alone during this period averaged 100 a day” which resulted in “the overwhelming majority of losses which drained the French strength, and their moral still more…” This argument has much validity to it as both Colonel Marbot and the historian Gates provide an identical figure which could suggest that the figure is a valid estimate. Despite this the losses do help to illustrate the loss of morale amongst French soldiers in the peninsula which in turn played a major role in French losses in Spain and therefore Napoleon’s ultimate downfall in 1815. Contradictory to this, other socio-economic factors played far greater roles in the downfall of Napoleon for example his ‘continental blockade.’ This came after the defeat of the Franco-Spanish fleet by Nelson at Trafalgar in October 1805, Anglo Naval supremacy had been solidified and in turn any hope Napoleon once had for a French invasion was decimated. The trade embargo on all British goods had negative economic consequences for all of Europe, including France, which saw states like Portugal, Russia and the Netherlands refuse the boycott. According to Smith “The trade war with Britain was one which was outside of Napoleon’s control and one which he was doomed to lose.” This argument has much validity to it as without naval supremacy it would be impossible for Napoleon to prevent the British trading with the whole of mainland Europe moreover, Britain acted as a major trading partner with many European nations and so the trade embargo’s detrimental impact was not only foreseeable but, inevitable. This negative economic impact was illustrated by Tsar Alexander when he was forced to resume trading with Britain as “adherence to the Continental system has brought the economy of Russia to the brink of collapse” acco>