Back in the 1700s, there were still a great many more Frenchmen (and in that particular century, the French were constitutionally in a much better position to exploit their manpower advantage), and so the Channel was for England and Britain a barrier against a much stronger country. (Remember, much of European diplomatic history before 1815 can be summarised as "France fights everyone and draws".)

The only time an English army could really entertain the idea of crossing into France was when there was some big local constituency to assist.

Such constituencies existed during the Wars of Religion and the earlier Revolutionary Wars, and on both occasions we tried to give help to rebellious factions and arsed it up. Also on both occasions, we used our naval advantage to go where the rebels were rather than just crossing the Channel.

So one really needs a big civil war in France, and also an England/Britain that feels a lot more comfortable about big standing armies (although in the unlikely event of some major Communard conflagration in 1871, we might get involved); and given your exclusion of Normandy, I have to ask whether invading in support of one faction in a divided France really counts.

Once the demographic gap closes, you could certainly imagine such a scenario, but thats too far beyond PoDs to really go idly speculating about.
 
(Remember, much of European diplomatic history before 1815 can be summarised as "France fights everyone and draws".)

Is this really true? The 7 Years War and American Revolution hardly saw everyone arrayed against France; in the latter war France arguably only got a draw, and bankrupted itself in the process.

I'm not criticizing, but I wonder if the idea of the all-powerful nigh hegemonic France is a bit of British exceptionalism.
 
the problem with sustaining a large scale amphibious invasion of a nation is that the invader has to possess both a large and effective navy, and a large and effective standing army. Now britain has rarely had both at the same time, as I recall the notion of "Brittania ruling the waves" did not come about really until after the battle of gravelines with the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588. And IIRC the British army even at the height of the Empire's power was still not one of the larger ones in the world, in fact I believe that the East India Trading company had more troops at their disposal at one point.

Also keep in mind that an invasion force that has to cross any large body of water is at a major disadvantage to the defenders, the logistics are a total crap shoot, any extended foul weather could effectively cut off any invasion force from reinforcement or resupply (albeit temporarily) which would be disasterous in the early stages of any cross channel invasion.


If the Royal Army and Navy is confident to obtain the aformentioned conditions, you could see them attempt and quite possibly succeed at a cross channel invasion of France. But as has been said, the British have got to get into the habit of maintaining a large standing army which was all too often not the case.
 
Is this really true? The 7 Years War and American Revolution hardly saw everyone arrayed against France; in the latter war France arguably only got a draw, and bankrupted itself in the process.

I'm not criticizing, but I wonder if the idea of the all-powerful nigh hegemonic France is a bit of British exceptionalism.

True, it wasn't a case of the French always being this close to the dreaded Univsersal Monarchy (and this was a myth propagated in Britain rather a lot); as you've said yourself, the power of states doesn't follow neet curves, it wobbles under the influence of a great many factors. Italian Wars France was a differant matter altogether from Wars of Religion France.

My point is that the French had it in them right up to Napoleon to be a formidable military power when all those factors lined up on their behalf as in 1793-1807, which makes it pretty unlikely for us to go invading them.

Now britain has rarely had both at the same time,

At the risk of seeming fixated, I have to point out that the Commonwealth, which is where British anti-militarism can be nipped in the bud and indeed completely reversed, was not shoddy on the seas either.
 

Susano

Banned
Is this really true? The 7 Years War and American Revolution hardly saw everyone arrayed against France; in the latter war France arguably only got a draw, and bankrupted itself in the process.

I'm not criticizing, but I wonder if the idea of the all-powerful nigh hegemonic France is a bit of British exceptionalism.

Eh? Britain saw the least of that. It was much more a point in the HRE, when all the states had to gather their forces every half-decade or so to fight at the Rhine ;) And look at the Grand Alliance and the Spanish Succession: France fought all of Europe in both cases, more or less alone, and it WON in both cases. The thing is simply that over time economical and demographic development allowed other European states to catch up with France. Hence, maybe "before 1815" is a bit exaggerated, as French dominance waned gradually in the course of the 18th century. But its certainly true enough for the late 18th/early/mid 18th century.
 
And look at the Grand Alliance and the Spanish Succession: France fought all of Europe in both cases, more or less alone, and it WON in both cases.

You really think so? In the WSS, about which I'm more knowledgeable, the French pretty much won in Spain itself and lost on every other front, and had to accept a carve-up of the Spanish patrimony less favourable than what William III was willing to offer them peacefully, all at ruinous economic cost. Given what they were up against and that they were already pretty weary, I'd call it a well-executed draw.
 

Susano

Banned
You really think so? In the WSS, about which I'm more knowledgeable, the French pretty much won in Spain itself and lost on every other front, and had to accept a carve-up of the Spanish patrimony less favourable than what William III was willing to offer them peacefully, all at ruinous economic cost. Given what they were up against and that they were already pretty weary, I'd call it a well-executed draw.

Well, they got the main price. True, the war could have been avoided entirely, and it broke out due to severe diplomatic stupidity on the part of Louis XIV, but that is IMO besides the point: The pre-war diplomacy wasnt part of the war itself. Once that started, the big objective of both sides were the Spanish crowns, and France ended up with them. A clear victory for France, even though it was no absolute one.
 
An invasion with the goal of conquest would be difficult, and despite a decisive victory at Hastings, the Normans spent quite a few years pacifying England. The French would have a better chance of landing a smaller invasion force to depose the current monarch. It worked for William III. Perhaps take London and try to impose a royal cousin of the Bourbons on the throne? Maybe?
 
An invasion with the goal of conquest would be difficult, and despite a decisive victory at Hastings, the Normans spent quite a few years pacifying England. The French would have a better chance of landing a smaller invasion force to depose the current monarch. It worked for William III. Perhaps take London and try to impose a royal cousin of the Bourbons on the throne? Maybe?

I think you misread. The OP's asking for scenarios for a successful invasion of France across the Channel.
 
Top