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.