"Suggest a commander for this fictitious scenario? " Topic

It is early in 1812. Russia is flagrantly flouting the Continental System, and so Napoleon needs somehow to bring the Tsar back into line to strangle and defeat Britain.

Invading Russia to enforce the Continental System is obviously out of the question; nobody's that stupid. Even if Napoleon were to do this, and somehow carry it off, there is still the Peninsula to think about. In Spain large armies starve, small ones get beaten, defeating the British army under Wellington in Spain won't bring the British to the negotiating table anyway (they will just evacuate by sea). If the Corsican upstart tries to settle Britain's hash by winning in Spain, this strategy does nothing about Russia.

It's almost as though, muses the Corsican tyrant, the Royal Navy's command of the sea and Britain's dominant trading position is forcing him to fight two unwinnable campaigns simultaneously at opposite ends of Europe!

But there may be another way. In 1796 and 1799, with the main enemy's main army in Germany, Napoleon won so comprehensively in Italy that he was able to advance on Vienna and dictate peace. So, his reasoning goes, why not do the same in 1812? Taking advantage of the Royal Navy's entanglement with America, and the British army's entanglement in Spain, Napoleon gathers a small force and invades Britain, aiming to defeat the main enemy by an assault on its capital defended only by second-line forces.

So in that situation, and ignoring the leaps of faith, who would have commanded the British troops?

Arthur?

Sir Henry Johnson springs to mind

Ernest Augustus (King of Hanover) was as I recall still in the UK in early 1812 so another possibility

William Cathcart (1st Earl Cathcart) was still in command in Scotland in early 1812 and he had some experience in combat so could have been a consideration

Sir Banastre Tarleton was around the UK as well, having been promoted to General in January of 1812

George Herbert (Earl of Pembroke) was Governor of Guernsey – a bit of a long shot but he did have combat experience

Cathcart, an American veteran, had been an effective commander of troops at brigade level twenty years before. Whether that would have made him the right man for the job in '1812' , I am not sure, but I always like the cut of his jib.

Perhapa Wellington could jump aboard a frigate and take over when push came to shove.

Or.

Arthur

Sharpe!

Pictors +1

Someone that the Horse Guards approved of

I suspect the Prince Regent would have elbowed his brother the Duke of York out of the way and insisted he do it himself.

And we'd now all be speaking French.

How many troops does Napoleon have that can hold their breath long enough to walk across the Channel on the bottom? Seriously, the Channel Fleet was still maintaining a pretty tight blockade of the French coast. And they had swept up a lot of the French coastal shipping. I doubt that a lightning descent could put anything more powerful than a mixed brigade ashore, and there are more than sufficient forces available in the south of England to handle a raid that size.

As for Prinny commanding, not likely. He was not, after all, an absolute monarch. Anything he wanted to do had to be okayed by at least the Council, if not the Cabinet. And neither was going to trust the defence of the nation to a military novice.

Liking the Tarleton idea…Wikipedia reckons he fancied being appointed to the Peninsular command so he was clearly an aspiring active commander in 1812. I wonder if he still wore his hat?

First saw this, thought it was going to be the French commander and thought 'Brigadier Gerard!'

What about Sir John Stuart, of Maida? Would he be a possibility?

Tarleton had drawn up effective cavalry defensive plans for a French invasion of Ireland. He'd be a good choice.

Tarleton it is I think. In his hat.

I've found an excellent link on the Napoleon Series on this:

PDF link

It is a paper giving the actual strength returns and locations of the British home forces by region in 1806. It shows that the Kent region for example comprised over 30,000 men, including two Guards brigades and most of the light infantry. The militia battalions are all remarkably strong with 9,618 militia soldiers in 138 companies making 69 men per company and 690 per battalion. Presumably it was easier to get men to enrol when they knew they weren't going overseas.

The cavalry are impressively well-manned too. The 13th Light Dragoons, for example, had 719 men under arms in 10 troops, 4 at Deal Barracks and 2 at each of Ramsgate, Sandwich and Stonar. The 4th Dragoon Guards had 473 men in 8 troops, all at Canterbury.

The 1/ and 2/95th Rifles are shown as having 809 and 793 men in 10 companies each all at Brabourne Lees.

Seriously, the Channel Fleet was still maintaining a pretty tight blockade of the French coast.

Let's indulge this a bit. It isn't the French coast and the Channel the British need to be worried about. It's the North Sea and the Netherlands coast. That's why it has been a central tenet of British policy that Antwerp must be neutral. I understand that with the right wind conditions it would have been impossible to stop an opportunist invasion from that direction. One reason for the ill-fated Walcheren episode was British worries about this.

4th Cuirassier…….dear lord that's useful! Maybe a Napoleonic "Dad's Army" scenario for "Sharp Practice"!!

I like this 1812 British Invasion campaign scheme.

I am wondering what the organisational and effectiveness differences were between volunteers and militia. One suspects the former to be a bit less disciplined than the latter. Yeomanry cavalry…hmmm…like line I guess; British regular cavalry were not all that disciplined so how different would yeomanry have been?

The militia artillery are interesting. Unfortunately there is nothing in that document about what pieces they manned or whether they could move. I am thinking perhaps these were static batteries.

Part of the problem with British cavalry discipline was the lack of training opportunity; in part because in peacetime regular cavaly regiments were often divided into small detachments and quartered over a wide area of country. There was also a lack of suitable open country in which to train.

Yeomanry had the advantage of being drawn from the same district and might remain concentrated in a locality, allowing for a certain dispersal of troops for logistical reasons. This had certainly been the case with the Fencible units up until 1802, although again troops on home defence duty could be dispersed over quite a stretch of country.

Interesting proposition. We are used to situations where the British have a distinct quality advantage. This is at least partly because they could focus their resources on a relatively small army sent abroad. This won't apply when defending the home country, where the units will include all the officers and men not deemed fit to send abroad and doubtless less well drilled. It is the French who will only be able to send over quite a small army, and so will tend to focus on quality and conserving resources.

Matthew

According to that link to Steve Brown's Napoleon Series paper, Lt.-Gen. Banastre Tarleton was in fact in command of the Severn district forces, headquartered at Bath, in 1805.

There were 21 districts with a major-general or lieutenant-general commanding most, according to size.

Does anyone know who the 7th Royal Veteran Battalion might have been? They were in the London District, brigaded with the Household cavalry and those Foot Guards who were not in Kent. They numbered 863 effectives under Lt Col John Wilbar Cooke. There were 8 companies based at the Tower of London and two more based in Whitechapel.

Also, does anyone offhand know the colour of officers' lace in the 4th Dragoon Guards?

4th Cuirassier,

Regarding the 7th Veteran Battalion this may help to answer your question -

link

"Raised at Fulham from Cavalry and Foot Guards Veterans" and based 1803-1810 at the Tower of London.

It appears the "Veteran" battalions were re-branded Garrison battalions – made up of men "unfit for foreign service" – presumably too old etc

J

My wife's great great grandfather was in a Veteran's Battalion in 1815, having been discharged from the 15th Light Dragoons (Hussars) transferred through having "poor legs", shortly after Buonaparte's abdication. I'm inclined to think that it was a kind of redundancy measure as the army was being reduced post war. He was then called up in 1815 into a Veteran's Battalion. She does have a record of which one but I can't remember it. He would have been aged about 33 at the time, so wouldn't have been too old, or necessarily unfit.

With no disrespect, it is a bit of a misdirected question. Wellington would have commanded the Brits. The Royal Navy would have all the say. Would Wellington have been able to beat Davout and Massena while Napoleon handled the continent? Who can say?