Pierre Villeneuve and The French Best Nelson and The British Navy at Trafalgar

[BAYLOR]

What if that had happened? What if Trafalgar had been a defeat for the British Navy ? Where would the timeline have likely gone ?

Alt history Napoleon What if he had made fewer strategic blunders in reign ? What if he had never attacked Russia for example. ?

 

[Venusian Broon]

An interesting couple of questions Baylor.

Napoleon did have camps at the channel for his army...but at the time of Trafalgar he had more or less abandoned plans for an invasion anyway, and he was marching full pelt to the East and for fortune and glory at Austerlitz.

I suppose the question is that if the British had been defeated how easy would it have been for the French to become the dominant naval power. I'm sure Britain would, like the Romans who never quit, would have re-built and tried hard to come back with another naval attempt. They didn't know it at the time but even if Trafalgar had been a win for the French, they were not really under threat of an immediate invasion. So they had some breathing space.

The French under Louis XVI had tried to wrest away British superiority from the seas, but that damn near bankrupted the state - something that I'm sure Napoleon was aware of. Also I don't think he ever showed any aptitude for navel warfare. So I think he always thought in terms of land operations and avoided the seas. I think it would have required a spectacular defeat of the British for Napoleon to even consider looking at any invasion or sea plans.

As for not invading Russia, my sense is that he'd have found practically any excuse to invade, just to have a victory like Austerlitz again. It was probably too late to rein back the megalomania and ego by that point. Military minds come up with military solutions - could Napoleon have 'retired' said "that's enough" and run the whole of Europe?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Napoleon would never have been at peace - even if he had wanted to. The British especially were determined to make sure that the Revolution was crushed and that a French monarch was returned to the throne. This they did by forming alliances with other European powers , and encouraging them to join forces as well. Anyway Bonaparte was a general more than he was an ruler, and he - like his hero Alexander before him - wanted to fight all their days, so there was never any realistic prospect of a prolonged peace.

1. The thing with Bonaparte though is that whilst he was a brilliant technician in the short time (ie before and after battles) he was a great campaigner. He didn't think things through as his main campaigns in Spain, Egypt and Russia proved. Yes he could beat most generals in a one-off fight, and out-manoevure his opponents, but when his opponent wouldn't stand and fight he was at a disadvantage. Compare that to the brilliance of Wellington and Kutuzov , who showed that by choosing when and where to fight Napoleon they could bleed him dry.

 

[paranoid marvin]

As for Trafalgar; it was a battle not a war. England destroying the enemy ships didn't win anything, it just confirmed our superiority at sea. Most European navies at that time had great ships, but not always great commanders and certainly not good seamen. Of course, it was still a tremendous victory and a brilliant strategic move by Nelson.

But if the Spanish had won, it would have changed little. Napoleon was already on his way to Russia, and would not have (at that time) contemplated an invasion of England - if he ever seriously had done. The British would have lost a great deal of influence at sea on trade routes etc, but those losses could have been replaced within a couple of years. The thing is that the French more ships, but the quality of their sailors meant that it was unlikely that they would ever have gone on the offensive against the English unless they had had overwhelmingly superior numbers.