Was Napoleon (temporarily) more diplomatically acceptable to other European powers than the republic

At this point, Napoleon would have been perfectly content with peace, and likely would not have gone to war again had he not been provoked

Famous quote by Napoleon

"What my enemies call a general peace is my destruction. What I call peace is merely the disarmament of my enemies. Am I not more moderate than they?"
 

Decius00009

Banned
Famous quote by Napoleon

"What my enemies call a general peace is my destruction. What I call peace is merely the disarmament of my enemies. Am I not more moderate than they?"
Said much later, when he had begun to buy into his own legend to a large degree, which was probably the root cause of his downfall, actually. At this point, he had fought two and a half campaigns (I count Egypt as half), and had nearly lost the second one - probably would have done were it not for Desaix. He was trying to strengthen his regime in 1802, and peace would have done that. It was only later, after Austerlitz and the Prussian campaign, that he started to believe that war was his best option. One would start to believe that if one had repeatedly shattered one's enemies, often against the odds
 
I agree that Napoleon's opportunity is during and after the Peace of Amiens when he has to not be Napoleon and effectively seek to play the long game.

Threatening to invade Britain was a fools errand which only left him out of position when the Austrians and Russians became involved and indirectly led to Trafalgar and the start of the tension with Spain. He believed he could "beat" Britain economically - all he really had to do was make it less profitable to fight than to accept peace.

But compromise was not in Napoleon's nature.
 

longsword14

Banned
probably would have done were it not for Desaix
Campaign- not definitely, Marengo would not be an outright disaster. Remember that it was Napoleon who had left Desaix on the that side towards the river, because he was not sure where von Melas was. Napoleon managed to extract himself out of defeat partially because of his own moves before the battle, he was not expecting Melas.
 
Said much later, when he had begun to buy into his own legend to a large degree, which was probably the root cause of his downfall, actually. At this point, he had fought two and a half campaigns (I count Egypt as half), and had nearly lost the second one - probably would have done were it not for Desaix. He was trying to strengthen his regime in 1802, and peace would have done that. It was only later, after Austerlitz and the Prussian campaign, that he started to believe that war was his best option. One would start to believe that if one had repeatedly shattered one's enemies, often against the odds
Not so

From his own correspondence dated 30th December 1802

"My power proceeds from my reputation, and my reputation from the victories I have won. My power would fail if I were not to support it with more glory and more victories. Conquest has made me what I am; only conquest can maintain me."
 
I find this specific discussion fascinating that Napoleon could have been a lot more than he was. Considering what he is also ready known for. I will try and comment on this thread later.
 

Decius00009

Banned
May I ask why Napoleon lost the Egyptian campaign
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Napoleon would most likely have lost the battle of Marengo were it not for a late charge by DeSaix against the Austrians. He was under massive pressure at the time of the charge in which DeSaix was killed, though you could argue he placed DeSaix there for an eventuality. Wasn't all bad, though, Davout came to Napoleon's attention for the first time in that charge, and Davout was f**king awesome - he and Massèna were probably top 20 in Western history themselves
 
Top