AH: How could the French win at Trafalgar and what is the long term consequences.

[Archon of Thessaly]

I've heard it suggested so many times that, for the french, they're navy was DOOMED e.c.t. What is forgotten is that French navel technoligy and shipbuilding was in many cases far superior to the Britsh, who relied on old techniques and aging ship construction sites. Frances ships were faster, sleeker and caused havoxc on british shipping.

What they mainly lacked was morale, good officers and good training. During the american war of independence, the french navel officers were on a par with the british, with many willing to be creative and aggresive. The battle of the chesapeak bay is an example of this, with the WAY overcautions british commander making tonnes of mistakes-and the french commander doing a few things right. Of course, during the revolution this breed of elite officers was wiped out or driven into exile, replaced with formally first mates with no real experiance as officers,let alone commanding a whole ship and to compound this the navy was subject to constant meddling by first the succesive revolutionary govorments then, worst of all, by Napoleon.
They often sent the navy in costly, pointless operations.

And yet this dosnt explain the whole picture. After the " battle of the gloroius first of june" in which both fleets took awful casulties and the french fleet and its vital convey escaped, it could be viewed as a french victory! Even after succesive victories a series of appalling operations and the lack of success of blockaids made many people believe that the initive in the Mediterranean sea had firmly passed to the french and spanish. And not all french or spanish officers were bad or incompetent by any measure-indeed, the french commander at trafalgar, Pierre-Charles Villeneuve was seen as a very good commander who was simply a victaim of bad luck that made him cautios and fatalistic and non stop interferance by napoelon-who only increased his cautuion.

so, my challenge is this:
1: What was the main detriment in the french navy and what key advantage that the British fleet possesed that gave them the advantage.

2: How could this be reversed or changed so that trafalgar ends in a frtench victory or at least, a draw in which most of the combined french and spanish fleet escape and the brits lose more ships ( oh and nelsons still killed for good measure.)

3: in the event of either a bloody draw or french victory, what is the long term result. Obviously a french invasion of britain and everyone speaking french is ASB-but thats not to say that it dosnt mean eventual french victory as the britsh are unable to effectivly blockaid or block napoelons advance saftley.

I am convinced that the french COULD win trafalgar-but it may take a not a small amount of change several years prior, be it navel reform or the untimelty death of one of the men involved ( not neccisarily nelson) to do so.

So make it convincing and good luck!

 

[Elfwine]

1: What was the main detriment in the frwench navy and what key advantage that the British fleet possesed that gave them the advantage.

Personal quality, from barely-better-than-lubber sailor up.

2: How could this be reversed or changed so that trafalgar ends in a frtench victory or at least, a draw in which most of the combined french and spanish fleet escape and the brits lose more ships ( oh and nelsons still killed for good measure.)

A POD far enough back to possibly change whether or not there even IS a Trafalgar.

3: in the event of either a bloody draw or french victory, what is the long term result. Obviously a french invasion of britain and everyone speaking french is ASB-but thats not to say that it dosnt mean eventual french victory as the britsh are unable to effectivly blockaid or block napoelons advance saftley.

In the event of a bloody draw, France has accomplished nothing. In the case of a French victory. . .

Well, find a way to address the fact France has worse men even if it has better ships. I dunno how you do that, and unlike the American Revolution, the men in the Napoleonic Wars Royal Navy are not duds.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Personal quality, from barely-better-than-lubber sailor up.



A POD far enough back to possibly change whether or not there even IS a Trafalgar.



In the event of a bloody draw, France has accomplished nothing. In the case of a French victory. . .

Well, find a way to address the fact France has worse men even if it has better ships. I dunno how you do that, and unlike the American Revolution, the men in the Napoleonic Wars Royal Navy are not duds.

A good point- very i will add that any scenario where there ISNT a trafalgar is acceptable.

 

[Elfwine]

A good point- very i will add that any scenario where there ISNT a trafalgar is acceptable.

Well, what I mean is that you're going way back to make this change.You might well not have this kind of scenario at all in a France able to do what you want here.

But if you do have something like the Napoleonic Wars, you will have to face the Royal Navy, somewhere and somehow.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Well, what I mean is that you're going way back to make this change.You might well not have this kind of scenario at all in a France able to do what you want here.

But if you do have something like the Napoleonic Wars, you will have to face the Royal Navy, somewhere and somehow.

And yet the royal navy is far from invincable-it could be beaten, be it americans or the french. All it took was a series of big changes to make the govorment focus more on the navy and less on the army ( a famouse french navel hero maybe to show the way and cause public outcry for reform maybe?)

 

[Elfwine]

And yet the royal navy is far from invincable-it could be beaten, be it americans or the french. All it took was a series of big changes to make the govorment focus more on the navy and less on the army ( a famouse french navel hero maybe to show the way and cause public outcry for reform maybe?)

It's not enough for it to be possible to win a battle or two. You need a far more effective French navy to deal any devastating blows to the Royal Navy.

Chesapeake Bay was not crippling to the navy in the least, for instance.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

It's not enough for it to be possible to win a battle or two. You need a far more effective French navy to deal any devastating blows to the Royal Navy.

Chesapeake Bay was not crippling to the navy in the least, for instance.

So we need to create an emphisis on mass ship building to ( almost) match the British navy-easier then you think, during the napoelonic wars the french were producing ships FASTER and at a higher quality then British ships. We also need to make them more aggresive so that they seek a battle of annialation and not just escape.

It could involve a french nelson-with powerful friends in power.

 

[Elfwine]

So we need to create an emphisis on mass ship building to ( almost) match the British navy-easier then you think, during the napoelonic wars the french were producing ships FASTER and at a higher quality then British ships. We also need to make them more aggresive so that they seek a battle of annialation and not just escape.

It could involve a french nelson-with powerful friends in power.

More ships is not addressing the problem. The problem is how you have things like the French losing 200+ frigates and the British losing less than a tenth of that happening.

And more aggressive alone does not mean more capable.

A French Nelson still has to deal with inferior crews and inferior subordinates.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

More ships is not addressing the problem. The problem is how you have things like the French losing 200+ frigates and the British losing less than a tenth of that happening.

And more aggressive alone does not mean more capable.

A French Nelson still has to deal with inferior crews and inferior subordinates.

Yet in naval battles aggresion can be good. Time and time again the cautios navel coomder who just remainded on the defensive was surrounded and smashed by enemy fire. This again shows at both the nile and contless minor frigate actions. While the french aimed ( badly) at british masts so they could ESCAPE, the british aimed at the hull, killing the men, damaging the hull and disabling cannons. They also liked to board and overwhelm their oppoments. Yet the french could fight well-take captain Lucas at traflagar who went right at HMS victory and caused appalling casulties and nearly overwhelmed her-and the site of the admirals ship being lost would have demoralised his " band of brothers."

By your theory, frenchmen are naturally bad sailors and the brits are made for the sea-yet i'm certain that, given the right conditions, the opposit could occure, hell it did occure in 1600-1720. The french inflicted many defeats on the british and dutch fllets, and most infamously in admiral benbows last fight, the british captains refused to assist their admiral.Even in 1779 in the " second armada" the british admirals actions were bordering on cowerdly.

 

[Elfwine]

Yet in naval battles aggresion can be good. Time and time again the cautios navel coomder who just remainded on the defensive was surrounded and smashed by enemy fire. This again shows at both the nile and contless minor frigate actions. While the french aimed ( badly) at british masts so they could ESCAPE, the british aimed at the hull, killing the men, damaging the hull and disabling cannons. They also liked to board and overwhelm their oppoments. Yet the french could fight well-take captain Lucas at traflagar who went right at HMS victory and caused appalling casulties and nearly overwhelmed her-and the site of the admirals ship being lost would have demoralised his " band of brothers."

I'm not saying it's not good. I'm saying it's not enough.

Or inspired them to avenge him.

By your theory, frenchmen are naturally bad sailors and the brits are made for the sea-yet i'm certain that, given the right conditions, the opposit could occure, hell it did occure in 1600-1720. The french inflicted many defeats on the british and dutch fllets, and most infamously in admiral benbows last fight, the british captains refused to assist their admiral.Even in 1779 in the " second armada" the british admirals actions were bordering on cowerdly.

No, by my theory, the French generally didn't have high quality sailors in the sense of the navy.

This isn't about natural talent, this is about training.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

I'm not saying it's not good. I'm saying it's not enough.

Or inspired them to avenge him.



No, by my theory, the French generally didn't have high quality sailors in the sense of the navy.

This isn't about natural talent, this is about training.

The french did have a band of brothers in this period, maybe because they had a larger empire to maintain. Following the loss of her american colonies however, and defeats at quiberon bay in 1759, we see the french navy spiral into an awful decline. Yet even then in the american war it was still a formidable threat. After the napoelonic wars the french navy once again become a powerful, potent force that led the way, oftyen ahead of britain in ironclads.

If maybe the purge of the navy never took place or was less mild, combined with a series of succesful french navel actions to inspire the french public, the french navy may retian its moral, training.

 

[Cecil]

Didnt the convention pretty much purge most of the competent officers of the french navy? That would kneecap any naval service for decades so remove that I guess and it would be a substantial improvement.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Didnt the convention pretty much purge most of the competent officers of the french navy? That would kneecap any naval service for decades so remove that I guess and it would be a substantial improvement.

Very good point.
But why did they spare villinurve? isnt he a noblman? I know he harboured revolutionary sentiments but many other officers and politicans did-and it didnt save them.

 

[RGB]

Very good point.
But why did they spare villinurve? isnt he a noblman? I know he harboured revolutionary sentiments but many other officers and politicans did-and it didnt save them.

Villeneuve had his talents but he was a liability by Trafalgar.

I often wonder if Gravina in charge could have been a better idea for the allied fleets.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Villeneuve had his talents but he was a liability by Trafalgar.

I often wonder if Gravina in charge could have been a better idea for the allied fleets.

Yeah but would napoleon really entrust a french fleet into spanish care? He despised the spanish!

 

[Indefatigable]

Its a massive snowball.

France had good ships, often better then the British ones. Engineered well, and built of good materials.

During the height of the wars the French had ready and easy access to good quality timber while the British had stripped most of their oak forests earlier, and had supply issues.

However thats really where the French advantage stopped.

As has already been mentioned in this thread, the French navy was shoddily manned.

Just like the Royal navy, the pre-revolution French Navy was built on a structure that had officers from noble and upper class backgrounds. When the revolution and subsequent terror came along, many of these experienced, trained officers were hauled off to the guillotine, because of their family background.

This produced an effect much like was seen in Stalins Russia after the purges. A massive gap in trained smart officers with experience.

During the Napoleonic wars Britain managed to keep the majority of France's navy holed up inside port due to quite effective blockading. The blockade caused the bulk of Frances fleet to sit idly rotting, with fresh hands not getting any time at sea whatsoever, causing a majr gap in training between French and British sailors. This gap was worsened by the fact that the British sailors were constantly sailing blockade continually honing their skills, getting tougher, stronger and more attuned to their ships.

Because Britain had free and open access to the ocean, as a result of not being blockaded, they could train their ships and crews on the open seas, gaining valuable experience. They also had a very strong officer system with a rich heritage and culture.

To even consider France having a chance in Trafalgar, you need to build a french navy with a strong experienced officer core, trained and experienced sailors, and you need to somehow keep the British from penning up the majority of France's and Spain's Line-of-Battle ships.

French sailors probably would have been quite good if they had been trained. Again you need good innovative officers to do this.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Its a massive snowball.

France had good ships, often better then the British ones. Engineered well, and built of good materials.

During the height of the wars the French had ready and easy access to good quality timber while the British had stripped most of their oak forests earlier, and had supply issues.

However thats really where the French advantage stopped.

As has already been mentioned in this thread, the French navy was shoddily manned.

Just like the Royal navy, the pre-revolution French Navy was built on a structure that had officers from noble and upper class backgrounds. When the revolution and subsequent terror came along, many of these experienced, trained officers were hauled off to the guillotine, because of their family background.

This produced an effect much like was seen in Stalins Russia after the purges. A massive gap in trained smart officers with experience.

During the Napoleonic wars Britain managed to keep the majority of France's navy holed up inside port due to quite effective blockading. The blockade caused the bulk of Frances fleet to sit idly rotting, with fresh hands not getting any time at sea whatsoever, causing a majr gap in training between French and British sailors. This gap was worsened by the fact that the British sailors were constantly sailing blockade continually honing their skills, getting tougher, stronger and more attuned to their ships.

Because Britain had free and open access to the ocean, as a result of not being blockaded, they could train their ships and crews on the open seas, gaining valuable experience. They also had a very strong officer system with a rich heritage and culture.

To even consider France having a chance in Trafalgar, you need to build a french navy with a strong experienced officer core, trained and experienced sailors, and you need to somehow keep the British from penning up the majority of France's and Spain's Line-of-Battle ships.

French sailors probably would have been quite good if they had been trained. Again you need good innovative officers to do this.

Maybe a POD brtween the 7 years war and the american war that sees the navy getting innovated and a new set of principles introduced. Then, if say the battle of the chesapaek was more decisive and the french navy became more famouse, the newly set up convention would be less able to purge the officers in fear of losing their poster boys. Or maybe a change in villinurves life could make him more aggresive, more able to take risks, and in doing so start a more offensive maxim amongst french officers.

I also think that if frances fleet had been able to break out at the start of the war and not be bottled up, it could become more experianced and more able to oppose the british fleet.

 

[Elfwine]

Maybe a POD brtween the 7 years war and the american war that sees the navy getting innovated and a new set of principles introduced. Then, if say the battle of the chesapaek was more decisive and the french navy became more famouse, the newly set up convention would be less able to purge the officers in fear of losing their poster boys. Or maybe a change in villinurves life could make him more aggresive, more able to take risks, and in doing so start a more offensive maxim amongst french officers.

I also think that if frances fleet had been able to break out at the start of the war and not be bottled up, it could become more experianced and more able to oppose the british fleet.

Here's the problem though - if the old regime navy has X, how do you keep X from being associated with the Old Regime?

As for the second part - sure, but that just puts us in a pickle where in order for the French navy to be good enough to win later it has to win earlier, despite not having any particular advantages.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Here's the problem though - if the old regime navy has X, how do you keep X from being associated with the Old Regime?

As for the second part - sure, but that just puts us in a pickle where in order for the French navy to be good enough to win later it has to win earlier, despite not having any particular advantages.

Yet its worth noting that many former french officers in the army remained, with many becoming important generals and the core of the new, national army. If there was an equivilent of carnots reform for the navy and/or people saw the see as important as a land invasion, this may take place and the old, elite officers remain.

 

[Elfwine]

Yet its worth noting that many former french officers in the army remained, with many becoming important generals and the core of the new, national army. If there was an equivilent of carnots reform for the navy and/or people saw the see as important as a land invasion, this may take place and the old, elite officers remain.

Do you have something to back that up on "many"? Not arguing, but given the nature of the Ancien Regime, and the composition of the higher ranks, it would be interesting to see some numbers here instead of vague "many" or "some".

Just trying to collect data, not trying to be argumentative.