But that wasn't working. Britain lost in Argentina and Uruguay, remember?
Napoleonic Peace
- Thread starter Lord Of Tacos
- Start date
But that wasn't working. Britain lost in Argentina and Uruguay, remember?
They still became independent. Just not in the way we wanted them to...
It is the winners' presentation of the story. But it is a very biased and distorted presentation, which is quite normal since History is most often written by the winners.
Now, if you want to check facts, just look at the maps. And you will reach to the fact that Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia came out of the revolutionary and napoleonic wars with territories which they did not hold before these wars began.
Britain took and kept Malta, Ceylan, South Africa, and other territories and islands.
Austria took and kept Venezia and a part of Poland.
Russia took and kept Finland, parts of Poland, and other territories.
Prussia took parts of Poland, parts of Saxony, and other parts of Germany.
They were not the good guys resisting conquest hungry napoleonic France. They were just imperialist powers that rivalled imperialist France.
Now if you consider french annexations and domination of non-annexed territories, the reality is that Napoleon's wars, for the 8 first years of his power (1799-1807), were all defensive wars. War was literlly forced on him by rival imperialist powers, with the political and financial support of Britain that profited of this opportunity to establish a kind of maritime quasi-monopoly and conquered colonies. The point is that, since he analyzed the situation in terms of lasting hostility, Napoleon felt he needed to take guarantees in order to drive his enemies to come to terms. And it is because he kept on winning over enemies that kept on attaciing him that he reached a point of over-extension where, in effect, France's excessive power and domination had become unacceptable for all european powers.
The biggest objective change of strategic situation being the french-russian relations. Until 1807, France and Russia had no objective strategic quarrel in Europe. It was obvious that they had an interest in establishing some kind of condominium over the continent and that was almost achieved with tsar Paul I, when the british had a hand in the assassination of Paul I by a russian faction. Then, for political and personal reasons, tsar Alexander I strongly committed Russia into wars against Napoleonic France, until the moment when Napoleon reached Poland because he fought victoriously the russian-prussian coalition. And then of course, France reaching Poland was an undoubtable strategic casus belli for Russia.
But Napoleon's agressions were only about Portugal in late 1807 (because of the continental blockade) and Spain in 1808 (where it was both treason and felony since Bourbon Spain had been an ally of France).
Could not agree with this more.
It takes two to make a war, not just because English history textbooks say Napoleon wanted to conquer all Europe.
That's actually a very good point. We tend to see Napoleon as an ambitious conqueror, yet, those books were written by the winners
After Spain was invaded, and the Bourbons looked like they were going to be overthrown. I'm not sure that the Latin American Wars of Independence go off the same way in a world where the Bourbons rule Spain.
The problem is that Britain had tried that since the 1790s. As Miranda can attest, this wasn't working.
Honestly, I think that also explains the "Napoleon was a conqueror, he couldn't stop conquering" narrative. Because, you know, of course conquest had to be an incurable compulsion of his, otherwise the British might have lost to a French guy, and that's obviously ASB.
JEANNE D'ARC WAS A WITCH USING SATAN MAGIC!!! It's not Britain's fault they lost! They certainly didn't overextend themselves, no, not at all! It's all that damned witch's fault, and she deserved every flame that licked her dirty, Satan loving, Satan hands!
Really the only way France could have gotten peace was if they decisively won on the battlefield and then played the part of magnanimous victor, not demanding much besides being left alone. Without reason to feel threatened, the Continent wouldn't feel the need to turn to Britain for cash.
And as much as you can say that the participants were greedy, they were also scared. They saw a nation that survived a civil war and invasion simultaneously that supported a radical ideology that they wanted to export. That's the biggest stumbling block initially. France needs to convince Europe that it doesn't want to tear down every monarch, nor does it want to dominate them, even if both are boldfaced lies. Of course the hardliners would probably stay the course, but once Napoleon declares himself Emperor, France gains a much stronger hand as now France just has a new dynasty born from a confusing revolt rather than being the Communists of 1800.
LOL. Jokes set apart, except the siege of Orleans where she certainly had a decisive impact on the french's will to resist, Joan of Arc did not participate in the key battles by which the french finally won the hundred years war, the first and most decisive being the battle of Patay.
Winning a battle is not enough to secure peace. Most of Napoleon's story is the story of a military genious that won great battles again, and again, and again, and finally lost the general war. The lasting solution was not to be found on the battlefield but on the diplomatic field. Military victory may have been a necessary condition, but it was not sufficiant.
Russia, Austria and Prussia mays indeed have been fighting both France's overextension and its radical ideology. Britain was just fighting France on the geopolitical field, as it had always been doing since 1688.
This is disingenuous to the nth degree! By arbitrarily defining "Napoleon's aggression" as something separate from the French Revolutionary expansion you create a vacuum of fact where Napoleon can be painted as a victim. Napoleon was an integral part of the French revolutionary system which occupied Flanders and Holland, he almost single handedly puppeted most of Italy and invaded Egypt. He also was part of the system and overthrew and later he placed himself on one of the ancient thrones of Europe. By any judgement of the "old Europe" at the time he had personally been responsible for much of the upheavals in Europe and more importantly did not play the game according to the "old rules"
Peace of Amiens was an opportunity for Napoleon - if he had truly wanted peace - to make the peace work. His actions in occupying Switzerland and the Cisapline republic were signs that he was not going to respect any status quo treaty.
longsword14
Banned
Neither side was willing to make lasting peace on terms acceptable to all. We should remember that the next war was on the continent with Austrian and Russian troops, simply having peace with Britain would not change the situation with the latter two.
Remember that Britain did not follow terms of the treaty either (not evacuating or returning the stipulated territories). France had won its gains after a decade of war that placed it into a position of strength, you can make various arguments about what the casus-belli would be but the crux is the same : France was in a dominant situation and Britain could not accept it.
This I feel is the crux. To suggest that somehow Napoleon was not intimately involved in the preceding decade is a fallacy - Napoleon was the personal embodiment of the horror that was the French Revolution - in the eyes of "old Europe" at least. The defensive war of 1792 turned into a war of revolutions and then to a war of empire building. By 1799 Napoleon had assumed personal responsibility for the actions of the Revolution as First Consul - by 1804 he assumed personal responsibility for the actions of France.
longsword14
Banned
You make it sound like the other powers cared as to what happened as long as their holdings were increased. The problem was that the French had succeeded very well in not only defending but taking the battle to the opposition. Why would Napoleon or France do anything that would weaken their position when the crux of the matter has not changed?
You make it sound like a problem of 20th century rather than a clash of imperial powers on a large scale. Napoleon was hardly the sole agent in this concert.
All that said, Napoleon himself never was quite able to ensure that at least one continental power would be at ease for a decent stretch of time.
1792 was an offensive war on the part of the Girondins who agitated for it. Ironically, the Jacobin/Montagnard Robespierre was against it, saying you couldn't export revolutionary ideals by force of arms. By bringing a close to the wars in 1797 (over his own government's wishes) and in 1801/2, Napoléon actually showed himself as something of a pacificating influence, even if something of an overweening one. Left alone, he probably would have consolidated his power in France, further puppetized Switzerland and ruled over Northern Italy. By conspiring with Cadoudal or Enghien and funding their assassination plots against Napoléon, the UK actually gave the impetus to have Napoléon declare himself Emperor so as to better assert his legitimacy. By funding every Coalition there existed, the UK created the conditions for ten years of further wars.
Oh please. Napoleon as a paragon of pacifism is somewhat strained as a meme, don't you think?
France by 1797 had altered the borders of Europe more in five years than the old Regimes had in 200. Is this not aggression on a scale unheard of in Europe for centuries? And Napoleon is her leader from 1799. And at least paid lip service to the Republican ideal (until he decided that nepotism was the ideal form of government). What exactly is the difference between a megalomaniac crowning himself Emperor of the French and a Bourbon King claiming the divine right of Kings?
I'm not saying that he was a paragon. I'm just saying that in both 1797 and 1801/2, he was the one to stop wars he had not initiated, on terms that corresponded to the amount of successes France had had. Europe, and the UK in particular, should have sighed a happy sigh of relief, looked at his military record and his meteoritic rise and concluded that this was someone not to poke with a stick. Not for nothing did he say he was bringing the Revolution to a close while upholding its ideals. And a system where every ten years since 1648 there is a war engulfing all of Europe with tens or hundreds of thousand of dead for minimal change and the certainty there will be a repeat in the name of the balance of power deserves to be shattered, and shattered hard.
So the Napoleonic Wars - which killed millions not hundreds of thousands - are the solution to the balance of power? And the solution was to be a French Empire from Cadiz to the Vistula? Exactly when would Napoleon have stopped?
After Amiens he annexed Switzerland and Cisapline Republic
After Austerlitz half of Germany and the remainder of Italy
After Jena - Poland
Portugal in between that and Spain because he could
After Wagram - Ilyria
Holland annexed becuase he didn't like his own family.
Invasion of Russia with more than half a million men because of his pacifistic views - or did trade provide a casus belli for the largest army to date to attack Russia?
And when he was beaten - the Hundred Days. Because he loved peace and wanted to live quietly on Elba?
There is no reason for him to do that if he's left alone with what he has after Amiens. Sure, he took a big bite out of Europe. So what? He had to pacify his own population, part of which did not agree on the manner he took power or the kind of power he was accumulating and the best answer the monarchs of Europe can come up with is 'unify the French against a foreign enemy' because it had worked so well in the 1790s and now France had even larger resources to draw upon and a certified military genius at its head, who was not averse to taking land after a successful war? Really bright lads, those chaps.
Yes, the Napoleonic wars killed millions. You'll notice there wasn't a major war in Europe for thirty years after his fall and not one including all European major powers for a century.