Treaty of Amiens leads to a Long Lasting Peace In Europe

[Emperor Palpatine]

The reason Addington declared war in 1803 was because he felt Napoleon could not be trusted. His treatment of the Luneville treaty showed that he did not care to stick to agreements his diplomats had negotiated. Secondly, his continues fascination over India and failure to denounce the Sebastiani report raised eyebrows in London. Ultimately, Britain declared war in 1803 due to a deep distrust over Napoleon as well as a fear of his intentions with regards to India.

In light of the above, what if Napoleon followed the Luneville treaty to the letter and disavowed earlier desires over India. If he could prove to the British that he was a man that could be trusted does Amiens lead to a long lasting peace say until Napoleon's death in his old age?

 

[fhaessig]

Does this include UK following its obligation to give Malta back?

 

[unprincipled peter]

The Peace of Amiens didn't last because BOTH sides were not honest in entering it. it was a treaty of expediency, which both sides were quick to break.

But that said, IF both sides had honest intentions in 1803, obviously the world scene is massively different.

Holy Roman Empire keeps limping along.
the German states' relationships don't get dominated by France.
Portugal doesn't have to flee to Brazil.
Spain is left reasonably intact and the colonies don't use the occasion to break free.

The Nap wars are a time of massive, massive upheaval. nip them in the bud, and everything changes.

 

[Faeelin]

Does this include UK following its obligation to give Malta back?

Does France still meddle in Switzerland, Holland, and Italy?

 

[fhaessig]

Does France still meddle in Switzerland, Holland, and Italy?

Which part was mentioned in the Amiens peace treaty? I don't think the treaty forbids 'meddling'. I know that French troops were supposed to retire from Northern Italy under the treaty and this was not done. Anything else that Napoleon did which was strictly against the treaty instead of just something UK did not like?

 

[Faeelin]

Which part was mentioned in the Amiens peace treaty? I don't think the treaty forbids 'meddling'. I know that French troops were supposed to retire from Northern Italy under the treaty and this was not done. Anything else that Napoleon did which was strictly against the treaty instead of just something UK did not like?

You can take Bonaparte's approach, and say that he didn't breach much of the treaty, but Britain saw Napoleon taking advantage of the peace to pursue ruthless expansion in Europe and in the Americas. Why wouldn't they go to war again if that's the case?

 

[fhaessig]

You can take Bonaparte's approach, and say that he didn't breach much of the treaty, but Britain saw Napoleon taking advantage of the peace to pursue ruthless expansion in Europe and in the Americas. Why wouldn't they go to war again if that's the case?

Maybe because it was not forbidden under the treaty, nor a casus belli, really, being accepted practices for all countries for decades at that point?

But my question was a real one. Except for not removing the troops from North Italy, what part of the Peace of Amiens had Napoleon broken? I'm not aware of any, but it doesn't mean there are none.

 

[Xenophonte]

A French European Hegemony and the British national interests.

Even with all the above factors, they had been in favor of the prolongation of the treaty of Amiens, in my opinion the cessation of hostilities, probably would only be temporary.

The theme of Malta would be one of the main difficulties for the prolongation of the truce of Amiens ... from the British side.

In addition the British hardly be reconciled with the prospect of the existence and an de facto hegemony of the French Empire in the European continent... situation against which the strategies and British policies were directed through organizing and the financing coalitions to prevent that situation, that a European power could hegemonize the continent from the last century at least.

By this I guess beyond possible from actions and perceived Napoleon's real intentions by the British rulers ... the very existence of Napoleon was against the national interest of Great Britain.

I guess that could accept the status quo, if they perceived that the military solution against Napoleon was ineffective... It could perhaps be stabilized in a situation of armed peace, similar to the "cold war" between the French and the British.

Perhaps the British in this situation would be devoted to supporting and funding the rebels and anti Napoleonic similar factions within the government of its allies.

The serious question whether Napoleon might remain passively, without launching more military campaigns or some unacceptable political initiatives for British ...

A friendship and / or stable alliance between Russia, France and Austria-Hungary would be a threat to Great Britain... and the Ottoman Empire, which also reaffirmed the threat to the strategic interests of Great Britain in the Eastern Mediterranean and mainly the route to India.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

Does this include UK following its obligation to give Malta back?

If Napoleon agrees to Whitworth's proposal for a 10 year British occupation then at the end of the ten years yes. The extended occupation was seen as necessary because of Napoleon's actions in Italy. Declaring himself President of the Italian Republic and all that. France had thus extended its hold on the Mediterranean and Britain saw Malta as a counterweight.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

Maybe because it was not forbidden under the treaty, nor a casus belli, really, being accepted practices for all countries for decades at that point?

But my question was a real one. Except for not removing the troops from North Italy, what part of the Peace of Amiens had Napoleon broken? I'm not aware of any, but it doesn't mean there are none.

His actions, did, however break the treaty of Lunevillle. The view in London was if he's willing to break one treaty then why not another?