Peace of Amiens scenario

Let's say that Napoleon is out of the picture and French leadership standing in for him is determined to avoid war with Britain. How does France develop under a longer lasting Republic, whats its relationship with Britain like for the next couple of decades? What happens in the power struggle between Prussia, Russia, and Austria in the absence of the Napoleonic wars? What happens to German nationalism? And just how would this generally affect the world as a whole?
 

longsword14

Banned
Let's say that Napoleon is out of the picture and French leadership standing in for him is determined to avoid war with Britain. How does France develop under a longer lasting Republic, whats its relationship with Britain like for the next couple of decades? What happens in the power struggle between Prussia, Russia, and Austria in the absence of the Napoleonic wars? What happens to German nationalism? And just how would this generally affect the world as a whole?
Depends whether France manages to placate Austria to a significant extent. As to Britain and its policy, they may decide to fund someone else if it looks like France is in a position too strong.
 
When would Napoleon leave the picture?

The war of the Second Coalition was going poorly for France until Napoleon returned from Egypt and defeated the Austrians. If he's stuck in Egypt or killed, there is no guarantee France wins the war.
 
When would Napoleon leave the picture?

The war of the Second Coalition was going poorly for France until Napoleon returned from Egypt and defeated the Austrians. If he's stuck in Egypt or killed, there is no guarantee France wins the war.
Good question. I was thinking of giving Napoleon a heart attack a few months after the treaty. Or have another general like Lazare Hoche survive and fill the role Napoleon would have played in OTL.
 
I think one major stumbling block is getting UK to follow the treaty it has signed. Namely evacuate Malta and give it back. If it does not, it is unlikely France will consider itself bound by the letter of the treaty, whoever is in power.
 
I think one major stumbling block is getting UK to follow the treaty it has signed. Namely evacuate Malta and give it back. If it does not, it is unlikely France will consider itself bound by the letter of the treaty, whoever is in power.
You mean to say the blame for everything can't be placed at the feet of Napoleon and the British are partially to blame for peace treaties not lasting? Heresy!
 
You mean to say the blame for everything can't be placed at the feet of Napoleon and the British are partially to blame for peace treaties not lasting? Heresy!
Absolutely yes. The English had much less interest than the French to keep their word about Amiens... For them was just a truce and not a true peace...
 
I think one major stumbling block is getting UK to follow the treaty it has signed. Namely evacuate Malta and give it back. If it does not, it is unlikely France will consider itself bound by the letter of the treaty, whoever is in power.
Just reading up on Malta and it seems the French would have trouble there since the Maltese hated them. Of course that assumes that Britain follows through with it which they won't.
 
Last edited:
Just reading up on Malta and it seems the French would have trouble there since the Maltese hated them. Of course that assumes that Britain follows through with it which they won't.

Actually the peace treaty did not give Malta to the French. It was supposed to go back to the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta and so be neutral in the European order. This was actually a sticking point between UK and Russia (the Tsar was a member of the order).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What happens in the power struggle between Prussia, Russia, and Austria in the absence of the Napoleonic wars?

I'm not sure how much of a power struggle there was between the three eastern empires between 1763 and 1854
 
I think one major stumbling block is getting UK to follow the treaty it has signed. Namely evacuate Malta and give it back. If it does not, it is unlikely France will consider itself bound by the letter of the treaty, whoever is in power.

Different British leadership would help.
 
You mean to say the blame for everything can't be placed at the feet of Napoleon and the British are partially to blame for peace treaties not lasting? Heresy!

Fhaessig has rather skated over the fact that the British refusal to evacuate Malta was in response to, and reprisal for, the refusal of the French to evacuate Naples and the Papal States, said evacuation also being a term of the treaty. But still - perfidious Albion, eh?
 
Fhaessig has rather skated over the fact that the British refusal to evacuate Malta was in response to, and reprisal for, the refusal of the French to evacuate Naples and the Papal States, said evacuation also being a term of the treaty. But still - perfidious Albion, eh?
So what you're saying is neither side ever really intended to honor the treaty and both sides bear some blame for the treaty falling apart? I'm shocked!
 
So what you're saying is neither side ever really intended to honor the treaty and both sides bear some blame for the treaty falling apart? I'm shocked!

Actually Britain had honoured most of it's obligations by that point - returning the Cape to the Dutch was the most important one, but there were a bunch of smaller islands in the Caribbean, etc. as well - Malta was pretty much the last left and certainly the most important which is why the government took a stand on it over French refusal to evacuate the Italian territories.
 
Fhaessig has rather skated over the fact that the British refusal to evacuate Malta was in response to, and reprisal for, the refusal of the French to evacuate Naples and the Papal States, said evacuation also being a term of the treaty. But still - perfidious Albion, eh?

And vice versa.

Each side states that the only reason they did not follow the treaty because the other one did not.
 

longsword14

Banned
Also,I doubt the Treaty could hold for long enough. Given that a coalition could still be formed and that France had little capability to actually enforce its rule over territories across water bodies, I am sure Britain knew it could easily do what it wished to. It was not going to hold : time to regroup and replan for round three!:cool:
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How wide was the circle of folk influencing British foreign policy in 1803 compared to the 20th century?

Was it broadly popular to take a break, and then start fighting again soon, in both cases for strategic, realpolitik reasons?

Would that have worked for a 20th century Britain dealing with a German, Russian or French hegemony on the continent? Would a tactical peace followed by resumption of war within a year or two plausible. Or by the 20th century, would mass politics have meant that once you demobilize the population its an uphill battle to remobilize them, and the government probably can't do it?
 

longsword14

Banned
How wide was the circle of folk influencing British foreign policy in 1803 compared to the 20th century?

Was it broadly popular to take a break, and then start fighting again soon, in both cases for strategic, realpolitik reasons?

Would that have worked for a 20th century Britain dealing with a German, Russian or French hegemony on the continent? Would a tactical peace followed by resumption of war within a year or two plausible. Or by the 20th century, would mass politics have meant that once you demobilize the population its an uphill battle to remobilize them, and the government probably can't do it?
Not like in post 19th century scenarios, warfare was not industrial nor as all consuming. The situation on the continent had not cooled much, and indeed alliances kept shifting often with no 'absolute victory'. As any one side's gains were at another's expense, a balance was the one solution. It also suited Britain well to have it that way with no land borders and complete naval superiority that had been built from early 18th century.
 
Top