How Crucial Was Trafalgar?

[Emperor Casey]

Trafalgar is cited as one of the most important/significant battles in history. But how critical was it? If the French and Spanish achieved victory over Nelson would that have changed much about the Napoleonic Wars or just delayed them? What outcomes could we see from a victorious French/Spanish fleet.

 

[Decius00009]

Napoleon had already redployed his armies from Boulogne to confront the Austrians after the British had subsidised the Third Coalition. There would have been no invasion; the barges he had built were already rotting. What might have occurred was trade strangulation of the British Isles, but it would have depended on the scale of the Franco/Spanish victory. That fleet was not Britain's only fleet, either. In either case, it's a useless what if (no offence). The Franco/Spanish fleet had no chance against the Royal Navy. The French ships were better, but their officers were inferior, their sailors more so, and their gunnery - the doctrine of which was appalling anyway - was dire

 

[Captain Seafort]

What might have occurred was trade strangulation of the British Isles, but it would have depended on the scale of the Franco/Spanish victory.

Highly unlikely - the strength of the RN was such that even if Nelson's fleet had been annihilated, it wouldn't have given Napoleon the command of the seas needed to conduct an effective blockade (or resume his invasion preparations in a year or two with any chance of success). What it might have done was deny the RN the total control of the seas it enjoyed for the rest of the war, and thereby limit the UK's ability to conduct amphibious operations and its blockade of French-occupied/controlled Europe.

 

[Marquis]

their gunnery - the doctrine of which was appalling anyway - was dire

Gunlocks and constant gun drills. And tea. Possibly.

 

[alexmilman]

Highly unlikely - the strength of the RN was such that even if Nelson's fleet had been annihilated, it wouldn't have given Napoleon the command of the seas needed to conduct an effective blockade (or resume his invasion preparations in a year or two with any chance of success). What it might have done was deny the RN the total control of the seas it enjoyed for the rest of the war, and thereby limit the UK's ability to conduct amphibious operations and its blockade of French-occupied/controlled Europe.

There were amphibious operations during the 2nd Coalition War and even earlier (Nappy started his career by being instrumental in defeating one of them) so annihilation of the French fleet was not a prerequisite. BTW (just a curiosity) how many of those post-Trafalgar amphibious operations, except for landing in Portugal, were successful?

As for the blockade, IIRC, the main British goal before and after Trafalgar was to break the blockade of their trade established by Nappy: they were selling the goods to continental Europe and buying the raw materials.

 

[Emperor Casey]

Would a decisive British defeat have meant lack of support from other nations who would have seen Britain humbled even if it wasn't a win all victory?

 

[RodentRevolution]

The French ships were better, but their officers were inferior, their sailors more so, and their gunnery - the doctrine of which was appalling anyway - was dire

There remained important differences, however between British and French warships. British ships continued to somewhat smaller in tonnage and shorter, but more heavily timbered and fastened. Their rig and lines performed best in going to windward, and in heavy weather. They were built to stand the strain of prolonged sea-time at all seasons, they were stored for long cruises and they were built to fight. They were also built to last; relatively cheap to construct and maintain, they were the rational choice of a navy which meant to surpass its enemies both in numbers and in stamina....French ships of all classes were lightly built of inferior timber, fastened with nails instead of trenails, but their very long hulls were highly stressed in a seaway. In fine weather these 'battle-cruisers' with their long hulls were fast off the wind, but their performance fell off rapidly when close hauled, or when wind and sea rose. What was worse French designers seem to have had something of an obsession with reducing the depth and weight of the hull, which made their ships light and buoyant, directly weakened resistance to hogging, sagging and racking strains....In close action French ships with their light scantlings were a death trap.

N.A.M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean, page 414

Spanish ships were quite good mind. There were issues with French and Spanish doctrines not matching the realities of the age which did not help but the idea British ships were somehow inferior is historical fiction that originated for the deception of prize courts. Might be worth noting that Victory was a shade over 40 years old at Trafalgar.

 

[Wolttaire]

so even if they won the battle everyhting stays roughfly the same?

 

[Alternator]

The best-case scenario for the Franco-Spanish fleet was escaping in good order, and in the process learning that their gunnery was terrible - perhaps a few British captains are a bit too bold during the chase and get caught out, but the ships survive due to said gunnery issues.

Really, all this accomplishes is a fleet-in-being, but if the Royal Navy is overconfident and the Franco-Spanish learn from their mistakes, the British may come off poorly in Round Two.

 

[RodentRevolution]

so even if they won the battle everyhting stays roughfly the same?

I am thinking actually that the biggest impact was the damage to the Spanish fleet. Even a loss that preserved a significantly greater number of Spanish ships means she retains more of her status as a great power and Napoleon is likely a little more careful to treat her as something of an equal.

 

[funnyhat]

Would a decisive British defeat have meant lack of support from other nations who would have seen Britain humbled even if it wasn't a win all victory?

Possibly but that is very difficult to achieve. Napoléon did not want the fleet to confront the British at all and gave them orders to return to the Mediterranean but these got mixed up and Villeneuve ended up facing Nelson’s fleet in the Atlantic. In those circumstances his very inexperienced sailors are unlikely to prevail, much less decisively.

 

[Socrates]

The importancd of Trafalgar isn't based so much on the impact on the Napoleonic Wars result (as important as it was), but the fact that it destroyed so much of the Spanish and French fleets. That hamstrung both the Spanish and French empires for decades to come and set the state for Britains 19th Century dominance.

 

[alexmilman]

Would a decisive British defeat have meant lack of support from other nations who would have seen Britain humbled even if it wasn't a win all victory?

Comparing to the Russian and Austrian humiliation at Austerlitz, this was a small potato and as long as Britain remains “manufacturer of the world” and is ready to finance the future coalitions, it is business as usual.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Highly unlikely - the strength of the RN was such that even if Nelson's fleet had been annihilated, it wouldn't have given Napoleon the command of the seas needed to conduct an effective blockade (or resume his invasion preparations in a year or two with any chance of success). What it might have done was deny the RN the total control of the seas it enjoyed for the rest of the war, and thereby limit the UK's ability to conduct amphibious operations and its blockade of French-occupied/controlled Europe.

Even this is unlikely. Some numbers -

Trafalgar:
British - 33 ships (27 Ships of the Line)
Franco-Spanish - 41 ships (33 SoL)

An F-S victory isn't ASB territory - they did have a numerical advantage - but even assuming they wipe out Nelson's fleet without taking significant damage themselves (which is ASB) they still run into the fact that the RN had another 50 SoL and 355 smaller vessels in home waters that never went anywhere near Trafalgar (and those are just the active service numbers - there were another 96 SoL in reserve). Any attempt at contesting the English Channel - never mind attempting to blockade the UK - results in them getting crushed by superior numbers. the simple fact is that at this time the RN is simply too big and too professional for any purely naval PoD to make much difference.

There were amphibious operations during the 2nd Coalition War and even earlier (Nappy started his career by being instrumental in defeating one of them) so annihilation of the French fleet was not a prerequisite. BTW (just a curiosity) how many of those post-Trafalgar amphibious operations, except for landing in Portugal, were successful?

There were a bunch of them in the West Indies. Walcheren was indeed an epic fiasco, but there were more successful (albeit smaller) European operations in the Adriatic theatre.

As for the blockade, IIRC, the main British goal before and after Trafalgar was to break the blockade of their trade established by Nappy: they were selling the goods to continental Europe and buying the raw materials.

It helped that the blockade could be decidedly leaky when it suited Napoleon. The Grande Armee largely marched to Moscow on British-made boots, for example.

 

[funnyhat]

The importancd of Trafalgar isn't based so much on the impact on the Napoleonic Wars result (as important as it was), but the fact that it destroyed so much of the Spanish and French fleets. That hamstrung both the Spanish and French empires for decades to come and set the state for Britains 19th Century dominance.

France and Spain each lost 11 ships, a lot for a single battle but not an irreplaceable number. France still had a fleet at Brest and smaller ones in the Mediterranean and overseas (at Mauritius they even defeated the British in 1810).

The bigger problem France faced was a decline in the quality of sailors over the course of the conflict. Being blockaded at home (Brest) meant a lot of sailors did not gain the experience they needed.

 

[RodentRevolution]

France and Spain each lost 11 ships, a lot for a single battle but not an irreplaceable number. France still had a fleet at Brest and smaller ones in the Mediterranean and overseas (at Mauritius they even defeated the British in 1810).

The bigger problem France faced was a decline in the quality of sailors over the course of the conflict. Being blockaded at home (Brest) meant a lot of sailors did not gain the experience they needed.

As I understand it, France easily made up its losses in ships, there were a good many actions after Trafalgar. Spain I am less sure about. However as Funnyhat says the French continued to lose sailors, mostly not on warships as it happens but aboard privateers.

 

[Emperor Casey]

If the French and Spanish won the battle or avoided in entirely could they have used that fleet to start taking out British positions in the Mediterranean? Or renew campaigns in North Africa and other places?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Spanish ships were quite good mind.

"They are the finest ships in the world, but the Spaniards, thank God, cannot build men." -- Horatio Nelson

 

[alexmilman]

It helped that the blockade could be decidedly leaky when it suited Napoleon. The Grande Armee largely marched to Moscow on British-made boots, for example.

Indeed. But it was leaky even when it did not suit Nappy both before and after Trafalgar because everybody needed that trade. Anyway, on the French side the “blockade” was done mostly on the land and, AFAIK, the British freedom of sailing had been challenged only in the Baltic Sea and it was done by the Neutrality League (Denmark, Russia, Sweden) and ended well before Trafalgar.

The Dutch-German model for bypassing Nappy’s restrictions was to arrange for the privateering licenses and to make exchange of the goods in a sea after which in the French-controlled ports the merchandise was declared as captured and, after paying the custom dues, could be openly sold. Margot in his memoirs “credited” Bernadotte (who was governor of Hanseatic cities) with the invention of that system but I suspect that he was just blessing it (and benefitting from it). IIRC, Russia and Sweden tended to use the neutral ships.

 

[RodentRevolution]

If the French and Spanish won the battle or avoided in entirely could they have used that fleet to start taking out British positions in the Mediterranean? Or renew campaigns in North Africa and other places?

Probably not, they only dared put to see when Nelson sent some of his ships off for maintenance, once those return he has equal numbers. Even a battle that somehow went for the allies would have left a lot of ships in urgent need of repair and the British had spare ships.