Anti French war aims in the 1790s were mainly about

Anti French war aims in 1790s were mainly

  • Restoring the absolute monarchy

    Votes: 25 49.0%
  • gaining territory while France was in disorder

    Votes: 5 9.8%
  • Both

    Votes: 17 33.3%
  • Neither

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • Total voters
    51

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
1. restoring the absolute monarchy

2. Gaining territorial concessions for coalition members

3. Both

4. Neither
 
The British may have been partly motivated by the possibility of gaining new colonies, or not. But given how the continental powers didn't claim an inch of France's pre-revolutionary territory even after it's unconditional surrender after decades of war, I'm doubtful territorial gain was on their agenda.
 
Last edited:
The British may have been partly motivated by the possibility of gaining new colonies, or not. But given how the continental powers didn't claim an inch of France's pre-revolutionary territory even after it's unconditional surrender after decades of war, I'm doubtful territorial gain was on their agenda.

Maybe after 20-years, but according to Nagel's biography on Madame Royal, after her release from the Temple, both Spain and Austria wanted her to wife. Spain for the future Fernando VII in the hopes of gaining back parts of Navarre and the HRE for the duke of Teschen with the intention of claiming the duchy of Lorraine from France. So, I think they both intended to be opportunistic in that regard - possibly why Louis XVIII wanted her to marry his nephew...
 
Maybe after 20-years, but according to Nagel's biography on Madame Royal, after her release from the Temple, both Spain and Austria wanted her to wife. Spain for the future Fernando VII in the hopes of gaining back parts of Navarre and the HRE for the duke of Teschen with the intention of claiming the duchy of Lorraine from France. So, I think they both intended to be opportunistic in that regard - possibly why Louis XVIII wanted her to marry his nephew...
Hmm. It puzzles me that they became less ambitious, you'd think they'd be more vengeful and desirous of compensation as the years dragged on and the humiliations built up. Guess not.
 

longsword14

Banned
Hmm. It puzzles me that they became less ambitious, you'd think they'd be more vengeful and desirous of compensation as the years dragged on and the humiliations built up. Guess not.
Span was in no fit state to ask for anything post settlement. Plus no one actually seemed to want a weakened France any more, plus Louis XVIII would also need some legitimacy. France had lost all of its problematic possessions in Italy and its client states too. Pushing harder seemed counter productive after such a long war.
 
I picked gain territory, but it wasn't about seizing land from France, it was about a motivation of creating a better geopolitical situation for the victors. Look at Prussia, Sardinia, Sweden, Russia, even Austria, each gained territory and consolidated their positions. Even look at the number of states in Italy and Germany ante war and post war. And of course the motivation of a balance of power. No way the goal of Great Britain was to restore an absolute monarchy... why would they care? Yes, over 100 years before they had a regicide and a failed republic, but that's no motivation for a limited monarchy and a parliament that knows King George to be increasingly unstable, to care about a republic being in France. It was all about a balance of power. So, yes, it was about gaining territory, just it isn't from France as people are reading into the meaning of the answer.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, over 100 years before they had a regicide and a failed republic, but that's no motivation for a limited monarchy and a parliament that knows King George to be increasingly unstable,to care about a republic being in France. It was all about a balance of power.

I like your suggestion as for the objectives the powers ultimately settled for to end the Napoleonic War, but I'm a little skeptical if that applies to the war of the First Coalition.

As for balance of power, I don't see what was so extra powerful about a France undergoing revolution at the time and wrecking its own navy in the process. The Prussians and Austrians pretty quickly brought the war into France in the first war. The Republic of France declared war on Britain rather than vice versa in 1793, but I think was after Britain had been supporting anti-Convention elements. I think Britain started doing that before the Regicide too.

And I think Edmund Burke issued a condemnation of the Revolution even before the Regicide, saying the French weren't ready for institutions like Britain.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
fhaessig - After winning at Valmy and executing the King, the French Republic was getting kind of excited and it was the one to formally declare war first on Britain, Holland, Sardinia and Spain in 1793 (maybe Russia too)? Was I correct in earlier stating that the British were intervening against the Republic before the formal declaration of war however?

Another twist that is what if somehow Prussia switched from the Austrian to the French side very early. Many leaders in the convention thought that was ap possibility.
.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The British at least appear to have been motivated primarily by concern over France (which had looked for a moment like becoming a nice democratic-constitutional-monarchist neighbour) going disruptive and "rogue".

(based on The War Of Wars, Harvey)
 
Top