WI: Napoleon Gets Captured

Today, I had an idea and I thought I would share it on this site to see what people think the ramifications of it would be.

Let's say that, in 1804, a major storm occurs in the English Channel which leads to the Channel Fleet being swept into the Atlantic for a few days. Napoleon, hardly believing his luck, orders the Grand Armee to cross the Channel, hoping that he will be able to secure a quick victory before the Channel Fleet can return.

However, upon landing in Kent, Napoleon finds that British resistance is far greater than initially anticipated, and consequently Britain is able to prevent the French forces from advancing as quickly as Napoleon initially hoped. Meanwhile, the Channel Fleet is able to re-group, while the fleet in the Mediterranean under Nelson quickly moves into the Atlantic and back to the Channel, where the two fleets combine. The Royal Navy then proceeds to cut off Napoleon's supply route, and any French attempt to break the blockade is easily defeated.

Returning to the situation on land, British forces are able to push the French back, either through winning a decisive engagement which depletes the French force significantly, or by carrying out a sustained campaign which sees Napoleon's resources reduced and with no reinforcements available. Either way, Britain is able to drive the French back to the coast, and Napoleon finds himself trapped with no method of escape. Consequently, British forces are able to capture Napoleon (along with the remaining French forces), and thus the French Emperor finds himself in the Tower of London as a prisoner of war.

What would the ramifications of this be? Would France be willing to carry on, having lost their leader? What would Britain do with their valuable prisoner? How would the rest of Europe react to this development?
 
I don't think Nappy is going to be defeated in a field battle like that. He could win against 3 to one odds, unless he does something like try to take a fort by storm. If this somehow does, game over for Napoleon. Most of Europe is like "yay" and Austria (which was particularly humiliated) goes "yay!"
 
Well, we have to start by asking ourselves what resources the British have at their disposal and who's in charge. For the latter, I assume it's the Duke of York, who gets a lot of credit for his army reforms, but choked repeatedly in the field. Can he really keep Napoleon away from London? And if he can't, then I'm guessing Napoleon will be able to get enough loot to sustain his army for a campaign.
 
And if he can't, then I'm guessing Napoleon will be able to get enough loot to sustain his army for a campaign.

Send every scrap of food to London, which he can't crack (the whole Grandee Armee is not going to get across if the Channel fleet is delayed instead of sent packing in retreat, so all the British have to do is fortify). Hope people comply with the orders instead of hording food for themselves (which just feeds Napoleon).

But the OP claims somehow Napoleon gets captured. Why? He's not going when only his Vangaurd on the beachhead, and if more arrives (somehow, it will take a long time for the central forces to arrive and the Channel Fleet will come back) then he shouldn't lose in a field battle.

Maybe a fog rolled in one battle and the British got the better of the French?
 
But the OP claims somehow Napoleon gets captured. Why? He's not going when only his Vangaurd on the beachhead, and if more arrives (somehow, it will take a long time for the central forces to arrive and the Channel Fleet will come back) then he shouldn't lose in a field battle.

Maybe a fog rolled in one battle and the British got the better of the French?
Alright then, let's assume that the French received some faulty intelligence which gave the impression that the British Army was in a state of disarray (when in actual fact Britain was prepared for an invasion), which gave Napoleon the impression that he could secure a quick victory, and so he crossed with his vanguard, believing that the campaign would not last long.

As for the field battle, personally I don't believe that Napoleon was necessarily invincible on land - after all, he sustained heavy defeats at Waterloo and Leipzig. But, for the sake of the scenario, let's assume that, when the British and French engage in a field battle, the geographical conditions heavily favour Britain, and Britain has one of its top generals in the battle (perhaps Arthur Wellesley, who was already a prominent general at this point thanks to Anglo-Mysore War).
 
This would be the 1804 Grande Armee, which was drilled completely for 2 years. It would take a lot to defeat such an Army. The 1813 and 1815 battles mentioned above had a much lower quality of soldier. Nappy had a huge qualitative advantage from 1803-1809.

I also suspect Nappy wouldn't be invading England himself- it would be Davout. It's too risky to risk Nappy dying at sea.

If Nappy ended up captured, most likely scenario is he's never let go, and the French continue on without him, Eugene gets a "regency". France would demand Nappy restored, Britain would demand something unreasonable, and so neither side would stop. Most likely the French quit antagonizing the rest of Europe though and come to some arrangement with them,and Britain would eventually be forced to deal as the continent sorts itself out.

France most likely ends up with natural borders but nothing else, status quo in Eastern Europe, Rhineland more favorable to Austria- more unstable France as Nappy's legitimacy is shaken by capture, but Nappy directs his efforts internally and does well there like OTL and gets remembered more for that and as an overall good but not great general.
 
as Alstein said, Nap is not some unbeatable god. he's a very good general, but his main advantage is the quality of his military. The rest of the world doesn't catch up to it for several years.

Meanwhile, Britain is no great shakes til Wellington puts on a good show in Portugal/Spain. At this time, he's recognized, but he's not the top dog likely to be in charge. Britain's main emphasis was on the navy. France manages to get a reasonable size army onto the island, it's goodnight for Britain.

On the unlikely event that Nap goes over himself and manages to get captured, France has a power vacuum. IF they don't implode with wannabe rulers fighting for supremacy, whomever does take over quickly says "Napoleon who?" and moves on. It's hard to see a followup act who would match or top Nap for wanting to conquer the world, so France most likely backs off on aggression and Europe settles into a new balance of power. If France implodes in a power struggle, the rest of the world looks to regain anything they lost to Nap and then settles into a new balance of power. Nap wasn't coronated til Dec of 1804, so hereditary imperial crown does not pass on to his brothers. Whomever takes the reins has a nasty accident waiting for Nap upon his eventual release, if that person doesn't get Britain to keep him indefinitely.
 
I expect the moment Napoleon is captured a coalition will form, Brittain, Austria and Prussia at least and possibly Russia. I dont know how the situation in France will develope but im not sure on a smooth transition of power.

Also in 1804 HRE is still alive - it might survive. Prussia might end up as the big winner however this would butterfly its OTL military reforms as well.
 
Did you mention at one point that putting even 32,000 soldiers with 3 month's of food in one pass was stretching French naval capacity? And that's just the vangaurd
On the one hand, the French tended to expect to live off the land. So I doubt they'd arrive with 3 months food.
On the other, while the French might be able to sneak some people across, trying a full invasion in the teeth of the RN suggests to me that a significant percentage WON'T make it across, and those who do might be scattered a bit. And certainly disorganized - Regiment A knows that Company 1 landed in the right place, Company 2 was sunk, Company 3's ships were sunk but the men were mostly picked up and are here (without any equipment), Company 4 apparently landed 50 miles down the coast, and Company 5? Who knows?

Trying to pull that kind of disorder back into sufficient order to take on the British on their home soil would be.... Interesting.
 
On the one hand, the French tended to expect to live off the land. So I doubt they'd arrive with 3 months food.

Then the invasion is 100% screwed.

They need to organize themselves and this is an amphibious landing, not a normal march from France to Germany. The British would throw in some of the Home Guard as cannon fodder to add to the chaos, while others gather around Royal Army units that would act as a core of the defense. With the clock ticking, the French might be able to loot some, but not nearly enough to get by the first few months.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Okay, so quick bit of a reminder.

The British "militia" was extremely well trained in this time period, indeed part of the Surrey militia went directly into the Guards to reinforce them for the Waterloo campaign. The Home Guard would be weaker.

There were three army corps (each two divisions) under D Dundas (gen) and Lt Gens F Dundas and George Don. This is the Kent-Sussex command, the "Southern District".
There were another three near enough to quickly march in support, those being the Duke of Cambridge in Surrey, Harry Burrard in London (3 division, not 2) and the Duke of Cumberland in Hampshire. (All three of these were Lt Gens). Due to the system of telegraphs (i.e. semaphore) they know he's landed within the hour and it's quite possible that Dundas brings his three corps down on the beaches before Napoleon's got his (six corps) army fully across.

Further north there were corps in Northumberland, York, Scotland and a division on the Severn (respectively Dalrymple, Vyse, the Earl of Moira and Tarleton). Moira's another full general, the rest were Lt Gens.

That's the formed troops and totals eighteen divisions, of which thirteen are within about 2-3 days march and six are actually already in the operational area. The militia would be additional to this, as would the home guard, and would functionally mean another 420,000 mobilized troops of varying qualities all over Britain, with those nearby to support the main punch.


As a point of interest, the British had already put together a government evacuation plan - up the Grand Union Canal to Weedon Bec.
 
Okay, so quick bit of a reminder.

The British "militia" was extremely well trained in this time period, indeed part of the Surrey militia went directly into the Guards to reinforce them for the Waterloo campaign. The Home Guard would be weaker.

There were three army corps (each two divisions) under D Dundas (gen) and Lt Gens F Dundas and George Don. This is the Kent-Sussex command, the "Southern District".
There were another three near enough to quickly march in support, those being the Duke of Cambridge in Surrey, Harry Burrard in London (3 division, not 2) and the Duke of Cumberland in Hampshire. (All three of these were Lt Gens). Due to the system of telegraphs (i.e. semaphore) they know he's landed within the hour and it's quite possible that Dundas brings his three corps down on the beaches before Napoleon's got his (six corps) army fully across.

Further north there were corps in Northumberland, York, Scotland and a division on the Severn (respectively Dalrymple, Vyse, the Earl of Moira and Tarleton). Moira's another full general, the rest were Lt Gens.

That's the formed troops and totals eighteen divisions, of which thirteen are within about 2-3 days march and six are actually already in the operational area. The militia would be additional to this, as would the home guard, and would functionally mean another 420,000 mobilized troops of varying qualities all over Britain, with those nearby to support the main punch.


As a point of interest, the British had already put together a government evacuation plan - up the Grand Union Canal to Weedon Bec.

With roughly 420,000 troops available, then it seems like Britain would most likely be able to fend off an invasion, making my initial scenario more plausible.
Also, Weedon Bec is certainly an interesting choice for an acting capital.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
With roughly 420,000 troops available, then it seems like Britain would most likely be able to fend off an invasion, making my initial scenario more plausible.
Also, Weedon Bec is certainly an interesting choice for an acting capital.
I said ANOTHER 420,000. That's on top of the actual field armies...
 
I said ANOTHER 420,000. That's on top of the actual field armies...

Well, you can probably only count on 100,000 of that to fight. The rest would run away at the sight of a bayonet or even an enemy horsemen 100 meters away and probably wouldn't be able to load nearly fast enough for sustained volley fire, since you know militia. That said, the field armies can fight.

However, I don't think that Napoleon is coming personally. Even if he is willing to risk coming along with the Vanguard, I doubt he'd be on the first ship. He wouldn't show up unless he knows he has 3 or so months of food, which would mean he can move his army based on tactics (which he is good at) instead of looting. No point in being a military genius if your army needs to go where the food is and not where you would have a tactical advantage over any counterattack. If food is deciding movement, he's not useful. Since the Channel Fleet is delayed, not beaten into retreat, the supplies might not all get there. If Napoleon knows his Vanguard doesn't have enough food, he'll just stick around a ship until the supply ships unload enough that he can give orders based on his decisions, not the need for food.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well, you can probably only count on 100,000 of that to fight. The rest would run away at the sight of a bayonet or even an enemy horsemen 100 meters away and probably wouldn't be able to load nearly fast enough for sustained volley fire, since you know militia.
The actual British militia were actually very good. Remember British infantry were some of the best in the world at the time, man for man (and certainly more consistent in quality), and the reason is the outrageously long training times - British militia trained nearly as heavily as many continental armies, which is why they could just plug Surrey militia units directly into the Guards and have them hold Hougoumont.
The Home Guard would have the vices you mention.

However, I don't think that Napoleon is coming personally. Even if he is willing to risk coming along with the Vanguard, I doubt he'd be on the first ship. He wouldn't show up unless he knows he has 3 or so months of food, which would mean he can move his army based on tactics (which he is good at) instead of looting.
Three months of food is an outrageously large quantity. Armies making moves travelled with a couple of weeks, at best, and French armies specifically were more inclined than (say) British to forage to supplement their food, which caused real operational constraints on how soon armies could move after they settled down for the night (as the soldiers would have spent time foraging). This was the pattern even inside France, so I think Napoleon would almost certainly expect his army to rely on forage - it's how he fought every campaign.

No point in being a military genius if your army needs to go where the food is and not where you would have a tactical advantage over any counterattack.
You may not understand how logistics worked in this period.
"Where the food is" was everywhere, most people still worked on farms or in small towns. The problem would come only if Napoleon's army had to march back over a sizeable area they'd already stripped bare.
 
Wait, then why do the British usually haul around lots of extra food and money in their campaigns 1500-1800? I assumed the French would as well. The War of Austrian Succession and huge piles of storage were common for the British and the American Revolution was uncharacteristic of them since they just brought along minimalist supplies and some cash to buy anything they needed to take. Usually they hauled a lot of their food, not that they didn't forage, but that was a supplement in an early part of a British campaign.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Wait, then why do the British usually haul around lots of extra food and money in their campaigns 1500-1800?
Two reasons. Firstly, because the food in the logistical train is there to supplement what you get by foraging (so you can last in situations when forage is not available, such as in the middle of an engagement), and secondly because British logistics especially in the Napoleonic period were atypical. Not in that they didn't forage, but in that they paid. Most armies just took.

I'm actually quite surprised you've not run into the forage thing before. Any good history of the Peninsular War will highlight how the French armies earned the enmity of the countryside by foraging and the British reliance on paying for their supplies (and on shipping in food because of their command of the sea) was atypical - or for that matter why armies dispersed to winter quarters, it was so they didn't overstress the local food supplies.


From a book on Waterloo:

Now we come to the (for the French) tragic 18th. Napoleon has been severely criticised for not attacking Wellington at Waterloo earlier. As things worked out, every hour that the French could have gained would have been in their favour. But the French could not have attacked shortly after dawn because their entire force had not yet arrived north of Rossome. Further, the commissariat difficulties of Napoleon’s armies were as bad as ever; in addition to three days of marching and fighting, the troops had to find most of their food. Finally, all weapons needed to be cleaned after the downpour of the afternoon and night before. An attack by a poorly concentrated, tired, hungry and inadequately armed army would have been worse than a delay.

Weller, Jac. Wellington at Waterloo
 
Top