The fact that Britain enjoyed crushing naval supremacy just implied that Britain could not be crushed and was invincible at home.
However it did not mean Britain would win the war. Just that it could not be crushed.
What Napoleon had to do was enduring and waiting for Britain to get tired of a never-ending ruinous war. Let me just remember that the population was 3 times as big as the UK’s population (that is Ireland included).
Britain was not the most decisive country in bringing the downfall of napoleonic France. Prussia even less. Russia and Austria were.
Had Napoleon found a real agreement with Russia or defeated Russia in 1812/1813, Britain would not have been able to defeat napoleonic France for a generation. And then it would have seriously considered concluding a lasting peace treaty with France. And although Napoleon would have been asked to give up territories over which he had some kind of control, such a peace treaty, given the unbalance of powers in 1808, would still have let napoleonic France in hegemonic position on all western continental Europe.
However it did not mean Britain would win the war. Just that it could not be crushed.
What Napoleon had to do was enduring and waiting for Britain to get tired of a never-ending ruinous war. Let me just remember that the population was 3 times as big as the UK’s population (that is Ireland included).
Britain was not the most decisive country in bringing the downfall of napoleonic France. Prussia even less. Russia and Austria were.
Had Napoleon found a real agreement with Russia or defeated Russia in 1812/1813, Britain would not have been able to defeat napoleonic France for a generation. And then it would have seriously considered concluding a lasting peace treaty with France. And although Napoleon would have been asked to give up territories over which he had some kind of control, such a peace treaty, given the unbalance of powers in 1808, would still have let napoleonic France in hegemonic position on all western continental Europe.
Last edited: