If X country was not involved...

If a country was not involved in the Napoleonic Wars, would it have gone differently?

Of course if France wasn't involved, then they would not have happened.

But if Britain just decided it could go, "Hey guys! You are fighting Napoleon! We'll be cheering you on from beyond the Channel! Go Coalition!" Could the Coalition have beaten Napoleon?

definitly not. Without British money, Coalition would not survive.

and also Britain was the only of the major Coalition countries to Fight France Through out the napoleonic war.
Prussia Russia and austria where all Allied (at peace) with the french during different times of the war (as far as i know anyway)

So yeah, Britain was important obviously, but what if Austria wasn't ever involved? AS far as I know, in each Coalition War that the Coalition lost, the Austrians were subjugated and at one point, Napoleon put up his brother as their king. So Austria may not have been too important to lose for the Coalition.

Had Russia not been involved, the Coalition would have definitely lost.

Originally Posted by Vladimir Fred-nin

Had Russia not been involved, the Coalition would have definitely lost.

I don´t think so. The British were the most important. Their power shouldn´t be underestimed. If russia never participated, the French and British obviously had a much longer war with more bloodshed, but eventually the coalition of Britain and Prussia would prevail, I believe that.

Also without the British blockade and the ability of the British navy to project British military power around the globe, Napoleon would have been free to expand his trade and colonization of India, the West Indies, the America's and Africa. Which would have meant he could annex the colonies of those countries like the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Denmark expanding the economic power of France unhindered and using that wealth to overwhelm the rest of the European continent.

Instead of course Britain annexed most of these colonies and used the revenue to finance his downfall.

Originally Posted by The Third-

But if Britain just decided it could go, "Hey guys! You are fighting Napoleon! We'll be cheering you on from beyond the Channel! Go Coalition!"

That's precisely what they have done

Apart from the financial contribution to the coalitions, a few "hello we exist" at the end of the napoleonic wars, and a few acts of "we're saving our own butt from invasion here", they did .... nothing.

The real men, the real contributors for the coalition, in term of blood and tears, are the Prussians, the Russians and the Austrians. And with a skillfull game of peace treaties and wars, alliances and playing the game of the "our territories are too big for you" they finally managed to win against France. It took more than 20 years though. And these men knew what it is to fight an ennemy on their own ground, and what it is to be conquered.
But from the first battle till the last one, it was them. And almost exclusively them.
The role of the UK during 99% of the conflict was economical. And what a contribution!
But militarily wise, well... as we say on the internet these days "lol".

I prefer seeing the brits are a political and diplomatic annoyance (a role they still have in modern Europe).
The whole under the flag of perfidy and dishonnor. Note that I didnt say "lack of honor". No honor at all. But it could be more the motor of their behaviour more than a consequence. Could also be explained by insularity. But it's OT anyway.

To summarize: the military keys were Prussia, Russia, and Austria. The whole thing fueled and perfidiously manipulated by the UK.

Originally Posted by Drakon

That's precisely what they have done

Apart from the financial contribution to the coalitions, a few "hello we exist" at the end of the napoleonic wars, and a few acts of "we're saving our own butt from invasion here", they did .... nothing.

The real men, the real contributors for the coalition, in term of blood and tears, are the Prussians, the Russians and the Austrians. And with a skillfull game of peace treaties and wars, alliances and playing the game of the "our territories are too big for you" they finally managed to win against France. It took more than 20 years though. And these men knew what it is to fight an ennemy on their own ground, and what it is to be conquered.
But from the first battle till the last one, it was them. And almost exclusively them.
The role of the UK during 99% of the conflict was economical. And what a contribution!
But militarily wise, well... as we say on the internet these days "lol".

I prefer seeing the brits are a political and diplomatic annoyance (a role they still have in modern Europe).
The whole under the flag of perfidy and dishonnor. Note that I didnt say "lack of honor". No honor at all. But it could be more the motor of their behaviour more than a consequence. Could also be explained by insularity. But it's OT anyway.

To summarize: the military keys were Prussia, Russia, and Austria. The whole thing fueled and perfidiously manipulated by the UK.

Urm, Britain supplied the equivalent of £50 billion pounds in today's money to the Coatlition, was the only nation to be constantly at war with France from 1793 to 1815 ( Apart from the short peace of Amiens), and tied up, with much help from Spanish guerrillas, 300,000 French troops.

I'd also like to point out that Prussia was at peace with France until their untimely declaration of war in 1806, and also that Russia was at became Allies with the French in 1807 until 1812. Prussia was also effectively reduced to a third-rate power until 1813, and like Austria, supplied troops to Napoleon's invasion of Russia

So before you make offensive comments about us British and our reputation, research what you're going to say. Imbecile.

Originally Posted by The Rt Hon. Daniel Ryan

Urm, Britain supplied the equivalent of £50 billion pounds in today's money to the Coatlition

Sure, sure. A banker, that's what I said.

Originally Posted by The Rt Hon. Daniel Ryan

constantly at war with France from 1793 to 1815

Being at war and hiding on an island "like a frightened child" (Napoleon's saying at Boulogne in 1805), doesnt equal to have the bollocks to get involved in the battles.

Originally Posted by The Rt Hon. Daniel Ryan

with much help from Spanish guerrillas

Nice to see you recognize it. "With much help from x" could be the perfid albions motto for the whole period

Originally Posted by The Rt Hon. Daniel Ryan

So before you make offensive comments about us British

Saying that the perfid albion did almost nothing during the napoleonic wars can be shocking, but it's the truth.
The sad truth.
Even the battle you brits so proud of, Waterloo, was fought with only 18% of brits involved.
"England fought against Napoleon to the last drop of Prussian, Russian and Austrian blood."
A common saying, and not in France nor from the french...

Originally Posted by The Rt Hon. Daniel Ryan

Imbecile

Nice to meet you, brit. I'm Drakon.

Originally Posted by Border Patrol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties

British army casualties, 1804-15:
killed in action: 25,569
disease: 193,851
total: 219,420
If it wasnt a serious matter, I'd laugh out loud. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Border Patrol

Please do a LITTLE research before you make stupid comments, Britain took more casualties than Russia in the Napoleonic wars. And the point of the coalitions was to keep Europe from being overrun by the prequel to Hitler, not to kill your little "republic". Your nationalism is quite astounding. France was the victim during the Napoleonic Wars? Please.

So the perfid albion is the country who fought the least and had the more casualties? Nice...
You give special medals for that kind of glorious "achievements" on your island. Must be a british thing. But dont worry you have your brainwashing propaganda to make it look good. And after a few generations of telling lies, you'll almost believe it yourself.
A master plan.

Besides, not your fault if the happy-happy-joy-joy peninsular war was in fact quite poorly planned and executed. Lets' face it, in term of strategy, tactic or whatever, it's a semi-catastrophic campaign, which "achievements" were reversed when Napoleon came finally.
Wellingthing was too defensive, and managed to kick the Grande Armée only in three cases:
- when Napoleon wasnt there
- when he had enough help from other countries (see above)
- when it wasnt the Grande Armée but colonial troops under the command on Napoléons brother (who wasnt even a general)
Maybe britains could have *bought* a better general?! Ah what? It was you best one?
That sucks.

So a poor achievements which doesnt look impressive anymore when you check the real fact, the ones hidden behind propaganda.
It can be all that, or simply bad soldiers maybe?

Allez, Dieu et mon droit and all that.

Drakon: war is not just about men, guns, horses... If you dont have money, you will fail... Britain payed tons of money to Coalition which allowed them to field huge armies that defeated Napoleon in the end... Whole Prussina army was destroyed at Jenna and Auerstadt, their military had to be rebuilt from scratch. Russians didnt had enough muskets for their soldiers, and they didnt had money to train them.. without Britain, they would not survive Napoleon's invasion into Russia... and same with Austria. If Britain didnt sent those money to Prussia, Austria and Russia, Napoleon would had much easier job and whole Europe would be his in 1812.

Originally Posted by JaM

Drakon: war is not just about men, guns, horses... If you dont have money, you will fail... Britain payed tons of money to Coalition which allowed them to field huge armies that defeated Napoleon in the end... Whole Prussina army was destroyed at Jenna and Auerstadt, their military had to be rebuilt from scratch. Russians didnt had enough muskets for their soldiers, and they didnt had money to train them.. without Britain, they would not survive Napoleon's invasion into Russia... and same with Austria. If Britain didnt sent those money to Prussia, Austria and Russia, Napoleon would had much easier job and whole Europe would be his in 1812.

We do agree! Fully!

I tend to think in term of "glory" when I hear "war achievements". After all it's what you see from where we are now, in 2011. And I find it impossible to connect the money contribution and the incredible aura of glory Britain seemed to have stolen from Prussia for instance. France fought against a banker hidden on his island, not against a warrior. But still that banker pretends being a warrior, and it is precisely that vision I reject, like most people who have spent at least a few hours reading things about the napoleonic wars.

Also considering that the whole point of these coalitions against France were since the beginning destroying the ideas of the Revolution. If they had succeeded to to it during the revolutionary wars, or too early in the consulate or the Empire, the "restauration" would have had a chance -a good one- to pass and kings in France would have been there for good, once more. But thanks to Napoleon, it took so long for the coalitions to crush him, that there were no return. Sure a king was restaured in France in 1814-1815. But it was for a quite short time, and he had to adapt, and the new-old-kingdom couldnt do a thing to prevent the events of the XIXth century in France, including the republics and the second empire.
Clearly there were a before Napoléon, and an after Napoléon.
I like to think that seen from where we are now, the coalitions failed.

Originally Posted by Drakon

We do agree! Fully!

I tend to think in term of "glory" when I hear "war achievements". After all it's what you see from where we are now, in 2011. And I find it impossible to connect the money contribution and the incredible aura of glory Britain seemed to have stolen from Prussia for instance. France fought against a banker hidden on his island, not against a warrior. But still that banker pretends being a warrior, and it is precisely that vision I reject, like most people who have spent at least a few hours reading things about the napoleonic wars.

Also considering that the whole point of these coalitions against France were since the beginning destroying the ideas of the Revolution. If they had succeeded to to it during the revolutionary wars, or too early in the consulate or the Empire, the "restauration" would have had a chance -a good one- to pass and kings in France would have been there for good, once more. But thanks to Napoleon, it took so long for the coalitions to crush him, that there were no return. Sure a king was restaured in France in 1814-1815. But it was for a quite short time, and he had to adapt, and the new-old-kingdom couldnt do a thing to prevent the events of the XIXth century in France, including the republics and the second empire.
Clearly there were a before Napoléon, and an after Napoléon.
I like to think that seen from where we are now, the coalitions failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties
Please do a LITTLE research before you make stupid comments, Britain took more casualties than Russia in the Napoleonic wars. And the point of the coalitions was to keep Europe from being overrun by the prequel to Hitler, not to kill your little "republic". Your nationalism is quite astounding. France was the victim during the Napoleonic Wars? Please.

The sinews of war are infinite money.

a question is on my mind from a long time: WHY did Britain join the revolutionary wars?(and consequently the napoleonic ofc)
I mean, they hadn't much to fear, they were a constitutional monarchy, a half republic and military invasion was impossible, what did the revolutionist do to them?

Originally Posted by Lama43

a question is on my mind from a long time: WHY did Britain join the revolutionary wars?(and consequently the napoleonic ofc) I mean, they hadn't much to fear, they were a constitutional monarchy, a half republic and military invasion was impossible, what did the revolutionist do to them?

I was watching a programme on this quite recently, and you're quite right.

Initially, at least Britain saw the French Revolution as a positive thing. It distracted the French from their colonial expansion and left them pretty much unopposed at sea, especially when they dismissed most of their naval officers. Most of Britains interest in the French Revolution was aimed at snatching a few more colonies off them before they got organised.

The real concerns arose when the terror began, because France then went from being a serious threat to an unpredictable threat. Also whether one likes it or not in this period peasants revolting was one thing, but peasant chopping off the heads of their betters was quite another. What Britain wanted was a stable but weaker France, not a headless France fueled by a hatred of social order.

For this reason there was actual relief in Britain when Napoleon rose to power and reigned in the terror, and there was even a substantial degree of popular support for France, who it was believed had traversed the period of anarchy and chaos and was now emerging into a new liberal nation state which could be reasoned with, but would take a long time to become any real competition.

It was only when it became clear that this new France was more powerful that its Bourbon predecessor and was intent on upsetting the balance of power in Europe that the British government began acting to crush any internal support for Napoleon and to rally a coalition to counter its ambitions.

The main purpose of the British government was not really to protect Britain from invasion, although that was a real threat at prior to Trafalgar, but more importantly to maintain the balance of power between the main european nations, in order to prevent any one of them becoming dominant.

In fact, after the treaty of Amiens in 1814 Britains attention immediately focussed on the threat posed by Prussia, which had gained considerable territory and a very efficient army since 1807, and was now itself a threat to balance of power in Europe. Wellington was even preparing for a possible war with Prussia if they attempted to annex anymore territory, and Prussian troops were forbidden to cross the border into the Netherlands until after the start of the Waterloo Campaign, for fear that they may be reluctant to leave again.

I say if any of the Coalition majors except Prussia had stayed neutral, France would have won.

Okay guys, sorry to ask again but what if Austria didn't join the Coalition? As far as I know, they didn't fare well for most of the Wars, wasn't Vienna taken three or four times? With the last time Napoleon establishing his brother as King? Seems like they couldn't hold up very well against Napoleon.

Well for that matter both Austria and Prussia were under the French yoke for part of the war, which suggests that even when their resources were being utilised by Napoleon their involvement was not the crucial factor in deciding victory either way.

1. I'm not British
2. Napoleon "turning around" the Peninsular War was him bringing another HUNDRED THOUSAND veterans from the east along with him. One. Hundred. Thousand. And with them he massacred villages and did general Hitler-esque things. Please, you're worshiping little more than a maniacal sociopath.
3. Napoleon's troops that were left in the Peninsula after he left were tied down by less than eighty thousand Spanish guerillas. The famed French legions were tied down by an outnumbered, starving, and untrained force of illiterates.
4. Let's also not be forgetting that it was Napoleon who ordered the attack on Spain because... why exactly? Oh, right, because he was a wit.