France defeated before the Louisiana Purchase

2) The attacks on France began before Napoleon. I don't see why they'd stop just because he wasn't in power.

That's true. The Treaty of Lunéville which ended the the War of the Second Coalition was almost a complete copy of the Treaty of Campo Formio which ended the War of the First Coalition. That didn't stop Austria, who was defeated in the First Coalition, from participating in the Second Coalition against France despite Napoleon not being the head of France at that point.
 
Again, it was a defensive measure. During France's war against Prussia and the rest of the fourth coalition, Spain was making preparations to attack France but couldn't because Prussia was defeated before Spain could act. France and Napoleon knew this and did not trust Spain anymore. Napoleon could then be forgiven for seizing on an opportunity to turn Spain into a French ally or, at least, a neutral in case of future French wars with the rest of Europe.

On this one I have to really disagree. Deposing the royal family and installing his own brother on the throne and occupying the country by force is nothing but a blatant effort to force Spain into the status of a puppet state. The same with all the realms he put under his siblings control.

Again, I'm not trying to moralize by saying this is beyond the pale or anything, but its a pretty blatant reason for other European nations to be afraid of him.
 
Maybe a bit subversive but I need the rationale for a map; I did have a POD that worked but it completely escaped me.

Essentially, can anyone think of a time after 1800 and before the Louisiana Purchase wherein Britain and her allies can defeat the French Republic/Empire? And a specific date would just be fabulous.

Not after 1800 and Napoleon but before 1800 is easy. France could easily have been defeated many times. During the War of the Second Coalition, France was losing to Austria before Napoleon stepped in to turn the tide. What happens after that is a lot of butterflies.

But we would see European countries continue to fight each other for slivers of land. Britain and Spain, the two main maritime powers, would then fight for global dominance which Britain would likely win because of its better financial strength and better navy.

What happens in North America is up in the air, but the US would no longer be the only significant land power on the continent. Spain would be there too. Britain might team up with the US to kick Spain out of the continent in exchange for a slice of Louisiana territory or it might team up with Spain to contain US expansionism. Who knows?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
So, let me get this straight. You're going to argue that Napoleon didn't have widespread support?

No, I'm going to argue that he rigged elections.
Remember, the whole thread of this argument was started by your contesting Napoleon being called a criminal by my source - but rigging elections is a fair definition of "criminal", especially when it's done with voter intimidation and misreporting of actual votes cast.
 
No, I'm going to argue that he rigged elections.
Remember, the whole thread of this argument was started by your contesting Napoleon being called a criminal by my source - but rigging elections is a fair definition of "criminal", especially when it's done with voter intimidation and misreporting of actual votes cast.
Get your facts straight Saph. This argument began because you asserted that removing Napoleon would have ended the wars. Whether he rigged his election or not is detable. What isn't debatable is that he had overwhelming support by France. He was their chosen leader and was so loved that after defeat they put him back on the Throne. He was so loved, that he was buried with honor (is Hitler). He was so loved, that they put his less competent nephew on the Throne largely because he was Napoleons nephew. You've called him a criminal for overthrowing an unpopular and corrupt government with popular consent.
 
On this one I have to really disagree. Deposing the royal family and installing his own brother on the throne and occupying the country by force is nothing but a blatant effort to force Spain into the status of a puppet state. The same with all the realms he put under his siblings control.

And outright annexing the Kingdom of Holland when his brother didn't toe the line enough.
 
As I previously pointed out, the battle of Marengo is an excellent POD for the thread. It was a battle where the Austrians were close to winning, potentially by a big margin. last minute heroics/tactics snatched victory from the jaws of defeat for the French, which Napoleon then took credit for. It has been widely posited that had the French lost, especially catastrophically, Nap's position as first consul was in jeopardy. It was a pivotal point. Switching the W to an L is not a big stretch. Nap becoming a footnote in history is not a big stretch.

his 'election' was a farce, and with a big loss on his hands, it is quite easy to see a path to a far different France/history. His popularity with the masses did not get him to power, nor did it keep him in power in the initial stage. He seized power in a farce and then maintained it through heavy handed police state tactics. But he was NOT firmly ensconced in power at the time of Marengo. a misstep would have had the political intriguers out in full force. He was saved by two of his subordinates and the brave soldiers. It's also possible that he could have survived a loss, that maybe he could have stemmed the tide of it being a rout. But it's easily possible that he could have been a great general whose future was behind him because he blew his shot.
 
As I previously pointed out, the battle of Marengo is an excellent POD for the thread. It was a battle where the Austrians were close to winning, potentially by a big margin. last minute heroics/tactics snatched victory from the jaws of defeat for the French, which Napoleon then took credit for. It has been widely posited that had the French lost, especially catastrophically, Nap's position as first consul was in jeopardy. It was a pivotal point. Switching the W to an L is not a big stretch. Nap becoming a footnote in history is not a big stretch.

his 'election' was a farce, and with a big loss on his hands, it is quite easy to see a path to a far different France/history. His popularity with the masses did not get him to power, nor did it keep him in power in the initial stage. He seized power in a farce and then maintained it through heavy handed police state tactics. But he was NOT firmly ensconced in power at the time of Marengo. a misstep would have had the political intriguers out in full force. He was saved by two of his subordinates and the brave soldiers. It's also possible that he could have survived a loss, that maybe he could have stemmed the tide of it being a rout. But it's easily possible that he could have been a great general whose future was behind him because he blew his shot.
Um... nope. You're objectivly wrong. Napoleon had widespread support in France and why shouldn't he. He unified much of Europe under French leadership, brought their prestige higher than it had ever been before and one incredible battle field victories again and again. The only notable anti-Bonapartists were the Bourbon supporters and the Bourbons wrre unpopular, whic is why he was put on the Throne again. Where are you getting your sources. Have you read any French historians on the period or is all of your information English?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Get your facts straight Saph. This argument began because you asserted that removing Napoleon would have ended the wars. Whether he rigged his election or not is detable. What isn't debatable is that he had overwhelming support by France. He was their chosen leader and was so loved that after defeat they put him back on the Throne. He was so loved, that he was buried with honor (is Hitler). He was so loved, that they put his less competent nephew on the Throne largely because he was Napoleons nephew. You've called him a criminal for overthrowing an unpopular and corrupt government with popular consent.

No, I've called him a criminal because he rigged an election, and when I pointed that out you challenged it.
3) He was compared to Hitler and called a criminal in your source. If I handed you a boom by a right wing French historian on Napoleon and told you to read it from cover to cover, would you take it.

The very fact you consider an election with voter intimidation, a 99.9% positive return, and with the votes counted by his brother to be "debatably" rigged is somewhat concerning.


But I've certainly not argued he wasn't popular - especially after the period when he made France bestride Europe like a colossus. That's what makes the rigged elections of 1800,1802 and 1804 so worrying - he was popular, certainly, so why did they get rigged? (Possible motives include uncertainty or ego.)

In any case. The thrust of my argument about Napoleon's removal ending the wars is:
1) Napoleon provoked the new war with Russia by unilaterally invading Baden, illegally kidnapping the Duc across national lines, and having him executed without trial.
2) We know from OTL that the powers arrayed against France were willing to allow France to retain considerable power if it stopped invading places, even into 1814 when Napoleon was clearly going down; Napoleon refused.
3) We know from OTL that even those most disposed to peace and accomodation with Napoleon nevertheless declared war on him - even when it resulted in defeat after defeat.

The combination of (1),(2) and (3) suggests that the problem was not a powerful France provoking the wars - it was Napoleon.

We could also derive this from how people OTL talked not of "France" but of "Napoleon" as being the problem. Certainly when peace was signed between Britain and France in OTL, there was no expectation that it was just "until the next war" - people instead rejoiced at the return to normalcy. And it's not as if the last two Republics formed by revolution had been particularly something people battled to take down - the Commonwealth in Britain allied itself with continental monarchies, and the Revolutionaries in America had allies all over the place (and were subsequently only drawn into the war of wars by their own positive agency.)



Now, we should finally ask ourselves - if Napoleon did end up causing the wars of OTL, what could be the reason he might do that?

The answer suggests itself when we recall that his earlier campaigns had been relatively short and small-scale, and if we remember that his coup did not in fact garner him major support from the army.
How do you make a large number of professional soldiers happy, while also solidifying public opinion at home?
Successful foreign wars. Loot, glory and plunder, as well as thrones to put les freres on.
 
As I previously pointed out, the battle of Marengo is an excellent POD for the thread. It was a battle where the Austrians were close to winning, potentially by a big margin. last minute heroics/tactics snatched victory from the jaws of defeat for the French, which Napoleon then took credit for. It has been widely posited that had the French lost, especially catastrophically, Nap's position as first consul was in jeopardy. It was a pivotal point. Switching the W to an L is not a big stretch. Nap becoming a footnote in history is not a big stretch.

If Marengo had ended as the decisive Austrian victory is was so close to being, Napoleon could easily have been just another corpse on the battlefield, which would have been something of a hindrance to him selling Louisiana to anyone.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
France essentially dictated terms at Amiens; after Marengo and Hohenlinden, Austria, Russia and Naples all sued for peace, with the Austrians signing the Treaty of Lunéville, which meant the Second Coalition was essentially dead - the British didn't have any allies worth the name at that point; the British, having been at war since 1793 (and, absent the decade 1783-1793, for most of the previous quarter century) were heartily sick of it...

The British were the ones who went to France in 1801 asking for peace, after Pitt was kicked out; if anything, 1801-1803 is the highwater mark for France and probably the last time the Republic-turned-Empire could have forged a peaceful future, for itself or Europe as a whole.


If your goal is to somehow hamstring the United States, that ship sailed in 1774-75.

Best,

Nah. 1787-89. Before then you could easily screw the US.
 
No, I've called him a criminal because he rigged an election, and when I pointed that out you challenged it.

The very fact you consider an election with voter intimidation, a 99.9% positive return, and with the votes counted by his brother to be "debatably" rigged is somewhat concerning.

But I've certainly not argued he wasn't popular - especially after the period when he made France bestride Europe like a colossus. That's what makes the rigged elections of 1800,1802 and 1804 so worrying - he was popular, certainly, so why did they get rigged? (Possible motives include uncertainty or ego.)

In any case. The thrust of my argument about Napoleon's removal ending the wars is:
1) Napoleon provoked the new war with Russia by unilaterally invading Baden, illegally kidnapping the Duc across national lines, and having him executed without trial.
2) We know from OTL that the powers arrayed against France were willing to allow France to retain considerable power if it stopped invading places, even into 1814 when Napoleon was clearly going down; Napoleon refused.
3) We know from OTL that even those most disposed to peace and accomodation with Napoleon nevertheless declared war on him - even when it resulted in defeat after defeat.

The combination of (1),(2) and (3) suggests that the problem was not a powerful France provoking the wars - it was Napoleon.

We could also derive this from how people OTL talked not of "France" but of "Napoleon" as being the problem. Certainly when peace was signed between Britain and France in OTL, there was no expectation that it was just "until the next war" - people instead rejoiced at the return to normalcy. And it's not as if the last two Republics formed by revolution had been particularly something people battled to take down - the Commonwealth in Britain allied itself with continental monarchies, and the Revolutionaries in America had allies all over the place (and were subsequently only drawn into the war of wars by their own positive agency.)

Now, we should finally ask ourselves - if Napoleon did end up causing the wars of OTL, what could be the reason he might do that?

The answer suggests itself when we recall that his earlier campaigns had been relatively short and small-scale, and if we remember that his coup did not in fact garner him major support from the army.
How do you make a large number of professional soldiers happy, while also solidifying public opinion at home?
Successful foreign wars. Loot, glory and plunder, as well as thrones to put les freres on.
1) Going back to the source, the word was used in reference to his foreibn policy. I'd love to see someone explain why he was exceptional in that regard.

3) You have a strange way of looking at things. Mike already answered this on the previous page.

4) I'm tired of repeating this. They started the wars and the wars began long before Napoleon came to power.
5) And yet the wars began a decade before Napoleon came to power.

6) Britain was a constitutional monarchy with an old royal family on the Throne, lacked the military strength to effect things on the continent and was on the periphery. America at that point was to weak and out of the way to play any serious role in European affairs, but as I recall the Americans were very unhappy with British bullying at that point. I wonder why. France was at that point Europes preeminent power and cultural heart.

7) Yes. Except those wars were declared on him. He was reacting.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Depends on who "you" is and the geostrategic reality in which

Nah. 1787-89. Before then you could easily screw the US.

Depends on who "you" is and the geostrategic reality in which "you" finds yourself.;)

In the Western Hemisphere, from 1775 onwards, the USians-to-be have:

a) more people;
b) more stability;
c) more temperate land;
d) access to even more temperate land that can be "easily" integrated into the US;
e) more wealth, specie and natural resources and otherwise;
f) easier access to the Atlantic World's economy; and
g) etc.

than anyone else, New Spain included.

In the Eastern Hemisphere, there are plenty of nation states with more people or wealth or both than the US has in the Eighteenth Century, but the problem is they are:

a) in the eastern hemisphere; and
b) surrounded by tough neighbors, most of which have land borders...

Again, that's looking at things in the macro-scale, but given the undeniable realities of the longue duree, that's really the only way one can look at geopolitics.

Best,
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
6) Britain was a constitutional monarchy with an old royal family on the Throne, lacked the military strength to effect things on the continent and was on the periphery. America at that point was to weak and out of the way to play any serious role in European affairs, but as I recall the Americans were very unhappy with British bullying at that point. I wonder why. France was at that point Europes preeminent power and cultural heart.
Sorry, you must have misunderstood my reference to the Commonwealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

This is what I meant.
 
Sorry, you must have misunderstood my reference to the Commonwealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

This is what I meant.
Well. I thought you were referring to the Civil War, but I never knew it had been a Republic. Still, the British Isles were comparatively on the periphery of Europe at that point. Napoleonic France was the preeminent power in Europe and it's influence stretched over the continent. The point is, they had no right to interfere in France's internal affairs and wrongly declared war on them. That happened when Napoleon was still just a minor Corsican aristocrat on the periphery of French society so blaming Napoleon for the wars is certainly strange. Could removing him end the wars? Maybe. Or maybe not. It's certainly not guaranteed and Napoleon arguable is less to blame for the wars then the coalitions that fought him. The only one where he was the clear agressor was in the Peninsular War.
 
Top