|
Post by Baise-moi on Aug 9, 2017 17:11:30 GMT -4
Imagine for a second that Napoleon was able to gain an upper hand on Britain, and his navy magically became strong enough to overwhelm the royal navy. He launches a successful invasion of Britain that ends in a victory, and as such Britain is humiliated, forced to pay massive reparations and reduce the royal navy's power drastically, and basically is weakened enough that it cannot, by any miracle, rejoin the war and hope to be victorious. This can be applied to any point during the Napoleonic Wars.
Since Britain was the main driving force behind the coalitions, and contributed the most to the wars in their entirety, do you think that the rest of Europe would have been able to defend from Napoleonic France's might? Would the invasion of Russia have been enough to stop France in its tracks? How much would the coalitions suffer without British help?
I personally think it would not have been possible given just how large a role Britain played, but I want to know what everyone else thinks. Would France have still suffered defeat (perhaps at a lighter cost, hanging onto certain territories, etc.) or would it have remained the dominant power as it was?
|
|
|
Post by Tikobe on Aug 9, 2017 20:44:48 GMT -4
It's been a while since I've studied the Napoleonic wars but from what I've been given to understand France lost against Russia because the winter set in and France couldn't provide the resources to maintain an invasion in light of the Russian winter. I mean, odds are I'm wrong but as I said, it's been while since I looked at the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Aug 9, 2017 21:49:05 GMT -4
It's been a while since I've studied the Napoleonic wars but from what I've been given to understand France lost against Russia because the winter set in and France couldn't provide the resources to maintain an invasion in light of the Russian winter. I mean, odds are I'm wrong but as I said, it's been while since I looked at the topic. The Russians intentionally depleted the countryside and burned Moscow to keep Napoleon from winning. It's not that Napoleon was an idiot but that the Russians outsmarted him with a Fabian strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Aug 12, 2017 0:08:30 GMT -4
It's been a while since I've studied the Napoleonic wars but from what I've been given to understand France lost against Russia because the winter set in and France couldn't provide the resources to maintain an invasion in light of the Russian winter. I mean, odds are I'm wrong but as I said, it's been while since I looked at the topic. Yes, Russia "defeated" Napoleon's Grand Armee with their winter, that is true. But Britain was by far the main contributor and did the most to beat France in general, in particular by funding the coalitions (I heard they had to basically bribe the other nations to join) and by fighting the whole way through, and maintaining naval superiority over France. I'm wondering that if without that, the Allies would have still been able to pull through. Might depend on how late into the war it is.
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Aug 12, 2017 0:19:10 GMT -4
Napoleon's empire wouldn't have held together after his death; he'd be a modern-day Alexander.
|
|