What if Great Britain lost ?

[Zapfenstreich]

Simply put, can anyone see the French trying to land regiments on the beaches and somehow get the time to properly mass them before British canons wipe them from the face of the earth?

Can anyone even imagine what an opposed landing during that era would be like? There is a reason why the British preferred to knock out Quebec on the Plains of Abraham instead of storming ashore.

The French would not have chosen a strongly defended area for the landing. Besides, with the whole French and Spanish navy, they could have easily neutralised any shore batteries. Britain was not prepared to meet an invasion in 1805, this is why what Nelson did was so crucial.

And I don't understand your point about fresh water. This never stopped the French invasion of any other country. There are rivers in England, believe it or not! :))

[Officer of Engineers]

The French would not have chosen a strongly defended area for the landing. Besides, with the whole French and Spanish navy, they could have easily neutralised any shore batteries. Britain was not prepared to meet an invasion in 1805, this is why what Nelson did was so crucial.

Just like SEALION, there are only so many places you can land an invasion force and British guns don't have to hit the ships, just the immediate shoreline, and therefore stay out of range of ship borned guns. Also, ground based guns far outrange ship borned guns of the era, or rather far more accurate. Try firing a shotgun on land and on a boat.

You're also subscribing to the theory that Nelson's force would be completely annihilated with no survivors. I don't subscribe to that thought. Just like there were French survivors, there would also be a surviving Royal Naval Force.

And I don't understand your point about fresh water. This never stopped the French invasion of any other country. There are rivers in England, believe it or not! :))

As they say, amateurs think tactics and strategy, professionals think logistics. Unless you're planning the French to drink from the Channel, your 2nd landing wave got to be water and resupply. How many waves did we land on D-Day.

[TopHatter]

Yes your right, Trafalgar was our saviour

How so?

Napoleon had called off the invasion even before "England expects..." was hoisted on HMS Victory

[vannor]

Hello,
If, we are presuming that Trafalgar did not happen. I believe Napoleonic France could not have invaded England, as the royal navy would defend all transport lanes to England.
If , on the other hand we are presuming that Trafalgar is "reversed" and is a titanic victory for Bonaparte with all or most of the royal navy sunk or captured. I submit that Napoleon ( being an admited military genius ) would subjugate great Britain within one year if not sooner. The effects of losing
the main British war fleet would require peace talks. This age was not an age of "Total War" and negotiated treaties were very common.

I hope that my inexperiance with is communication format does not insult or otherwise anger any other poster.

[TopHatter]

If, we are presuming that Trafalgar did not happen. I believe Napoleonic France could not have invaded England, as the royal navy would defend all transport lanes to England.

But again, Trafalgar or no Trafalgar, Napoleon had already given up on invading England before the battle was even joined.

I hope that my inexperiance with is communication format does not insult or otherwise anger any other poster.

You're fine.
Although you might want to hop over to the Introductions forum and letting everybody know who you are. :)

[Officer of Engineers]

I hope that my inexperiance with is communication format does not insult or otherwise anger any other poster.

None taken but here are a few points of brain fodder for you.

Did Napoleon had a clue about amphibious assault?

There were two great British Commanders in the Napoleonic Wars. One was Nelson. The other was Wellington. Would you explain to me why Wellington would give up just because Nelson lost?

Would you care to cite me a single scenario where the British would not have local superiority?

I'm not taken insult but trying to provide you with food for thought.

[glyn]

The British standing Army was not huge, but every county had a large number of militias who were well equipped and trained. They also had the advantage of knowing their home turf.

[vannor]

To TopHatter:
You are of course correct. Napoleon had given up on an invasion of England before Trafalgar.
If, we assume a catastrophic reversal the opportunistic nature of the emperor would bring direct action back on the table.

To Officer of Engineers:
I believe the emperor did understand( or at least realize the consequences) of early th century naval landings. This was why He(Napoleon) had called off the landings before Tralfalgar.
As to Wellington giving up,... the less said about that the better.
I would still put forth that Britania Ruler of the Ocean bereft of Her pride and joy, surrounded by a despised new Spanish armada and a terrifying fleet of French republicans(replete with guillotines) would certainly bring the British ti the negotiating table.
I believe that the very nature of "the offense" is superiority on a local level. This does not mean success on a strategic or even a tactical level.

So, to be specific,
French landing in Ireland.
or Scotland.
Strangulation of the U.K. through blockade
an unopposed raid developed to full scale landings

[Johnny W]

I don't know what the Royal Navy's exact order of Battle was, but I don't think Nelson had the whole Fleet with him. They would have recalled all British ships in the Atlantic to defend the Island, including those on North American station. That would have made a relatively impressive fleet. The only question would be if it could return in time to stop an invasion (if Napoleon had chosen to invade England).

[Skywatcher]

Wouldn't Napoleon also have to worry about his other fronts while investing a huge portion of his resources trying to subdue the British Isles?

Austria and Prussia could decide to attack him again.

[zraver]

I don't know what the Royal Navy's exact order of Battle was, but I don't think Nelson had the whole Fleet with him. They would have recalled all British ships in the Atlantic to defend the Island, including those on North American station. That would have made a relatively impressive fleet. The only question would be if it could return in time to stop an invasion (if Napoleon had chosen to invade England).

Most of what could have been called back would have been Frigate sized or smaller. Nelson sailed with the ships of the line, nominally a reserve fleet due to the cost of the battleships. IIRc he had 25-27 such ships. So a defeat at Trafalgar would have cost England dearly in terms of treasure and sailors, but ironically not hit the cream of the Royal Navy's professionals who were in the Frigates.

The being said, the loss of much of the battle line might well have bankrupted Britain if she tried to rebuild to many ships, and forced her into a crewing situation where she was actually out crewed by the French/Spanish. Not to mention the hit her merchant marine would have taken by a double levy to crew the original and new battle fleets. The RN was always short of able bodied men, in fact impressment was one reason the US got sucked into the war of 1812.

The loss of sailors and treasure might have forced Britain to sue for peace or risk losing her colonies. if Brtain does bow out then czar Aleksander is never going to risk Napoleon's wrath and there is no Moscow and France sits on a united Europe until, and only until the nationalist forces the French Revolution unleashed rip the French Empire apart.

[Oscar]

The French navy was a joke during the imperial and revolutionnary wars, compared to what it was in the 1780's. Napoleon wasn't interested in the domination of the oceans and Europe has always claimed all his attention. That's why we sold Louisiana.

Furthermore the navy officer corps of the "Royale" was crippled by desertion and emigration. Unlike the land officers the marine was still deeply monarchist when the revolution broke out. So, of course the French navy was not a threat for the British colonies.

[Blademaster]

I do know for one thing, if Britain had lost, she wouldn't have been able to keep India for that long nor invaded the entire subcontinent.

[Officer of Engineers]

How Hitesh? Remember how the Brits did it - through Indian disunity and it was a gradual thing. I don't think the East India Company set out in mind to conquer the subcontinent. They were there at first to make a buck. If they lost at Trafalgar, would the EIC still not form to make a buck in India?

And British troops were around 100,000. That kind of numbers was never possible to hold India without Indian concent. Would the Brits be less opportunistic with fewer troops?

[Blademaster]

Don't forget the First War war for Indian Independence a.k.a. the 1857 Sepoy's Mutiny. If it wasn't for the reinforcements from Britain and from Middle East, Britain would have lost.