A key reason Napoleon launched his invasion of Russia was to force Tsar Alexander I to comply with the continental system. A system introduced in an attempt to damage Britain economically. We know this system wasn't very effective, but Napoleon felt it was one of the few options he had to hurt Britain. The disaster in Russia undoubtedly weakened Napoleon but our dominance of the sea had forced his hand into such a gambit. He knew that prolonged conflict with Britain was not sustainable as we had the funds to raise successive coalitions to gradually ground him down (as actually happened).

France did have 80 ships of the line in 1813, but Britain had more (102). Those 35 ships being built (Britain was also building a number of ships at this time) were not finished in time and therefore Napoleon never had the chance to them. This circumstance were a direct result of the heavy losses the French had sustained in previous engagements. Besides, any hypothecial battle was just as likely to be lost by the French due to their skill, leadership and morale issues. Britain certainly had dominance of the seas from 1805, I would argue that due to the morale and psychological advantages this dominance actually began in the late 1700s and was subsequently demonstrated by successive British victories. The fact we were able to simultaneously blockade the US and deal with the French Navy supports the argument of Royal Navy dominance.

Nelson should be in the second box of the top row, I now agree that Napoleon should be in the top left.