Napoleon

[Kralizec]

The Russians refuse to participate in the blockade of perfidious Albion. Now, suppose you are Napoleon, and suppose that you know that a campaign against Russia is risky -probably to risky- what would you do instead?
Is there any way Napoleon could have made the blockade work, or subdue Brittain in another way?

[The Wizard]

The only way to subdue Britain would have been to go First Punic War, let yourself be harried at sea for a while, only to come out a few years later with a fleet that would make Nelson orgasm six feet under.

Napoleon's main mistake at sea was to appoint a man that was no match for those he faced. The French admiral at Trafalgar was a fickle, indecisive man, nothing compared to the energetic and intelligent Nelson.

[rotorgun]

The Russians refuse to participate in the blockade of perfidious Albion. Now, suppose you are Napoleon, and suppose that you know that a campaign against Russia is risky -probably to risky- what would you do instead?
Is there any way Napoleon could have made the blockade work, or subdue Brittain in another way?
I have often wondered just what materials and services the Russians needed from Britain? Were they so important that the Czar needed to break his treaty with Napoleon? Could not Napoleon have renegotiated with Alexander to provide these things and reaffirmed their relationship. All he wanted was his back door secure so that he could complete operations in Spain.

[rotorgun]

The Russians refuse to participate in the blockade of perfidious Albion. Now, suppose you are Napoleon, and suppose that you know that a campaign against Russia is risky -probably to risky- what would you do instead?
Is there any way Napoleon could have made the blockade work, or subdue Brittain in another way?
I have often wondered just what materials and services the Russians needed from Britain? Were they so important that the Czar needed to break his treaty with Napoleon? Could not Napoleon have renegotiated with Alexander to provide these things and reaffirmed their relationship. All he wanted was his back door secure so that he could complete operations in Spain. It hardly seemed worth it to go to war with Russia over a little smuggling.

[Brenus]

“Napoleon's main mistake at sea was to appoint a man that was no match for those he faced. The French admiral at Trafalgar was a fickle, indecisive man, nothing compared to the energetic and intelligent Nelson”.
Napoleon inherited a fleet from the French Revolution where the political allegiance was the priority, not the professional skills. Louis the XVI fleet was good enough to inflict several defeats to the English but most the Naval Officers were either decapitated or fled as emigrants. If Napoleon would have naval officer like Suffren (who was as much aggressive as Nelson, (see his campaign in India during the US Independence War) or d’Estain perhaps the future of Europe could have been different. In fact, not really. It wasn’t the English Fleet which defeated Napoleon, but the never-ended alliances against him (7). It was the politic of the British Prime Minister (William Pitt) followed by his successors in creating more enemies for Napoleon he could afford.
Napoleon was aware of the weakness of the French Fleet and on the instigation of Privateer like Surcouf favoured the “guerre de course”.

[cegorach]

I have often wondered just what materials and services the Russians needed from Britain? Were they so important that the Czar needed to break his treaty with Napoleon? Could not Napoleon have renegotiated with Alexander to provide these things and reaffirmed their relationship. All he wanted was his back door secure so that he could complete operations in Spain. It hardly seemed worth it to go to war with Russia over a little smuggling.


Because it was about different things. The tension was rising from 1807 - the defeat was seen as humilating by many in Russia.
Next you have the war in 1809 where Russian 'allies' beheaved very strange ( because secretly there was an agreement with the Austrians), the Polish question, the Turkish affair. The war would be started in 1811, but the Russians were not able to re-deploy - they meant to attack which is rarely mentioned in books about the war for some reason.

Russia was an expansionist empire like the UK, Prussia, Austria of France so it is ointless to blame anyone.:book:

[Kalle]

Hadnt Napoleon dispatched orders to replace the french admiral in chief but the admiral heard of this and set sail before he was replaced?? Im not sure of this but I think I read it somewhere. It would maybe not have helped either to have him replaced.

Apart from that, Napoleon should have learned from Charles XII the danger of a trip to Russia.

He should also handle the Spanish question diffrently because Spain drained very much of his resources and gave England a theater where they could do damage and get experience.

Kalle

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now, suppose you are Napoleon, and suppose that you know that a campaign against Russia is risky -probably to risky- what would you do instead?One answer would be, that if I really were Napoleon, I'd rush in no matter what. His was a dashing, aggressive personality. It is what made him great and what brought him down.

[Aenarion]

You must all consider that at that time Britain was the 'Shopkeeper of the World'. The country produced alot of products especially military, like soldier boots, where countries couldn't afford not to have.

Therefore, Russia saw that it couldn't mantain itself and it needed to trade with Britain, thus it opposed against the Continental System created by Napoleon.

Thanks,
Aenarion

[rory_20_uk]

The Russian Empire was extremely large, and so I'd have thought that a more limited campaign in the north, possibly linked to a campaign aimed further down into Russia would have been militarily more sound.

Furthermore, when it became evident that a "scorched earth" policy was in effect, I think that reducing the men deployed was in order. The Russians would still retreat destroying their own country and Napoleon could withdraw in a timely fashion leaving behind a wasteland, courtesy of Russia.

A Spring offensive with the limited objective of taking Russia's northern ports would again have badly hurt Russia, and would have given Napoleon an important bargaining chip.

The Peninsular War was an annoyance, but not one that would topple France by itself, and as such could wait matters in Russia.

~:smoking:

[The Wizard]

“Napoleon's main mistake at sea was to appoint a man that was no match for those he faced. The French admiral at Trafalgar was a fickle, indecisive man, nothing compared to the energetic and intelligent Nelson”.
Napoleon inherited a fleet from the French Revolution where the political allegiance was the priority, not the professional skills. Louis the XVI fleet was good enough to inflict several defeats to the English but most the Naval Officers were either decapitated or fled as emigrants. If Napoleon would have naval officer like Suffren (who was as much aggressive as Nelson, (see his campaign in India during the US Independence War) or d’Estain perhaps the future of Europe could have been different. In fact, not really. It wasn’t the English Fleet which defeated Napoleon, but the never-ended alliances against him (7). It was the politic of the British Prime Minister (William Pitt) followed by his successors in creating more enemies for Napoleon he could afford.
Napoleon was aware of the weakness of the French Fleet and on the instigation of Privateer like Surcouf favoured the “guerre de course”.

The defining elements in Napoleon's defeat were: British funding, Austrian (and Prussian) armies, and Russian doggedness. If it wasn't for Tsar Alexander's insistence, Napoleon's stellar campaign in France following Leipzig would have driven off the Prussians and Austrians quite handily.

But as far as the fleet is concerned, you are correct. The entire institution was simply ignored, an unimportant, almost cumbersome relic to Napoleon following Trafalgar, it seems. It is my belief that had he simply taken the time to build up something like he had done with the Grande Armée even the British fleet would have had to bow down before the French advantage in population (and thus in industrial output at the time).

Without constant British insistency and funding, Napoleon could have easily kept the other Allies divided -- provided he didn't make mistakes like the Russian invasion.