I read in a book that Napoleon had said that all he needed was 6 hours to cross the Channel and the war would be over. So let say for whatever reason Napoleon gets his 6 hours and his army crosses the Channel. Does the Prussian and the Russians stab Napoleon in the back? Is England brought to her knees? What happens?
Napoleon's 6 hours
- Thread starter snerfuplz
- Start date
Cherico
Banned
the british will eat his army alive...
The british army is nothing to sneeze at and the british population
was much more dedicated to their country then the prussians were
so not only does nappy have to fight the army he also gets stuck
fighting aganst british civileans with weapons, then he has to face the
fact that his milatary will be cut off in britian with no support.
sooner or later the brits kill kill his milatary off by attrition and nappy
if hes lucky will be imprisioned if hes unlucky then he will be killed by
enraged british troops or civileans.
The british army is nothing to sneeze at and the british population
was much more dedicated to their country then the prussians were
so not only does nappy have to fight the army he also gets stuck
fighting aganst british civileans with weapons, then he has to face the
fact that his milatary will be cut off in britian with no support.
sooner or later the brits kill kill his milatary off by attrition and nappy
if hes lucky will be imprisioned if hes unlucky then he will be killed by
enraged british troops or civileans.
Anywhere between 1803 and 1805 when the Grande Armee was encamped at the Channel, poised to invade England.
As to Cherico, utter claptrap my good man
. Can you provide anything to back up your claim of unbridled dedication within the British population, especially in comparison with the Prussian?
After all, the Prussians enthusiastically introduced national conscription in 1813 while the British rulers were afraid excessive casualties would undermine the meager support for the war!
The Grande Armee of 1803-1805 was undoubtedly the finest army in Europe at the time, as shown by its performance between 1805-1808. It defeated every army sent against it and excelled in particular at higher levels of command, e.g. corps, wings and army level, something in which the British army was very deficient.
The British regular army of 1803 vintage was relatively small (about 100,000 men) and mostly scattered in garrisons around the world. It was augmented by local, mostly sedentary militias (around 200,000 men of decidedly uneven quality). The main defence of England was its Royal Navy, guarding the channel.
The army and militia would have difficulty concentrating against the quick-marching French army and would find it practically impossible to defeat the Grande Armee in open battle. That would explain Napoleon's boast of "just having to land his army in England".
Would 6 hours have been enough to transport the French army across the Channel? No, what Napoleon needed was unimpeded crossing of his entire army. One day might have been enough to land sufficiently strong landing forced to win beach heads (the 7 line corps were to land in 3-4 different locations to prevent congestion and force the British to split their forces). To land up to 200,000 men, considerably more time would have been necessary.
But that was probably never Napoleon's intention. Like he tried with Czar Alexander in 1812, Napoleon wanted to scare the British into settling. When that failed, he probably hoped a landing and some initial victories in skirmishes would force the British leadership to acknowledge that defeating the French was beyond their means.
Would the British populace have risen up? Hell, no! The Spanish guerrilla was practically unprecedented, as was the Tyrol uprising. Both were the result of political miscalculations and an enforced change of allegiance (King Ferdinand removed, King Joseph-Bonaparte installed in Spain and Bavaria installed as overlord instead of Austria in the Tyrol) pushed upon the common people. Added to that it must be said that both regions were generally backward and ideally suited to insurgency warfare.
In the rest of Europe, even in France itself, the populations did not actively fight invading armies with widespread insurgency. Perhaps more people would flock to the colours or join the local militia but they would not have made much difference once Napoleon had landed in England.
The only question would be supplies. The French would probably have been able to manage regarding food. Ammunition would have been more difficult, especially if more than 1 major battle was necessary to force the British to concede. If the French manage to capture British army stores, they will win. If they fail to get their hands on captured ammo, they lose!
Would the Prussians and the Russians have been able to benefit from the French adventure? Maybe. It certainly was a possibility but one I think would be unlikely unless the Grande Armee got bogged down in England.
Firstly, the Grande Armee was the main force but there were sizeable reserve and militia forces available as well as satellite armies like the Franco-Italian.
Secondly, the other nations of Europe were astonishingly incompetent at coordinating their campaigns, let alone their actual forces. They only started getting it right in 1813. In 1805, the Austrians were basically defeated before the Russians appeared in their support, partly because they used a different calendar!
Their presence in the field however would present a threat to France, forcing either Napoleon or Massena to return to command the Rhine front and sapping valuable resources and attention from the British campaign if that did not end quickly.
As to Cherico, utter claptrap my good man
. Can you provide anything to back up your claim of unbridled dedication within the British population, especially in comparison with the Prussian? After all, the Prussians enthusiastically introduced national conscription in 1813 while the British rulers were afraid excessive casualties would undermine the meager support for the war!
The Grande Armee of 1803-1805 was undoubtedly the finest army in Europe at the time, as shown by its performance between 1805-1808. It defeated every army sent against it and excelled in particular at higher levels of command, e.g. corps, wings and army level, something in which the British army was very deficient.
The British regular army of 1803 vintage was relatively small (about 100,000 men) and mostly scattered in garrisons around the world. It was augmented by local, mostly sedentary militias (around 200,000 men of decidedly uneven quality). The main defence of England was its Royal Navy, guarding the channel.
The army and militia would have difficulty concentrating against the quick-marching French army and would find it practically impossible to defeat the Grande Armee in open battle. That would explain Napoleon's boast of "just having to land his army in England"
. Would 6 hours have been enough to transport the French army across the Channel? No, what Napoleon needed was unimpeded crossing of his entire army. One day might have been enough to land sufficiently strong landing forced to win beach heads (the 7 line corps were to land in 3-4 different locations to prevent congestion and force the British to split their forces). To land up to 200,000 men, considerably more time would have been necessary.
But that was probably never Napoleon's intention. Like he tried with Czar Alexander in 1812, Napoleon wanted to scare the British into settling. When that failed, he probably hoped a landing and some initial victories in skirmishes would force the British leadership to acknowledge that defeating the French was beyond their means.
Would the British populace have risen up? Hell, no! The Spanish guerrilla was practically unprecedented, as was the Tyrol uprising. Both were the result of political miscalculations and an enforced change of allegiance (King Ferdinand removed, King Joseph-Bonaparte installed in Spain and Bavaria installed as overlord instead of Austria in the Tyrol) pushed upon the common people. Added to that it must be said that both regions were generally backward and ideally suited to insurgency warfare.
In the rest of Europe, even in France itself, the populations did not actively fight invading armies with widespread insurgency. Perhaps more people would flock to the colours or join the local militia but they would not have made much difference once Napoleon had landed in England.
The only question would be supplies. The French would probably have been able to manage regarding food. Ammunition would have been more difficult, especially if more than 1 major battle was necessary to force the British to concede. If the French manage to capture British army stores, they will win. If they fail to get their hands on captured ammo, they lose!
Would the Prussians and the Russians have been able to benefit from the French adventure? Maybe. It certainly was a possibility but one I think would be unlikely unless the Grande Armee got bogged down in England.
Firstly, the Grande Armee was the main force but there were sizeable reserve and militia forces available as well as satellite armies like the Franco-Italian.
Secondly, the other nations of Europe were astonishingly incompetent at coordinating their campaigns, let alone their actual forces. They only started getting it right in 1813. In 1805, the Austrians were basically defeated before the Russians appeared in their support, partly because they used a different calendar!
Their presence in the field however would present a threat to France, forcing either Napoleon or Massena to return to command the Rhine front and sapping valuable resources and attention from the British campaign if that did not end quickly.
The problem for Napoleon is that the logistical balance is very fine.
A small army will probably be able to live off the land and carry enough ammunition for some fighting, but will it be able to take London if a reasonable defence is put up? It seems unlikely. London at this time is something of a unique phenomenon with a population of over a million. To put that in perspective Berlin has something like 200,000 meanwhile Vienna and Moscow have populations in the region of 300,000 people. The British need not be much different to the Prussians for the simple logic that a far larger city requires a far larger garrison to hold.
A large army will clearly be able to overwhelm any opposition, but shall prove logistically unsustainable. You can't just throw 200,000 (or more!) soldiers onto British shores and expect them to find enough food, ammunition and so on. Unless the RN had been effectively defeated (in which case the British may well come to terms) it has to be assumed that a steady transport of goods across the channel isn't going to happen.
An invasion of Britain could very easilly turn into a disaster of Russian proportions. After Napoleons "6 hours" there is no easy way off the Island. The British need only fight to the point that Napoleon's victories are pyhrric and London will probably hold. The aftermath would find French armies starving, out of ammunition and with a returned RN effectively trapped.
Would the British population have risen up? Depends on the exactions inflicted by the French on the common populace and their potential to resist. Geurilla warfare thrives when the opponent is weak and/or disorganised. If the French are reduced by starvation to small fairly disorganised bands roaming through the Britain searching for food and passage to continental Europe then you can expect the common people to take their revenge.
All this isn't to say an invasion is an inevitable failure but like in Russia victory will probably depend on the political situation rather than the military. If the British refuse to come to terms (and the RN reclaim control of the channel) there is a significant limit on how long Napoleon could continue.
A small army will probably be able to live off the land and carry enough ammunition for some fighting, but will it be able to take London if a reasonable defence is put up? It seems unlikely. London at this time is something of a unique phenomenon with a population of over a million. To put that in perspective Berlin has something like 200,000 meanwhile Vienna and Moscow have populations in the region of 300,000 people. The British need not be much different to the Prussians for the simple logic that a far larger city requires a far larger garrison to hold.
A large army will clearly be able to overwhelm any opposition, but shall prove logistically unsustainable. You can't just throw 200,000 (or more!) soldiers onto British shores and expect them to find enough food, ammunition and so on. Unless the RN had been effectively defeated (in which case the British may well come to terms) it has to be assumed that a steady transport of goods across the channel isn't going to happen.
An invasion of Britain could very easilly turn into a disaster of Russian proportions. After Napoleons "6 hours" there is no easy way off the Island. The British need only fight to the point that Napoleon's victories are pyhrric and London will probably hold. The aftermath would find French armies starving, out of ammunition and with a returned RN effectively trapped.
Would the British population have risen up? Depends on the exactions inflicted by the French on the common populace and their potential to resist. Geurilla warfare thrives when the opponent is weak and/or disorganised. If the French are reduced by starvation to small fairly disorganised bands roaming through the Britain searching for food and passage to continental Europe then you can expect the common people to take their revenge.
All this isn't to say an invasion is an inevitable failure but like in Russia victory will probably depend on the political situation rather than the military. If the British refuse to come to terms (and the RN reclaim control of the channel) there is a significant limit on how long Napoleon could continue.