AHC: Longer Peace of Amiens

This is largely influenced by work on this thread, and sort of overlaps with this one.

I've recently checked out the relevant chapter in Charles Esdaile's new book, and his take is that the peace's collapse rests solely on Nappy's shoulders, and that it was his German interventionism in particular that pushed the limits of the powers' tolerance. Overall, I was struck by a remark by the Foreign Minister Talleyrand that Napoleon "lost all caution" after the peace was made.

My thought is this: changing only Napoleon's level of caution -- meaning that his grand ambitions and such are left intact -- how long could Amiens plausibly hold out? What are the implications for the French Empire, for the world, and for the war that (may) break out when the peace does fall?
 
The main reason the treaty is doomed is BC it established a situation the British could not accept long term. Napoleon was actually in compliance with the treaty, all the British beefs were things not mentioned within the peace treaty.

Given that neither side trusts the other and Britain felt it needed to curb Napoleon's growing power makes this rather hard to pull off. But perhaps it could work is they have a second round of negotiations and reach some kind of agreement along these lines:

France concedes:
Malta to Britain

Britain concedes:
French influence in North Italy

In regards to Holland, which is the most difficult issue between the two.
Perhaps the French agree to "suggest" to the Batavian Republic they sell South Africa and some other colonies to Britain to pacify them? But even if that happened the root issue would return: the British want the French out of Holland and are not willing/able to give the French any big things in exchange. The only thing I can maybe think of and I'm not sure it would be enough to make the French bite would be British blessing to move the Franco Dutch border to the Rhine river.
 
As a side effetct, a lasting peace would mean no Louisiana Purchase, or at least a delayed one (but my guess is that Napoleon would not sell without the war). And probably a lor of butterflies in the Haitian Revolution, maybe even a French victory there (if France is not at war with Britain she can communicate with the colony and send reinforcements, and the British would not be helping Dessalines; this would be even more disruptive for Haiti than the actual revolution was, though).
This might mean the US join the Coalition if and when the war resumes? They might well feel threatened by France, especially after Napoleon declares himslef Emperor ( amove not likely to please Jefferson I guess).
 
Glad to see this getting interest :)

The main reason the treaty is doomed is BC it established a situation the British could not accept long term. Napoleon was actually in compliance with the treaty, all the British beefs were things not mentioned within the peace treaty.

Given that neither side trusts the other and Britain felt it needed to curb Napoleon's growing power makes this rather hard to pull off.

Certainly a valid point -- I think this gets to a somewhat contentious question on this board as to the inevitability of British interventionism in the face of any imbalance of power on the continent.

At any rate, I'm still curious as to how long the peace could plausibly last, both with and without these developments...

But perhaps it could work is they have a second round of negotiations and reach some kind of agreement along these lines:

France concedes:
Malta to Britain

Britain concedes:
French influence in North Italy

In regards to Holland, which is the most difficult issue between the two.
Perhaps the French agree to "suggest" to the Batavian Republic they sell South Africa and some other colonies to Britain to pacify them? But even if that happened the root issue would return: the British want the French out of Holland and are not willing/able to give the French any big things in exchange. The only thing I can maybe think of and I'm not sure it would be enough to make the French bite would be British blessing to move the Franco Dutch border to the Rhine river.

... which is also a good point.
 
As a side effetct, a lasting peace would mean no Louisiana Purchase, or at least a delayed one (but my guess is that Napoleon would not sell without the war).
No Purchase means a Franco-American War 1803~04. The Governor of Mississippi had the Troops getting ready.


I prefer a No Peace of Ameins TL. Britain keeps Corsica.
 
Also you need to get rid of some of Napoleon's pride and get him to be willing to accept things like Egypt and Malta he doesn't realistically have the power to change. Maybe Talleyrand takes more control of foreign policy and is able to talk some sense into the First Consul. As hard as that is it's possible maybe.

But you need to get the British to be happy with a situation they can influence by paying people to attack France and messing with French trade.

As for a Franco-American war... that is interesting. That might well suck the British in by itself. It also might end up being a Spanish American war since the French would not be there before the Militia troops invaded, it would be the Spanish defending. In that case I'm pretty sure the Spanish would be able to hold status quo and the Brits would likely stay out of it. Then the US will claim to have won the war by not losing anything to Spain.
 
As for a Franco-American war... that is interesting.

Indeed. The Haiti expedition showed that, in the abscence of war with Britain, the French were perfectly capable of sending very large forces to the western hemisphere. How would the governor of Mississippi's men have fared against 20,000 veterans of the Grande Armee?

That might well suck the British in by itself.

Only if the Americans were getting thoroughly spanked I would have thought - not impossible, but unlikely if the fighting is mostly confined to Louisiana. Britain might not weep too much at the Americans receiving a decisive check but would probably intervene to prevent them being forced to make major territorial concessions that re-establish the French as a major player in North America.

It also might end up being a Spanish American war since the French would not be there before the Militia troops invaded, it would be the Spanish defending. In that case I'm pretty sure the Spanish would be able to hold status quo and the Brits would likely stay out of it. Then the US will claim to have won the war by not losing anything to Spain.

:D
 
Indeed. The Haiti expedition showed that, in the abscence of war with Britain, the French were perfectly capable of sending very large forces to the western hemisphere. How would the governor of Mississippi's men have fared against 20,000 veterans of the Grande Armee?

If that many French soldiers sailed for New Orleans, there's the possibility the U.S. itself might get involved, not just one governor and his personal army.

Who would Napoleon send to command the force to defend New Orleans? If we want to war-game it, we'll need to see who's on what side and how skillful they are.
 
In that case I'm pretty sure the Spanish would be able to hold status quo and the Brits would likely stay out of it. Then the US will claim to have won the war by not losing anything to Spain.

Spain did lose part of, if not all of, Florida due to local American invasion.

Of course, New Orleans would probably be better defended.

What kind of military power did Spain have in N.O. at the time?
 
One question if somehow against all chances the peace does hold, is how does German unification play out if at all? I doubt there would be major changes to the 1803 situation in Germany. The church lands are gone but there are still many many many Princes compared to the 1815 situation.

germany1803.GIF


The Austrian Kaiser is technically the Emperor of Germany but the HRE is a shell at this time and everyone knows it. That being said Prussia lacks the strength for the foreseeable future to try to have a show down with Austria.

Im torn between thinking the HRE will drag along into the 20th century as a nominal Empire with the Austrians enforcing the Status Quo, or that Prussia will ally with the greedy Princes at some point to blow up the Empire, after which it slowly brings them into it's orbit and unifies at least Northern Germany.

Also let's not forget that no French takeover of Germany likely means slower liberalization.
 
This scenario is interesting. It does seem like a major land war in North America will spark as Napoleon sends in a large army to keep control of the Louisiana territory. As to who'd win, it depends on how the British are feeling. This is another scenario where the European power fighting the USA could probably win....if it has all of its' focus on the USA. And since the peace deal seems tenuous at best, France make face other issues with foreign powers quickly.
 
Top