Was the Battle of Trafalgar strategically pointless?

i would say controling the entrance to the mediterrean sea quite strategic not to mention the fact that gb is used to losing all the battles and winning all the wars, so we strategicly celebrate the battle to adorn our queen with gains of gold silver and tin, colonisation of assets, beach holidays and the biggest chiringuito in the atlantic, then theres all the services, do i parlez vous muy bien

The famous battle of trafalgar was the one that Napoleon committed the first mistake. In quantity, The Royal navy was a bitter larger than the combined French-spanish one. However, the quality of the Spanish navy and naval officers were better than French. And it was the spanish last generation of good naval officers including a generation of basque officers (the most prominent hidtoric officers of spanish navy).

The Napoleon mistake: The Chosen Admiral. -Federico Gravina: The last great Admiral that served for Spanish navy from XVIII. Century. He was experienced in so many battles against pirates and muslims in caribe and mediterranean seas. Admired by Napoleon. -Villeneuve: French and was the understanding officer. He was not prepared and always nervous at the hour of the battle. At the end, Napoleon chose The French Villeneuve.

After the battle, france received a good hit, however, Spain lost his last great naval generation. And Furthermore, a great hit that spain will never recovered in next century. The biggest warships at the battle were: HMS Victory: 3.556 tns and 3 stories high with 104 guns (british). Santisima Trinidad: 4.902 tns and 4 stories high with 136 guns (spanish).

The battle fo Trafalgar was decisive, strategically speaking:

• Before, the French could still threaten England, when they were not maintained by the Austrians an Russians to fight in the East
• After, they could not threaten England anymore and had to rely on the Continental Blocus and impressive land victories against England's allies to win against England

Obviously, not for France. It was only Napoleon´s first important setback to his plan to invade Britain, because the Royal Navy destroyed the Spanish fleet that was neccesary for victory. France lost its "ally", incurring great naval weakness. If the combined Spanish-French fleet had been close in size to the size to the Royal Navy beforethe battle, after this battle the French navy was outnumbered. The British Royal Navy had targeted the Spanish Commercial Fleet from 1702-1776, provoking a real economic crisis for Spain (whose last contact with American possessions was in 1776). In Trafalgar, Spain lost its principal navy. So in war terms, Britain sank and defeated the naval power of France's biggest ally. The next battle would have to be on land against French armies.

This was a decisive battle that left Britain unsurpassed in naval power.

Even though Napoleon had "broken camp" at Boulogne before the battle, Trafalgar "made sure" that this camp would stay broken. because the French (and Spanish) suffered such severe losses that the invasion of Britain was impossible for some years.

This ensured that French might would be headed east to Austria, Prussia, and ultimately Russia, after 1805; that is, away from Britain. And that Britain would be more or less able to do as she liked in western Europe, e.g. the Peninsular Campaign in Spain.

No, it was important because the Spanish fleet was annihilated and a substantial chunk of French ships were captured along with numerous French soldiers. In warfare simply destroying valuable assets of the enemy, like ships, has a strategic value.

In order to be strategically pointless, it must be the case that a victory the other way would have had a negligibly different effect on subsequent historical events.

Consider the possibility that as the two British columns approach the French/Spanish line of battle a fluke shot explodes the magazine on Royal Sovereign at the head of the Lee Column (think H.M.S. Hood), and setting Bellisle and Collossus ablaze, and so fouling the Lee Column that it is delayed 45 minutes arriving into the battle. In the interlude the entire Spanish and French fleet falls on the Weather column, capturing Victory and Neptune and sinking a handful of other British frigates and ships of the line, driving off the Weather Column with essentially even casualties on both sides. The French and Spanish fleet now have the weather gauge on the English fleet's Lee Column, and it is very conceivable that the English fleet withdraws to fight another day, with a modest victory having been won by the French sailors, and Nelson captured.

I think it is very conceivable that such an upset might result in formation of a Whig government in Westminster that makes peace with Napoleon, before Austerlitz.

There is no way that result is strategically pointless, and so the historical result cannot be either. The battle only seems strategically pointless because the result seems fore-ordained, but Mother Nature and Lady Luck are fickle, and in war nothing is 100% guaranteed.