WI napoleon navy changes

Mrstrategy

Banned
how good would the french navy of napoleon be if he did this starting when he became emperor?
  • more recruitment maybe press gang
  • more investment
  • more schools to train sailors and other officers that are run by experiance people
  • better dockyards for building/repairing ships
  • Corps d'artillerie de la marine is not suppressed
  • better communication with allied navies like the Spanish
  • better leaders
  • ships firing on the downward roll into the enemy hulls instead of on the upward roll of the ship, disabling their opponents
 
The problem is that the Royal Navy would still have France under blockade, meaning that the French crews would never be able to train on the high seas and hence would be at a disadvantage, skills- and experience-wise, to their British opponents. Probably the only way for Napoleonic France to get a decent navy would be for a long stretch of peace between France and England so that the French can actually practise sailing their ships around.
 
what blockade? during the napolonic times the blockade was hardly effective.
actually it was other way round the continental system was a french system to prevent trade with britain
 
what blockade? during the napolonic times the blockade was hardly effective.
actually it was other way round the continental system was a french system to prevent trade with britain


So why then did the French manage to lose 112 ships of the line and 126 frigates between 1792 and 1815? Why is it that 27,000 French seamen were prisoners in Britain in 1814? Why if the Continental System was so effective were the British running convoys from the Baltic (where surely no one would be trading with them?) for just one example of an area where the British seemed to be doing the blockading rather than being blocked.
 
how good would the french navy of napoleon be if he did this starting when he became emperor?
  • more recruitment maybe press gang
  • more investment
  • more schools to train sailors and other officers that are run by experiance people
  • better dockyards for building/repairing ships
  • Corps d'artillerie de la marine is not suppressed
  • better communication with allied navies like the Spanish
  • better leaders
  • ships firing on the downward roll into the enemy hulls instead of on the upward roll of the ship, disabling their opponents

I think the problem for Napoleon is that by the time he comes to power most of the damage is done. He is until the Peace of Amiens faced with a shortage of seamen not due to poor recruitment but more due to the fact that British have captured 42,000 of France's supply. In terms of investment Napoleon was chronically short of money as was, what does he cut to fund the Navy? As to schooling the most effective contemporary methods of training involved going to sea which as Fabius Maximus and the figures I have presented argue, was a bit dicey if you are French. Dockyards would have been great but probably a lot more useful if they had been built say ten or twenty years earlier as that way the French could have kept a larger fleet in commission for the same money. By Napoleon's ascent the only question about a French naval warship at sea was pretty much when not if the British would take it.
 
The problem for France was training - there's nothing that can replace formation sailing training for ships of the line during the era. The French need to be able to get many ship of the line out to sea and sail them in formation in order to trim the ships, get the crews trained and skilled in sailing and manouvering in formation.

Without this skill, the French navy is going to be at a serious disadvantage compared to the Royal Navy, regardless of other factors.
 
Dockyards would have been great but probably a lot more useful if they had been built say ten or twenty years earlier as that way the French could have kept a larger fleet in commission for the same money. By Napoleon's ascent the only question about a French naval warship at sea was pretty much when not if the British would take it.

The French Navy had been pretty strong under Louis XVI; it fought quite well during the American Revolution. But the French Revolution destroyed its officer class (as they were noblemen) and they could not be replaced as their Army counterparts were. The inexperienced crews of the French Republic/Empire navy could not hold their own against the British.
 

longsword14

Banned
The solution is ironclad steamships. If America can build the Demalogos, so can he!
I had a thought in this general direction. The French with complete European domination could have the resources in the long run to build up a new navy that would keep up when newer technology starts becoming more practical, with the older massive navies becoming obsolete. The problem is that such a scenario is also very unstable with Austria and Russia ready to create trouble.
Plucking the low hanging fruit after Austerlitz to placate Austria and still have a major restructuring of German lands with a few good allies/ puppets but no relatives on the throne is my best bet. If Napoleon can get a peace that lasts a decade or so then plans can be made for the future.
I do not know much about sailing and maneuvering for battle in the age of sail, so I do not know how effective commerce raiders were in this time.
Napoleon being more cautious in diplomacy is needed badly. He should have understood that Britain could hardly force a decision with the French controlling the land and the fact that only in the long term could a naval reconstruction happen.
 
Just a couple of points:

The French Navy after the Revolution was no better and no worse than it had been throughout the 18th Century. It's the American War of Independence that's the odd-man-out, because the RN was at a very low ebb so the French looked better by comparison (though the French still got a serious pasting in the war - I don't have my books at hand but I think the RN lost two battleships to the French while taking 12 in return).

Secondly, the problem with the Napoleon-builds-steamships idea is that Britain was already beginning to feel the effects of the Industrial Revolution, and were building steamships of their own, and would have been able to outbuild Napoleon with ease. Standard warships could be constructed anywhere, but steamers were the high-tech of their day and were beyond the capabilities of almost everywhere in Europe that wasn't Britain. As a result, Napoleon would have been throwing away his major advantage (number of shipyards and workers) had he tried to switch to the new technology.
 

longsword14

Banned
Just a couple of points:

The French Navy after the Revolution was no better and no worse than it had been throughout the 18th Century. It's the American War of Independence that's the odd-man-out, because the RN was at a very low ebb so the French looked better by comparison (though the French still got a serious pasting in the war - I don't have my books at hand but I think the RN lost two battleships to the French while taking 12 in return).

Secondly, the problem with the Napoleon-builds-steamships idea is that Britain was already beginning to feel the effects of the Industrial Revolution, and were building steamships of their own, and would have been able to outbuild Napoleon with ease. Standard warships could be constructed anywhere, but steamers were the high-tech of their day and were beyond the capabilities of almost everywhere in Europe that wasn't Britain. As a result, Napoleon would have been throwing away his major advantage (number of shipyards and workers) had he tried to switch to the new technology.
The amount of butterflies that result from a Napoleonic France existing for decades is immense. The level of technology when it came to steam engines capable of being used was not very high. The British lead that exists currently is not bound to be present in the future too.A stable Napoleonic order with the amount of resources it had would be able to have quite the advantage.
The problem was not that the French could not possibly develop the tech but that they were not going to have the time and inclination unless they managed to have at least some measure of stability.
 
what blockade? during the napolonic times the blockade was hardly effective.
actually it was other way round the continental system was a french system to prevent trade with britain

There were three blockades in effect simultaneously during the Napoleonic wars. The first established was the blockade of the French Marine by the Royal Navy, which was generally effective, as it prevented the French from freely going to sea and so building up the level of seamanship, naval gunnery and health that was being established by the RN squadrons on station. While a number of fleet escapes happened, the fact that these can be described generally by a crushing British naval victory (the Nile escape, the Trafalgar escape, the Saint Domingo escape) suggests it was effective in significantly weakening the French (and Allied) navies.

The second was Napoleons Continental System, aimed at excluding British trade from Europe and European trade from Britain. This was effective in part - British trade with the continent fell; but smuggling increased with the connivance of both British and Napoleonic governments (6-10,000 in Hamburg alone were smuggling coffee, sugar and other comestibles, of which at most 5% was confiscated) - indeed, to gain money for his wars Napoleon issued licences to trade grain which essentially kept Britain in the war, (through wheat trade in 1810) and much of the Grande Armee was clothed in British overcoats. That's without taking into account that the Spanish campaign both opened up new markets in Latin America and removed the Grande Armee from Germany, so making smuggling in that region easier. What the Continental System did do was allow European industry to develop with a reduction in British impact and so ensured that the head start gained by the British industrial revolution did not prevent an industrial uplift in Europe.

The Fox blockade - the British economic blockade of Europe - harmed the economies of the US and the western maritime departments of France, but helped the more easterly departments. As with the continental system it helped smugglers and increased some prices, but where necessary was breached by both sides.

So, essentially the only blockade that achieved its aim during this period was the RN blockade of the French Navy.
 
The French Navy had been pretty strong under Louis XVI; it fought quite well during the American Revolution. But the French Revolution destroyed its officer class (as they were noblemen) and they could not be replaced as their Army counterparts were. The inexperienced crews of the French Republic/Empire navy could not hold their own against the British.

Though it is a common idea, the "destruction" of the officer class by the Révolution did not happen. The problems of the french naval officers corps were already there before the Revolution, leading to a radical reform in 1786. This reform aimed at unifying the two corps, the "Grand corps" of quasi-hereditary officers schooled in shore facilities and groomed for command and the "Petit corps" of officers coming from the merchant navy or from families outside of the naval aristocracy. This reform came too late to bring the naval corps to the level of its british counterpart. So, despite the emigration of the more reactionary officers (who did not like even the 1786 reform), the overwhelming majority of french naval officers during Revolution and Napoleonic era were (former) noblemen of the pre-1789 naval officer corps, such as Brueys, Casabianca, Decrès, Morard de Galles, Truguet, Villeneuve...
 
Though it is a common idea, the "destruction" of the officer class by the Révolution did not happen. The problems of the french naval officers corps were already there before the Revolution, leading to a radical reform in 1786. This reform aimed at unifying the two corps, the "Grand corps" of quasi-hereditary officers schooled in shore facilities and groomed for command and the "Petit corps" of officers coming from the merchant navy or from families outside of the naval aristocracy. This reform came too late to bring the naval corps to the level of its british counterpart. So, despite the emigration of the more reactionary officers (who did not like even the 1786 reform), the overwhelming majority of french naval officers during Revolution and Napoleonic era were (former) noblemen of the pre-1789 naval officer corps, such as Brueys, Casabianca, Decrès, Morard de Galles, Truguet, Villeneuve...

But there was an effect, which can be seen in the officer corps present at 1st of June. Although this wasn't helped by the representative on mission, of course.
 
At the 1st of June, the main problems were deficient tactical command by Villaret and slower rate of fire by the french crews. Villaret, of course, blamed Jean-Bon-Saint-André. This last one, a radical jacobin, managed his mission : keeping Brest as a secure port, as Toulon had been devastated by the royalist ADM de Trogoff's treason.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The solution is ironclad steamships. If America can build the Demalogos, so can he!
That's comically ahead of time, especially for 1805 or so.

The Demologos was fitted with five feet of timber, not iron armour. (Ships of the line had 2 feet - different, but not a paradigm shift).
Iron armour at the time was not possible to construct with the appropriate regularity.
The Demologos took two years from launch to construction, and was designed in 1814.
Demologos was not suited for anything other than calm weather.
She could make 5.5 knots under ideal conditions.
It had a 120 hp engine - in 1809 Fulton built a steam ship with 19 hp.
The Savannah of 1819 (which had an outsize engine for the time and which could actually sail in heavy weather) had 90 hp.
British engineering was far superior at this time to French, especially in things like steam power, so the British could match whatever Napoleon built.
And, of course, the Demologos never saw any kind of action so we have no idea whether she had any real faults. We do know her (designed, never achieved) broadside - six 30-lber guns, compare a 74 like Fame with 14 32-lbers and 14 18-lbers and 9 9-lbers.

Demologos is a wooden, somewhat mobile harbour defence vessel built in 1815, by which time Napoleon is defeated.
It's not until 1845 the first semi-practical steam battle ship is converted (British), not until 1848 the first steam liner is laid down, and not until 1855 that ironclad batteries come in. (True ironclad frigates come about in 1859.)

In short - depending on when you have Napoleon starting and what he's trying to build, it's anything from "six years ahead" to "fifty years ahead".
 
Last edited:
The key man in a "steampunk napoleon" TL is Jouffroy d'Abbans : he had first experimented with a passenger-carrying steambot in 1783. Made him meet with Borda and Coulomb in the 1780' and you may have a screw-propulsed steamship twenty years later. However power and seaworthiness will still be issues. The first obvious use would be bomb keg, but if she is only usable by calm weather, she will be destroyed by british frigates easily. Only an against-the-wind approach could work.
 
At the 1st of June, the main problems were deficient tactical command by Villaret and slower rate of fire by the french crews. Villaret, of course, blamed Jean-Bon-Saint-André. This last one, a radical jacobin, managed his mission : keeping Brest as a secure port, as Toulon had been devastated by the royalist ADM de Trogoff's treason.

That may be the case - but the French officers were undoubtably significantly less experienced than their RN counterparts:

In the RN, of the 23 highest ranking officers of whom we have information, all had seen fleet action and all had at least 20 years service. Nine had fought in the most decisive actions of the previous fifty years (Finisterre, Lagos, Quiberon Bay and Battle of the Saints)

Of the French, only one (RAdm Bouvet) had commanded a ship in a fleet battle, and that only once. Of the flag officers, two had only just been promoted from Lieutenant and the third from sub-Lieutenant. Three of the captains had been promoted from lieutenant eleven sub-lieutenant, nine captains or masters of merchant ships, one a bosun, one a seaman and one has no records extant. (Sam Willis, Glorious First of June).

Though they lacked experience, the French were highly enthusiastic and motivated - their morale, unlike in some future battles, was very high. But the experience of their captains was a factor in the battle.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The key man in a "steampunk napoleon" TL is Jouffroy d'Abbans : he had first experimented with a passenger-carrying steambot in 1783. Made him meet with Borda and Coulomb in the 1780' and you may have a screw-propulsed steamship twenty years later. However power and seaworthiness will still be issues. The first obvious use would be bomb keg, but if she is only usable by calm weather, she will be destroyed by british frigates easily. Only an against-the-wind approach could work.
I'm not sure at all that you could have a screw ship in 1800, as the screw OTL was patented 1835 and not really made usable until 1839... in Britain.
 
Top