If they had been another British admiral would there have been such a likely French Naval invasion. I think not. What changes if nelson is replaced by another Admiral who would have most likely have been reasonably good?
I can see an argument the nelson was more hell bent of decisive Naval egagement and another Admiral was unlikely to get such a decisive result at trafalgar. BUt I don;t see have that can be reasonably said to lead to a French invasiuon.
But most British admirals were aggressive, most were every diligent, most pretty darn competent and the French unlikely to get organized enough against the Blockade of their Naval forces to achieve any effective coordinated Naval invasion. Teh French did not have a great navy nor very good naval officers, and a likely invasion agianst a Pretty good British interference was hardly likely to be a very good invasion. The French had poor ports and wer unlikely to get much opportunities to mount a decent invasions, with their poor command and generally good British one I donl;t see have an invasion is likely just because Trafalgar does not happen o as decisively.
Without Nelson there still would have been a blockade and generally well run. The French unlikely to make the most of small chances necessary to mount an effective invasion.
I don't believe that a French invasion would have any chance of success unless and until the U.K.'s ships of the line had been virtually wiped out---which simply wasn't going to happen (they had like 180-something of them) regardless of which British admirals were in charge of which fleets.
Again gents, don't get me wrong---the "Nelson Touch" cannot be denied and personally I believe he is the GOAT. However, there is no denying that facing bad crews lead by bad admirals is going to make victory a whole lot easier to achieve.
Can anyone nominate another candidate for GOAT? That Korean turtle-ship guy, perhaps (as someone on the above-mentioned navy forum suggested)?