If he had invaded England instead of imposing a stupid law he would've died a hero. Invading Russia was a terrible mistake, one that Hitler didn't learn from. Isn't it funny how whenever Europe decides to invade the Russian stepe it's always a failure?
>>18429593Ok Ivan
>>18429593He should have invaded neither. Trying to launch a ground invasion into Britain would have been a disaster and a tactical failure. You do say that he would have died a hero but you realize that either way the invasion forces were going on a suicide mission. Trying to land a ground invasion force in Britain would have been unthinkable. Even if by some miracle he landed a force at Dover or Hastings unimpeded, the logistics of trying to supply his men across the English Channel would have been impossible once the Royal Navy found out.If Napoleon focused on defence and building up France after his initial conquests he probably would have been remembered better.
>>18429593And how would he have done that?
>>18429613With boats you dumb fuck
Thinking about the mighty ANGLO humbling this Corsican dwarf makes me tumescent. Also, a friendly reminder that his homeland was ANGLO within his lifetime. We simply couldn't stop cucking the poor midget.
>>18429611>LogisticHe would have live on the country, as he did everywhere. >Focuse on defence and building up France after his initial conquest.He tried, but other nations kept declaring war on him.
>>18430394What boats?
>>18429613If the plan worked correctly (could have it, that's another question), Nelson would follow Villeneuve to the Antillas then Villeneuve dump him, turn back to France, rally the spannish and the french fleet stuck at Brest and face the british Channel fleet with superior number before Nelson come back, living a window during wich the army can cross uncontested.That said, the Grande Armée left Boulogne because Austria and Russia declared war on France, leading to the Austerlitz campaign. If the Grande Armée landed in Great-Britain, the continent would have been left unprotected, so he can imagine a russian-austrian conquest in Napoleon's back. That said, Austria and Russia declared war because Great-Britain promised money. If the Channel Fleet was destroyed, the island invaded, London under siege and the City collapsed, maybe the powers would have rather step back, under the condition of course Napoleon win easy victories as everyone would expect : the british army would have been no match for the french. They were at the time more experienced and had far more advanced doctrines (at the time of Waterloo, every nation had learn from the french, leading to more balanced battles) . And France did not suffer yet the loss from Spain, Russia and from the costly battles like Eylau and Wagram. Could have the british fight a guerilla instead ? Maybe not : Spain and Russia fought harshly because Napoleon's polititic was deeply opposed to their culture and they were fanatized by religion. Being a liberal nation with consitutionnal monarchy wich saw with a favorable eye the French Revolution when it started first, we can doubt the british people would have been motivated enough to burn their country against the invader. But again, who know ?
>>18431843Transport boats, a handful of nice 74's guns.
>>18431832I don't think you understand the geography of Britain then. Most of it is dense farmland. There's not much in the way of large tracts of forestland to forage for food from. And the tracts that are there are mostly in tree farms or parks (at that time, in Royal Forests or in private estates).So he would have been left to raid farms. Even generously assuming that Napoleon and his troops arrived during the harvest season, still, that food wouldn't just be given over to his troops easily. As I said before, at the time there was a well-organized militia system in place.Napoleon did live off the land to some degree, but he did not solely rely on it; he absolutely had supply lines in each invasion and conquest he took part in.Also you have to consider that his army needed items besides simply just food which would have been even harded to procure. Ammunition, items to repair gear and uniforms, a lot of horses, medical supplies, etc. These would be much hardee to come by in large amounts in rural farm areas, unless he managed to raid military outposts.
>>18431876Farmlands are exactly what french need for foraging. That, and the warehouses found in every city seized. It worked for them in Italy, in Germany, in Poland, in Austria..Milicia may be prepared for a guerilla style warfare, but how woould they act once the shock of a Royal Navy defeat and a real landing is upon them ? Maybe would they fight like spanish or maybe the whole country would collapse in few days, like Prussia in 1807. Napoleon would seek a quick victory : a march toward London, only few days ayaw fron the south coast, crushing any army on his path then waiting for peace once the king his forced to flee. The local farmboy may be ready to defend his land but the londonian merchants have to much to lose. Napoleon already fought a campaign entirely cut off fron his supply line in Egypt. And despite being a total failure on the long term, he managed noticeable success anyway despite attrition and scarcity. And southern England is no worse than middle-east conditions if he can win before being bogged down. Same goes for his first campaign in Italy : he achieved a lot despite very limited ressources.But yeah, if for some reason Napoleon cannot achieve a quick victory based on the moral shock and the total collapse of the country, he put himself at huge risk, from being cut off the continent by Nelson armada to a coalition attacking his back.
