In an effort to distance myself from the flamewar-ridden quagmire "Latest Successful invasion of Britain" thread*, I have decided to post my thoughts on the so-called "Armada of 1779" here. It was originally posted in the aforementioned thread, and I received enough positive feedback on the initial post to warrant a new thread.
The initial WI:
How about 1779? It was one of the few times in history where the French navy outnumbered the British in the Channel itself. The invasion failed due to a combination of factors - malnutrition and sickness amongst the men, military indecisiveness from the aging Comte d'Orvilliers, and inclement weather all played their parts.
But what if things had gone differently? This seems to be the best opportunity for the French: they have 40,000 men ready to land and outnumber the British fleet in the area almost 2:1. So how could it go better for the French?
Say the 1778 Battle of Ushant goes a little bit better for the French, although it is still an indecisive encounter. But ITTL François-Joseph de Grasse decides to remain in the European fleet under d'Orvilliers, instead of going to the Caribbean to command under d'Estaing. He is able to negotiate with the Spanish (with whom the French were cooperating with against Britain) to obtain supplies for the transport ships waiting to sail. This keeps the men in better condition, so they sail immediately when the Spanish fleet arrives on July 22, 1779.
The last thing needed is the cooperation of the wind, which can be achieved with some hand-waving. So let's assume that the rest of July is calm enough for the fleet to sail across the Channel. On July 31, the French fleet engages the British while French soldiers capture the Isle of Wight to use as a forward base. From there 40,000 men are landed on Britain itself, while the French fleet keeps the Channel open so supplies can continue to arrive. An unprepared London falls to the invaders, and things go downhill from there. With Britain under French rule, Louis XVI can dictate peace to George III and his cabinet at the point of a sword. Thus ends the supremacy of Britain.
Thoughts?
(See following post for speculation on American developments ITTL.)
EDIT: found some earlier speculation in a previous thread. here, and here.
*In my opinion, this forum has far too many British and American nationalists, and not enough French or Quebecois nationalists.
The initial WI:
How about 1779? It was one of the few times in history where the French navy outnumbered the British in the Channel itself. The invasion failed due to a combination of factors - malnutrition and sickness amongst the men, military indecisiveness from the aging Comte d'Orvilliers, and inclement weather all played their parts.
But what if things had gone differently? This seems to be the best opportunity for the French: they have 40,000 men ready to land and outnumber the British fleet in the area almost 2:1. So how could it go better for the French?
Say the 1778 Battle of Ushant goes a little bit better for the French, although it is still an indecisive encounter. But ITTL François-Joseph de Grasse decides to remain in the European fleet under d'Orvilliers, instead of going to the Caribbean to command under d'Estaing. He is able to negotiate with the Spanish (with whom the French were cooperating with against Britain) to obtain supplies for the transport ships waiting to sail. This keeps the men in better condition, so they sail immediately when the Spanish fleet arrives on July 22, 1779.
The last thing needed is the cooperation of the wind, which can be achieved with some hand-waving. So let's assume that the rest of July is calm enough for the fleet to sail across the Channel. On July 31, the French fleet engages the British while French soldiers capture the Isle of Wight to use as a forward base. From there 40,000 men are landed on Britain itself, while the French fleet keeps the Channel open so supplies can continue to arrive. An unprepared London falls to the invaders, and things go downhill from there. With Britain under French rule, Louis XVI can dictate peace to George III and his cabinet at the point of a sword. Thus ends the supremacy of Britain.
Thoughts?
(See following post for speculation on American developments ITTL.)
EDIT: found some earlier speculation in a previous thread. here, and here.
*In my opinion, this forum has far too many British and American nationalists, and not enough French or Quebecois nationalists.