So the navy was prioritised over the army in this period, but what about the air force? You never seem to hear much about the RAF during the Napoleonic era...
fun fact, I think there was actually a plan to land a minor amount of troops with balloons, the capacity of 4 men per balloon although was extremely limited.
I can't tell you much about the RAF, but the French Air Force fought bravely in Borodino. If you don't believe it, Reply History made a video about it, just don't forget to turn on the English captions:) ruclips.net/video/2KQ9ZKkeqaY/видео.htmlm42s
That probably had to do with the fact that conditions in the trenches were terrible. Lice was rampant the idea was, if I recall, you had to be deloused when you left the front on leave etc...So, shaving, shorter haircuts all of that had something to do with it. I'm recounting this from memory so anyone in the know correct me if I'm wrong.
"There are eight sail of the line, Sir John" "Very well, sir" "There are twenty sail of the line, Sir John" "Very well, sir" "There are twenty five sail of the line, Sir John" "Very well, sir" "There are twenty seven sail of the line, Sir John" "Enough, sir, no more of that; the die is cast, and if there are fifty sail I will go through them."
You were right first time, it was British not English. Anything after the act of union, in 1707, was a British force (even if dominated by the English) rather than an exclusivly English force.
It was common terminology at the time to refer to the UK as England and it's people as English, hence Nelson's famous signal at Trafalgar; "England expects that every man will do his duty".
Common terminology does not make it correct terminology. It is such aspects of "common terminology" that often leave the Scots complaining that they are the ignored part of the Union, and maybe rightly so.
Hfil66 Vommon terminology is often correct terminology. England referring to all of Britain was common and correct until the Scott's threw a fit. Now the Birts get all butthurt about the English British division when it is a very modern change and only really matters at all to the Brits.
Why do you think japan and britain are so successfull
7 лет назад+38
Napoleon would've won an invasion of England in 7 days, 12 hours and five minutes: -4 days to steal all the tea in England and stash it somewhere -3 days for a French courier to deliver an ultimatum to London surrender or never be able to drink tea again -5 minutes to debate a decision on the ultimatum -0,5 a day an English courier to hurry back to Napoleon to hand him the English surrender
I wanted to add a caveat to your statement of the British having more ships and stronger ships. The French were in fact quite close to achieving parity in numbers. With new ships being built all the time they were gaining on the Royal Navy and were set to overtake them, though Waterloo put the brakes on that. Meanwhile British ships were lost to weather and wear, as being on blockade took its toll on the existing fleet. Many British ships were not in great shape due to the same wear. So no free lunch for the RN, their highly experienced crews came at a price. One might also argue that the French built better ships. Though that advantage is nullified to an extend by so many of them ending up in British service after being captured. The deciding factor would have been the crews. While the British rate of fire advantage is much exaggerated, there is no denying ship handling-wise the RN would have put the French to shame. Much faster and precise ship handling would have been of immense value in a fleet engagement, especially in a relatively confined water like the Channel. Nor did the French navy ever fully recover from the revolutionary purges of its nobility that held the bulk of the leadership positions under the French king. Contrary to popular belief, these tended to be perfectly capable men who knew their business.
France's best opportunity to invade Britain in the pre-Trafalgar era was during the American Revolution. From 1778-83, Britain was at war with the American colonies, France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic without a single ally. Its navy was the most powerful but engaged all over the world. Its navy also did not have the overwhelming advantage in quality that it did 25 years later when Napoleon considered invading. France actually managed to defeat the British navy in 1781 at the Battle of the Chesapeake, preventing the British from reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown and forcing him to surrender in the decisive battle of the war. France did consider an invasion of Britain during the war, and it might have worked had certain circumstances been somewhat different.
It was much cheaper and easier to just kick the English out of the 13 colonies than start an European war... The American war of independance was nothing more than a skirmish compared to scale of the wars/battles in Europe.
I doubt it would have been anymore likely to succeed honestly. Spain and France tried to invade Gibraltar during the war and it went disastrously for them, despite Gibraltar being so small, far away from Britain and sharing a land border with Spain. Invading Britain would've been a monumentally more difficult task.
I think another important element is during the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Marines were at their peak, soldiers experienced in fighting ship to ship actions as well as in landing operations while also maintaining tight discipline on ships. The French Troupes de Marine on the other hand were decimated during the 7 years war and after the early 1760's essentially ceased to exist being absorbed in to the regular army and then reduced to artillery regiments. Eventually after the Napoleonic wars they started being reconstituted and despite a revolutionary blip by the time of the Crimean war were an effective fighting force again, growing stronger through the later 19th and featuring prominently during the French colonial wars of the 20th century.
Wonder what would've happened had Napoleon seen an ironclad. Think there is a story where he rejected the concept. Pretty sure an actual prototype would've convinced him. Short of that you make a good argument why there was nearly no chance of invading england (at least after Trafalgar). Even in the scenario of ironclad it's not a given the invasion would suceed. Most ships for transport would still be wood, and the british would certainly react to the new threat.
People always ask how a tiny *island* like Britain (actually one of the world's largest islands, but whatever) could be so powerful. Not realising the answer is in the question. xD
You're right - seamanship in the Royal Navy was definitely superior to that generally found in the French or Spanish fleets. It was definitely a factor in the victory at Trafalgar.
I may be incorrect about this but the French ships were often faster in a straight line but not as agile while the Royal Navy ships were more agile but not as fast in a straight line. I also read that the French stacked their army units onto French ships in order to give them a more powerful boarding force, similar to the Romans using the corvus ram they wanted to use their strength at land at sea. Not sure how true any of it is.
@Military History not Visualized Could I just ask if an army did land in England could they not survive by pillaging the countryside? or could they not force a quick conclusion to the war by marching on London? why did Napoleon say that he needed to control the channel for 40-50 days rather than just how long it would take to sail to england?
Hard to not go directly into the genius of Napoleon and Berthier when they left Boulogne behind and raced for Ulm. They may not have known what they were doing at sea but they had land warfare down.
Well done. The British warship gun crews could load and fire 3 shots for any of their opponents 2, quite a force multiplier. French (land) artillerymen were also very capable. So, could Napoleon have committed his beloved artillerymen to serve on war ships? It is one thing to fire artillery on land, where you can actually stand up straight and your gun is not always moving up and down and from side to side, but a whole other thing to do it in the confined, noisy, etc. lower decks of a ship of the line. (Where all of the heavy guns were. . .) Soldiers have a limited purpose in a sea battle. Nelson was picked off by a French Marine in the rigging, but musket balls will not sink ships.
Good presentation but in 1803 the Royal Navy was suffering a self inflicted mini crisis due in large part to the actions of Lord St Vincent he had gained office during the peace of Amiens and on the pretext of rooting out corruption caused chaos in the naval administration , a refusal to pay commercial rates for naval stores and an insistence that building and repairs be carried out at Royal dockyards rather than utilize commercial dockyards saw the navy short of ships it needed .
A naval engagement with an industrial island nation is always going to be a bit tricky. Don't forget about the industrial revolution in England too. It started in the cloth industry towards the end of the 18th Century... Which is rather useful for plentiful high quality sails for your ships. The weather is usually in the favour of the English, the prevailing winds across the UK comes from the west.
Other commanders got their forces across the Channel (Julius Caesar, Claudius, Asclepiodotus, William of Normandy). Q: which of these had a to face a fleet?
The Dutch were able to attack London successfully but not capture any territory. William III could only take control because of his wife Mary II. If the Dutch who at the time perhaps were superior to the British as a naval power couldn't invade I don't see anyone else being able. As always a great video.
The Dutch navy, at its peak, (1600s) was the best in the world (not the biggest), but there army was smaller even than the English. The French navy was stronger than the British only during, the American war of independence, but "fell apart" during the French revolution, so therefor the RN could save the British isles from an invasion. However, IF even just 10 % of the frensh army of 1805-1809 could be landed on British soil, they would easly taken the whole island.
7 лет назад+11
The land army had been somewhat neglected at the time, after the huge battles against the Spanish opressor. Also, by the time that war broke out, the republic had suffered quite a lot from English piracy during peacetime. Over 200 ships had been illegally seized and looted by English navy piracy. That actually formed the reason to declare formal war to begin with. Also, I say republic, but it was really just a bunch of provinces occasionally banding together. It's effectively only half of the Netherlands fighting most of the war. The north, east and south of the country wasn't involved untill the successes by admiral Michiel De Ruyter rallied them under the Dutch flag. It's for a reason the period is quite revered in Dutch history. Basically four small provinces were subjected to a load of warcrimes, decided they wouldn't stand for it, and roflstomped the foremost superpower at the time, for a short period, while also uniting the country and defeating a foreign invasion by Münster. Kind of like if Kent and Essex declared war on the United States today, and defeated the Americans for a whole year. Also, the Glorious Revolution isn't so much a Dutch-English thing as it was a catholic-protestant thing. Religious conflict went deep, much deeper than nationality at the time. Plus of course there was a small history of helping out eachother; the Dutch coastal fleet had interdicted the Spanish army from being loaded onto the Spanish Armada, allowing Francis Drake to eventually scatter them with great difficulty, and saving England. Without that, Spanish army would've been loaded with barges in about one or two days, they'd have sailed to England with slight losses from harassment by the English fleet as the Spanish galleons could withstand a lot of punishment and couldn't be boarded, before landing and roflstomping the English land army, as the Spanish tercio was pretty much invincible at the time. For all the strife of the time, the educated people of the period will have been able to recall times where they were allies or helping eachother out, if they choose to.
Not to get into an argument but the Anglo - Dutch wars were very different and yes the Dutch fleet was very good but the modern Royal Navy was just begining to find its strength. By the time of Trafalger the Royal Navy was Britains largest employer and Russias largest customer for timber. Income Tax was introduced for the express purpose of supporting the navy it was that important. In a period of a little over a century the Royal Navy had grown into a very different beast.
John Kilmartin The Dutch sailed up the channel and burned some ships. They didn't 'attack' London. And the glorious revolution only succeeded because the English nobles invited William and the English army stood down.
Wanderer628 Apparently I have Chatham and Deptford dockyard confused. I think the fact London is impacted by the tides made me assume it was closer to the mouth of the Thames than it is. Thanks.
Even if Napoleon could've somehow invaded Britain but he still would not have won. The Royal Navy would've cut off Napoleon's supply lines and his land army would've collapsed quite quickly. Napoleon already tried it in Egypt, and had to abandon his army there after Nelson cut him off.
Hitler only gained power 6 years before he invade Poland. Half of the relatively small Kriegsmarine was lost during the Norway campaign. It takes time to build ships which Hitler didn't have.
Napoleon, emphasised the need for a navy to invade England in 1805, forcing Admiral Villeneuve into action. After Trafalgar, he tried to rebuild his navy, spending lots of money, in the Hope's of breaking the blockades around France.
This is the second video saying someone basically had no chance to successfully invade the island of Britain. How come crossing that damn channel is so difficult? How about something on what it would have taken for someone to actually do it? How did William the Conqueror do it when he didn't have to worry about a Royal Navy that didn't exist yet? And Didn't Charles XII of Sweden plan to invade in the early 18th century if he won against Russia. I heard he planned to land in the north an ally with the Scots, would that have helped?
CreatorUser William the conqueror invaded shortly after Harald Hadrada. So Edward was already trying to fend the vikings off when he rocked up. As for Charles XII, he had to cross the whole of the north sea, he had to supply himself, while the Scots could solve this issue, I'm skeptical because the French had the Auld Alliance with the Scots and was never able to do it due to the risk of interception and the danger of British waters.
CreatorUser because Harold couldn't send bombers to sink William's ships in minutes... nor did he have recce planes to spot them. also William's army didn't need fuel or tens of millions of rounds of ammunition... and the Scots in 1940 were more pro- British than the English.
CreatorUser and also because nationalism didn't really exist back then... the average English peasant couldn't care less if he saw a Norman riding past. he'd probably ask him for an autograph. whereas in late 1940 the average Englishman would probably call the authorities, grab his shotgun and throw homemade incendiary devices upon sight of a German.
Harold had a superior army and was waiting for the Normans but bad weather delayed William. While waiting Harold received news a landing had occurred but not on the South coast and not the Normans. Harold's brother had conspired with the Norwegian King to invade the north in Yorkshire. Harold had to march his entire army north and fortunately catching the Vikings unprepared achieved a great victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Having achieved victory and while marching south news of Williams arrival reached him. William was surprised to find the English army missing. With many losses at Stamford Bridge Harold now had to march south. His army was comprised of many farmers who had to return home to plant that years crop and deserted on the way. By the time he arrived his army was seriously weakened. In the meantime William had been able to establish himself and his entire army had arrived. Harold's mother suggested he delay marching further south until he could strengthen his forces but he ignored her.
The problem is probably more simple: never an amphibious invasion of England could take place without obtaining first the command of the sea. It is matter of going to the writings of Julian Corbett. Neither the Spanish and French crowns did, or Revolutionary-Napoleonic France, not even Hitlerian Germany.
I think it was more a strategic decision, Britain was more of an annoyance then a real threat especially compared with Austria and Russia. I think trafalgar was so significant because it was around that time Napoleon was most committed and had his troops ready for a naval invasion. In the end a seizure of greater Britain would not really have given Napoleon so much strategic advantages - the royal family and navy would still been in existance and the English population probably a bit unruly given long French-Englsih rivalries - the Irish and Scottish probably would have been more favorable. But in the worst case Napoleon would have been trapped in Britain with his armies giving a big opportunity for Russia. The continental system was probably about the best strategy - the biggest error from Napoleon was not sending his guards into combat at Borodino.
Even if Napoleon managed to land troops in Britain, the casualties would be appalling. How many troop transports would be sunk by the Royal Navy before they got half way across the channel?
If he fucking trusted in his allies, specially Spain, he could do it. Seriously, most of the defeats in the naval war were due to not trusting Spanish naval strategies. For example, the battle of Trafalgar was lost due to lack of coordination between the French admiral and the Spanish admiral Gravina. Which was important, since the French admiral was an unexperienced navy officer, while his Spanish counterpart admiral Gravina had at least 20 years of experience. Napoleon did many mistakes concerning Spain, and most of them due to the fact he though the Spanish to be inferior, which was proven wrong in that war. First, he distrusted the Spanish as allies and didn't listen to their superior experience in naval warfare, and later he though Spain to be a rotten country that couldn't react to becoming their subjects, which was really false. If he trusted on the Spanish military and society he would have won, or at least would have had an important reserve. For starters, he would have had a much more powerful navy with a lot of firepower and used effectively. About the cape Finisterre, it's the north-eastern edge of the Iberian peninsula, and that battle was lost again due to not trusting on their allies.
Well yes and no while Gravina was certainly a more capable commander than Villeneuve (who wasn't entirely inexperienced) I don't think it would have compensated for the fundamental difference between the fleets , that a Royal Navy Squadron on blockade far from home could expect to have better provisions than those it was blockading , the money and logistics behind the Royal navy was staggering .
Look, Napoleon was not a Navy man. The Royal Navy was constantly at sea, and they braved the storms, ships got battered but they would just repair it. So Royal Navy ships, the crew and officers operated as a tested system. Napoleon was furious when his fleets went out to sea, spending money without even seeing an enemy vessel but return to port storm damaged.....So he ordered them to stay in port - and in his mind, it also prevented the smaller sqaudrons from being picked-off by the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy consciously encouraged this mentality with a close blockade of the French, and would mercilessly chase any French ship from Europe to Latin America just to capture or sink it... The end result was, the French and Spanish crews were un-practised...skills and coordination was lost...and the standards between the two opposing sides drew apart.
Napoleon really had no concept of naval operations. It would have been near impossible to gain naval superiority long enough to cross the channel and more importantly disembark . The Spanish were more capable at sea but after Trafalgar it would have been hopeless This fear though of Napoleon invading led to the taking of the danish fleet to stop it falling into his hands. This was the problem for Napoleon no matter how many coalitions he defeated on the continent he could never really defeat Britain because he could never be credible threat to the British mainland. His answer ' the continental system' would sow the seeds of his own eventual defeat .
Read Patrick O'Brian. It's historical fiction, but the Royal Navy were obsessed with getting close to the enemy, and hitting them with a high rate of accurate fire. In WW2, this might be equated to a FW190 ace, who would always use mad skills to get within 100m of an enemy, then let rip. More so, for a 1940 Hurricane pilot, who would need to be both close in, and accurate, to do damage with those .3 inch Brownings.
Geography dealt the French a bad hand against the British during the age of sail. To invade England, the French had to sail east with a west wind; but to get around Brittany and into the channel to sail east, the French had to sail west with an east wind. The west wind they needed to sail east down the channel not only made it hard to go west to get out of their ports, it also helped the British ships blockade them with the wind pushing them towards the French coast. Read a book a few years back, can't find it or remember it right now, but the general thesis is that there are two kinds of nations, militarily: army-dominated nations need armies to protect their borders, and naval-dominated nations need navies to protect their merchant ships. Russia, Poland, Germany are all far more worried about land invasion than protecting merchant ships; the Netherlands, Britain, and the USA worry far more about merchant trade than land invasion. France is stuck halfway in both worlds. The army has to have priority, but that huge coast and overseas colonies also need attention. No matter how much France invests in its navy, when push comes to shove and the borders are in trouble, the navy loses. The book also claimed that navies breed independence and innovation and democracy while armies breed hierarchical nobility and conformance and authoritarianism. Not sure I buy it, and the independence of sailing fleets, which could be independent for several years, vanished in the days of radio and now satellites.
Napoleon's chances of invading (and conquering) England in summer 1805 depended on one factor: whether Nelson's fleet would be wiped out by hurricane or plague. (No chance of defeating it in battle.) If the British fleet were miraculously eliminated, the French could transport the Grande Armée across the Straits of Dover at leisure; they had overwhelming superiority on land and would have easily taken London and everything else against weak opposition. They could have lived off the land, there was no logistical impediment.
The French would have had limited supply and manpower before the British would have attacked the invasion force. The British knew where the landings would occur, it's not a big area and they can move an army faster then the French could land by far.
well, 1st: let's assume that if Napoleon could land with a big enough army on the british isles, he would have won. Both because of his own ability and because english would have had a problem in their back. Scotland and Ireland revolting for independence at this precise time. Then all is a matter of how fast Napoleon could maneuver to take the key points of England and maybe, capture the leaders, be them king or parlementaries... 2nd: now, we need him to land on the british isles. Even without a navy, there was a chance. Take all those (little) boats he build, load them with soldiers and stuff and make use of their arms instead of their leg for once, to row... by night. A) the distance is not so big. B) by night, with a lead boat capable to show the way and each boat with a light only showing toward the back, they would be able to move together and not easily detected by the british navy... that would have even then, hard time to target "little" boats in the darkness. C) weather condition. French developed an optic telegraph at the time. With a station planted in britany to check out the weather, they could tell in 1h to the Boulogne camp 700km what was the coming weather, thus selecting a night of calm weather, both for their own security and so the british navy wouldn't have much wind to navigate. leaders would probably have the opportunity to flee with the fleet, but they'd loose their main power, the british isles with its manpower, factories and harbors... then only real problem is for Napoleon to succeed in this invasion then move back on the continent and repel the coming armies from the coalition.
Even at night, there is no way the French could get 100,000+ men across the sea without being noticed. The Channel was full of British warships patrolling and the coast was lined with forts, observation towers and other fortifications and outposts keeping an eye on French activity, which they could see from the southeast quite easily. Britain had well over 300,000 men enrolled in its Volunteer Corps, had a further 100,000 in the militia, and about 250,000 in the regular army. The navy could contribute about 30,000 Royal Marines as well as seamen at shore if necessary. These forces would be fighting in their own territory, knowing the land well and having the support of national infrastructure, fortifications, industry and supplies. The French invasion force however, many of whom would likely have died during the sea voyage even if the navy had somehow let them slip by unnoticed, would be completely cut off from resupply or reinforcements due to the Royal Navy being extra diligent to prevent any further landings and France being powerless to stop it. The French would be outnumbered and lacking in food and munitions. So even if Napoleon _could_ get troops across the sea in one piece (he couldn't), the British would know they were coming, would be ready for them, would outnumber them and would quickly isolate them. The French would have no choice but to surrender and all Napoleon would have done is essentially throw an army into the sea. This actually happened on a small scale during the Invasion of Fishguard in Wales and the results were pretty much as described above.
I think the only real shot he had after 1805 was in 1807, when the British attacked the Danish fleet. If the Danes had been able to combine with the Russians and the Swedes, they might have damaged the royal navy so severely in that war, making it possible with a French invasion
Napoleon's chances R in his favor off invading Britain utilizing the Navies of other European countries with his French Navy before 1804. However this changed after Lord Nelson's fleet kicked Naval Ass N won Battle of Traflagar in 1805.
I think it would have been enough to land 10-15000 soldiers in Ireland and that would cause a mass rebellion and the few British troops in Ireland would surrender in a couple of months. That would put GB in a difficult strategic situation and tie a huge part of their fleet to the British isles. Also, I believe a sudden landing in England on a beech, not a harbor, without support would have caused a British surrender in a matter of weeks. What would the British Navy do, open fire on their own cities?
They tried and failed with such an attempt on Ireland , A huge part of the British fleet was already committed to defending the British Isles so it wouldn't alter that strategic commitment , what British Cities are on the beach and why wouldn't the British fire on Frenchmen occupying a British town or city ? .
Two Royal Navy Ships of the line would have carried as many guns between them as there were in the whole of Napoleon’s army at Waterloo. That fact alone underlines exactly why the French could never have dreamed of invading Britain. To invade Britain, you had to invade from the sea. To invade from the sea, you had to beat the Royal Navy. And nobody could beat the Royal Navy. So nobody could invade.
This is true for the French navy as well - and they were actually close to achieve parity on ship numbers. But numbers alone wouldn't be nearly enough, but the British blockade which prevented the french from training and gathering their ships was ENORMOUSLY costly for the Royal Navy - the morale was extremely low, the ships were rotting and the crews slowly dying.
It might have been better overall to basically let the French army come ashore then have the Royal Navy choke off their re-supply by sealing off the channel. The whole lot would have been swallowed whole in southern England. Napoleon would have been finished!
Your info is great and you've clearly done your research but please don't refer to the UK as England. Anything after 1707 is British history unless you're specifically refering to a single one of the home nations. The Scots, Welsh and Irish that fought and died alongside the English deserve to be remembered too. Other than that, incredibly interesting and well researched video.
England? It's Britain. The nation he was trying to invade was Britain. Next time you're doing a video on Germany post unification, remember to refer to them as Prussians or Bavarians and see how odd that sounds to you.
Thank you. Interesting information about the British Army and Navy at the time. I do think Napoleon miss read the Logistical problem in Egypt. I suspect he thought it was a problem of not a strong enough French Navy.. when the lesson really was Logistics at long distances and this got him in Russia. Off topic but I respect your opinion. Perhaps topics for the future. Its seems to me the European Nations 'Aristocracy feared the Revolution ( Mob Rule ie.. the loss of position, wealth and privilege. )This is the real reason they feared France. The British are/were great at disinformation and spying and so that has probably made many historians ( certainly English writers) believe Napoleon was a kind of Hitler. ( I mean this as a cultural bias and not a full blown conspiracy . ) Also.. do you think there is any evidence that Napoleon learned in Elba..and he would have only protected France and the gains of the Revolution...and given up any imperial ambitions as some believe?
One thing you're forgetting is that the fleets available to the French directly where not the only ones on the continent. Part of the reason why Britain attacked Denmark-Norway for instance was concern about our fleet falling into Napoleons hands. And ours wheren't the only one. Also, military ships isn't everything. Enough merchant fleet ships pressed into troop transport services could potentially have transported enough men over to allow Napoleon to afford losing some.
Honestly instead of eygpt. They shoulda shuffled his ass across the channel. But that was before it was 100% established, he could win 1-5 battles odds across the board. And the french still had a navy.
the answer is no because i was there waiting for them. the french were mighty warriors when compared against my power given to me by my beard of power they stood no chance. plus ground keeper willies ancestor was ready to rip his shirt off and get into the fray.
Incendiary ammunition would have done the trick. Actually it were the french right after 1815 who introduced those and by doing so ended the era of wooden sailing ships. And they did it in order to undo british naval superirity. Napoleon could have done that in 1805 if the idea would have popped up in his mind. Shows that even a genius can miss something. :-)
Pretty much everyone had already experimented with incendiary and explosive shot by this point already. Pretty much everyone concluded that it was more dangerous to the ship firing it than the ship being shot at. On the other hand, heated shot was great if you were shooting at ships from a shore-based battery. And I think you have your dates wrong. Wooden warships ruled the waves for a half century after 1815.
spenser johnson I would say hitler had a better shot -With 20th century technology they can more efficiently transport men, supplies and communicate across the channel. Amphibious invasions relies on speed which Napoleon did not have. -When sea lion was planned Germany only had one front at that time so it can concentrate resources and manpower. -Hard to factor in the effect of air superiority in napoleonic era -After battle of France the Wehrmacht's morale was very high & increased their effectiveness
France had a larger population than England, and while America was friendly to England during the world war, it was not so friendly during the Napoleonic wars. And the British dominance at sea was total in World war II. Germany was forced to dismantle her entire Navy with the peace treaty at Versaille, and after that she was prohibited from building a new one. And building a new powerful navy would have taken decades even under a militaristic dictator like Hitler, so Hitler never started the war with a Navy powerful enough to challange the British home fleet, and much less so when it was combined with the enormous fleets Britain also had in Asia and mediterranean. And the loss of Graf Spee and the costly Norway invasion left Hitlers navy in even less shape to invade England, and nor was there any suffiecent amount of transport ships for an invasion. And plundering food and living off the lands could work for an army of the 1300s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700 and even early 1800s.... but a modern army doesn't work that way - it need tonnes of petroleum, and tonnes of ammunition. The 6th Army at Stalingrad consumed 13 railway cars of small arms ammo each day. And then we havn't even included artillery that consumes even more ammo than that. So I would Guess that Napoleon had a better chance. France had a naval tradition as well as her allied countries, while Germany never really been a naval power. England didn't have much timber of her own to build ships, and her population needed food imports. German uboats was quite close to starving England, but they were never any threat to Englands dominance at sea, and Germany would never outnumber England at sea as Spain and France did at Trafalgar.
nattygsbord Yes you are right that Britains naval superiority prevented hitler from invading but at least hitler had a chance of building up his navy. Hitler had all the ports & harbours from Poland to Spain and in Scandinavia, napoleon didn't . In 1940 fuel shortages weren't a huge issue. Not to mention in '40 the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meant the USSR was supplying petroleum to hitler and the soviets were manufacturing weapons for Germany in exchange for technology. Also considering the advances in technology, shipbuilding is considerably faster and wouldn't require 'decades'. Napoleon on the other hand, didn't have the technology, the infrastructure, or the political authority that hitler had. In my opinion the main reason neither could've succeeded in invading Britain because they were threatened from the east. It would be a nightmare if German and French troops were tied up in Britain and suddenly Prussia/ soviets decided to invade. Thus hitler and napoleon didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket.
Comrades - As this year Rap/R&B sales have finally overtaken rock music - The Party™ has issued initiatives to completely break down society and degrade culture so the state can take total control. This will require everyone to hand in any 70s rock albums by white artists. Despite most rock being correct & ideologically beneficial compositions, the band members themselves must be photoshopped less white - before being erased from the Collective Consciousness - particularly Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull and Yes. Citizens will then have their albums replaced with Rihanna, Bruno Mars and Linda Ronstadt - as well as Islamic Jihadist music and Mexican folk music. MTV & The Grammys will no longer tolerate bands acting "white" by singing in English correctly, having above average tunes, playing their own instruments or using intelligent lyrics. Bourgeois values and the memory of them must be erased from the Collective Consciousness with the help of historical revisionism in the academia, news media, and the Party's branches in the entertainment sector. The proletariat will then undergo re-education and be released from ungood thoughts, by instilling a culture of materialism, physical beauty, sex and financial success without effort or practical ability.
The british army was small but they were actually very elite, especially the infantry. Your average red coat could fire 3 shots a minute as the standard (which is really, really good with a musket) and spent much longer training before they were allowed to deploy than every other European army at the time. That extra discipline, proficiency and fire power were significant force multipliers.
But the precision of the weapons was so crappy that only one shot out of many hundreds would hit their targets. So for fire to be effective then the enemy must be atleast within 30 yards range - which in turn means that the enemy will be rushing towards you even before you have reloaded your next shot. So having this ability to fire many shots would be pointless, unless the fire fight will last for hours and hours with the two sides just firing on each other and no side is trying to attack with bayonets.
MacKinley Johnston - Napoleon's Army was a mass Army with very well trained artillery. If they could have crossed in a sizable number then nothing had stopped them.
50 yards actually, But you had whole companies and platoons firing at other tightly packed infantry you don't need to be in effective range due to the sheer volume of bullets filling the general area downrange. The thing is the enemy is using the same grade of weapons so its more about quantity of fire than quality. I was a War of 1812 reenactor when I lived in Canada and we drilled using the old drill book and accurate recreations of the gear. The british order was just 'present!', never aim since it was just about fire saturation, the rifles and light infantry worried about accuracy(though all flank companies had some basic training in light infantry tactics for flexibility which is unrelated to the weapons but it's another point about how well trained the red coats were). I could do 3 shots a minute but you're right, those guns are terriblely unreliable and I could write a book about how, so extended firefights weren't that common as barrels tended get clogged with residue after prolonged use and hence the common tactic tactic was usually firing 3 volleys and then fixing bayonettes. You really don't have to inflict a high proportion of dammage to break the enemy's nerve as well, 10% is a big deal and Napoleonics was very similar to the historical warfare of the past where psychology had a larger role to play than actual dammage inflicted when routing the enemy.
@Torian Tammas But they couldn't, though the British would have been on the back foot if he did. I'm not saying it'd have been pretty, just thatit would have been due factors beyond the troop quality. Also that artillery musn't have been that good because Wellington countered it by just standing his troops on the other side of a hill ;)
Napoleans Artillery was *very* good, he was outstanding in his use of artillery. Thing is the vast majority of guns were field guns, direct fire artillery. There were very few howitzers capable of indirect fire, in part because explosive rounds were so unreliable at the time. If you cannot use indirect fire then the enemy using the reverse slope to shelter his troops is actually a very effective counter. A hill is better than a castle wall!
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
So the navy was prioritised over the army in this period, but what about the air force? You never seem to hear much about the RAF during the Napoleonic era...
Very interesting question.
Didn't the RAF prepared some big squadrons of Hot Air Balloons ready to drop bombs on the French navy at the time?
Well that, kinda...killed the joke
fun fact, I think there was actually a plan to land a minor amount of troops with balloons, the capacity of 4 men per balloon although was extremely limited.
I can't tell you much about the RAF, but the French Air Force fought bravely in Borodino.
If you don't believe it, Reply History made a video about it, just don't forget to turn on the English captions:)
ruclips.net/video/2KQ9ZKkeqaY/видео.htmlm42s
He now looks like a austrian soldier in 1918 because of the baldness
This is modern war.
That probably had to do with the fact that conditions in the trenches were terrible. Lice was rampant the idea was, if I recall, you had to be deloused when you left the front on leave etc...So, shaving, shorter haircuts all of that had something to do with it. I'm recounting this from memory so anyone in the know correct me if I'm wrong.
Ooff.
J/k, I buzz my head in the same way, for the same -receding hairline- reasons.
"I don't say the French can't come, I say they can't come by sea"
-Sir John Jervis, 1st Sea Lord.
That sums it up.
John Jervis sounds like a porn name. Hmmm...
So, if airplanes were invented in the 1800s, London will fall?
Alexander Christopher yes
Alexander Christopher entire Europe would now be French
"There are eight sail of the line, Sir John"
"Very well, sir"
"There are twenty sail of the line, Sir John"
"Very well, sir"
"There are twenty five sail of the line, Sir John"
"Very well, sir"
"There are twenty seven sail of the line, Sir John"
"Enough, sir, no more of that; the die is cast, and if there are fifty sail I will go through them."
"I got a very interesting -", is he going to say haircut?, "- question", oh.
You were right first time, it was British not English. Anything after the act of union, in 1707, was a British force (even if dominated by the English) rather than an exclusivly English force.
thanks! It is quite confusing, especially since in German we generally say England all the time or Russia even for the Soviet Union.
It was common terminology at the time to refer to the UK as England and it's people as English, hence Nelson's famous signal at Trafalgar; "England expects that every man will do his duty".
Though when the Scottish Navy was merged with the English navy it consisted of was it three ships? while the English Navy was almost 350 strong.
Common terminology does not make it correct terminology. It is such aspects of "common terminology" that often leave the Scots complaining that they are the ignored part of the Union, and maybe rightly so.
Hfil66 Vommon terminology is often correct terminology. England referring to all of Britain was common and correct until the Scott's threw a fit. Now the Birts get all butthurt about the English British division when it is a very modern change and only really matters at all to the Brits.
10/10 all the comments will be about his haircut
I just had a haircut, and nobody commented about that :(
Is that you Neil?
Almost couldn't recognice you with that great looking new haircut.
5:40 to paraphrase “amateurs study weapons, professionals study logistics”
People who know what they're doing study politics.
Psychology/political psychology.
And effective people study, and then make shit happen. Study, in itself, gets nothing done.
And someone smart studies both?
Great presentation, thanks again MHV! :)
so it's exactly like the sea lion episode 100 years earlier
History repeats itself. It makes this video even more potent.
Not exactly yet very similar.
David Lisovtsev Invading Britian is as impossible as invading Russia.
Wanderer628 no depends on whos comming to invade
Why do you think japan and britain are so successfull
Napoleon would've won an invasion of England in 7 days, 12 hours and five minutes:
-4 days to steal all the tea in England and stash it somewhere
-3 days for a French courier to deliver an ultimatum to London surrender or never be able to drink tea again
-5 minutes to debate a decision on the ultimatum
-0,5 a day an English courier to hurry back to Napoleon to hand him the English surrender
This might be true.
But we would sell them Opium afterwards.
I wanted to add a caveat to your statement of the British having more ships and stronger ships.
The French were in fact quite close to achieving parity in numbers. With new ships being built all the time they were gaining on the Royal Navy and were set to overtake them, though Waterloo put the brakes on that.
Meanwhile British ships were lost to weather and wear, as being on blockade took its toll on the existing fleet. Many British ships were not in great shape due to the same wear. So no free lunch for the RN, their highly experienced crews came at a price.
One might also argue that the French built better ships. Though that advantage is nullified to an extend by so many of them ending up in British service after being captured.
The deciding factor would have been the crews. While the British rate of fire advantage is much exaggerated, there is no denying ship handling-wise the RN would have put the French to shame. Much faster and precise ship handling would have been of immense value in a fleet engagement, especially in a relatively confined water like the Channel.
Nor did the French navy ever fully recover from the revolutionary purges of its nobility that held the bulk of the leadership positions under the French king. Contrary to popular belief, these tended to be perfectly capable men who knew their business.
I miss your hair.... :(
well all do :) but I get used to it rather fast.
If the French had invaded, they would have faced Richard Sharpe. Facing the Russian winter looked suddenly a more inviting perspective.
And Sergeant Harper....
Wasn't he busy somewhere in Spain?
Think the Peninsular War didn't start until after the invasion scare.
The Baker rifle. Every enemy officer dead.
Alex P Only if they faced Horatio Hornblower, Jack Aubrey and Richard Boltiho first!
France's best opportunity to invade Britain in the pre-Trafalgar era was during the American Revolution. From 1778-83, Britain was at war with the American colonies, France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic without a single ally. Its navy was the most powerful but engaged all over the world. Its navy also did not have the overwhelming advantage in quality that it did 25 years later when Napoleon considered invading.
France actually managed to defeat the British navy in 1781 at the Battle of the Chesapeake, preventing the British from reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown and forcing him to surrender in the decisive battle of the war. France did consider an invasion of Britain during the war, and it might have worked had certain circumstances been somewhat different.
It was much cheaper and easier to just kick the English out of the 13 colonies than start an European war...
The American war of independance was nothing more than a skirmish compared to scale of the wars/battles in Europe.
I doubt it would have been anymore likely to succeed honestly. Spain and France tried to invade Gibraltar during the war and it went disastrously for them, despite Gibraltar being so small, far away from Britain and sharing a land border with Spain. Invading Britain would've been a monumentally more difficult task.
Another point is that you can train an army most anywhere, but the French could only train their navy at sea, which the blockade made very difficult.
I think another important element is during the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Marines were at their peak, soldiers experienced in fighting ship to ship actions as well as in landing operations while also maintaining tight discipline on ships. The French Troupes de Marine on the other hand were decimated during the 7 years war and after the early 1760's essentially ceased to exist being absorbed in to the regular army and then reduced to artillery regiments. Eventually after the Napoleonic wars they started being reconstituted and despite a revolutionary blip by the time of the Crimean war were an effective fighting force again, growing stronger through the later 19th and featuring prominently during the French colonial wars of the 20th century.
One of the main reasons British ships were so good was Canadian trees because the were much bigger and flexible which made them ideal for masts
What happened to your beautiful locks
sacrificed on the altar of efficiency
Military History Vlogs Sounds like a Borg.
Logistics failure. His hair succumbed to winter attrition.
Blah b Vietnam war flashbacks cause his body to produce napalm and secrete it across his hairline
10:44 *BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES!*
"ruled," past tense.
UK banmed huawei despite the fact that it would delay 5G in UK and that a lot of Brits use huawei because US says so. UK is just a colony of USA.
RIP hair 17/2/2018
Wonder what would've happened had Napoleon seen an ironclad. Think there is a story where he rejected the concept. Pretty sure an actual prototype would've convinced him. Short of that you make a good argument why there was nearly no chance of invading england (at least after Trafalgar). Even in the scenario of ironclad it's not a given the invasion would suceed. Most ships for transport would still be wood, and the british would certainly react to the new threat.
The sound on this video is not very clear? Distortion seems to be present... like a deep echo?
People always ask how a tiny *island* like Britain (actually one of the world's largest islands, but whatever) could be so powerful. Not realising the answer is in the question. xD
You're right - seamanship in the Royal Navy was definitely superior to that generally found in the French or Spanish fleets. It was definitely a factor in the victory at Trafalgar.
I suggest you look at the fardier of Cugnot and generally steam engine.
A great informative video
I may be incorrect about this but the French ships were often faster in a straight line but not as agile while the Royal Navy ships were more agile but not as fast in a straight line. I also read that the French stacked their army units onto French ships in order to give them a more powerful boarding force, similar to the Romans using the corvus ram they wanted to use their strength at land at sea. Not sure how true any of it is.
Lavery's "Churchill's Navy" is one of my favourite WW2 Royal Navy texts.
@Military History not Visualized Could I just ask if an army did land in England could they not survive by pillaging the countryside? or could they not force a quick conclusion to the war by marching on London? why did Napoleon say that he needed to control the channel for 40-50 days rather than just how long it would take to sail to england?
5:16 "Yo, you need more ships"
Don't we all gangsta. Takes a full fleet to be on fleek. :)
what about the Spanish Armada?
Hard to not go directly into the genius of Napoleon and Berthier when they left Boulogne behind and raced for Ulm. They may not have known what they were doing at sea but they had land warfare down.
Great haircut! :D (Since we're on the internet it's not ironic)
Well done. The British warship gun crews could load and fire 3 shots for any of their opponents 2, quite a force multiplier. French (land) artillerymen were also very capable. So, could Napoleon have committed his beloved artillerymen to serve on war ships? It is one thing to fire artillery on land, where you can actually stand up straight and your gun is not always moving up and down and from side to side, but a whole other thing to do it in the confined, noisy, etc. lower decks of a ship of the line. (Where all of the heavy guns were. . .)
Soldiers have a limited purpose in a sea battle. Nelson was picked off by a French Marine in the rigging, but musket balls will not sink ships.
In my opinion you look much younger with your new haircut!
I like it
Good presentation but in 1803 the Royal Navy was suffering a self inflicted mini crisis due in large part to the actions of Lord St Vincent he had gained office during the peace of Amiens and on the pretext of rooting out corruption caused chaos in the naval administration , a refusal to pay commercial rates for naval stores and an insistence that building and repairs be carried out at Royal dockyards rather than utilize commercial dockyards saw the navy short of ships it needed .
But what if they had landed in Britain what are the chances they take the isles?
A naval engagement with an industrial island nation is always going to be a bit tricky. Don't forget about the industrial revolution in England too. It started in the cloth industry towards the end of the 18th Century... Which is rather useful for plentiful high quality sails for your ships.
The weather is usually in the favour of the English, the prevailing winds across the UK comes from the west.
Nice haircut :D
Other commanders got their forces across the Channel (Julius Caesar, Claudius, Asclepiodotus, William of Normandy). Q: which of these had a to face a fleet?
The Dutch were able to attack London successfully but not capture any territory. William III could only take control because of his wife Mary II. If the Dutch who at the time perhaps were superior to the British as a naval power couldn't invade I don't see anyone else being able. As always a great video.
The Dutch navy, at its peak, (1600s) was the best in the world (not the biggest), but there army was smaller even than the English. The French navy was stronger than the British only during, the American war of independence, but "fell apart" during the French revolution, so therefor the RN could save the British isles from an invasion. However, IF even just 10 % of the frensh army of 1805-1809 could be landed on British soil, they would easly taken the whole island.
The land army had been somewhat neglected at the time, after the huge battles against the Spanish opressor. Also, by the time that war broke out, the republic had suffered quite a lot from English piracy during peacetime. Over 200 ships had been illegally seized and looted by English navy piracy. That actually formed the reason to declare formal war to begin with.
Also, I say republic, but it was really just a bunch of provinces occasionally banding together. It's effectively only half of the Netherlands fighting most of the war. The north, east and south of the country wasn't involved untill the successes by admiral Michiel De Ruyter rallied them under the Dutch flag.
It's for a reason the period is quite revered in Dutch history. Basically four small provinces were subjected to a load of warcrimes, decided they wouldn't stand for it, and roflstomped the foremost superpower at the time, for a short period, while also uniting the country and defeating a foreign invasion by Münster.
Kind of like if Kent and Essex declared war on the United States today, and defeated the Americans for a whole year.
Also, the Glorious Revolution isn't so much a Dutch-English thing as it was a catholic-protestant thing. Religious conflict went deep, much deeper than nationality at the time.
Plus of course there was a small history of helping out eachother; the Dutch coastal fleet had interdicted the Spanish army from being loaded onto the Spanish Armada, allowing Francis Drake to eventually scatter them with great difficulty, and saving England. Without that, Spanish army would've been loaded with barges in about one or two days, they'd have sailed to England with slight losses from harassment by the English fleet as the Spanish galleons could withstand a lot of punishment and couldn't be boarded, before landing and roflstomping the English land army, as the Spanish tercio was pretty much invincible at the time.
For all the strife of the time, the educated people of the period will have been able to recall times where they were allies or helping eachother out, if they choose to.
Not to get into an argument but the Anglo - Dutch wars were very different and yes the Dutch fleet was very good but the modern Royal Navy was just begining to find its strength. By the time of Trafalger the Royal Navy was Britains largest employer and Russias largest customer for timber. Income Tax was introduced for the express purpose of supporting the navy it was that important. In a period of a little over a century the Royal Navy had grown into a very different beast.
John Kilmartin The Dutch sailed up the channel and burned some ships. They didn't 'attack' London. And the glorious revolution only succeeded because the English nobles invited William and the English army stood down.
Wanderer628 Apparently I have Chatham and Deptford dockyard confused. I think the fact London is impacted by the tides made me assume it was closer to the mouth of the Thames than it is. Thanks.
No maps?!
Even if Napoleon could've somehow invaded Britain but he still would not have won. The Royal Navy would've cut off Napoleon's supply lines and his land army would've collapsed quite quickly.
Napoleon already tried it in Egypt, and had to abandon his army there after Nelson cut him off.
If Napoleon had sent only 50000 men he would decimate the British army without a doubt. The thing is ... how to send these men ?
Napoleon and Hitler, both ignored or down prioritized the navy.
TheAmir259 The French HAD to put the army first, of course.
Hitler only gained power 6 years before he invade Poland. Half of the relatively small Kriegsmarine was lost during the Norway campaign. It takes time to build ships which Hitler didn't have.
Napoleon, emphasised the need for a navy to invade England in 1805, forcing Admiral Villeneuve into action.
After Trafalgar, he tried to rebuild his navy, spending lots of money, in the Hope's of breaking the blockades around France.
This is the second video saying someone basically had no chance to successfully invade the island of Britain. How come crossing that damn channel is so difficult? How about something on what it would have taken for someone to actually do it? How did William the Conqueror do it when he didn't have to worry about a Royal Navy that didn't exist yet? And Didn't Charles XII of Sweden plan to invade in the early 18th century if he won against Russia. I heard he planned to land in the north an ally with the Scots, would that have helped?
CreatorUser William the conqueror invaded shortly after Harald Hadrada. So Edward was already trying to fend the vikings off when he rocked up.
As for Charles XII, he had to cross the whole of the north sea, he had to supply himself, while the Scots could solve this issue, I'm skeptical because the French had the Auld Alliance with the Scots and was never able to do it due to the risk of interception and the danger of British waters.
CreatorUser
because Harold couldn't send bombers to sink William's ships in minutes...
nor did he have recce planes to spot them.
also William's army didn't need fuel or tens of millions of rounds of ammunition...
and the Scots in 1940 were more pro- British than the English.
CreatorUser and also because nationalism didn't really exist back then...
the average English peasant couldn't care less if he saw a Norman riding past. he'd probably ask him for an autograph.
whereas in late 1940 the average Englishman would probably call the authorities, grab his shotgun and throw homemade incendiary devices upon sight of a German.
Harold had a superior army and was waiting for the Normans but bad weather delayed William. While waiting Harold received news a landing had occurred but not on the South coast and not the Normans. Harold's brother had conspired with the Norwegian King to invade the north in Yorkshire. Harold had to march his entire army north and fortunately catching the Vikings unprepared achieved a great victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Having achieved victory and while marching south news of Williams arrival reached him. William was surprised to find the English army missing. With many losses at Stamford Bridge Harold now had to march south. His army was comprised of many farmers who had to return home to plant that years crop and deserted on the way. By the time he arrived his army was seriously weakened. In the meantime William had been able to establish himself and his entire army had arrived. Harold's mother suggested he delay marching further south until he could strengthen his forces but he ignored her.
The Romans got there and stayed for quite a while. Now obviously that was another period in Time without a unified Britain
The problem is probably more simple: never an amphibious invasion of England could take place without obtaining first the command of the sea. It is matter of going to the writings of Julian Corbett. Neither the Spanish and French crowns did, or Revolutionary-Napoleonic France, not even Hitlerian Germany.
I think it was more a strategic decision, Britain was more of an annoyance then a real threat especially compared with Austria and Russia.
I think trafalgar was so significant because it was around that time Napoleon was most committed and had his troops ready for a naval invasion.
In the end a seizure of greater Britain would not really have given Napoleon so much strategic advantages - the royal family and navy would still been in existance and the English population probably a bit unruly given long French-Englsih rivalries - the Irish and Scottish probably would have been more favorable.
But in the worst case Napoleon would have been trapped in Britain with his armies giving a big opportunity for Russia.
The continental system was probably about the best strategy - the biggest error from Napoleon was not sending his guards into combat at Borodino.
Im like a Starwars strormtrooper.
I miss your hair...
This should be visualized
Why are you saying English instead of British?
Even if Napoleon managed to land troops in Britain, the casualties would be appalling. How many troop transports would be sunk by the Royal Navy before they got half way across the channel?
Like! Thanks Bernhard.
When invading across the channel you''ll need a Mulberry, at least.
Looks aside, my guy sounds a bit like P. Chekov.
If he fucking trusted in his allies, specially Spain, he could do it. Seriously, most of the defeats in the naval war were due to not trusting Spanish naval strategies. For example, the battle of Trafalgar was lost due to lack of coordination between the French admiral and the Spanish admiral Gravina. Which was important, since the French admiral was an unexperienced navy officer, while his Spanish counterpart admiral Gravina had at least 20 years of experience.
Napoleon did many mistakes concerning Spain, and most of them due to the fact he though the Spanish to be inferior, which was proven wrong in that war. First, he distrusted the Spanish as allies and didn't listen to their superior experience in naval warfare, and later he though Spain to be a rotten country that couldn't react to becoming their subjects, which was really false. If he trusted on the Spanish military and society he would have won, or at least would have had an important reserve. For starters, he would have had a much more powerful navy with a lot of firepower and used effectively.
About the cape Finisterre, it's the north-eastern edge of the Iberian peninsula, and that battle was lost again due to not trusting on their allies.
I don't really remember, I used it to document myself in the high school, but unfortunately I can't remember.
Well yes and no while Gravina was certainly a more capable commander than Villeneuve (who wasn't entirely inexperienced) I don't think it would have compensated for the fundamental difference between the fleets , that a Royal Navy Squadron on blockade far from home could expect to have better provisions than those it was blockading , the money and logistics behind the Royal navy was staggering .
Look, Napoleon was not a Navy man. The Royal Navy was constantly at sea, and they braved the storms, ships got battered but they would just repair it. So Royal Navy ships, the crew and officers operated as a tested system.
Napoleon was furious when his fleets went out to sea, spending money without even seeing an enemy vessel but return to port storm damaged.....So he ordered them to stay in port - and in his mind, it also prevented the smaller sqaudrons from being picked-off by the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy consciously encouraged this mentality with a close blockade of the French, and would mercilessly chase any French ship from Europe to Latin America just to capture or sink it...
The end result was, the French and Spanish crews were un-practised...skills and coordination was lost...and the standards between the two opposing sides drew apart.
Sorry I am trying to keep awake his voice is an insomnia cure
Even Caesar had to try twice
Napoleon really had no concept of naval operations.
It would have been near impossible to gain naval superiority long enough to cross the channel and more importantly disembark .
The Spanish were more capable at sea but after Trafalgar it would have been hopeless
This fear though of Napoleon invading led to the taking of the danish fleet to stop it falling into his hands.
This was the problem for Napoleon no matter how many coalitions he defeated on the continent he could never really defeat Britain because he could never be credible threat to the British mainland.
His answer ' the continental system' would sow the seeds of his own eventual defeat .
Read Patrick O'Brian. It's historical fiction, but the Royal Navy were obsessed with getting close to the enemy, and hitting them with a high rate of accurate fire. In WW2, this might be equated to a FW190 ace, who would always use mad skills to get within 100m of an enemy, then let rip. More so, for a 1940 Hurricane pilot, who would need to be both close in, and accurate, to do damage with those .3 inch Brownings.
Geography dealt the French a bad hand against the British during the age of sail. To invade England, the French had to sail east with a west wind; but to get around Brittany and into the channel to sail east, the French had to sail west with an east wind. The west wind they needed to sail east down the channel not only made it hard to go west to get out of their ports, it also helped the British ships blockade them with the wind pushing them towards the French coast.
Read a book a few years back, can't find it or remember it right now, but the general thesis is that there are two kinds of nations, militarily: army-dominated nations need armies to protect their borders, and naval-dominated nations need navies to protect their merchant ships. Russia, Poland, Germany are all far more worried about land invasion than protecting merchant ships; the Netherlands, Britain, and the USA worry far more about merchant trade than land invasion. France is stuck halfway in both worlds. The army has to have priority, but that huge coast and overseas colonies also need attention. No matter how much France invests in its navy, when push comes to shove and the borders are in trouble, the navy loses.
The book also claimed that navies breed independence and innovation and democracy while armies breed hierarchical nobility and conformance and authoritarianism. Not sure I buy it, and the independence of sailing fleets, which could be independent for several years, vanished in the days of radio and now satellites.
Napoleon's chances of invading (and conquering) England in summer 1805 depended on one factor: whether Nelson's fleet would be wiped out by hurricane or plague. (No chance of defeating it in battle.) If the British fleet were miraculously eliminated, the French could transport the Grande Armée across the Straits of Dover at leisure; they had overwhelming superiority on land and would have easily taken London and everything else against weak opposition. They could have lived off the land, there was no logistical impediment.
The French would have had limited supply and manpower before the British would have attacked the invasion force. The British knew where the landings would occur, it's not a big area and they can move an army faster then the French could land by far.
well,
1st: let's assume that if Napoleon could land with a big enough army on the british isles, he would have won. Both because of his own ability and because english would have had a problem in their back. Scotland and Ireland revolting for independence at this precise time. Then all is a matter of how fast Napoleon could maneuver to take the key points of England and maybe, capture the leaders, be them king or parlementaries...
2nd: now, we need him to land on the british isles. Even without a navy, there was a chance. Take all those (little) boats he build, load them with soldiers and stuff and make use of their arms instead of their leg for once, to row... by night. A) the distance is not so big. B) by night, with a lead boat capable to show the way and each boat with a light only showing toward the back, they would be able to move together and not easily detected by the british navy... that would have even then, hard time to target "little" boats in the darkness. C) weather condition. French developed an optic telegraph at the time. With a station planted in britany to check out the weather, they could tell in 1h to the Boulogne camp 700km what was the coming weather, thus selecting a night of calm weather, both for their own security and so the british navy wouldn't have much wind to navigate.
leaders would probably have the opportunity to flee with the fleet, but they'd loose their main power, the british isles with its manpower, factories and harbors...
then only real problem is for Napoleon to succeed in this invasion then move back on the continent and repel the coming armies from the coalition.
Even at night, there is no way the French could get 100,000+ men across the sea without being noticed. The Channel was full of British warships patrolling and the coast was lined with forts, observation towers and other fortifications and outposts keeping an eye on French activity, which they could see from the southeast quite easily. Britain had well over 300,000 men enrolled in its Volunteer Corps, had a further 100,000 in the militia, and about 250,000 in the regular army. The navy could contribute about 30,000 Royal Marines as well as seamen at shore if necessary.
These forces would be fighting in their own territory, knowing the land well and having the support of national infrastructure, fortifications, industry and supplies. The French invasion force however, many of whom would likely have died during the sea voyage even if the navy had somehow let them slip by unnoticed, would be completely cut off from resupply or reinforcements due to the Royal Navy being extra diligent to prevent any further landings and France being powerless to stop it. The French would be outnumbered and lacking in food and munitions.
So even if Napoleon _could_ get troops across the sea in one piece (he couldn't), the British would know they were coming, would be ready for them, would outnumber them and would quickly isolate them. The French would have no choice but to surrender and all Napoleon would have done is essentially throw an army into the sea. This actually happened on a small scale during the Invasion of Fishguard in Wales and the results were pretty much as described above.
I think the only real shot he had after 1805 was in 1807, when the British attacked the Danish fleet. If the Danes had been able to combine with the Russians and the Swedes, they might have damaged the royal navy so severely in that war, making it possible with a French invasion
Napoleon's chances R in his favor off invading Britain utilizing the Navies of other European countries with his French Navy before 1804. However this changed after Lord Nelson's fleet kicked Naval Ass N won Battle of Traflagar in 1805.
Well, I guess if Napoleon owned one navy that Britain didn't sink...
The last major power who ever invaded Britannia was the Romans, this man made vary good sense.
I think it would have been enough to land 10-15000 soldiers in Ireland and that would cause a mass rebellion and the few British troops in Ireland would surrender in a couple of months. That would put GB in a difficult strategic situation and tie a huge part of their fleet to the British isles. Also, I believe a sudden landing in England on a beech, not a harbor, without support would have caused a British surrender in a matter of weeks. What would the British Navy do, open fire on their own cities?
They tried and failed with such an attempt on Ireland , A huge part of the British fleet was already committed to defending the British Isles so it wouldn't alter that strategic commitment , what British Cities are on the beach and why wouldn't the British fire on Frenchmen occupying a British town or city ? .
Never clicked so quick
I thought the same about myself but it seems I'm 7th...
Two Royal Navy Ships of the line would have carried as many guns between them as there were in the whole of Napoleon’s army at Waterloo. That fact alone underlines exactly why the French could never have dreamed of invading Britain. To invade Britain, you had to invade from the sea. To invade from the sea, you had to beat the Royal Navy. And nobody could beat the Royal Navy. So nobody could invade.
This is true for the French navy as well - and they were actually close to achieve parity on ship numbers. But numbers alone wouldn't be nearly enough, but the British blockade which prevented the french from training and gathering their ships was ENORMOUSLY costly for the Royal Navy - the morale was extremely low, the ships were rotting and the crews slowly dying.
Very hard to understand
Well, perhaps the best option would have been to dry up the channel and then be prep for a full escale land invasion... It might just have worked...😄
It might have been better overall to basically let the French army come ashore then have the Royal Navy choke off their re-supply by sealing off the channel. The whole lot would have been swallowed whole in southern England. Napoleon would have been finished!
Your info is great and you've clearly done your research but please don't refer to the UK as England. Anything after 1707 is British history unless you're specifically refering to a single one of the home nations. The Scots, Welsh and Irish that fought and died alongside the English deserve to be remembered too.
Other than that, incredibly interesting and well researched video.
England? It's Britain. The nation he was trying to invade was Britain. Next time you're doing a video on Germany post unification, remember to refer to them as Prussians or Bavarians and see how odd that sounds to you.
so in short, not a snowballs hope in hell
Thank you. Interesting information about the British Army and Navy at the time. I do think Napoleon miss read the Logistical problem in Egypt. I suspect he thought it was a problem of not a strong enough French Navy.. when the lesson really was Logistics at long distances and this got him in Russia.
Off topic but I respect your opinion. Perhaps topics for the future. Its seems to me the European Nations 'Aristocracy feared the Revolution ( Mob Rule ie.. the loss of position, wealth and privilege. )This is the real reason they feared France. The British are/were great at disinformation and spying and so that has probably made many historians ( certainly English writers) believe Napoleon was a kind of Hitler. ( I mean this as a cultural bias and not a full blown conspiracy . ) Also.. do you think there is any evidence that Napoleon learned in Elba..and he would have only protected France and the gains of the Revolution...and given up any imperial ambitions as some believe?
One thing you're forgetting is that the fleets available to the French directly where not the only ones on the continent.
Part of the reason why Britain attacked Denmark-Norway for instance was concern about our fleet falling into Napoleons hands.
And ours wheren't the only one.
Also, military ships isn't everything.
Enough merchant fleet ships pressed into troop transport services could potentially have transported enough men over to allow Napoleon to afford losing some.
Honestly instead of eygpt. They shoulda shuffled his ass across the channel. But that was before it was 100% established, he could win 1-5 battles odds across the board. And the french still had a navy.
Du siehst mit diesem Haarschnitt deutlich älter aus :/
lol unten hat wer das Gegenteil auf Englisch geschrieben :D
Tja, so gehen die Wahrnehmungen auseinander :D
Resist the internal anglo
60% of the comments are about the new haircut and how it is missed
We need bigger ships.
We're gonna need a bigger boat...
Rate for rate they had bigger ships .
the answer is no because i was there waiting for them. the french were mighty warriors when compared against my power given to me by my beard of power they stood no chance. plus ground keeper willies ancestor was ready to rip his shirt off and get into the fray.
You do not look healthy in this video. Is everything ok?
Incendiary ammunition would have done the trick. Actually it were the french right after 1815 who introduced those and by doing so ended the era of wooden sailing ships. And they did it in order to undo british naval superirity. Napoleon could have done that in 1805 if the idea would have popped up in his mind. Shows that even a genius can miss something. :-)
Pretty much everyone had already experimented with incendiary and explosive shot by this point already. Pretty much everyone concluded that it was more dangerous to the ship firing it than the ship being shot at. On the other hand, heated shot was great if you were shooting at ships from a shore-based battery.
And I think you have your dates wrong. Wooden warships ruled the waves for a half century after 1815.
zero the uk navy under wren had a professional navy paid trained marines and trained officers
The Russia winter ended that frenchies conquests haha
The French navy was too weak to invade England .
After the Revolution yes but the french navy defeated the royal navy in the american independence war
@@sweetjo717 yes i know
of
Happy Chinese New Year!
Lol i was just playing AC unity the other day
The only person then and now that could take Eng land was Napolean !
How do you think Napoleon's chances of invading England compare to Hitler's?
spenser johnson I would say hitler had a better shot
-With 20th century technology they can more efficiently transport men, supplies and communicate across the channel. Amphibious invasions relies on speed which Napoleon did not have.
-When sea lion was planned Germany only had one front at that time so it can concentrate resources and manpower.
-Hard to factor in the effect of air superiority in napoleonic era
-After battle of France the Wehrmacht's morale was very high & increased their effectiveness
eric liu I think so too
France had a larger population than England, and while America was friendly to England during the world war, it was not so friendly during the Napoleonic wars. And the British dominance at sea was total in World war II. Germany was forced to dismantle her entire Navy with the peace treaty at Versaille, and after that she was prohibited from building a new one. And building a new powerful navy would have taken decades even under a militaristic dictator like Hitler, so Hitler never started the war with a Navy powerful enough to challange the British home fleet, and much less so when it was combined with the enormous fleets Britain also had in Asia and mediterranean.
And the loss of Graf Spee and the costly Norway invasion left Hitlers navy in even less shape to invade England, and nor was there any suffiecent amount of transport ships for an invasion. And plundering food and living off the lands could work for an army of the 1300s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700 and even early 1800s.... but a modern army doesn't work that way - it need tonnes of petroleum, and tonnes of ammunition. The 6th Army at Stalingrad consumed 13 railway cars of small arms ammo each day. And then we havn't even included artillery that consumes even more ammo than that.
So I would Guess that Napoleon had a better chance. France had a naval tradition as well as her allied countries, while Germany never really been a naval power. England didn't have much timber of her own to build ships, and her population needed food imports.
German uboats was quite close to starving England, but they were never any threat to Englands dominance at sea, and Germany would never outnumber England at sea as Spain and France did at Trafalgar.
nattygsbord Yes you are right that Britains naval superiority prevented hitler from invading but at least hitler had a chance of building up his navy. Hitler had all the ports & harbours from Poland to Spain and in Scandinavia, napoleon didn't . In 1940 fuel shortages weren't a huge issue. Not to mention in '40 the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meant the USSR was supplying petroleum to hitler and the soviets were manufacturing weapons for Germany in exchange for technology. Also considering the advances in technology, shipbuilding is considerably faster and wouldn't require 'decades'.
Napoleon on the other hand, didn't have the technology, the infrastructure, or the political authority that hitler had.
In my opinion the main reason neither could've succeeded in invading Britain because they were threatened from the east. It would be a nightmare if German and French troops were tied up in Britain and suddenly Prussia/ soviets decided to invade. Thus hitler and napoleon didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket.
Moral of the story: don't fight the entire world at once
Okay so what u need to do is use a white background, it’ll draw attention away from your hair :)
Bossman
Comrades - As this year Rap/R&B sales have finally overtaken rock music - The Party™ has issued initiatives to completely break down society and degrade culture so the state can take total control. This will require everyone to hand in any 70s rock albums by white artists.
Despite most rock being correct & ideologically beneficial compositions, the band members themselves must be photoshopped less white - before being erased from the Collective Consciousness - particularly Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull and Yes.
Citizens will then have their albums replaced with Rihanna, Bruno Mars and Linda Ronstadt - as well as Islamic Jihadist music and Mexican folk music.
MTV & The Grammys will no longer tolerate bands acting "white" by singing in English correctly, having above average tunes, playing their own instruments or using intelligent lyrics. Bourgeois values and the memory of them must be erased from the Collective Consciousness with the help of historical revisionism in the academia, news media, and the Party's branches in the entertainment sector.
The proletariat will then undergo re-education and be released from ungood thoughts, by instilling a culture of materialism, physical beauty, sex and financial success without effort or practical ability.
vessels to accommodate the army did not exist. a long slow ride, big tides and bad weather, British Navy No experience make success unlikely
The british army was small but they were actually very elite, especially the infantry. Your average red coat could fire 3 shots a minute as the standard (which is really, really good with a musket) and spent much longer training before they were allowed to deploy than every other European army at the time. That extra discipline, proficiency and fire power were significant force multipliers.
But the precision of the weapons was so crappy that only one shot out of many hundreds would hit their targets. So for fire to be effective then the enemy must be atleast within 30 yards range - which in turn means that the enemy will be rushing towards you even before you have reloaded your next shot. So having this ability to fire many shots would be pointless, unless the fire fight will last for hours and hours with the two sides just firing on each other and no side is trying to attack with bayonets.
MacKinley Johnston - Napoleon's Army was a mass Army with very well trained artillery. If they could have crossed in a sizable number then nothing had stopped them.
50 yards actually, But you had whole companies and platoons firing at other tightly packed infantry you don't need to be in effective range due to the sheer volume of bullets filling the general area downrange. The thing is the enemy is using the same grade of weapons so its more about quantity of fire than quality. I was a War of 1812 reenactor when I lived in Canada and we drilled using the old drill book and accurate recreations of the gear. The british order was just 'present!', never aim since it was just about fire saturation, the rifles and light infantry worried about accuracy(though all flank companies had some basic training in light infantry tactics for flexibility which is unrelated to the weapons but it's another point about how well trained the red coats were). I could do 3 shots a minute but you're right, those guns are terriblely unreliable and I could write a book about how, so extended firefights weren't that common as barrels tended get clogged with residue after prolonged use and hence the common tactic tactic was usually firing 3 volleys and then fixing bayonettes. You really don't have to inflict a high proportion of dammage to break the enemy's nerve as well, 10% is a big deal and Napoleonics was very similar to the historical warfare of the past where psychology had a larger role to play than actual dammage inflicted when routing the enemy.
@Torian Tammas But they couldn't, though the British would have been on the back foot if he did. I'm not saying it'd have been pretty, just thatit would have been due factors beyond the troop quality. Also that artillery musn't have been that good because Wellington countered it by just standing his troops on the other side of a hill ;)
Napoleans Artillery was *very* good, he was outstanding in his use of artillery.
Thing is the vast majority of guns were field guns, direct fire artillery. There were very few howitzers capable of indirect fire, in part because explosive rounds were so unreliable at the time. If you cannot use indirect fire then the enemy using the reverse slope to shelter his troops is actually a very effective counter. A hill is better than a castle wall!
Habitually referring to the''English' when talking about the Royal Navy is ignorant, wrong and, I suspect, deliberately, gratuitously insulting
Why do you suspect that ? .