• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Armada of 1779

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
In 1779, during the American Revolutionary War, France and Spain planned to invade Britain, but the plan was canceled. What if it had gone forward? How successful would the invasion have been?
 
How successful would the invasion be?

Not.

The sort of not that makes it doubtful that there could be victory at Chesapeake and thus Yorktown or their ATL equivalent.

It was a plan that the French kept having during the long eighteenth century. It never worked. The Navy was better under Louis XVI than it had probably ever been and it still was nowhere close enough. Only thing it would have achieved is even more ruin for the French Navy, so even more expenses to get it back to strength in the 1780s, and bankruptcy a bit earlier. Probably moving the Révolution forward.
 
Not.

The sort of not that makes it doubtful that there could be victory at Chesapeake and thus Yorktown or their ATL equivalent.

It was a plan that the French kept having during the long eighteenth century. It never worked. The Navy was better under Louis XVI than it had probably ever been and it still was nowhere close enough. Only thing it would have achieved is even more ruin for the French Navy, so even more expenses to get it back to strength in the 1780s, and bankruptcy a bit earlier. Probably moving the Révolution forward.

I edited my post while you were replying. Could you, please, edit the quote?
Regardless, I have seen it argued at several threads at the other place that the invasion could have been somewhat successful and resulted in Britain suing for peace.
 
I assume it would've been pretty brutal for Britain but the Royal Navy still wins (since the French and Spanish clearly decided "okay no" for a reason). It would be hugely significant if that ends up altering the path of the American Revolution or bringing the French Revolution sooner though, as @Redolegna argues - that means they end up different, and how does Britain react if the revolution happens and Louis's headless very soon after the Battle of Whitby Coast?
 
I assume it would've been pretty brutal for Britain but the Royal Navy still wins (since the French and Spanish clearly decided "okay no" for a reason). It would be hugely significant if that ends up altering the path of the American Revolution or bringing the French Revolution sooner though, as @Redolegna argues - that means they end up different, and how does Britain react if the revolution happens and Louis's headless very soon after the Battle of Whitby Coast?

The invasion was only canceled because of an outbreak of disease.
 
Looking up the Armada of the time, the disease outbreak hit as bad as it it did due to the French deliberately heading off under-supplied as a strategic ploy and then having to wait weeks more than expected for the Spanish to turn up. Changing that so they attack means either the Spanish need to show up when expected (allegedly delayed by winds) or the French have to drop the idea of going off undercooked, which means the Royal Navy is more aware something's coming their way.
 
The invasion was only canceled because of an outbreak of disease.

There was always something. Sometimes it was disease. Because of the issue @Charles EP M. points out and unlikely to be solved. Or the winds just weren't allowing it. Or or or or.

At some point, it's time to wake up to the reality there's a systemic problem there that can only be overcome with such a massive investment in ships that it breaks the bank or corresponds to a serious decrease in investment in the army which France never could allow for and hope to keep its standing on the continent. The only way they could really achieve anything was to keep the threat active with a fleet-in-being and rattle British policy-makers and force them to keep a strong home fleet and troops on home soil as well as the militia, all of which costs. Whenever sailing happened, disaster followed. Even when they managed to put pitiful contingents ashore, well, look up Ballinamuck. It's nearly as bad as the Rhine barges. It should only remain as a psy-op to destabilise the British and get them to doubt their position. To quote a chessmaster: "the threat is stronger than the execution".
 
Even if you somehow can do the Armada and it batters Britain severely enough to get them to cry "pax!", the extra cost of all the lost boats & material on top of the costs of the American Revolution seem likely to speed up the French Revolution anyway! But now you get one where Britain's not involved in any pushback until it's rebuilt its stuff.
 
Even if you somehow can do the Armada and it batters Britain severely enough to get them to cry "pax!", the extra cost of all the lost boats & material on top of the costs of the American Revolution seem likely to speed up the French Revolution anyway! But now you get one where Britain's not involved in any pushback until it's rebuilt its stuff.

Is the French Revolution considered to be inevitable post-1763? I was under the impression that the Patriot rebellion during the 1780s in the Netherlands inspired it.
 
Not post-1763, but to me post-1774. Once it's clear Louis XVI will not release the steam off the pressure cooker which he showed immediately by giving the boot to Maupeou and never sticking through with his ministers, there is going to be something. Depending on the timing (the crop failures are important), it might not go as catastrophically for the monarchy as it did, but something has got to give.
 
The French fleet had a decisive local superiority in the Channel in numbers, meaning they could control the sea lanes and land the 40,000 men ready to land.

Post-1759 the Royal Navy is by far the best in the world, and without some serious luck the French have no way of changing this. It is highly unlikely that they’ll be able to land any troops in Britain, and if they do the invading troops will be quickly cut off from their supplies and destroyed.
 
Post-1759 the Royal Navy is by far the best in the world, and without some serious luck the French have no way of changing this. It is highly unlikely that they’ll be able to land any troops in Britain, and if they do the invading troops will be quickly cut off from their supplies and destroyed.

Several threads at the other place argue otherwise. They argue that the Armada of 1779 did have a good chance of success.
 
Several threads at the other place argue otherwise. They argue that the Armada of 1779 did have a good chance of success.
Several threads on The Other Place also argue that Operation Sealion would have been a glorious victory for the Germans. It's almost like AH.com threads aren't a reputable source of information.
 
Several threads on The Other Place also argue that Operation Sealion would have been a glorious victory for the Germans. It's almost like AH.com threads aren't a reputable source of information.

Actually, the idea of Sea Lion being successful is widely mocked at the other place. It's even known as "Unspeakable Sea Mammal".
 
Post-1759 the Royal Navy is by far the best in the world, and without some serious luck the French have no way of changing this. It is highly unlikely that they’ll be able to land any troops in Britain, and if they do the invading troops will be quickly cut off from their supplies and destroyed.

The Royal Navy being the best in the world doesn't change the fact that in 1779 the French had the advantage in both numbers and in cannons in the channel and it will take months to assemble the Royal Navy to change this balance of power, given this is the age of sail based communication. Ask Lord Cornwallis what happens in such circumstances...
 
The Royal Navy being the best in the world doesn't change the fact that in 1779 the French had the advantage in both numbers and in cannons in the channel and it will take months to assemble the Royal Navy to change this balance of power, given this is the age of sail based communication. Ask Lord Cornwallis what happens in such circumstances...
Well, once across the French might find it very useful to have control of the Channel for more than eight hours.

Assuming of course they can get that eight hours in the first place.
 
Well, once across the French might find it very useful to have control of the Channel for more than eight hours.

Assuming of course they can get that eight hours in the first place.

Where is the idea of only eight hours coming from? This is the age of sail; even concentrating forces around Great Britain would take days in a best case scenario, while pulling forces from elsewhere will take months. The French have a 2-1 advantage in the Channel, so any effort to contest the landings is doomed to failed until said concentration can be achieved but the problem therein is by the time that can occur the 40,000 Frenchmen have long since taken London.
 
The French IOTL didn't seem to think they had superiority and could make a decisive strike that easily, if they were attempting a big act of deception to catch the Royal Navy out and stuck to it even when the scurvy was hitting.
 
The French have a 2-1 advantage in the Channel, so any effort to contest the landings is doomed to failed until said concentration can be achieved but the problem therein is by the time that can occur the 40,000 Frenchmen have long since taken London.

If Louis XVI had the opportunity to finally vanquish France’s oldest enemy he would have taken it. But just as Louis XV before him and Napoleon after him, he knew he did not. That is why no invasion was launched, it had no chance of success.

Furthermore, where is this idea of a 2-1 advantage in the Channel coming from?
 
Back
Top