Naval power of victorious Napoleonic Europe

Eurofed

Banned
Assuming that Napoleon defeats Russia, crushes Iberian insurgents, and wipes out Austria and Prussia, how much time and effort would Napoleonic Europe need to raise a Navy able to challenge British global naval hegemony (if the Napoleonic Empire and the British Empire revert to a Cold War relationship) or to support an invasion or blockade of the British Isles (if they remain locked, or later relapse, in Hot War) ?
 
So the starting point is 1813, and virtually every navy has been destroyed?

I don't think it would take long at all. Napoleon would have control of dozens of shipyards and the resources of the entire continent to play with. So if he got it into his head to do it then I think it would be done pretty fast.
 
Build up a fleet of sufficient size to challenge the RN? Certainly. Find and train competant officers and seamen to man said fleet and fight the RN on something approaching an even footing? Rather more difficult given the British blockade will prevent the French getting many chances to train at sea.
 
I don't think it would be overly difficult to find competent men at all levels, but concentrating these flottillas into fleets which are well drilled would be a problem. The men of the Danish navy were intact since their ships were destroyed in port, so they could man a renewed navy as a unit.
 
The real issues are two fold as pointed out by Cockraoch and Rian.

One: Trafalgar shows that having a larger fleet split among multiple ports (which by necessity it would be) can face problems when your enemy controls the seas and can keep you separated.

Two: There were experienced seamen in Europe, though not many trustworthy ones. However even the best Europe had to offer were no match for the RN in 1813. By this point the RN was light years ahead of everyone else in terms of experience and doctrine. They had been operating a close blockade for 11 years by this point and at sea at war for generations. The Continental Navies had spent most of their time stuck in port, even the Danes. However the key issue was merchant seamen. Taking a landlubber and making a sailor was years of work, taking a merchantmen weeks. Unfortunately everyone else's trade had been decimated by the war, the ships that sailed they seas were overwhelmingly British with the US coming a distant 2nd. That body of skill had atrophied and rebuilding it would take years.

Could it be done yes. War is about money and Nappy would have enough money to buy a Navy, eventually. But it would take years and lots of defeats before he got there.
 
I don't think Napoleon could have built a navy to challenge the RN. Perhaps his successors could but in 1813 the RN was just too powerful. Couple this with the fact that the UK could concentrate virtually it's entire, already quite significant industrial might on the RN whilst Nappy would still have had to maintain a significant Army to guard against any of his defeated enemies taking a chance to get their own back
 
You would need to define further what you meant by wiping out the Austrians and Prussians. Do you mean dismantling them as nation states or simply significant military defeats that shatter their armies and render them impotent for a number of years. For the later, i'm thinking the Austrians between Austerlitz and the rematch at Aspern Essling and Wagram.

Naps big problem here is war exhaustion, France has been continously at war for 21 years. Nap also knows that if given half a chance the Brits will stir up the Prussians, Russians and Austrians who will have fully digested all the new tactics that the French have been using so successfully. Again, I draw your attention to the Battle of Wagram, which whilst it was a defeat left the Austrian army intact, having suffered casualties only slightly in excess of the French. A far cry from the complete smashing of the allied armies at Austerlitz.

Also, crushing the Spanish insurgents will not be an easy task, the French army pretty much lost control of the countryside very early on. Furthermore, Napoleon himself will have to come forth to defeat Wellington, something he was extremely reluctant to do OTL (and in fact never did).

So, in conclusion, Nap is faced with an horrific guerilla war and dealing with one of the finest generals of the age, whilst worrying that a resurgent Prussia, Russia or Austria might try to go another round in a year or two. The sensible option here would be to make a permanent peace with the Brits and try to persuade them to accept French continental mastery. Having said that, Nap was a military man first and foremost, so he may decide to try it anyway. As Aracnid said there will be a lot of defeats to start with, can French domestic morale take these? Maybe Nap will be deposed by a cabal of his marshals & ministers and replaced with a more moderate leader/ruling party.
 
Given that Nappy has established His Empire, and pacified Europe, ?Would France develop a RN equal Navy?
Even after 50 years of calling for a Navy equal to the USN, the USSR never did.

The French would concentrate on its Land Forces. While the Empire would have a Navy for Pirates, and such. ?Would it try to compete with HMRN?
 

Eurofed

Banned
So the consensus of the forum seems to be that raising a fleet to successfully challenge RN supremacy in mid 1810s and try an invasion or blockade of the British Isles takes far too much time, effort, and difficulty for the Napoleonic Empire. Well, this dovetails with my own tentative feelings of the issue, that a late Napoleonic Sealion was not a realistic scenario. It is far more likely that Britain and Napoleon make a reluctant peace after total victory on the continent. Nappy would not see invasion as realistic, and Britain would see that they can't really defeat him without allies on the continent (plus war weariness would affect Britain, too).

To comment on some other points that have been made:

You would need to define further what you meant by wiping out the Austrians and Prussians. Do you mean dismantling them as nation states or simply significant military defeats that shatter their armies and render them impotent for a number of years. For the later, i'm thinking the Austrians between Austerlitz and the rematch at Aspern Essling and Wagram.

Since I'm persuaded that total dismantling of Prussia and Austria was all but necessary for the long-term success of the Napoleonic order, assume the former. See here for my ideas on the issue.

Also, crushing the Spanish insurgents will not be an easy task, the French army pretty much lost control of the countryside very early on.

Well, the Napoleonic army had regained a fair degree of control in the Iberian peninsula during the time Napoleon gave the area his undivided attention, so I assume that once Russia is defeated, and the Empire can give back its main focus on the area, the guerrilla can be eventually defeated.

Furthermore, Napoleon himself will have to come forth to defeat Wellington.

Bah. Wellington almsot got his butt kicked if Blucher had not saved the day for him, and ITTL he would face a much stronger Grande Armee (and a less exhausted Napoleon) than at Waterloo. I have little doubt on the outcome of of the confrontation.

The sensible option here would be to make a permanent peace with the Brits and try to persuade them to accept French continental mastery.

This was also my tentative judgement, but I had to seek a second opinion.

Given that Nappy has established His Empire, and pacified Europe, ?Would France develop a RN equal Navy?
Even after 50 years of calling for a Navy equal to the USN, the USSR never did.

The French would concentrate on its Land Forces. While the Empire would have a Navy for Pirates, and such. ?Would it try to compete with HMRN?

OTOH, the Empire would span France, the Low Countries, Italy, and Germany, which are best described as either navel powers or land powers with a sizable naval leaning. The Empire would need very strong land forces to keep Russia at bay, suppress rebellions, and prevent british encroachment on the continent.

But I find it very difficult to believe that late Napoleon and his successors would concede unchallenged worldwide naval supremacy, i.e. control of global trade and colonization, to Britain. In this sense, even if I easily accept that Napoelon would shun trying a Sealion, I do not find realistic that a stabilized empire would neglect building a Navy competitive with the RN, from the late 1810s-early 1820s onwards.
 
After the British do in the Danes in Copenhagen, there's only 1.5 nation left with a major navy - I think the other thread discusses a Russo-Dano-Swedish fleet, and that's exactly it. There's Russia and Sweden.

Russia's navy performed great in the prelude to the Napoleonic period, but was somewhat aging by the time of the 1813. They coordinated with the British to land troops in Europe and blocade French ports ITL.

Unfortunately for Napoleon, Russian officers mostly trained in Britain, and a large proportion had strong pro-British sympathies. Depending on how he handles Russia's defeat, he could make things even worse for himself on the sea. If there's some attempt to dismantle Russia and set up relatives all over the place, he could get Europe's second-largest navy defecting to join Europe's largest navy.
 
If Britain was defeated in the Peninsular War, I think the war would be over

Napoleon would not need a navy if he can irrevocably win on land

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Bah. Wellington almsot got his butt kicked if Blucher had not saved the day for him,

Wellington was not saved by Blucher, the entire strategy of the battle was for the Allies to fight together. The command under Wellington was to delay Napoleon until Blucher could arrive and help deliver the knock out blow. It wasn't a grand stand on Wellington before being saved by the Prussians, it was a strategy that went according to plan. Albeit not perfectly.

I have little doubt on the outcome of of the confrontation.

Starvation before the lines of Torres Vedras seems quite likely.
 
Britain's policy only made sense if they could use their naval strength to hit back against the continent - witness the shambles in Holland, and then the twin Peninsular campaigns. Without this, British naval hegemony is irrelevant as the body politic and national will would not have the energy/vision/willpower for a long struggle.

Thus if Napoleon drives the British out of Spain, it is not the loss of Spain that is the problem but the bankruptcy of the British strategy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Eurofed said:
But I find it very difficult to believe that late Napoleon and his successors would concede unchallenged worldwide naval supremacy, i.e. control of global trade and colonization, to Britain. In this sense, even if I easily accept that Napoelon would shun trying a Sealion, I do not find realistic that a stabilized empire would neglect building a Navy competitive with the RN, from the late 1810s-early 1820s onwards.

Napoleon is not technically able to try a sealion againt Britain : while he would have many shipyards and harbors, the British were blockading the French ports : l'Empereur wouldn't be able to regroup a fleet in one port and prepare for a sealion unless the blockade is somehow lifted.

Besides, the Navy was Napoleon's main weakness : he was never able to find a way to use it in his campaigns and had no real good Admirals under his command. Not to mention that Trafalgar made him sure the British couldn't be faced at sea.

Now, saying he won't change his policies after he obtains peace with Britain is absurd. He would surely try to build a fleet that could rival the Royal Navy for an eventual rematch with Britain and suppress the British's only advantage.

DAv said:
Wellington was not saved by Blucher, the entire strategy of the battle was for the Allies to fight together. The command under Wellington was to delay Napoleon until Blucher could arrive and help deliver the knock out blow. It wasn't a grand stand on Wellington before being saved by the Prussians, it was a strategy that went according to plan. Albeit not perfectly.

Napoleon himself made a mistake before Waterloo : he told Grouchy to pursue Blücher, but Blücher was not where Napoleon sent Grouchy as the Prussians were moving to join the British.

Nevertheless : it is admitted that only the Prussian's arrival was the reason why Napoleon met his doom at Waterloo. No Prussian coming or having them being delayed for whatever reasons will probably lead to a french victory at Waterloo, no matter how good Sir Arthur Wellesley is.

Furthermore, Waterloo is the only battle were Wellington face Napoleon : that is far from enough to determine who's the better general of the two and the result doesn't convince everyone that Wellington could have defeated l'Empereur alone.

Grey Wolf said:
Britain's policy only made sense if they could use their naval strength to hit back against the continent - witness the shambles in Holland, and then the twin Peninsular campaigns. Without this, British naval hegemony is irrelevant as the body politic and national will would not have the energy/vision/willpower for a long struggle.

Thus if Napoleon drives the British out of Spain, it is not the loss of Spain that is the problem but the bankruptcy of the British strategy

I agree on that : if the Russian Campaign had suceeded and the Peninsula War ended in a French Victory, Britain would have been all but isolated.

Furthermore, we need to take into account the Continental Blockade : it forbade Britain to do business with the other European Nations. Though it didn't work OTL, it still caused difficulties to the British economy. A victorious Napoleon on the continent would be able to enforce the Blockade and the British would be forced to accept French domination on the continent, at least for the time being.
 
Nevertheless : it is admitted that only the Prussian's arrival was the reason why Napoleon met his doom at Waterloo.

Which was the plan from the outset. That was the point for the Prussians to join the command under Wellington in order to defeat Napoleon. It was an Allied victory, not British, Belgian, Prussian or Dutch but an Allied one.
 
Top