Search results

It's in everyone's interest but the Americans and uncolonized southeast Asian nations to keep France down and they aren't in a position to object with any weight. Denying France a merchant marine protects Sweden who are in the same strategic position as Britain apart from also having to concern...

I didn't think this was a specific timeline, just a discussion of a divergence point. I don't see Napoleon being able to hold on to any substantial conquests even if he defeats every other power's ready forces and if he defeats the nearer enemies whose forces arrived most promptly those farther...

a) This is a reason to invest in their navy and not divert their military budget or manpower to land warfare. I presume that the UK would not commit to something so trusting as naval budget cuts during Napoleon's lifetime. I don't think that historically they ever seriously cut the navy after...

The British can be certain of all those issues because they've been witnessing their impact on French naval efficiency since, as you point out, before the revolution. And those issues make new construction simply a waste of French timber, cannons, and landsmen. The French Navy can't do...

You sure about that? Ships with landsmen for crews aren't much good. France can't put proper crews on the ships it has because the merchant marine that would be its source of trained seamen hasn't been sailing due to the blockade. He could try to use eg. Dutch sailors with French gun crews...

Those statements contradict each other. If Napoleon doesn't have the ability to fight his way across the English Channel he can't possibly be an existential threat to Britain.