Gravina vs Villeneuve

Regarding naval affairs in the Napoleonic Wars..I have come accross a number of suppositions regarding a loss by Nelson at Trafalgar and whether or not amphibious invasion . This is not to debate wheter or not that is possible..simply to discuss the possible outcomes for the Fr/Sp Fleet if they had been led by what would appear to be the more competent and aggressive Gravina vs Villeneuve at Cape Finnisterre and Trafalgar.

A more agressive pursuit of Calder could it have allowed the Fr/Sp to land the troops in Ireland and then link up with Ganteaume in the channel at Boulogne in time for that cross channel passage by l'armee d'Angleterre.

Or perhaps more decisive leadership and better co-operation at Trafalgar could minimise the allied losses somewhat, leaving them still a significant Naval threat.

Thoughts on the relative merits of the Fr. vs Spanish Admirals would be appreciated.

Even Napoleon seems to have heaped no small measure of praise on Gravina vs his own admirals.

Spain at least would have a much stronger Naval tradition.

It seems to me that if Napoleon had left Spain alone and delegated Naval strategy to the Spanish Admiralty and concentrated the French on Land things might well have gone better in the 3rd coalition and perhaps those that followed.

IN anycase I would like to hear any opinions yea or nay regarding this slight change in Naval affairs?
 
Every description of Villeneuve I've heard describes him as a two-bit hack who couldn't run a school board if he tried, much less a naval fleet. And I've read that Gravina had much more talent in terms of naval affairs, so I would think that under his leadership, Trafalgar would fare better for Napoleon's side.

What do you mean by asking what if Napoleon "had left Spain alone"? Because if Napoleon never invades Spain and start the Peninsular War (I know it's a later POD), that would have other consequences down the line, though they don't apply to Trafalgar.
 
I think he means giving Spain command over the combined fleet. Which likely means Churruca would lead the fleet at Trafalgar instead of Villeneuve.

Well, I'm not very in the Napoleonic Wars but if the problem is a lack of "agressive spirit" in Villeneuve as the OP suggests I think that it would definitely be different under Churruca. Just for the record, this guy kept his ship fighting alone against 4 or even 6 British ships at the same time when the rest of the Franco-Spanish fleet was withdrawing and it only surrrendered when Churruca himself and his second in command had been killed.
 
I think he means giving Spain command over the combined fleet. Which likely means Churruca would lead the fleet at Trafalgar instead of Villeneuve.

Well, I'm not very in the Napoleonic Wars but if the problem is a lack of "agressive spirit" in Villeneuve as the OP suggests I think that it would definitely be different under Churruca. Just for the record, this guy kept his ship fighting alone against 4 or even 6 British ships at the same time when the rest of the Franco-Spanish fleet was withdrawing and it only surrrendered when Churruca himself and his second in command had been killed.

That was indeed what I meant....giving the Spanish leadership the lead in maritime affairs while Napoleon and his armies kept things in order on the continent. And yes it may very well lead to no Penninsular War which would definitely have its own effects. Its after these events that things began to deteriorate between the French and the Spanish. Give then their head and a prominent voice and that may not happen. Napoleon may simply replace Charles with his son Fernando instead rather than one of his own family.
 
The problem isn't so much leadership at the battle as leadership in the long run up. The Franco-Spanish fleet had been kept in port by the RN, with a resultant lack of sea experience. The French especially had been decimated by the effects of the Revolution - the corps of marine gunners for example, was disbanded as a 'inequal' organisation, and most of the officers begain emigres. This left the individual ships captains without experience (the figures for Glourious 1st of June are illuminating).

This can be seen by the poor showing of the allied fleet throughout the Trafalgar campaign - Calders action, speed through the water, general seamanship, all lacking. I'm not sure a different admiral can make a big enough difference (especially against Nelson / Collingwood) to prevent Trafalgar being a significant victory for the RN.

However - could a different admiral prevent the allied van from refusing action for most of the battle - this could make some difference initially, until the rear of the RN fleet gets into action (there were a number of pretty much unengaged RN vessels in the battle)
 
Top