Napoleon on the Potomac: An Alt-History Thread

Luke Freet

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Location
Palm Coast, Florida
So, a few months back, I made this thread on "What if Napoleon fought Lee". After doing some thinking, I decided to expand this into a book project of mine, looking into an Alt History story with slight scifi elements to make the story happen.

The Premise: At midnight on May 1st, 1863, all Union armies suddenly vanish with their arms (so no rifles or monitors left over). At the same time, Napoleon's Grande Armee from October 1806 (as it was about to start the Prussian Campaign) appears on the outskirts of Washington D.C. It takes some time before either side figures out what is going on. The 2 sides call for a truce...before a note shows up from a mysterious stranger, telling each commander their "objectives" (I know, bear with me, this is the only way this is gonna make sense).
At the realization that THE Napoleon has returned, Europe is in uproar. Napoleon III, reluctantly, gives his uncle his support. Meanwhile, Britain forms a new coalition against the great threat to Europe, bringing along the German states and Prussia and Austria. In addition, Britain gives support to the Confederates.

Anyways, I'm currently trying to map out the conflict, trying to gather an accurate enough OoB for each major combatant and front. I have worked out the forces available to the Confederates at the start of May 1863 (about when Confederate forces were at their peak, in my view), and have most of Napoleon's Grande Armee and subsidiary forces sent to support him, plus the SFE Army in Mexico under Forey and their main army in France. I am currently working on the British army available to join Lee in Virginia as well as to defend Canada.
I've already discuss with other forum users on the other thread I have linked as to what would occur if Lee's Army fought Napoleon's, so don't need to focus on that aspect.

So, I would like to ask you guys some specific questions, regarding this time frame:
1.) How strong were the British, French, and Prusso-Austro-German Armies and navies at this time period?
Specifically looking at the French and British at the time. How strong was their armies, what units did they have where, what were they equipped with, how many guns were assigned to a standard battery and how many men assigned to each unit, etc.? Same for the navy, though not as particularly interested. I presume @Saphroneth as you've done a lot of study on your Trent Affair scenario thread you'd have some comments on this.
2.) How long would it take for then-modern steam ships to travel across the Atlantic to land reinforcements?
2a.) I am having Chinese Gordon move to the CSA to join Lee at the start of 1864. If he started in Hong Kong or Shanghai, how long would it take for him to travel from there to join with Lee?
I am certain as I go along, I will come along more things I need to ask about.
 
Meanwhile, Britain forms a new coalition against the great threat to Europe, bringing along the German states and Prussia and Austria. In addition, Britain gives support to the Confederates.
I'm not entirely sure the British would actually do this.

Napoleon III, reluctantly, gives his uncle his support.
I also think this is actually out of character for Napoleon III if Britain is against Napoleon I.

I think the decision you have to make here is whether you want this to be a serious examination of the alternate-history consequences of the described events, or whether it's more in the nature of a "campaign study". The reason I say this is that, quite frankly, to those in the 19th Century this will appear as nothing less than explicit Divine Intervention, and so the assumption that there will be a war may actually not be at all justified; if on the other hand what you want is a "campaign study", with who's on what side locked in as of the scenario start, then we can proceed on that basis.
 
1.) How strong were the British, French, and Prusso-Austro-German Armies and navies at this time period?
Specifically looking at the French and British at the time. How strong was their armies, what units did they have where, what were they equipped with, how many guns were assigned to a standard battery and how many men assigned to each unit, etc.? Same for the navy, though not as particularly interested. I presume @Saphroneth as you've done a lot of study on your Trent Affair scenario thread you'd have some comments on this.
2.) How long would it take for then-modern steam ships to travel across the Atlantic to land reinforcements?
2a.) I am having Chinese Gordon move to the CSA to join Lee at the start of 1864. If he started in Hong Kong or Shanghai, how long would it take for him to travel from there to join with Lee?
So to have a look at the British and the Prussians as I can be most sure about those.

In 1863 all British infantry carry the Enfield and are trained to be expert in its use; as a rough comparison, the musketry training methods used by the US Sharpshooter regiments are pretty similar to the training ordinary line British infantry got. Standard battalion size is 850 men, give or take, and the army consisted of about 150 of them. (There were 8 guards battalions, 109 numbered regiments, 25 regiments had two battalions, the 60th Foot had four battalions and the Rifle Brigade had four battalions - 109+25+3+4+8 = 149) and as a rough figure you could expect a bit under half of that to be available for service after foreign stations apart from India were drawn down. Much of that might be needed elsewhere than Canada though.

The British also possessed an extremely large force of Militia and home defence volunteers, who were good shots and enthusiastic enough; practically speaking there's another 270,000 manpower that could be expected to defend the homeland. (Yes, that's two hundred and seventy thousand men.)

The Canadian militia has a considerable amount of firepower in store (lots of Enfields) and has a fairly reasonable number of drilled militia; they could mobilize and start training another 40,000 on short notice and give them all Enfields. There's also about a dozen battalions of British regulars in Canada and the Maritimes, which is enough for a formed British Corps (and two of the battalions are Guards).

All British artillery batteries at this time were either 6-gun foot batteries with the 12 pounder Armstrong, 6-gun horse artillery batteries with (IIRC) the 9-pounder Armstrong, or 4-gun siege, position or garrison batteries with the 20 or 40 pounder Armstrong (in the field) or up to the 110 pounder in garrison or if needed in siege work. There were plenty of surplus Armstrongs, and the weapon is very effective for the time (fast firing, accurate, powerful).

British cavalry is mostly trained to fight both mounted and dismounted, generally with Enfield carbines though some regiments have breech loaders.

A British regular corps is two binary divisions (each brigade is three battalions) and each division has two foot artillery batteries organic to it. There's also a cavalry brigade (9 squadrons, usually, plus two horse artillery batteries) and two extra batteries at the corps level (either two foot, one foot and one position or possibly two position). The engineering and logistics work is handled by specialized troops.

A British regular corps is thus about 10,000 infantry (most of them sharpshooters), about 1,300 cavalry, and 40+ Armstrong guns. Their range advantage over Napoleon's troops is so decisive that I think one British regular corps is actually quite sufficient to defend Canada.


I know less about the Prussian organization, but they have lots and lots of rifled breechloading small arms (the Dreyse) and have quite a lot of Krupp cannon on order. They're not yet the Prussians which shattered the French in 1870-1, but the French aren't yet the French of 1870-1 either...
 
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sure the British would actually do this.


I also think this is actually out of character for Napoleon III if Britain is against Napoleon I.

I think the decision you have to make here is whether you want this to be a serious examination of the alternate-history consequences of the described events, or whether it's more in the nature of a "campaign study". The reason I say this is that, quite frankly, to those in the 19th Century this will appear as nothing less than explicit Divine Intervention, and so the assumption that there will be a war may actually not be at all justified; if on the other hand what you want is a "campaign study", with who's on what side locked in as of the scenario start, then we can proceed on that basis.
I'd like to thank you for your response.
I will admit, I am not an expert on Victorian England or Napoleon III. The way I had it, Napoleon III only supports his resurrected uncle due to the French people clamoring for the original Napoleon, as he is their national hero; he himself would rather be the ONLY living Napoleon in power, and would want to find any excuse he can to break away from their alliance.
Now I feel like changing it, France is in its own civil war between which Napoleon they want on the throne.
Again, I am a novice on these topics.
 
The basic question here I think is why a general European war would be expected to develop. The United States no longer exists, owing to an act of literal Divine Intervention; Napoleon Bonaparte has just not merely returned from the grave but from the prime of his career, along with the entirety of his army - some of which is composed of men who are still alive in 1861. There are now two Jomini in the world, just for a start.

This is such a staggering event that I don't think everyone would default to "quick, fight a war to support/bring down Napoleon".

My suspicion is that Europe would mostly stay out of it; if Napoleon I goes after Canada then Britain would get involved, but that's a good reason for Napoleon I not to go after Canada.
 
So, a few months back, I made this thread on "What if Napoleon fought Lee". After doing some thinking, I decided to expand this into a book project of mine, looking into an Alt History story with slight scifi elements to make the story happen.

The Premise: At midnight on May 1st, 1863, all Union armies suddenly vanish with their arms (so no rifles or monitors left over). At the same time, Napoleon's Grande Armee from October 1806 (as it was about to start the Prussian Campaign) appears on the outskirts of Washington D.C. It takes some time before either side figures out what is going on. The 2 sides call for a truce...before a note shows up from a mysterious stranger, telling each commander their "objectives" (I know, bear with me, this is the only way this is gonna make sense).
At the realization that THE Napoleon has returned, Europe is in uproar. Napoleon III, reluctantly, gives his uncle his support. Meanwhile, Britain forms a new coalition against the great threat to Europe, bringing along the German states and Prussia and Austria. In addition, Britain gives support to the Confederates.

Anyways, I'm currently trying to map out the conflict, trying to gather an accurate enough OoB for each major combatant and front. I have worked out the forces available to the Confederates at the start of May 1863 (about when Confederate forces were at their peak, in my view), and have most of Napoleon's Grande Armee and subsidiary forces sent to support him, plus the SFE Army in Mexico under Forey and their main army in France. I am currently working on the British army available to join Lee in Virginia as well as to defend Canada.
I've already discuss with other forum users on the other thread I have linked as to what would occur if Lee's Army fought Napoleon's, so don't need to focus on that aspect.

So, I would like to ask you guys some specific questions, regarding this time frame:
1.) How strong were the British, French, and Prusso-Austro-German Armies and navies at this time period?
Specifically looking at the French and British at the time. How strong was their armies, what units did they have where, what were they equipped with, how many guns were assigned to a standard battery and how many men assigned to each unit, etc.? Same for the navy, though not as particularly interested. I presume @Saphroneth as you've done a lot of study on your Trent Affair scenario thread you'd have some comments on this.
2.) How long would it take for then-modern steam ships to travel across the Atlantic to land reinforcements?
2a.) I am having Chinese Gordon move to the CSA to join Lee at the start of 1864. If he started in Hong Kong or Shanghai, how long would it take for him to travel from there to join with Lee?
I am certain as I go along, I will come along more things I need to ask about.

Luke

Barring ASB intervention to prevent it - which might be a factor in the 'note' you mentioned but haven't given details on - I suspect that what would happen would be that both north and south might make a truce to deal with the the sudden threat of Napoleon's army threatening both of them. After all an autocratic foreign leader now has, for the moment, the only military forces in the north and its going to be a serious threat to the independence and culture of the north at least as much as the south. [Unless the south and Napoleon come up with some sort of deal to partition the former USA between them, but I suspect that is less likely]

Napoleon, unless some factor force the civilian population of the north to obey his command, is in a very vulnerable situation as while he has his army he has no supporting infrastructure other than what he can get, willingly or unwilling, from the north. I think its unlikely, unless some ASB factor is in place that many in the north would welcome becoming Napoleon's new empire. As such while currently formal military forces have disappeared there's likely to be opposition to him and if he starts requisitioning food, horse, etc that will heighten hostility further. Even if he had the huge Grand Army of 1812 prior to the attack on Russia and all the foreign components stayed loyal he would probably have to scatter the bulk of it simply to control most of the north. Such actions of course likely to bring Britain and possibly others into the fray against him. Bascially he and his men have been moved over 50 years into a future that is strange to them all and are isolated from their homes by both time and distance as well as being confused over what has happened. Also if all the union naval forces, including quickly militarised commerical ships, have disappeared then there's no longer any blockade of the south nor likely to be one in the near future. Unless Napoleon's pre-Trafalgar fleet has also appeared? Which would be large but outdated and would really, really upset Britain.

Saphroneth raises a good point about the possible religious aspect as his sudden appearance and the disappearance of all union forces will be seen as some sort of divine [or possibly infernal] intervention but I suspect that in N America this would be viewed more as the latter than the former. Not sure how France would go and could well descend into civil war - once people in Europe actually believe those wild rumours from across the Atlantic. Suspect much of Europe would be less concerned while he's across the ocean as long as it didn't look like he was winning a new empire there and might seek to expand his power back to Europe, at which point the Germans and Russians especially would be very concerned. The exception is likely to be Britain who, even if he initially makes no move against Canada is likely to start preparing for war because they won't trust him and will see him as a threat.

Bascially if you want a situation where Napoleon fights for the union to suppress the southern rebellion it needs some reasons as to why a) he would do that and b) why the north would accept this rather than seeking to raise new forces to challenge his monopoly of military force inside the union. Also as to what motives he has and whether their believed or not.
 
Unless Napoleon's pre-Trafalgar fleet has also appeared? Which would be large but outdated and would really, really upset Britain.
I mean, it'd be very, very outdated. There were a number of significant revolutions in wooden shipbuilding that took place between 1805 and 1861...

Firstly, there's the institution of the uniform armament.This upgunned ships considerably - let's compare a 74 from 1802 and a 78 from 1835.

The Albion (1802) bore these guns:

  • Lower deck: 28 × 32-pounder guns
  • Upper deck: 28 × 18-pounder guns
  • QD: 2 × 18-pounder guns + 12 × 32-pounder carronades
  • Fc: 2 × 18-pounder guns + 2 × 32-pounder carronades
  • Roundhouse: 6 × 18-pounder carronades


The Vanguard (1835) was designed with these guns:


  • 78 guns (4 July 1832, as ordered):
  • Gundeck: 26 × 32 pdrs (56 cwt), 2 × 68 pdr carronades
  • Upper gundeck: 30 × 32 pdrs (56 cwt)
  • Quarterdeck: 10 × 32 pdrs (25 cwt)
  • Forecastle: 2 × 18 pdrs (42 cwt), 4 × 32 pdr carronades (25 cwt)
  • Poop deck: 4 × 18 pdr carronades (10 cwt)
The number of guns is almost the same, but the throw weight has gone up considerably. Vanguard has 66 long 32 pounders, while Albion has only 28; Albion doesn't truly have a uniform armament but it's much closer, and it means she brings many more heavy guns.

The second revolution is the introduction of the shell gun. This isn't really a magic bullet, but it does a lot, especially since the British by this point had reliable percussion fuzes.

The third issue, which I'll mention now, is the increase in size. In the Napoleonic Wars, a 74 was the standard size (at Trafalgar the French had twelve 74s and four 80s) while by 1860 the standard size in the British line of battle is actually a 90 - and they carried much bigger guns, and had the extra tonnage to match.

Taking a sample of three French 74s from Trafalgar, they bore:
28 36-pounder long guns
18 18-pounder long guns
16 8-pounder long guns
4 36-pounder carronades

Total weight of shot both broadsides 1,460 lbs long guns

While a typical British 91 from the 1850s and 1860s was:
90 32 pounders
2 68 pounder carronades

Total weight of shot both broadsides 2,880 lbs long guns

So on that basis alone the average British ship has about a 2:1 superiority.


The fourth issue is of course steam. A steam ship has much greater tactical flexibility than a sailing vessel and a steamer versus a sailor is an easy win unless there's a significant firepower disparity; in this case the firepower disparity is in the same direction as the steam-sail advantage.

And the final issue is rifles. It's 1863 in this analysis, and many British ships have recieved Armstrong rifles - these were effective over a long range and had considerable penetrative power (against wood) so a British steamer with rifles can deliver fire from beyond the range at which these French vessels could reply.
 
Luke

Barring ASB intervention to prevent it - which might be a factor in the 'note' you mentioned but haven't given details on - I suspect that what would happen would be that both north and south might make a truce to deal with the the sudden threat of Napoleon's army threatening both of them. After all an autocratic foreign leader now has, for the moment, the only military forces in the north and its going to be a serious threat to the independence and culture of the north at least as much as the south. [Unless the south and Napoleon come up with some sort of deal to partition the former USA between them, but I suspect that is less likely]

Napoleon, unless some factor force the civilian population of the north to obey his command, is in a very vulnerable situation as while he has his army he has no supporting infrastructure other than what he can get, willingly or unwilling, from the north. I think its unlikely, unless some ASB factor is in place that many in the north would welcome becoming Napoleon's new empire. As such while currently formal military forces have disappeared there's likely to be opposition to him and if he starts requisitioning food, horse, etc that will heighten hostility further. Even if he had the huge Grand Army of 1812 prior to the attack on Russia and all the foreign components stayed loyal he would probably have to scatter the bulk of it simply to control most of the north. Such actions of course likely to bring Britain and possibly others into the fray against him. Bascially he and his men have been moved over 50 years into a future that is strange to them all and are isolated from their homes by both time and distance as well as being confused over what has happened. Also if all the union naval forces, including quickly militarised commerical ships, have disappeared then there's no longer any blockade of the south nor likely to be one in the near future. Unless Napoleon's pre-Trafalgar fleet has also appeared? Which would be large but outdated and would really, really upset Britain.

Saphroneth raises a good point about the possible religious aspect as his sudden appearance and the disappearance of all union forces will be seen as some sort of divine [or possibly infernal] intervention but I suspect that in N America this would be viewed more as the latter than the former. Not sure how France would go and could well descend into civil war - once people in Europe actually believe those wild rumours from across the Atlantic. Suspect much of Europe would be less concerned while he's across the ocean as long as it didn't look like he was winning a new empire there and might seek to expand his power back to Europe, at which point the Germans and Russians especially would be very concerned. The exception is likely to be Britain who, even if he initially makes no move against Canada is likely to start preparing for war because they won't trust him and will see him as a threat.

Bascially if you want a situation where Napoleon fights for the union to suppress the southern rebellion it needs some reasons as to why a) he would do that and b) why the north would accept this rather than seeking to raise new forces to challenge his monopoly of military force inside the union. Also as to what motives he has and whether their believed or not.
Thank you. I did not clarify the situation in the North.
Wiith the complete disappearance of the Union Army (maybe with the exception of far western troops fending off Indian Incursions), there is little formal opposition in the North besides militia and civilian resistance. Napoleon will spend the first few months (he'll .not be able to go fight Lee until at least July) securing control of the North. Still, he will have to deal with Spanish-style guerrilla warfare, and will have to leave behind a sizable portion of his troops to deal with this (also bringing back the Dutch 8th and German 9th Corps, plus the Armies in Italy, to beef up Napoleon and hold the fort in the North. And, of course, there will be deserters from the foreign troops to be considered).
Of course, with no means of fighting back against the Confederacy at this point, the North and South make an informal truce. Informal, as Lincoln, his cabinet and Congress are now prisoners of Napoleon in D.C.
And yes, the issue of the religious consequences of these events was brought up on the previous thread, and I will be touching upon it. However, I am not an expert on religious philosophy of the time or in general (aside from the rise of spiritualism in the 1820's and the divide over the issue of slavery).
 
Wiith the complete disappearance of the Union Army (maybe with the exception of far western troops fending off Indian Incursions), there is little formal opposition in the North besides militia and civilian resistance. Napoleon will spend the first few months (he'll .not be able to go fight Lee until at least July) securing control of the North. Still, he will have to deal with Spanish-style guerrilla warfare, and will have to leave behind a sizable portion of his troops to deal with this (also bringing back the Dutch 8th and German 9th Corps, plus the Armies in Italy, to beef up Napoleon and hold the fort in the North. And, of course, there will be deserters from the foreign troops to be considered).
Honestly, this comes across as just applying those aspects of reality which happen to make things worse for Napoleon! As of 1863 most of the weapons in the country are either in the hands of the army (which has vanished) or in the arsenals (which Napoleon's men now control) - how do you get Spanish-style guerilla warfare, which resulted in no small part from the entire Spanish army's dispersal providing a significant part of the arms required to the guerillas...
 
Honestly, this comes across as just applying those aspects of reality which happen to make things worse for Napoleon! As of 1863 most of the weapons in the country are either in the hands of the army (which has vanished) or in the arsenals (which Napoleon's men now control) - how do you get Spanish-style guerilla warfare, which resulted in no small part from the entire Spanish army's dispersal providing a significant part of the arms required to the guerillas...
I am imagining more of a New York City Draft Riot situation, where the citizens with arms or in the more northern armories (Napoleon starts in lower Maryland, so itll take him some time to move to New York by foot, unless he gets his hands on some rail transport and gets his men to figure out how they operate quick enough). It won't be as large a scale as the Spanish example, of course.
 
I mean, it'd be very, very outdated. There were a number of significant revolutions in wooden shipbuilding that took place between 1805 and 1861...

Firstly, there's the institution of the uniform armament.This upgunned ships considerably - let's compare a 74 from 1802 and a 78 from 1835.

The Albion (1802) bore these guns:

  • Lower deck: 28 × 32-pounder guns
  • Upper deck: 28 × 18-pounder guns
  • QD: 2 × 18-pounder guns + 12 × 32-pounder carronades
  • Fc: 2 × 18-pounder guns + 2 × 32-pounder carronades
  • Roundhouse: 6 × 18-pounder carronades


The Vanguard (1835) was designed with these guns:


  • 78 guns (4 July 1832, as ordered):
  • Gundeck: 26 × 32 pdrs (56 cwt), 2 × 68 pdr carronades
  • Upper gundeck: 30 × 32 pdrs (56 cwt)
  • Quarterdeck: 10 × 32 pdrs (25 cwt)
  • Forecastle: 2 × 18 pdrs (42 cwt), 4 × 32 pdr carronades (25 cwt)
  • Poop deck: 4 × 18 pdr carronades (10 cwt)
The number of guns is almost the same, but the throw weight has gone up considerably. Vanguard has 66 long 32 pounders, while Albion has only 28; Albion doesn't truly have a uniform armament but it's much closer, and it means she brings many more heavy guns.

The second revolution is the introduction of the shell gun. This isn't really a magic bullet, but it does a lot, especially since the British by this point had reliable percussion fuzes.

The third issue, which I'll mention now, is the increase in size. In the Napoleonic Wars, a 74 was the standard size (at Trafalgar the French had twelve 74s and four 80s) while by 1860 the standard size in the British line of battle is actually a 90 - and they carried much bigger guns, and had the extra tonnage to match.

Taking a sample of three French 74s from Trafalgar, they bore:
28 36-pounder long guns
18 18-pounder long guns
16 8-pounder long guns
4 36-pounder carronades

Total weight of shot both broadsides 1,460 lbs long guns

While a typical British 91 from the 1850s and 1860s was:
90 32 pounders
2 68 pounder carronades

Total weight of shot both broadsides 2,880 lbs long guns

So on that basis alone the average British ship has about a 2:1 superiority.


The fourth issue is of course steam. A steam ship has much greater tactical flexibility than a sailing vessel and a steamer versus a sailor is an easy win unless there's a significant firepower disparity; in this case the firepower disparity is in the same direction as the steam-sail advantage.

And the final issue is rifles. It's 1863 in this analysis, and many British ships have recieved Armstrong rifles - these were effective over a long range and had considerable penetrative power (against wood) so a British steamer with rifles can deliver fire from beyond the range at which these French vessels could reply.


Saphroneth

Fully agree that such a French force would be immediately outclashed by the 1863 RN on so many levels. Just mentioned it as something that would enable an attempt to continue the blockade of the south and that no matter how outdated it was to the British public it would be a very big red flag.

Steve
 
I am imagining more of a New York City Draft Riot situation
This reminds me of an important point.

As of 1863, most of the people who were willing to join the army for pay have already joined. The threat of the draft was hanging over their heads when the most recent batch joined; a lot of the people actually in the Union are the ones who don't want to fight.
This affects things.
 
Fully agree that such a French force would be immediately outclashed by the 1863 RN on so many levels. Just mentioned it as something that would enable an attempt to continue the blockade of the south and that no matter how outdated it was to the British public it would be a very big red flag.
I actually think the existing NA&WI station might suffice to defeat the French fleet! They'd also have a pretty serious problem with Confederate ironclads, actually, because unlike steamers they're not guaranteed to be able to get away from a clunky ironclad like Palmetto State or Chicora. If those two strike while the wind is coming onshore, they can get close enough to do damage and even ram, and the most powerful guns the French liners have are usually long 36 pounders. (i.e. not much cop)
 
I am imagining more of a New York City Draft Riot situation, where the citizens with arms or in the more northern armories (Napoleon starts in lower Maryland, so itll take him some time to move to New York by foot, unless he gets his hands on some rail transport and gets his men to figure out how they operate quick enough). It won't be as large a scale as the Spanish example, of course.

The issue for Napoleon could be less formal opposition by local militias or guerillas than simple non-cooperation by many of the people of the north. Would be relatively easy for instance to deny him the use of most of the railways by some sabotage and miss-information on their use. Although this would have a big impact on the ordinary public in the cities especially that depend on them. Ditto quite likely that to prevent arsenals falling into the hands of the approaching French some sabotage of equipment and stocks that can't be easily removed.

The population of the union may not have the same level of armament as the Spanish guerillas nor initially at least the determination to fight on regardless but that he needs to occupy and there's a lot that 1806 Napoleon and his men won't really understand. Telegraphs for instance could be used to give warning of the French approach to anywhere. In the peninsula war part of the reason why the situation was so difficult for the French was that Wellington's Anglo-Portugese force required them to concentrate against it while the widespread guerilla activity required them to dispurse widely to hold territory and they struggled attempting to do both. I think for much of the period there were about 250-300k French and allied troops bogged down in the Spanish ulcer.

Then of course once this happens your likely to have intervention by Britain at the least. Love Saphroneth's "Oh God Not Him ":wink: . Modern 1863 professional forces unless very poorly lead are going to make mincemeat of even veteran 1806 French units in anything like a 1-1 fight and with a decent possible even mauling much larger enemy armies. Also if there's a de-facto agreement between whatever government the north assembles and the south the latter is going to have a bit to play. It may struggle to match Napoleon's Grand Army in a 1-1 pitch battle but if the latter's spread over much of the north on occupation duty that's a different matter.

Also Napoleon's armies lived largely by extracting food, supplies etc from whever they were operating. This was one reason he was able to maintain such substantial forces during his wars and why he kept the vast bulk of them outside France. He will be forced to do this even more now with no state under his control to call upon and its going to make him even more unpopular in the US.

Steve
 
I have not decided whether to bring back Napoleon's fleet as well. As you 2 have pointed out, his fleets would be torn to shreds even by the tiny confederate fleet (As well as the current Royal Navy, if they got involved). I am thinking of a few options. A.) Napoleon's fleet gets brought back, only to be sunk and the sailors turned to foot soldiers to garrison the North. B.) The Sailors are brought, and Union vessels still in port and under construction remain over for them to man. C.) They sailors get brought over without their ships, and are used as foot soldiers, a la option A.
And yes, civil resistance will be the most common across the North. I do not plan for the entire north to go to Guerrilla warfare, rather a small percentile. Though, given the brutal punishments the French army would dish out against civilians, especially in Spain, I expect there will slowly grow more resistance amongst the population.
 
Though, given the brutal punishments the French army would dish out against civilians, especially in Spain, I expect there will slowly grow more resistance amongst the population.
It's worth remembering that that was the French army in enemy territory - as an occupying army. They certainly didn't behave so nastily in France, though they weren't exactly pristine there either.

More importantly, it was what they did when they were, you know, there. If Napoleon has only distributed a quite small amount of his army to control key points and has the rest together for campaigning, then it's only the places his army is foraging that they'll be causing serious disruption and annoying the populace.
 
Back
Top