AHC/WI: the continental system survives

[miletus12]

Apr 13, 2023 14:37:51 GMT lordroel said:

the OP asked, without given his own view on what he ask: Could Napoleon's continental system survive if he did not start the Peninsular War and the invasion of Russia?,

The short answer is; "No".

The long answer was that to maintain the Continental System, Napoleon had to stretch his coastline and ports west of the British Isles to allow his sailing ships to sortie and trade with the Americas, and / or to raid British trade, thus getting goods and wealth he could not generate inside Europe; Mexican silver, Caribbean cotton and spices, American copper and iron and ship stores, etc., depended on whose ships could carry the trade to where.

The other aspect is that the British were importing half their naval stores from Scandinavia and Russia, whole forests' worth. No timber and pitch equals no British navy. So Napoleon had to plug THAT hole. Plus Russia kept showing up as the manpower core of all those coalitions Britain's banking interests, based as it was on OCEANIC TRADE, financed to bring him down.

All of this is from a War of 1812 Point of View, but the Americans (Madison) knew what was at stake and how it all worked. We wanted to stay out of it, but of course, we were as dependent on oceanic trade as any other seafaring nation and when the British decided we were a problem and a hole in their blockade thay had to plug, we became involved. Once the Continental System was gone, and they felt they were the dominant trade monopoly upon the sea, then there was no more need for a War of 1812.

[stevep]

Apr 13, 2023 14:37:51 GMT lordroel said:

Okay, going to but in here, the OP asked, without given his own view on what he ask: Could Napoleon's continental system survive if he did not start the Peninsular War and the invasion of Russia?, so lets stick with this and not turn it into a What If Battle of Trafalgar ore British Naval dominance thread.

  Difficult to see how even if Napoleon had been a lot wiser as a strategic/political leader.  While miletsu12 and myself disagree on other matters we both agree on the primary points here.  Britain had a large scale monopoly on trade from outside Europe, plus an unmatched industrial base so loss of trade with Britain was too costly for too many people and interests across the continent and also the continental powers were gradually closing the quality gap with the French army - helped also by the increasing toll of Napoleon's continued wars.

  If he had avoided the attack on Spain and possibly the US attempt at imperial expansion had come earlier then something might have buckled or even broken for Britain, which could have been nasty for everybody in Europe and potentially wider afield but fortunately that didn't happen.  Or if the Russians had lost their nerve in 1812 after the fall of Moscow although even then its more likely to extend the agony before Napoleon's imperial overstretch brought his empire down.

  The big question might be if he hadn't sought to overthrown the Bourbon monarchy in Spain.  True it was grossly corrupt and incompetent but doing so not only cause the Spanish ulcer he could never resolve but also opened up much of the Spanish empire to British trade which was a big boost to the British economy and also removed potential bases for hostile shipping to attack British trade.