Was just not implementing the continental system an option for Napoleon? Everything I've seen indicates that even on a purely economic level, it hurt France way more than it hurt Britain, not even counting the fact that it pulled the French into the two most disastrous wars of the period. Britain is a thorn in his side, but by itself it has no way to directly attack Napoleon.
Napoleonic Peace
- Thread starter Lord Of Tacos
- Start date
longsword14
Banned
Britian will not attack France directly if Austria can be brought out of belligerency. After Austerlitz, perhaps restructuring of the HRE could have been done in a different manner?
Getting Austria neutral would make the Russians less capable in meddling in the West too. With Austria placated, dismembering Prussia after Jena-Auerstadt would not have been a bad idea.
The plan should have been 1. Consolidate gains in Germany (Prussia has been destroyed) 2. Keep Austria placated (try to divert attention in the Balkans, over the Ottomans may be?)
3. Focus on the much needed Naval build up.
Haring off into areas without solid planning(both militarily ans politically) undid Napoleon.
Calling them napoleonic wars is a fake and is counterfactual. These were France and oppposing coalitions' wars. As I said, the only war that can be blamed on Napoleon is the peninsular war (Portugal and Spain).
And I expect with interest how you could blame France's (be it under Napoleon or not) increases in power and not blame Russia's at the expense of Poland, Finland, the Balts, the Tatars, the caucasians, Britain's at the expense of the Ireland, amerindians, indians, dutch, spanish, danish, Prussia's at the expense of Poland and Saxony, Austria's at the expense of Poland and northern Italy.
These facts prove the narrative against the corsican ogre is mere winners' propaganda.
And I expect with interest how you could blame France's (be it under Napoleon or not) increases in power and not blame Russia's at the expense of Poland, Finland, the Balts, the Tatars, the caucasians, Britain's at the expense of the Ireland, amerindians, indians, dutch, spanish, danish, Prussia's at the expense of Poland and Saxony, Austria's at the expense of Poland and northern Italy.
These facts prove the narrative against the corsican ogre is mere winners' propaganda.
Last edited:
No one is blaming France or blaming Napoleon.
Some people are trying to exonerate Napoleon from the same characteristics as the "old Europe" (and what about 1812 and Russia and 1798 and Egypt for wars that were caused primarily by Napoleon).
Napoleon's France and the Coalition are two forces that's almost impossible to coexist.
France post-1789 was a state born from very radical ideas; for the coalition, it was a poison they need to neutralize, otherwise it'll also kill them later on, with or without war.
As for Britain, it presented a shocking surprise. France after Louis XIV was on a decline, and the British knew then that they will never be a serious threat to London again. Until the French started kicking the other great powers' collective asses big-time in the wars that came after the Revolution.
This fact single-handedly ruined Britain's long-time foreign policy, and thus they acted immediately before it gets out of hand.
France post-1789 was a state born from very radical ideas; for the coalition, it was a poison they need to neutralize, otherwise it'll also kill them later on, with or without war.
As for Britain, it presented a shocking surprise. France after Louis XIV was on a decline, and the British knew then that they will never be a serious threat to London again. Until the French started kicking the other great powers' collective asses big-time in the wars that came after the Revolution.
This fact single-handedly ruined Britain's long-time foreign policy, and thus they acted immediately before it gets out of hand.
longsword14
Banned
Is it regarding France's ability to project power using their navy or in some other sense? A link to this statement being used by British policy makers?
Actually, in France, they are called the wars of Revolution and Empire (les guerres de la revolution et de l'empire), limping them in one group, more often that the Napoleonic wars (Les guerre Napoleoniennes) which is more difficult to limit (i.e. where do you put General Bonapartes Italian campaign?)
I disagree with you on several points.
Of course, you are right on the fact that French revolutionary ideology was a scarecrow for the aristocratic ruling elites of Europe.
But, this was past to a large extent at the time of Napoleon. Napoleon was a stabilizer. He proclaimed himself the end of the French revolution was over. Napoleon was a soldier, a man of order who despised mob violence and who favoured property and merit. All his strategy was stabilizing his country that had been upset by the previous regimes (both monarchic and revolutionary regimes) that had failed to run the country and fix up what had been blocked and had derailed in the government and in the laws.
And most of all, it was an accessory reason although a real concern, but it was not the main and truest reason.
It was placated for political conveniency : the so famous “we don’t fight your country but your evil leader and his evil ideology”. 2 centuries later, there is still a great many people in France who admire Napoleon because he elevated France to its highest level of power and glory, before ruining it all.
The deepest truth it that regimes and ideologies matter little. If you need proof for it, just consider the fact that, except the expropriated habsburg lords who needed time to accept their loss, nobody cared about the kind of anti-noble “democratic” ideology of the swiss cantons. And, although Louis XIV’s France was the archetype of a monarchy that favoured the nobility and other privileged groups, most of Europe entered in coalition against monarchic France.
What really mattered was and has always been geopolitics, balance of powers and competing imperialist ambitions.
And even before the French began considering exporting their revolutionary ideologies, emperor Josef II of the HRE tried to profit from the weakening of the United Provinces and of France while these countries faced internal turmoil.
France after Louis XIV was not in decline. It is often ignored that French economy and French trade grew faster than the british economy in the 18th century until 1789. It was one of the reasons why Britain’s merchant elite wanted to go for the French jugular in the war of Austrian succession and in the seven years war. They were afraid of French competition. Britain really took off from the 1770’s on, when it became able to boost its economy and its finance with massive injection of indian steroids. And if some people in Britain had ever forgotten that France still was a real strategic threat for Britain, they had the American revolution war to remind them that France was indeed the main threat to Britain. The british ruling elite was in fact perfectly aware of the French threat as a strategic rival. They knew that the French Navy was at ont of its all-time peaks under the reign of Louis XVI.
The French revolution caused a real crash in the French economy. One of the reasons often unknown for Napoleon’s popularity among his contemporans is that he restored order and created the conditions for the French economy to boom back after the revolutionaries had caused it to go bust.
Britain’s foreign policy was not ruined by France’s resurgence under Napoleon. Britain always stuck to its century long strategy that was balance of powers in continental Europe and avoiding France becoming too powerful on the continent and too powerful a competitor overseas. Britain did not like competition nor competitors. It prefered monopoly which was far more lucrative.
The Brits were this close to supporting him, until Spain became a more appealing target.
What ultimately it the difference between Emperor Napoleon and the Bourbons?
Both held ultimate power within the "blood". Both wanted to expand French influence in Europe.
Napoleon was initially more successful and then brought disaster to France
As you say yourself "The deepest truth it that regimes and ideologies matter little". Napoleon had completely upset the pre-existing balance of Europe and Europe was not going to accept it.
The only fig leaf of legitimacy that Napoleon had was the plebicite of 1804 which he won with a 99.93% share of the vote. Is anyone really going to defend this as a "free and fair" election. If so the DPRK would like to talk to you about a PR job
In general, for a Napoleonic peace to happen, one side must yield, and the winning side must not bite off more than he can chew.
I was interested in where the paper or book the information on the French economy growing faster during the 18th century? I've seen it quoted a few times (sometimes with people objecting), but I don't recall the original source being posted. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, since various papers and books that I've read have noted certain areas of faster French development or greater advancement during the period that belay the depiction of stagnant France and industrious Britain, but those mostly deal with segments of the economy such as agriculture in northern France or French trade with India by the French East India Company vis-à-vis the British East India Company. I haven't seen specific quotes about the economy as a whole for such despite google attempts, but it would be very interesting to have them. If you could provide the source or direct me to finding it, I would greatly appreciate it.
Take, for example, Crouzet's Classic : England and France in the 18th century.
Between 1715 and 1790, french foreign trade grew twice as fast as Britain's and had become more or less equal to Britain's in value.
And although it's far more difficult to make a precise assessment of economic growth given the lack of statistics and the persistance of archaïc structures and non-monetary trade, estimates are french growth was at between equal and 50% faster to british growth. It happened although Britain was the most innovative country because France's economy was more backwards and was catching up. It's always easier to catch up than to create new ways to grow.
According to Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, England was also badly hurt by the continental system. It ruined the French and the continent because of high French tariffs but England suddenly lacked the necessary markets for their goods. Smuggling helped only a bit and couldn't compete with open trade.
If the counter blockade continued long enough, it would have likely destroyed the British economy as they relied on trade far more than other countries while the French and the continental powers would have reached a new if lower economic balance.
Britain however was saved by two issues....firstly Napoleon's stupid decision to oust the Bourbons in Spain opened up the Spanish and Spanish colonial markets to British goods in 1807. That brought much needed relief but by 1811, Britain was in trouble again as there was only so much goods Spain could absorb or pay for. Luckily, in 1811 the Czar broke with the continental system and opened up the Baltic to British goods...
If not for those two issues, the Napoleonic Wars could have had a different conclusion. Britain needed the ship building materials from Russia and the Baltic to maintain its fleet. Without that, it was in serious trouble as there were few suitable replacement materials. And with its economy floundering, there wouldn't be enough money to pay for the large navy.
At the same time, Napoleon was building a new navy.
Without outside factors, like the Czar switching sides, Napoleon would have eventually challenged Britain with its experienced but by then poorly maintained navy with his own inexperienced but larger fleet.
This is in contrast to Britain, which just walked out of the French Revolutionary Wars with control of India, seized colonies in the Caribbean, tried to conquer Latin America...
France had created puppet states in Italy and annexed territory to the Rhine. The nation of Poland ceased to exist.
Last edited:
Only sort of tangentially related, but one of the amusing incidents with smuggling was that the French not only tolerated and encouraged it post 1810, but they actually built a dedicated city that was the "City of Smugglers", in northern France, near Gravelines. They had up to 300 English smugglers there at a time, and they had to fill out official paperwork about their smuggling affairs! Not to mention, they had an established shore guidance system to keep them safe from French naval ships and coastal gun batteries, with flags and lantern signals.
Relating to the economic affairs, Napoleon (and much of the French economic establishment), thought that the English economy was bullion-poor and hence on economically weak footing, and so therefor by establishing smuggling in a way to run a positive trade balance with England they'd be able to exhaust their gold reserves. The English economy had fallen into recession in ~1810, and they had a falling pound which encouraged the export of gold instead of pounds in trade, so maybe they would have been able to run down English gold reserves. Into Dunkirk there was transported 139,338 guineas in the second half of 1810, 1,876,617 guineas in the first nine months of 1811, and in 1813 Gravelines received 1,607,119 guineas. They also transported escaped French prisoners, newspapers, letters, intermittent spies, and traded gin, brandy, and silk with the English.
One of the problems with the Continental System was that Napoleon was perfectly happy letting French traders break it if he believed that it'd be good for France. It was one of the complaints that the Tsar had about having to adhere to it while Napoleon showed he was happy to flout and not let others do so.
Well no one really cared about India and the French had lost that in1763. The Caribbean colonies were important but most went back to France at Amiens. Britain didn't try to conquer Latin America until 1806 (except for Trinidad which they gained at Amiens)
France unilaterally annexed territory that the rest of Europe had fought to prevent her from taking for more than 200 years. Poland wasn't as big a deal and three major powers divided it amongst themselves.
France shattered any balance of power in Europe and frankly British gains elsewhere threatened no one