LackOfGravitas
Banned
There Is a bit of Disagreement if it Was Possible for Napoleon to succesfully invade and conquer Britain if he won the Naval Battle ? Is it Possible or not ? And If so What would be needed for it to succeed ?
Wrong forum.
Not necessarily. In the age of sail, there were all sorts of factors to consider. As I recall at one point (I forget actually when, 18th century, I think) a combination of weather and British mistakes left the French in complete command of the Channel for about a week. But they didn't have any army ready and waiting to invade, so the chance was missed. I think the question is: Given a short period of control, could an army be landed, and would that army, once ashore be enough to defeat England?The main thing about invading Britain in the Age of Empires is:
1. To do so, you need to beat it's Navy or at least gain local supremacy in UK Home Island waters.
2. If anyone manages to do so, they don't need to invade anymore. Britain is screwed without it's trade lanes and will have to swallow whatever peace conditions you want to impose short of occupation.
By 1814, the French navy now held the numerical advantage in terms of amount of ships of the line.I think a POD before Henry VIII might be needed for this.
By 1814, the French navy now held the numerical advantage in terms of amount of ships of the line.
It might actually have been cheaper for France to not rebuild its navy and just fill in the channel between Calais and Dover during those ten years.
The problem in this time period was less ships than sailors trained in war. British sailors were far superior because they started every war with supremacy and then got more practice using that supremacy sinking French ships. While the French novices kept on dying before they get experience.
I think you need a pre 1760s POD.
The French navy under Louis XVI was quite strong and a solid rival for the British. It was the Revolution that devastated its ranks.
I think that if Napoleon had been able to maintain continental dominance, with large armies of observation permanently billeted in Germany to keep watch on Prussia and Austria, he could spend the next decade building up the navy until they could simply overpower the British, controlling as he did all the major shipyards of continental Europe. Napoleon's strategy against Britain was somewhat incoherent, in that he attempted a Continental blockade intended to compensate for France's naval inadequecy at the same time he undertook a massive shipbuilding program; if either effort worked, the other would be redundant. The Continental blockade, meanwhile, led Napoleon into two unnecessary wars than ended in devastating defeats. Without the Continental System, he probably could just sit on Europe and bide his time until his empire completely outstripped British shipbuilding. It would be the work of decades, but Napoleon in 1807 still had a long career ahead of him. There was a path forward, even if it would be a hard road.The problem in this time period was less ships than sailors trained in war. British sailors were far superior because they started every war with supremacy and then got more practice using that supremacy sinking French ships. While the French novices kept on dying before they get experience.
I think you need a pre 1760s POD.
I think that if Napoleon had been able to maintain continental dominance, with large armies of observation permanently billeted in Germany to keep watch on Prussia and Austria, he could spend the next decade building up the navy until they could simply overpower the British, controlling as he did all the major shipyards of continental Europe. Napoleon's strategy against Britain was somewhat incoherent, in that he attempted a Continental blockade intended to compensate for France's naval inadequecy at the same time he undertook a massive shipbuilding program; if either effort worked, the other would be redundant. The Continental blockade, meanwhile, led Napoleon into two unnecessary wars than ended in devastating defeats. Without the Continental System, he probably could just sit on Europe and bide his time until his empire completely outstripped British shipbuilding. It would be the work of decades, but Napoleon in 1807 still had a long career ahead of him. There was a path forward, even if it would be a hard road.
Had Napoleon focused on the Spanish campaign rather than the disastrous Russian expedition, I do not think it impossible for him to have taken Gibraltar. From there, he can use the Mediterranean as essentially a giant training-ground, free from British experience.
I think that if Napoleon had been able to maintain continental dominance, with large armies of observation permanently billeted in Germany to keep watch on Prussia and Austria, he could spend the next decade building up the navy until they could simply overpower the British, controlling as he did all the major shipyards of continental Europe. Napoleon's strategy against Britain was somewhat incoherent, in that he attempted a Continental blockade intended to compensate for France's naval inadequecy at the same time he undertook a massive shipbuilding program; if either effort worked, the other would be redundant. The Continental blockade, meanwhile, led Napoleon into two unnecessary wars than ended in devastating defeats. Without the Continental System, he probably could just sit on Europe and bide his time until his empire completely outstripped British shipbuilding. It would be the work of decades, but Napoleon in 1807 still had a long career ahead of him. There was a path forward, even if it would be a hard road.