"Single most important opposing country to France" Topic

A good portion of the guerrillas were bandits, British and French deserters, and petty warlords. One should be wary of romantizing them as a whole.

Britain. Wars are won by money as much as anything else. It wasn't so much that "British Gold" kept Bonaparte's enemies active, but that a combination of the RN's blockade of continental europe, and Britain's Merchant fleet assuming the rest of the world's trade whilst the European powers were blockaded, meant that Bonaparte's economy was doomed. Countries that reacted badly, in French terms, to the blockade included Spain, Portugal and Russia. These led to Bonaparte's strategic failures. In any case, Bonaparte didn't understand economics, and played into Britain's hands with the Continental System, which like, Nazi Germany's economic stranglehold on its victims, was self-defeating.

"If it had the luxury of being on an island, I'm pretty sure it never would have become Napoleon ally, either."

Surely this is a misunderstanding of transportation at the time. It was much easier to send armies by sea than by land. It was 50x more expensive to travel by land than by sea. So the fact that Britain was an island is not something that kept it isolated, the waters were super highways to invasion as England found out in 1066, 1588 and 1688.

So the fact that England was on an island made it more vulnerable to attack rather than less.

What prevented that attack from happening was Britain's fleet. And it was the fleet that ultimately brought about victory in the wars over all.

Chouan is correct. It was economic power that won the war, it was maritime power that enabled the concentration of that economic power.

Austria was the most consistent opponent in the field from 1799 onwards to 1814. In economic terms (yawn) England.

Economic issues may be a "yawn", but a war chest full of golden guineas is going to get you a heck of a lot further ahead in the end than any amount of elan on the battlefield.

"For war, you need three things 1. Money. 2. Money. 3. Money."- Raimondo Montecuccoli

This is not scientific nor indeed properly scrutinized, but probably fairer than the upcoming Afghan elections. Based on stated location countries of TMP members, (which I concede is not necessarily their nationality),

12 Brits, 8 Americans, 2 Canadians, 1 Norwegian, 1 in Japan and 2 Unknown voted for Britain. (Of the Brits, nearly half made them joint top with Austria.)

5 Americans, 1 South African, 1 Swede, 5 Brits, 1 Canadian, 3 Australians and 3 Unknown voted for Austria.

2 Australians and one Unknown voted for Russia (although she was second choice for several)

1 Australian, one Belgian and one from France with a very Spanish-sounding name voted for Spain.

1 American and one Dutchman voted for the Netherlands.

1 Canadian voted for Prussia.

One American voted for Brunswick

One from Lichtenstein voted for Wurzburg.

And 2 Americans voted for a country that doesn't actually exist. Well done, guys. Proud of you.

All in all, I think this shows a remarkable lack of national bias, or at least less than the Eurovision Song Contest.

Austria or England? The way I look at it is which one can you take out of the equation and the allies still had a chance of winning.

Take Austria out and it seems to me the French win, if you take the English out the allies win, however, it will take a little longer.
William

China.
They didn't even acknowledge that Napoleon mattered, the bleeps.
-Kle.

Britain was certainly the bank. Money wins wars.

Austria certainly fought the French more then any one else. Their tenacity bled the French.

I go with Russia and the 1812 campaign. No single event contributed more to the downfall of France and it was done without British money and without Austrian tenacity.

mmmmmm…I don't think it was done without British money. Don't quote me but I do think there was great econmoic support from britain to the Russians to combat the French. I am sure I read that somewhere. It would be strange if she didn't seeing that Britain and Russia were the last two powers able to stop the French. 1812 was disasterous for France but to say Russia was the biggest opponent of the French may be stretching it a little. She is definitely up there with Britain and Austria but I feel it was the less the Russians beating the Russians and more the weather. Would the Russians have beaten the French if there had been no winter. I am not sure…it would certainly have been a stalemate. France was beaten due to continued pressure from the main three powers and eventually from Prussia as well. No one would have beaten her alone.

"Would the Russians have beaten the French if there had been no winter"

I think that has to be the single most far-fetched what-if I have ever seen!

Corsica – certainly fubar'd France over time…

Britain….kept France on their toes in Europe and stopped them gaining territories overseas

hussarbob1746.webs.com

Depends on how you count. Russia fought in 1799, 1805, 06, 07, 1812, 13, 14, Austria in 1799, 1800, 1805, 1809, 1813, 14, but also 1792-97. Russia fought with the French in 1809 and Austria with the French in 1812…

Vendome…in what way is that comment in anyway far fetched. The Russians would probably have been crushed by the Wermacht if not for the onset of Winter. If you think the seasons had no impact on the defeat of france I think that may be a little more far fetched.

nvrsaynvr…you are quite right…it is very tight. However, I think Austria's contribution was more pivotal mainly because of her proximity to the main theatre. Russia, like Britain as able to retreat and reform with relative ease. Austria proved to be more of a thorn in the side and I think wascertainly more of an obstale until 1812.

I think the size of the Austrian contribution overall was greater in the form of manpower earlier in the War and also later too…

This is a very interesting thread…

oh whose in Japan. Looks like I'm moving back there next Feb.

Darrenwalker92,
"Austria certainly fought the French more then any one else."

I would suggest that actually it was Britain that fought France more often than anybody else. With the exception of the period of the Peace of Amiens, Britain was at war with France, without a break, from the beginning of the war with Revolutionary France, to 1814. And the Hundred Days. At no time during that period, with the exception of the Peace of Amiens, was Britain at peace with France.

Greenryth,
"I think the size of the Austrian contribution overall was greater in the form of manpower earlier in the War and also later too…"

This may be true if one only includes the manpower of the armies involved. However, if one adds the manpower of the Royal Navy, Britain's involvement in numbers engaged would at least match the Hapsburgs. One could then add Britain's overseas forces, and Fencibles, who whilst not necessarily directly engaged, were essential for Britain's security.

"Would the Russians have beaten the French if there had been no winter."

Open to question, but more than half of Bonaparte's men in that particular "Grande Armee" had died before the end of the summer of 1812! The winter merely finished off the rest.

Surely the man-power of the RN wasn't that high?

Of course I have no idea but it just seems improbable.

TW.

If you consider that the crew of one ship of the line was between about 850 for the biggest, and about 700 for the smallest, and that the RN had over 100 of these at sea at any one time, plus those being repaired etc, which would have had a much smaller crew standing by, plus its 150 or so frigates, with about 300 men onboard, and its 300 plus sloops, brigs, bomb ketches and other smaller craft, with crews varying from 125 to 5, again, not including those standing by ships in dockyards, or standing by in other capacities, then you'll see that the manpower of the Royal Navy was considerable. (This, of course, doesn't include Naval personnel employed in the dockyards themselves!)

As a point of reference, in 1793 Parliament voted funds for the Royal Navy enabling it to increase to 45,000 sailors, officers, and Marines. War had yet to be officially declared, at this point.

Greenryth – How could there not have been a winter? I'm not dismissing weather – your comment does away with an entire season! This is like saying that if 1812 had 8 months of autumn … we might as well theorize what may have happened had Napoleon allied with Romulans. failure to consider the full implications of weather and climate are a key part of Napoleon's failure, not whether or not winter happened (which is an impossible what-if). Might just be awkward phrasing on your part, but it struck me as funny.

Great Britain--Through the Spanish ulcer and the RN…Slow sttrangulation of France--Remember a huge percentage of the Grand Armee that perished in Russia was non french…

India, or Jamaica…

Just being more than usually silly. The economic argument is one which I think can't be resisted; one way of reading the period from early 1790s (many "liberals" were in favour of the early phases of the Revolution in France, so I'm avoiding the easy "1789-1815" option) until Waterloo is that the serfs of Eastern Europe and the slaves of the West Indies and the natives of India and the "downtrodden masses" of the rest of Europe were exploited by the aristos and haute bourgeoisie to bring the people of France to their knees for the next generation or so.

Another way to consider this is from a Gaming point-of-view; among the major nations, Austria was the most consistent Continental opponent, Russia next, with Prussia only there in 1806 and from 1813 as an opponent in the field. On land at least, Britain, as in other wars, was only engaged on the sidelines (however draining the Spanish Ulcer was), but on this occasion supplied the sinews.

In more modern times, America had come into her full character, and hung about for a couple of years to make money out of wars, then stepped in to reap territorial rewards as well.

Now I flee the field faster than Sir John Cope…

It's impossible to answer; without Austria providing a constant defence, the alliance would have fallen. Without Russia destroying Napoleon's army in 1812, the alliance would have fallen. Without Britain causing problems in Spain, denying the seas to France, and funding the others, the alliance would have fallen.

But, Austria wasn't in the field in 1806, neither was Prussia, at first, nor Russia. The only opponent that faced Bonaparte, indeed the French, with real consistency was Britain. Britain was at war with France, without a break apart from the armed neutrality of the Peace of Amiens, from 1792 to 1814, and was at no point allied to France, like the Hapsburgs, Prussia and Russia were. Austria certainly didn't povide a "constant defence"! They were French allies from 1809 to 1813!
It is an artificial, false, and contrived, argument that you can only involve land forces.

Yes, those are (in my view, that is) pretty reasonable and supportable responses; there's a Scots saying, "What's the most important leg of a three-legged stool", and although of course there are more elements in this discussion, I hope the relevance is obvious.

"It is an artificial, false, and contrived, argument that you can only involve land forces."

There is a certainly something to that arguement. After all War's are expensive. You need money to fight. If the Grand Armee had not marched into Russia to never return then Britain stands as the one country that contributed most to the fall of france.

However the destruction of the Grand Armee has to be the singular event that changed everything.

"There is a certainly something to that arguement. After all War's are expensive. You need money to fight. If the Grand Armee had not marched into Russia to never return then Britain stands as the one country that contributed most to the fall of france."

This argument could almost swing me.. however you have mentioned the campaign against Russia as the single most important "event", but not Russia as the single most important opposing country.. do you agree that they were because of the 1812 campaign?

Cheers,

TW.

Britain.

Heck, if they want to pay me £5,000,000 for it, I'll happily declare war on France too.

Napoleon may have been mostly wrong in calling everybody else a bunch of English hirelings, but he wasn't completely wrong. Pretty much every state in Europe would've been on the verge of bankruptcy at some point in the Napoleonic wars, but it was British gold (or, more accurately, British government bonds) that kept the Allies solvent. It was a remarkable achievement.

Mind you, I still think the British of that era were a bunch of treacherous, backstabbing, covetous imperialists, much like the French… They just had slightly better PR, a considerably better financial system, and a much better navy.

"This argument could almost swing me.. however you have mentioned the campaign against Russia as the single most important "event", but not Russia as the single most important opposing country.. do you agree that they were because of the 1812 campaign?"

Yes. Russia is the most important country because they were the country that defeated France in 1812, forged an alliance with Austria and Prussia and brought down france in 1813 and 1814 (only possible because of 1812).

But without Britain there wouldn't have been a Continental System for Russia and France to react to, and thus precipitate that campaign.

Would France have fallen to Russia and its Prussian and Austrian allies if Britain had done nothing? It certainly seems so.

Would France have fallen to Britain with Prussian and Austrian allies without Russia? Would Prussia or Austria even have gone to war in 1813 if Russia were not involved?

There has been a lot downgradeing of GB involvment in the war the last few decades.

This seems to me to be a reaction to the over representation of GB the first 100 years after the war.

The downplaying of the British struggle against France began in 1940 if not earlier but was very, very prevalent when France was our ally against the Bosche/Hun!

History gets rewritten (amongst other reasons) according to the political and social winds of the time it is written in.

Very interesting and level headed thread. Thanks all, it's been a joy to read.

Cheers
Mark

Surely without British money the armies of Austria etc would never had take the field in such large amount.

Interesting discussion chaps. Surprised to see how many on this august board don't know the difference between Great Britain and England!

I'll say Britian was Napoleon's arch enemy. The most important factor being the Royal Navy. Posters always discuss on these boards which army was better during which time frame over the Revolution and Napoleonic period. As a fighting force the Royal Navy was the most successful.

cheers
Edward