His most important annexation was Franche-Comte, which was never reversed. He was also far more successful than Napoleon in getting the Spaniards to accept a member of his family as king. He initially had to share the Spanish Empire with Austria, but he left France strong enough to recover many of those concessions in the next reign. Not too bad really.
Napoleon-Why the hate?
- Thread starter Krakenov
- Start date
His most important annexation was Franche-Comte, which was never reversed. He was also far more successful than Napoleon in getting the Spaniards to accept a member of his family as king. He initially had to share the Spanish Empire with Austria, but he left France strong enough to recover many of those concessions in the next reign. Not too bad really.
The only reason I can think of that makes any sort of sense is that it was a classic case of "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it." Especially after Trafalgar, Napoleon simply couldn't think of any other way of striking at Britain. The possibility of invasion had gone, and Britain had no allies or footholds left on the continent, so economic warfare was all that was left.
And, as is often the case with tyrants, when it became clear it wasn't working he responded by doubling down rather than admit he was wrong. Hence you got nonsense like the North Sea coast as far as Lubeck being annexed to France (because German customs inspectors were ignoring the smuggling) and his own brother being deposed as king of Holland for likewise turning a blind eye (poor Louis - he thought he was an actual king of Holland, with a duty to put Holland's interests first, and not merely his brother's puppet). The end result of this style of thinking of course was the march on Moscow.
I suppose.
Seems like a case of autocratic ego getting in the way of good judgment, though. "Nevermind whether or not it is in my best interests, I want to do it."
Appropriate. But from the standpoint of someone who finds incompetence even in the other side annoying, maddeningly stupid.
If Napoleon had kept it as a matter of France , it might have made sense, or even been enforceable - to the extent "turning commerce over to smugglers" isn't counted against it, of course. But when it starts meaning all of Europe must be made to fight for his wars and his reasons, and essentially what your saying is doing so as much as conscripting young men into the army or any other act of intrusion...
Character is destiny. And Napoleon was an autocrat.
The Continental System was never aimed at Great Britain. Napoleon's decision to permit trade between France and the UK shortly before the invasion of Russia made that clear enough. Instead, it seems to me that it was in fact aimed at Europe: it was merely another step in Napoleon's attempts to take control of every facet of Continental life and manipulate the economies of other states at his personal whim. It formed a convenient excuse for military intervention, as well - one that worked so well that anybody who despises the "nation of shopkeepers" in the modern day (except, apparently, me) will side with Napoleon over this and state that his meddling in Spain and his invasions of Russia and Portugal were totally justified because of it.
If that's not despotism, I don't know what is.
Aiming it at Britain is merely the act of a ruler no one dares criticize, this is an act of a ruler with a nearly Hitleresque insatiability.
And this despite the fact that these invasions were entirely to Britain's benefit. If French strategy had been designed by a British mole, he couldn't have improved on what Napoleon actually did.
It's funny really. Brits - or indeed anyone who regards the Second British Empire as a Good Thing - should also approve of Napoleon, since he did more than anyone to get the SBE off to a flying start. OTOH, those who are anti-British and regret the expansion of British power should really hate Napoleon for having set the stage for the Pax Britannica. In practice, though, it usually seems to be the other way round. There doesn't seem to be a lot of logic on this subject.
Last edited:
Speaking as a mild Anglophile and mild Francophobe (though not fond of the SBE the more I read about India), the Second British Empire probably would have happened as it did anyway, but what Napoleon did really prevented France (the only power able to do so) from interfering.
I don't know if it was the best of all possible worlds for Britain, but it was an amazingly useful war - the Balance of Power maintained for two generations without effort being another convenient side effect.
Napoleon's foreign policy is frequently compared to Hitler's by diplomatic historians. Their European empires were basically congruent, both in extent and in the way they operated. "Allies" were expected to subordinate themselves to [Nazi/Bonapartist] policy; a hint of opposition would draw a violent response. And neither man operated within the confines of generally-accepted diplomatic norms. Treaties were made to be broken. Hell, in a memorable article in the early nineties, Paul Schroeder even stated that Napoleon's foreign policy was essentially a "criminal enterprise".
Obviously it does not go any further than that - drawing parallels between anything Napoleon did and, say, the Holocaust would be farcical. But still.
Snake Featherston
Banned
He thought it was a good idea because he thought in theory he controlled those countries better than he actually did. At the very least he should have realized Russia would meaningfully enforce it only if he won an overwhelming victory over it on the battlefield.
Schroeder wasn't being all that original.
Iirc the Duke of Wellington often referred to Napoleon as "Jonathan", a reference to the arch-crook Jonathan Wild, who was a sort of "godfather" figure in 18th Century London.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Not to mention Non-Aggression Pacts with Russia that partitioned Poland, saw short-lived alliances and culminated in 22 June invasions of Russia that saw everything go to Hell after winning a Battle of Smolensk in late August.
True, but it's the reference I know best.
Har.Not to mention Non-Aggression Pacts with Russia that partitioned Poland, saw short-lived alliances and culminated in 22 June invasions of Russia that saw everything go to Hell after winning a Battle of Smolensk in late August.