How? He was no control of the Baltic sea or the borders of East Prussia and Galicia (the latter of which is like a smugglers dream in any case: long, in a sparesly populated area).
The Continent is a big land mass under Napoleon's control. Napoleon should have closed to ports to Russian as well as British ships. No need to control the seas for that.
Not to mention that embargoing Russia is a slightly offensive gesture.
Napoleon had the perfect excuse. Russia had offended Napoleon first by defying the embargo, so Napoleon was just receiprocating.
Ignoring Russia for a year to denude central Europe of men for Spain is no longer an option if Russia sees clear as day that france thinks of it as an enemy in british pay and will march right into the DoW.
That is their problem. Russia would not have attacked France alone. It was preparing for a French attack.
Is Coruna a major victory? Since it was a large battle that France won, I think your options are "Yes, so clearly I was wrong" and "No, as the british succesfully escaped destruction".
I am just saying that it would happen again if there was a major French victory in Spain. It would have been enough for a jittery Britain to get out, based on past examples that I have presented.
In which case, why can't we escape destruction (and return) again? Naval supremacy can come in heandy sometimes.
Because you were going broke in 1812 thanks to the embargo and because you had no more allies so it would have been difficult to start another front. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring this.
While I know perfectly well that you mean "invade a France not distracted by a vast war in eastern Europe", I think it's worth pointing out that we did invade France before anybody else, IIRC.
By the back door that nobody in France was minding because France's attention was elsewhere.
Regardless, what we were doing was providing a constant, irritating distraction.
See my post to Dav about how insignificant the British in Spain were compared to the guerillas and the Coalition armies in the east
Napo couldn't just leave Spain: the blow to his prestige of leaving two british allies unmolested after a battered retreat would be too much. But he couldn't win owing to Guerilla and naval inferiority. So he had to waste forces there.
I am saying that he should have left Spain and concentrated on consolidation his holdings on the Continent between Spain and Russia.
A token army that:
-Scored some of the cleanes-cut and most frequent victories against France.
None of Britain's victories in the Pennisular was impressive. In almost every battle against the British, the French inflicted almost as many casualties as the British, so I wouldn't call the British victories clean-cut. They were certainly insignificant and did not make a dent to the French armies that the guerillas and the coalition armies did. See my reply to Dav on why.
The British government, being, unlike the others, an oligarchic democracy, was not capable of introducing conscription.
Why not? It is called the draft and democracies have done it.
This is verging on Anglophobia. We were at war by absolutely any sane diplomat's definition. We were perfectly willing to send the men we had to the continent. And we were perfectly willing to commit troops from the word go in 1793, so your idea is provably false.
then where were your troops?
Not true. Britain was staying in the war anyway (for us, Napoleon's myth of invincibility ended at Vimiero). And while the Austrian effort was very important and probably sped up Russia's defiant gestures quite a bit, I rather doubt the idea that it forged the Sixth Coalition. Austria, after all, dithered plenty before signing said.
Austrian wanted to be patient and gather the forces and wait for further weakness from Napoleon which came with his disastrous invasion of Russia. There is no doubt that the Austrian victories in Aspern_essling and near-victory at Wagram encouraged it and the other Coalition armies to try one more time.
Apparently this year is time in which to send the ary to Spain and defeat Britain so that we, cowardly and unmanly nation of shopkeepers that we are, will instantly lose our will and make peace.
That is right. You have past experience of this. In 1812, you were going broke because of the embargo and had no more allies. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring this.
While much of his army is in Spain, Russia may be thinking "Hey, what a great time to invade the nation which is agressively embargoing us!" You yourself posited an agressive (and unenforceable) embargo.
Russia would not have invaded France alone.
Now, Russia's invasion will not be lightning. If not for your determination to send the French army off to Spain, it might not get anywhere in particular. But even if Britain and Russia come to the table, what conditiojns can Napoleon force on them?
Simple. To the British, Napoleon should offer to remove the embargo in return for Britain's acceptance of the status quo. If Britain agrees, Russia also agrees because the main issue Russia has with France was the embargo.
Then there' what Austria's doing to consider.
Austria, alone, was too weak by that point would not have attacked France without allies.
And my "Amiens mark II" comment meant that Britain can always make a pragmatic breather peace and jump back in later on.
And do what? It takes a while to recover and start another coalition in which Napoleon could use this time to recover also and consolidate his holdings. Britain in 1812 was in worse shape than Britain in 1803.
You could at least tell me where you heard this.
I read it in a history book at high school that dealt with agriculture.
Clearly, Britain was not starved by the OTL embargo. You have not given any satisfactory reason for Napoleon to create a differant, tighter one. Therefore I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Because they were still importing Foodstuff from the Continent which Napoleon allowed. He should have been ruthless and banned everything. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.