i think this doesn't need to be a "what if" scenario because Napoleon DID invade Britain in February 1797. the invasion force of 1400 men was up against a hastily thrown together British force of 300 reservists, 250 local militiamen and 150 sailors the whole operation lasted two days until the French forces surrendered unconditionally with 33 killed or wounded, 1,360 captured, 1 frigate captured and 1 corvette captured.
@windhelmguard5295 Yeah a small incursion is the same as a full scale invasion it's like same British Commando raids on occupied France was the same as D Day British coping as usual.
Napoleon in this ATL basically turned Ireland into the equivalent of what the British turned Spain into against him in OTL, a quagmire that sapped manpower and resources away from their main effort.
At this time, the British mostly didn't have allies. They had their empire for sure, but they were too far away to reasonably be of help if the French were invading. The only European ally Britain had during this time was Portugal.
In theorie allies could have been found but Austria was already defeated Rusia was too far away And Pruisia would have to move through French territory to even reach Britain ..did they have the fleet to do that?
I think it gives too much credit to Napoleon. Cody's theory seems to imply that if the Royal Navy lost at Trafalgar then Britain would not have naval supremacy, despite the number of ships at their disposal and the quality training of the crews. This makes it unlikely that so many French landings would happen in such a short amount of time, and that those armies could be supplied after they disembarked. To add to that, it is highly unlikely the French fleet would remain undetected for so long, as not only would Britain be on high alert, you can see France from Dover. The only way Napoleon could land troops with such secrecy is due to bad weather, but amphibious landings take so much planning and preparation that there is no way Napoleon could have relied on it. Furthermore, London would abandon Ireland as soon as England was threatened, making the comparison to Spain misleading; Napoleon committed so many troops to Iberia because he thought he could win and because it was part of his war goals, yet Westminster would see a French army on English soil so existentially terrifying that everything else becomes unimportant. Ultimately, I think the scenario takes Napoleon's military genius for granted and assumes that so long as he could land on Britain, then he would win. In reality, invading England, even with a win at Trafalgar, would still be as difficult as invading Russia, simply because the defenders have such a massive advantage.
this doesn't need to be a "what if" scenario because Napoleonic forces DID land on Britain in February 1797 and suffered a humiliating defeat. the invasion force of 1400 men was up against a hastily thrown together British force of 300 reservists, 250 local militiamen and 150 sailors the whole operation lasted two days until the French forces surrendered unconditionally with 33 killed or wounded, 1,360 captured, 1 frigate captured and 1 corvette captured.
You’re totally right about warships from back in the day being a lot prettier. Same for ocean liners. Titanic, Lusitania etc were so much better looking than the bland floating apartment blocks of today
27:56 I imagine that Napoleon would play a pretty risky move and try to sell Haiti to America in a package with Louisiana the same way he sold all of Louisiana to America even though they just wanted the port city of New Orleans just for some extra cash to fund their navy against the British. It would also be a quick and easy way to get the weight of the Haitian revolution off Napoleon’s shoulders,basically telling America “ok now you deal with “
How any kind of scenario is plausible is an easy answer: Civil War. Make up a scenario where two factions of not too dissimilar strength descend into infighting, have the navy involved and Napoleon has the opportunity to invade and win.
34:00 really the only one that even had a chance at helping was Portugal Prussia and Russia were on the other side of the continent and Austria had just gotten obliterated. But Portugal was past their prime by that point they still had quite a good navy but considering Spain was still an ally of the French by that point, and the fact that the British Navy itself was destroyed, basically by that point, I don’t think the Portuguese Navy could stand much of a chance.
3:13 the chain in istanbul was not between asia and europe but it was between the old city or consantinople and galata and it was to cut access to the golden horn
What is the Royal Pavilion famous for? The Royal Pavilion, also known as the Brighton Pavilion, is a stunning palace steeped in history. A Grade I listed building, it was originally built in 1787 to be a seaside residence for King George IV and has since served as a civic building and a World War I hospital.
A Brit, but one who respects Boney, and not just for his military genius. What would have been interesting is if Robert Fulton had managed to persuade the French to take up his steam engine, build some steam ships and sail over in winds which were unfavourable to the RN. It's debatable whether the build up of barges in northern France in the year or two before Trafalgar were for full blown invasion, or just for a big raid to destroy the RN's dockyards. This would be just as devastating for Britain, and less costly and time consuming for the French than a lengthy occupation. The French had already moved south to tackle Austria before Trafalgar, so it's importance is always slightly overdone IMO. Oh, and the battle of Navarino was sail v sail and occurred later than Trafalgar too. As mentioned, the British Army has always been relatively tiny. With no facilities to build ships for a few years, and no way to protect their wealth through trade, Britain is effectively out of the fight, and would also slowly lose their ability to fund the fight for others fighting against France too. No real need for invasion. As an aside, yes love the look of the age of sail ships. Was lucky to go on a Tall Ships Race some years ago and got up close to some big square riggers, magical.
My main problem with this alternate timeline, is concerning the Battle of Trafalgar. He assumes that the British Navy would be obliterated if the French and the Spanish were organized and held a firm line of defense, but he is conveniently forgetting the superiority of the British tactics and training. Meaning, if the British saw that the French and the Spanish held a firm, disciplined defensive line against them, Nelson would not have charged them head on as he did in our timeline. The reason he charged in was BECAUSE they were disorganized. He would have revised his strategy and come up with a different tactic if he saw that they held a firm line. Assuming that the British would just hurl themselves against numerically superior forces while they at the same time held a disciplined line of defense is not logical. More likely, Nelson would have found a different tactic, and he still would have won the battle. Maybe not nearly as decisive as he did win, but still a win, because the British had a that time proven time and time again their overwhelming superiority on the sea. Or another likely scenario. The French and the Spanish would have just escaped from the fight, and two sides would find a different time to engage each other.
I think the reason for Russia and Austria for not helping Britain here is that they were just defeated at Austerlitz. Britain stand alone in this scenario, and fun fact, Denmark-Norway maybe the largest fleet before Nelson blew it up, after nations like England, Spain and maybe the Dutch.
Wikipedia: RMS Titanic was a British ocean liner that sank on 15 April 1912 as a result of striking an iceberg on her maiden voyage from Southampton. The Port of Southampton is a passenger and cargo port in the central part of the south coast of England. The modern era in the history of the Port of Southampton began when the first dock was inaugurated in 1843. After the Port of Felixstowe, Southampton is the second largest container terminal in UK, with a handled traffic of 1.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).[1] It also handles cruise ships, roll-on roll-off, dry bulk, and liquid bulk (mainly crude oil).[1]
Napoleon could have built a large wooden badger. I know during that time everyone especially the French and English were worried about spies. My thinking is if they were able to have a cohesive line against Nelson that sort of intelligence and planning would have manifested before Trafalgar and Nelson would have planned for that. The U.S. wasn't the first country in the world to create and practice different battle scenarios. I also believe that if Napoleon were to successfully invade England he would have had to be more sneaky and hit them where they ain't. I have to think that even if Nelson was defeated it wouldn't have been the end of it. If Napoleon had beaten Nelson, I would have to assume he would have been fearful of a retaliatory attack somewhere else. The movie 13 Days touches on that kind of thinking. It's a good movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Wikipedia: The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Inglesa, "Luso-English Alliance") is the oldest[1] alliance that is still in force by political bilateral agreement.[2] It was established by the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between the Kingdom of England (since succeeded by the United Kingdom) and the Kingdom of Portugal (now the Portuguese Republic), though the countries were previously allied via the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373.
7:29 I get what you mean I like him because of the things he’s done and how bada** he was but I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed he’s just one of my favorite historical figures. Alongside people like Theodore Roosevelt the absolute Chad.
France certainly had enemies, but at this point, how many of them would have been able, let alone willing, to do anything on Britain's behalf? British naval power was the entirety of their relevance to the rest of Europe in the conflicts with Napoleon. Anyone else getting involved is going to need naval power of their own to be able to help, and of the few who could have factored into the conflict, I have difficulty believing they would put their navy at risk for someone who had been in the position of having the strongest navy. Most would assume Britain could handle it, and honestly I think that would be a realistic assessment. The battle of Trafalgar was lost because of French naval incompetence that was a product of the same revolution that left Napoleon in power. Their lack of formation was one aspect of it, but they also had tactical issues that hampered them in most engagements against the British. They were also not as strong of a force. Trafalgar was only a few dozen ships - large fleets to be sure, but the impact on Britain would be to pull back from more distant fleet deployments, not to leave themselves vulnerable to these distraction based tactics. For this to have worked, French imperial naval tactics would have had to have been different, which would impact a lot of things leading up to this as well.
A lot would depend on when he chose to launch an invasion of England. (Having the ships to do so in place and weather would be key) Remember Drake and the Spanish. Also being able to get a foothold would be key, a reverse Normandy would be unlikely due to available English troops, forts and local fleets. The French best hope would be an Ireland or Scottland first with less concentration of English. Also with either region could develop a local support factor to swell ranks with Irish (who rebelled often) or a faction of Scotts not happy with England. When Napoleon came back France had yet to rebuild and lacked time. Earlier would have worked but he was over extended in Europe. If he avoided war with Russia and took a pause, even giving back farther areas to concentrate power with a period of peace to rebuild.
Interestingly, this would’ve happen after Haiti gained independence and the subsequent Louisiana Purchase. I wonder how Haiti and US would be affected.
Once getting past the 'wooden wall' he could have won ..But that is still a HUGE if Napoleons Army was larger but..size doesn't always matter in war Btw I wrote this BEFORE watching ..maybe not the smartest idea
Three days late so you might not notice this but....... When looking at the British forces Alternative history fails to mention the call for volunteers issued in 1803. By 1804 there were 480,000 volunteers enlisted, uniformed and issued with muskets. Their not the veterans of the Grande Armée but they have by 1806 had two years of weekend training. The figures given at 14:43 completely omit this massive number of men in red, who were seperate from the militia. which had 51,000 men conscripted by ballot. So I put it to you that even if these are militia like person's Napoleon does not bring over enough troops, recall Spain, yes he might win battles in the open field but he might also have to take the towns on the south coast house by house, with heavy casualties. If the population of London declared 'war to the knife,' would 80,000 men be enough to take that city or would he be bled white. I will add that with every mans hand against him I don't give much for Murat's chances of getting anywhere near as near to London as they show him with just 15,000 men however veteran. I think he would have wound up so worn down in numbers that he would have wound up encircled in some small town after being bled white as well and be forced to surrender.
Napoleon DID invade Britain in February 1797. the invasion force of 1400 men was up against a hastily thrown together British force of 300 reservists, 250 local militiamen and 150 sailors the whole operation lasted two days until the French forces surrendered unconditionally with 33 killed or wounded, 1,360 captured, 1 frigate captured and 1 corvette captured.
Can someone tell me did VTH react to this video or this video got deleted and MrTerry uploaded it again cause I really don't know ( They're pretty same I get confused )
The video ignores: The Royal Navy had close to 300 ships, in 1805, of which Nelson commanded 27 at the Battle of Trafalgar. At the time the majority were blockading the French, Dutch, Spanish ports, 11 ship of the line outside Boulogne, more Brest, ... (Nelson could have at worst lost the equivalent of the majority of one of the dozen US 2024 Carrier Battle Groups). - The Royal Navy was a meritocracy, rank was earned through exam, and seniority, not birth or cash (chech out Nelson's bio). - The French had guillotined the majority of their experience Naval officers in the last few years, and the replacements were politically appointments. - The hygiene of the largely leaderless Franco-Spanish navy, dysentery having claimed a third of the crews before Trafalgar, and many more would die soon after. - Napoleon's conflict with the Vatican, from invading the papal states, leaving a division in Rome, to loot and send the funds to build a triumphant Arch to himself in the centre of Paris, that was three times the size of the one in Rome, with the proceeds; ceasing church lands across Europe and gifting or selling them to favourites, kidnapping a Pope, crowning himself in the presence of a summoned Pope, ... . He was as popular with the Vatican as Louis XIV was in 1690s, when the Pope then blessed Protestant King Billy of Orange's campaign to crush Louis XIV armies in Scotland and Ireland, under their notional Stewart leadership. More locals followed the churches call to aid the Vatican nominated armies, of the British-Dutch crown, than the Franco-Stewart. Similarly when the vatican called on Good Catholics to support Franco's National Carbolics in Spain, in the 1930s, more signed up for the Vatican backed mob than the international brigades of the Republican government. - Throw in the West of Ireland, with its then majority Connacht Irish speaking, subsistence farming, overwhelmingly pastural population, of notionally blindly obedient and obviously illiterate Catholics, knowing of no form of Society other than a feudal, and who had virtually no industry, or stores of grains. A French army turning up and killing their divinely appointed Lord and Priest, driving off their few cattle and sheep, and stealing their sack of seed oats would not have won many friends. Only a fool would have dispatched a French or British army to West of Ireland, to capture and occupy the territory by living off the land. - The British Government hadn't only funded a few dozen forts and a military canal along the South coast, but a national network. Places like Weedon-bec, in the Midlands, were constructed at strategic places on the Road and canal network, to tie up 10,000 enemy troop, for a few months, at a time.
An American talking about what-ifs of European history..... I am actually offended. I really AM. Someone from a nation infamous for it's introspective self absorption, talking about the period when it's capital was still smouldering yet hardly anyone in the country knows why the Whitehouse is white is going to tell us about the Napoleonic Wars, in Europe, crossing the channel, on ships that the Royal navy don't sink..... seriously? Next you'll be telling me that the first verse of your national anthem celebrates a fort not being destroyed for a few hours one night. In a war where the Continental Army had more Englishmen in it than the Hanoverian army did. If America hadn't turned itself into such a dangerous joke in the past decade I would have been ore tollerant - but anyone interested in the judgement of history needs to look no closer to home than the Orange ex-president and felon, not the early 19th Century.
This has got to be one of dumbest things I've ever read. You don't get to gatekeep history or alternate history. I get that your prejudiced against Americans, but your opinion is it as valuable as you think it is. It's ironic that you think Americans are self absorbed, when you should really be looking in the mirror.
Interestingly, this would’ve happen after Haiti gained independence and the subsequent Louisiana Purchase. I wonder how Haiti and US would be affected.
What do YOU think of this possibility?
I think it makes sense and is plausible. I love the more in depth analysis they did this time around.
Original link in the description leads to a Trump video
hey the link in the description to the Original Video is wrong
i think this doesn't need to be a "what if" scenario because Napoleon DID invade Britain in February 1797.
the invasion force of 1400 men was up against a hastily thrown together British force of 300 reservists, 250 local militiamen and 150 sailors
the whole operation lasted two days until the French forces surrendered unconditionally with 33 killed or wounded, 1,360 captured, 1 frigate captured and 1 corvette captured.
@windhelmguard5295 Yeah a small incursion is the same as a full scale invasion it's like same British Commando raids on occupied France was the same as D Day British coping as usual.
Napoleon in this ATL basically turned Ireland into the equivalent of what the British turned Spain into against him in OTL, a quagmire that sapped manpower and resources away from their main effort.
At this time, the British mostly didn't have allies. They had their empire for sure, but they were too far away to reasonably be of help if the French were invading. The only European ally Britain had during this time was Portugal.
Yeah, at this point he had just finished 3rd Coalition so he had a long time before any danger.
In theorie allies could have been found but Austria was already defeated
Rusia was too far away
And Pruisia would have to move through French territory to even reach Britain ..did they have the fleet to do that?
I think it gives too much credit to Napoleon. Cody's theory seems to imply that if the Royal Navy lost at Trafalgar then Britain would not have naval supremacy, despite the number of ships at their disposal and the quality training of the crews. This makes it unlikely that so many French landings would happen in such a short amount of time, and that those armies could be supplied after they disembarked. To add to that, it is highly unlikely the French fleet would remain undetected for so long, as not only would Britain be on high alert, you can see France from Dover. The only way Napoleon could land troops with such secrecy is due to bad weather, but amphibious landings take so much planning and preparation that there is no way Napoleon could have relied on it. Furthermore, London would abandon Ireland as soon as England was threatened, making the comparison to Spain misleading; Napoleon committed so many troops to Iberia because he thought he could win and because it was part of his war goals, yet Westminster would see a French army on English soil so existentially terrifying that everything else becomes unimportant.
Ultimately, I think the scenario takes Napoleon's military genius for granted and assumes that so long as he could land on Britain, then he would win. In reality, invading England, even with a win at Trafalgar, would still be as difficult as invading Russia, simply because the defenders have such a massive advantage.
this doesn't need to be a "what if" scenario because Napoleonic forces DID land on Britain in February 1797 and suffered a humiliating defeat.
the invasion force of 1400 men was up against a hastily thrown together British force of 300 reservists, 250 local militiamen and 150 sailors
the whole operation lasted two days until the French forces surrendered unconditionally with 33 killed or wounded, 1,360 captured, 1 frigate captured and 1 corvette captured.
You’re totally right about warships from back in the day being a lot prettier. Same for ocean liners. Titanic, Lusitania etc were so much better looking than the bland floating apartment blocks of today
Make ships cool again!
@@MrTerryYou still need to correct the video link
Many of those Napoleanic-era fortifications were modernized in 1940 to prepare against the possibility of Operation Seelöwe becoming a reality.
This, I think, is one of Cody’s best (probably because he got a ton of input from the Napoleon hyper focus gang)
27:56 I imagine that Napoleon would play a pretty risky move and try to sell Haiti to America in a package with Louisiana the same way he sold all of Louisiana to America even though they just wanted the port city of New Orleans just for some extra cash to fund their navy against the British. It would also be a quick and easy way to get the weight of the Haitian revolution off Napoleon’s shoulders,basically telling America “ok now you deal with “
And they sit down asking what is bothering them
On Hati he should add it as a sweetener for Jefferson to increase better terms for another major US port and add sugar to the rice in New Orleans.
Im so happy that mr terry reacted to Cody
Lol I am pretty sure thats not the original video in the description
How any kind of scenario is plausible is an easy answer: Civil War. Make up a scenario where two factions of not too dissimilar strength descend into infighting, have the navy involved and Napoleon has the opportunity to invade and win.
the first French epedition to Ireland was something like 20k troops under Lazare Hoche. If only they landed.
34:00 really the only one that even had a chance at helping was Portugal Prussia and Russia were on the other side of the continent and Austria had just gotten obliterated. But Portugal was past their prime by that point they still had quite a good navy but considering Spain was still an ally of the French by that point, and the fact that the British Navy itself was destroyed, basically by that point, I don’t think the Portuguese Navy could stand much of a chance.
What about Denmark?
3:13 the chain in istanbul was not between asia and europe but it was between the old city or consantinople and galata and it was to cut access to the golden horn
What is the Royal Pavilion famous for?
The Royal Pavilion, also known as the Brighton Pavilion, is a stunning palace steeped in history. A Grade I listed building, it was originally built in 1787 to be a seaside residence for King George IV and has since served as a civic building and a World War I hospital.
Watch this next! ruclips.net/video/jsmH8NW0mng/видео.html
A Brit, but one who respects Boney, and not just for his military genius.
What would have been interesting is if Robert Fulton had managed to persuade the French to take up his steam engine, build some steam ships and sail over in winds which were unfavourable to the RN.
It's debatable whether the build up of barges in northern France in the year or two before Trafalgar were for full blown invasion, or just for a big raid to destroy the RN's dockyards.
This would be just as devastating for Britain, and less costly and time consuming for the French than a lengthy occupation. The French had already moved south to tackle Austria before Trafalgar, so it's importance is always slightly overdone IMO. Oh, and the battle of Navarino was sail v sail and occurred later than Trafalgar too.
As mentioned, the British Army has always been relatively tiny. With no facilities to build ships for a few years, and no way to protect their wealth through trade, Britain is effectively out of the fight, and would also slowly lose their ability to fund the fight for others fighting against France too. No real need for invasion.
As an aside, yes love the look of the age of sail ships. Was lucky to go on a Tall Ships Race some years ago and got up close to some big square riggers, magical.
My main problem with this alternate timeline, is concerning the Battle of Trafalgar. He assumes that the British Navy would be obliterated if the French and the Spanish were organized and held a firm line of defense, but he is conveniently forgetting the superiority of the British tactics and training. Meaning, if the British saw that the French and the Spanish held a firm, disciplined defensive line against them, Nelson would not have charged them head on as he did in our timeline. The reason he charged in was BECAUSE they were disorganized. He would have revised his strategy and come up with a different tactic if he saw that they held a firm line. Assuming that the British would just hurl themselves against numerically superior forces while they at the same time held a disciplined line of defense is not logical.
More likely, Nelson would have found a different tactic, and he still would have won the battle. Maybe not nearly as decisive as he did win, but still a win, because the British had a that time proven time and time again their overwhelming superiority on the sea. Or another likely scenario. The French and the Spanish would have just escaped from the fight, and two sides would find a different time to engage each other.
I think the reason for Russia and Austria for not helping Britain here is that they were just defeated at Austerlitz. Britain stand alone in this scenario, and fun fact, Denmark-Norway maybe the largest fleet before Nelson blew it up, after nations like England, Spain and maybe the Dutch.
Wikipedia:
RMS Titanic was a British ocean liner that sank on 15 April 1912 as a result of striking an iceberg on her maiden voyage from Southampton.
The Port of Southampton is a passenger and cargo port in the central part of the south coast of England. The modern era in the history of the Port of Southampton began when the first dock was inaugurated in 1843. After the Port of Felixstowe, Southampton is the second largest container terminal in UK, with a handled traffic of 1.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).[1] It also handles cruise ships, roll-on roll-off, dry bulk, and liquid bulk (mainly crude oil).[1]
Napoleon could have built a large wooden badger.
I know during that time everyone especially the French and English were worried about spies. My thinking is if they were able to have a cohesive line against Nelson that sort of intelligence and planning would have manifested before Trafalgar and Nelson would have planned for that. The U.S. wasn't the first country in the world to create and practice different battle scenarios.
I also believe that if Napoleon were to successfully invade England he would have had to be more sneaky and hit them where they ain't.
I have to think that even if Nelson was defeated it wouldn't have been the end of it. If Napoleon had beaten Nelson, I would have to assume he would have been fearful of a retaliatory attack somewhere else.
The movie 13 Days touches on that kind of thinking. It's a good movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Wikipedia:
The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Inglesa, "Luso-English Alliance") is the oldest[1] alliance that is still in force by political bilateral agreement.[2] It was established by the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between the Kingdom of England (since succeeded by the United Kingdom) and the Kingdom of Portugal (now the Portuguese Republic), though the countries were previously allied via the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373.
7:29 I get what you mean I like him because of the things he’s done and how bada** he was but I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed he’s just one of my favorite historical figures. Alongside people like Theodore Roosevelt the absolute Chad.
France certainly had enemies, but at this point, how many of them would have been able, let alone willing, to do anything on Britain's behalf? British naval power was the entirety of their relevance to the rest of Europe in the conflicts with Napoleon. Anyone else getting involved is going to need naval power of their own to be able to help, and of the few who could have factored into the conflict, I have difficulty believing they would put their navy at risk for someone who had been in the position of having the strongest navy. Most would assume Britain could handle it, and honestly I think that would be a realistic assessment.
The battle of Trafalgar was lost because of French naval incompetence that was a product of the same revolution that left Napoleon in power. Their lack of formation was one aspect of it, but they also had tactical issues that hampered them in most engagements against the British. They were also not as strong of a force. Trafalgar was only a few dozen ships - large fleets to be sure, but the impact on Britain would be to pull back from more distant fleet deployments, not to leave themselves vulnerable to these distraction based tactics. For this to have worked, French imperial naval tactics would have had to have been different, which would impact a lot of things leading up to this as well.
The British vacation place is Bournemouth! ;)
Mr. Terry has nice Hats.
I feel called out as a Rommel guy.
A lot would depend on when he chose to launch an invasion of England. (Having the ships to do so in place and weather would be key) Remember Drake and the Spanish. Also being able to get a foothold would be key, a reverse Normandy would be unlikely due to available English troops, forts and local fleets. The French best hope would be an Ireland or Scottland first with less concentration of English. Also with either region could develop a local support factor to swell ranks with Irish (who rebelled often) or a faction of Scotts not happy with England. When Napoleon came back France had yet to rebuild and lacked time. Earlier would have worked but he was over extended in Europe. If he avoided war with Russia and took a pause, even giving back farther areas to concentrate power with a period of peace to rebuild.
Interestingly, this would’ve happen after Haiti gained independence and the subsequent Louisiana Purchase. I wonder how Haiti and US would be affected.
Once getting past the 'wooden wall' he could have won ..But that is still a HUGE if
Napoleons Army was larger but..size doesn't always matter in war
Btw I wrote this BEFORE watching ..maybe not the smartest idea
This is one of my favorite of all his videos
Three days late so you might not notice this but....... When looking at the British forces Alternative history fails to mention the call for volunteers issued in 1803. By 1804 there were 480,000 volunteers enlisted, uniformed and issued with muskets. Their not the veterans of the Grande Armée but they have by 1806 had two years of weekend training. The figures given at 14:43 completely omit this massive number of men in red, who were seperate from the militia. which had 51,000 men conscripted by ballot.
So I put it to you that even if these are militia like person's Napoleon does not bring over enough troops, recall Spain, yes he might win battles in the open field but he might also have to take the towns on the south coast house by house, with heavy casualties. If the population of London declared 'war to the knife,' would 80,000 men be enough to take that city or would he be bled white. I will add that with every mans hand against him I don't give much for Murat's chances of getting anywhere near as near to London as they show him with just 15,000 men however veteran. I think he would have wound up so worn down in numbers that he would have wound up encircled in some small town after being bled white as well and be forced to surrender.
UK: had their navy
US and Canada: Had their Army
In my opinion, Napoleon was the only and closest person to invade Britain in the Modern Era.
Sealion
I like Oliver Cromwell
I would argue that Napoléon would give the British Colonies in the Caribbean to the US
Napoleon DID invade Britain in February 1797.
the invasion force of 1400 men was up against a hastily thrown together British force of 300 reservists, 250 local militiamen and 150 sailors
the whole operation lasted two days until the French forces surrendered unconditionally with 33 killed or wounded, 1,360 captured, 1 frigate captured and 1 corvette captured.
What if the Battle of Trafalgar was 1775 and Napoleon had won, would 1776 have been delayed indefinitely?
He’d get his average height for the time arse kicked
you put the wrong vid in description
I got to come back to watch this fat electrician just uploaded a video I got to catch it im a be back though Mr. Terry
Jefferson’s America > Trump’s America
What a bleak world we'd live in if this happened, theres already too much french in the world
Too many is what you meant.
You accidentally linked the Angry Cop video about Trump memes again instead of the original video for this reaction.
I bet it wouldbe the Portuguese
I look at this way if the failed Austrian painter thought invading Britain was never going to End well
I highly doubt Napoleon can
Where is Britains greatest military geneal the duke of wellington? You know the general famous for being a brilliant defensive tactician!
My thought exactly
Clearly doesn't know the British
3 day gang just subbed
The original Video Link in the description leads to some Trump video
Mistakes happen good catch he’ll probably fix it soon.
He just did a reaction to a Trump video so he misplaced the links
The biggest history simps are for the Romans/Byzantines... I'm one of them. And the next is the Wehraboos
I hate history simps.
Can someone tell me did VTH react to this video or this video got deleted and MrTerry uploaded it again cause I really don't know
( They're pretty same I get confused )
The video ignores:
The Royal Navy had close to 300 ships, in 1805, of which Nelson commanded 27 at the Battle of Trafalgar. At the time the majority were blockading the French, Dutch, Spanish ports, 11 ship of the line outside Boulogne, more Brest, ... (Nelson could have at worst lost the equivalent of the majority of one of the dozen US 2024 Carrier Battle Groups).
- The Royal Navy was a meritocracy, rank was earned through exam, and seniority, not birth or cash (chech out Nelson's bio).
- The French had guillotined the majority of their experience Naval officers in the last few years, and the replacements were politically appointments.
- The hygiene of the largely leaderless Franco-Spanish navy, dysentery having claimed a third of the crews before Trafalgar, and many more would die soon after.
- Napoleon's conflict with the Vatican, from invading the papal states, leaving a division in Rome, to loot and send the funds to build a triumphant Arch to himself in the centre of Paris, that was three times the size of the one in Rome, with the proceeds; ceasing church lands across Europe and gifting or selling them to favourites, kidnapping a Pope, crowning himself in the presence of a summoned Pope, ... . He was as popular with the Vatican as Louis XIV was in 1690s, when the Pope then blessed Protestant King Billy of Orange's campaign to crush Louis XIV armies in Scotland and Ireland, under their notional Stewart leadership. More locals followed the churches call to aid the Vatican nominated armies, of the British-Dutch crown, than the Franco-Stewart. Similarly when the vatican called on Good Catholics to support Franco's National Carbolics in Spain, in the 1930s, more signed up for the Vatican backed mob than the international brigades of the Republican government.
- Throw in the West of Ireland, with its then majority Connacht Irish speaking, subsistence farming, overwhelmingly pastural population, of notionally blindly obedient and obviously illiterate Catholics, knowing of no form of Society other than a feudal, and who had virtually no industry, or stores of grains. A French army turning up and killing their divinely appointed Lord and Priest, driving off their few cattle and sheep, and stealing their sack of seed oats would not have won many friends. Only a fool would have dispatched a French or British army to West of Ireland, to capture and occupy the territory by living off the land.
- The British Government hadn't only funded a few dozen forts and a military canal along the South coast, but a national network. Places like Weedon-bec, in the Midlands, were constructed at strategic places on the Road and canal network, to tie up 10,000 enemy troop, for a few months, at a time.
An American talking about what-ifs of European history..... I am actually offended. I really AM. Someone from a nation infamous for it's introspective self absorption, talking about the period when it's capital was still smouldering yet hardly anyone in the country knows why the Whitehouse is white is going to tell us about the Napoleonic Wars, in Europe, crossing the channel, on ships that the Royal navy don't sink..... seriously? Next you'll be telling me that the first verse of your national anthem celebrates a fort not being destroyed for a few hours one night. In a war where the Continental Army had more Englishmen in it than the Hanoverian army did.
If America hadn't turned itself into such a dangerous joke in the past decade I would have been ore tollerant - but anyone interested in the judgement of history needs to look no closer to home than the Orange ex-president and felon, not the early 19th Century.
This has got to be one of dumbest things I've ever read. You don't get to gatekeep history or alternate history. I get that your prejudiced against Americans, but your opinion is it as valuable as you think it is. It's ironic that you think Americans are self absorbed, when you should really be looking in the mirror.
Interestingly, this would’ve happen after Haiti gained independence and the subsequent Louisiana Purchase. I wonder how Haiti and US would be affected.