Why did Napolean invade Spain?

It would have worked, though, if they hadn't press the Spaniards so hard for resources in their "living off the land".

I don't know : the revolt/repression began almost immediatly. The Conference of Bayonne (that was about the double adbication of Carlos and Ferdinand) was still technically ongoing when Madrid and many other cities rised up against French.
Pulling a Brunswick seems to have more or less worked, but guerilla sparked quickly.

The revolt have less to do with Spain being pressed (it doesn't seem it really was, at least initially, and after it was mostly done due to anti-guerilla and scorched earth) than the refusal by lower classes of the departure of Bourbon family (remember that in pre-nationalist and "proto"-national features, dynasties served as referential) out of Spain.

On the other hand, a less harsh repression in dos of mayo could have led to less important repercussions. I don't know enough of Napoleonic era tactics, tough, but I don't see how Murat (in charge of Spain and more or less hoping to gain its crown) could have done : it was an urban revolt and guerilla, something regular armies have still trouble to deal with (and at this moment, relativly new).

Admittedly, removing the infante quickly and by night could have lowered the risks. In the same time, giving more room and autonomy to pro-french Spanish (that you could found in enlightened nobility and bourgeoisie, as well upper working classes) could help. The downside would have been a greater autonomy of Spanish Army that had proven its decrepitude (under-equipped, obsolete, not that willing to fight, divided in factions as well)
 
What if Napoleon just supported Ferdinand? He appealed to Napoleon for support OTL after all.

Clearly not a solution. He managed to overthrow his father because he was supported by anti-french, reactionnary factions. Keeping him on throne would eventually favour them.

I mean he tried to kill Godoy, the main architect of french policy in Spain, deposed his father to get rif of afrancescados, not really a good job resume for Napoleon.

That Ferdinand tried to have him supporting his claim shows a high level of political blindess, IMHO. Admittedly, he had little choice but trying to flee to Americas as Portuguese royal familiy did, and as Godoy planned for the Spanish royal family if something turned wrong.
 
I don't think it's unfair to call Napoleon's mental facilities into question. Calling him the anti-christ, or a sociopath/psychopath, may be going a little too far, but pretty much everyone agrees that he had psychological issues that prevented him from enjoying victory. He could have easily rested on his laurels in 1811, and won in Spain, but didn't. Many folk say that he mostly fought the wars thrust on him, but the reality is that he directly (and his policies indirectly) thrust wars on others. He simply had a mental makeup which created conditions for war and rejected opportunity for peace.

Was Spain less than a full fledged ally? yes. things were muddled there. I've read articles that suggest Napoleon's agents fomented dissent to create the situation that OTL arose, because Spain was showing signs of waking up and realizing it was not getting a good deal out of this alliance. Godoy (the primary pro France faction in Spain) was wearing out his welcome and everyone realized it but the King/Queen. did Spain, at the time of invasion, present any sort, whatsoever, danger? Absolutely not. None. Conventionally, the Spanish military threat was low.

So, the motive for invasion, conventionally (military threat), was rather low. The motive as simply trying to control the situation, when you consider how many places Nap tried to install his own man (usually brothers) as king, is rather high. Everything needed to be his way, or hit the highway. In the case of Spain, this attitude bit him in the ass.

In 1808, France ruled the European theatre. Completely. All it needed to do was hang on and Britain would eventually fold. Nap got greedy and decided that being top dog wasn't good enough, he needed to be TOP dog. That was a major character flaw and ultimately, the cause of his downfall. It's not unfair to point out that it was Nap's character that caused his demise.
 
Clearly not a solution. He managed to overthrow his father because he was supported by anti-french, reactionnary factions. Keeping him on throne would eventually favour them.

I mean he tried to kill Godoy, the main architect of french policy in Spain, deposed his father to get rif of afrancescados, not really a good job resume for Napoleon.

Godoy also planned to attack France if things went south in 1805-1807, so I'm not sure that you can call him pro-French.
 
Godoy was the one who steered Spain into France's arms. He was opportunistic and would have abandoned France in a heartbeat, so he couldn't be trusted, but he was the pro-France faction in Spain.
 
Godoy also planned to attack France if things went south in 1805-1807, so I'm not sure that you can call him pro-French.

Touché.

Well, let's say it was closer to look like a pro-french government, giving afrancescados were still led (or at least driven by) his policy.
 
Onward! Onward to China & Japan!

I don't think it's unfair to call Napoleon's mental facilities into question. Calling him the anti-christ, or a sociopath/psychopath, may be going a little too far, but pretty much everyone agrees that he had psychological issues that prevented him from enjoying victory. He could have easily rested on his laurels in 1811, and won in Spain, but didn't. Many folk say that he mostly fought the wars thrust on him, but the reality is that he directly (and his policies indirectly) thrust wars on others. He simply had a mental makeup which created conditions for war and rejected opportunity for peace.

Was Spain less than a full fledged ally? yes. things were muddled there. I've read articles that suggest Napoleon's agents fomented dissent to create the situation that OTL arose, because Spain was showing signs of waking up and realizing it was not getting a good deal out of this alliance. Godoy (the primary pro France faction in Spain) was wearing out his welcome and everyone realized it but the King/Queen. did Spain, at the time of invasion, present any sort, whatsoever, danger? Absolutely not. None. Conventionally, the Spanish military threat was low.

So, the motive for invasion, conventionally (military threat), was rather low. The motive as simply trying to control the situation, when you consider how many places Nap tried to install his own man (usually brothers) as king, is rather high. Everything needed to be his way, or hit the highway. In the case of Spain, this attitude bit him in the ass.

In 1808, France ruled the European theatre. Completely. All it needed to do was hang on and Britain would eventually fold. Nap got greedy and decided that being top dog wasn't good enough, he needed to be TOP dog. That was a major character flaw and ultimately, the cause of his downfall. It's not unfair to point out that it was Nap's character that caused his demise.

Now THIS is a very rock solid analysis of Nappy's poor psychology, without putting him in a straitjacket, metaphorically speaking. Yeah, just a guy for whom there always had to be one more battle, one more campaign, one more war. AISI, like Patton, Napoleon was a man who could never take off the uniform. Napoleon was not the Anti-Christ, he was the Anti-Cincinnatus. I would postulate that even if his Spanish/Portuguese/Russian:eek: Invasions and planned British:eek::eek: invasions had been 100% successful, with minimal partisan activity:confused:, he would probably have then convinced himself about the dire threats posed to him by Sweden and the Ottoman Empire.:rolleyes:

Because they were there.:p
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
I think describing Napoleon as a sociopath is perfectly in keeping with the evidence. Here's the DSM-IV on antisocial personality disorder (which roughly corresponds to the older idea of sociopathy or psychopathy), which can be detected by the presence of at least three of the following:


  1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
  2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
  3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
  4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
  5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
  6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
  7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
I'd say that several pretty clearly apply, and others are certainly arguable.

I think that it would be helpful to take a couple of introductory psychology courses and a couple semesters of statistics to understand where DSM is coming from. A working knowlege of the behavioural sciences is extrmely helpful for anyone majoring in the social sciences these days. But a brief explanation will have to suffice now.
In the first place, the title is Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Which means that there is a statistical component to every one of these psychological traits.
It is not just a matter of having a trait such as impulsiity or irritability or aggressiveness, but it is also a question of whether one has more or less of that trait than the people around one. And that question is determined according to where one fits for that trait on a statistical bell curve. The question becomes: Does one have more than one statistical deviation of that trait from the norm for that population (87.5% ) And yes, populations in different countries can differ significantly on statistical norms.
A certain amount of sociopathy is actually normal and healthy and necessary. If one looks closely at a self report standardized clinical test such as the Catell 16 Personality Factor Test and Clinical Analysis Questionnaire, the variable "Sociopathic Deviation" if relatively high can prevent relatively high scores on other variables such as paranoia or schizophrenia (which has a number of questions which also are indicative of dissociatiive disorders) from resulting in a high composite score for the variable of Psychoticism. In other words, a certain amount of sociopathy may be necessary for people to look objectively at the social world around them and realize that the problem is not all themselves. Without any sociopatby, people are either total conformists or they go crazy. Or in a military situation, they become cannon or wall fodder and are killed by the enemy. The problem becomes when there is too much sociopathy and the person decides that it is ALWAYS the other person's problem and that there is no reason to have any empathy for anyone. That is when we get psychopathy. So it's a matter of degree, and not just a matter of a yes-no on a DSM-IV checklist but a numeric score for each trait. (And yes, the DSM-IV has a Strutured Clinical Interview that psychologists use).
So getting back to the question at hand about to what degree Napoleon is a sociopath, we need to remember that there is a good reason why Napoleon is entombed with honour in the Place of the Invalides in Paris. Napoleon came into prominence in France at a very bad time for France. Have we all heard so much British propaganda that we have forgotten that all of the nations surrounding France ganged up on France in 1792 to restore the Bourbon Monarchy and destroy the 1st Republic? And that they came very close to succeeding? And that it was Napoleon Bonaparte who rallied French troops to defeat those invading armies?
That was why the French followed Napoleon and responded to his "levies en masse" until his final defeat in 1814. And even afterword, supported his grandson, Louis Napoleon for another 22 years from 1848 to 1870. Whatever Napoleon's sociopathy, it was a sociopathy that most French people at the time shared with him. There were no psychologists to interview Napoleon, but I suspect that between what he did for France and his development of the Code Napoleon, the man would probably not test above one standard deviation on a measure of psychopathic deviation from a sample drawn from French citizens of the time.
If that is the case, to call Napoleon a psychopath is to take the side of the British and the Austrians and the Spanish who believed that France had gone off the rails as soon as the French deposed their king. Under the circumstances, I do not think that the French did, speaking only for myself. The French went for empire, yes. But if we look at history as we all do, Rome, Q'in, Ashur, England, France Russia,, Germany (both times), all of these marches toward empire were started by nations which had been picked on because they were somehow different from their neighbours and had the national idea that the empire was necessary in order to defend themselves. In many cases, those empires started after attempts at invasion. France was no different, and Napoleon was merely the military genius who made it work. Which made Napoleon no different, really, than Queen Elizabeth I for England 250 years earlier, except perhaps that he ultimately bit off more than France could chew.
Maybe the real question that we need to be asking ourselves is: Was there ever a point in the history of the late 18th and early 19th Century in which Ancien Regime Europe would have agreed to peacefully coexist with a Republican or Bonapartist France?
If the answer is no, then all we are really discussing in the history of the time OTL is how the rest of Europe doggedly put together coalition after coalition until it finally brought Napoleon's experiment with government based on reason down. And perhaps in that case Americans are lucky that Napoleon exhausted the Restorationists so that they had no energy left to extinguish the American Republican Experiment too.
 
Now THIS is a very rock solid analysis of Nappy's poor psychology, without putting him in a straitjacket, metaphorically speaking. Yeah, just a guy for whom there always had to be one more battle, one more campaign, one more war. AISI, like Patton, Napoleon was a man who could never take off the uniform. Napoleon was not the Anti-Christ, he was the Anti-Cincinnatus. I would postulate that even if his Spanish/Portuguese/Russian:eek: Invasions and planned British:eek::eek: invasions had been 100% successful, with minimal partisan activity:confused:, he would probably have then convinced himself about the dire threats posed to him by Sweden and the Ottoman Empire.:rolleyes:

Because they were there.:p
Well Patton did believe he was Napoleon in a past life. ;)
 
Was there ever a point in the history of the late 18th and early 19th Century in which Ancien Regime Europe would have agreed to peacefully coexist with a Republican or Bonapartist France?
If the answer is no, then all we are really discussing in the history of the time OTL is how the rest of Europe doggedly put together coalition after coalition until it finally brought Napoleon's experiment with government based on reason down. And perhaps in that case Americans are lucky that Napoleon exhausted the Restorationists so that they had no energy left to extinguish the American Republican Experiment too. (1)

Give katchen a cigar. Cuban, of course.:cool:

I doubt that the aristocrats saw the USA as a political threat as they did Republican France. And I don't mean because of the separation of an ocean. Just look around at all the contempt (on AH.com) for the American experiment due to the institution of Slavery. It was no co-incidence (despite humorous and vociferous denials by a few of our more proud britannic members:D) that the passage of the Great Reform Act of 1867 paralleled the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. By that time, it was too late to destroy the "American Experiment".

Well Patton did believe he was Napoleon in a past life. ;)

I thought it was a Third Punic War general?
 
Last edited:
I don't know : the revolt/repression began almost immediatly. The Conference of Bayonne (that was about the double adbication of Carlos and Ferdinand) was still technically ongoing when Madrid and many other cities rised up against French.
Pulling a Brunswick seems to have more or less worked, but guerilla sparked quickly.

The revolt have less to do with Spain being pressed (it doesn't seem it really was, at least initially, and after it was mostly done due to anti-guerilla and scorched earth) than the refusal by lower classes of the departure of Bourbon family (remember that in pre-nationalist and "proto"-national features, dynasties served as referential) out of Spain.

I understand that the 2nd of May was more like a spark that set on fire a field where it hasn't rained in months. As i read, the French had had their forces stationed in Spain for several months in preparation of the invasion of Portugal. But they had a lot more troops than had been initially agreed, and both the Spanish people (who had to support the troops in their towns/cities per the agreement) and the Spanish govt. were frankly annoyed and discomforted. Shortly after Bayonne Abdications, the Royal Family had been advised to make preparations to travel to America, just in case France decided to use those troops to seize Spain.

On the other hand, a less harsh repression in dos of mayo could have led to less important repercussions. I don't know enough of Napoleonic era tactics, tough, but I don't see how Murat (in charge of Spain and more or less hoping to gain its crown) could have done : it was an urban revolt and guerilla, something regular armies have still trouble to deal with (and at this moment, relativly new).
Yes, Murat harshness was really the standard way to deal with this type of rebellions. The only reason why it looks worse, i think, it's because Goya did a splendid work of depicting military repression.

Admittedly, removing the infante quickly and by night could have lowered the risks. In the same time, giving more room and autonomy to pro-french Spanish (that you could found in enlightened nobility and bourgeoisie, as well upper working classes) could help. The downside would have been a greater autonomy of Spanish Army that had proven its decrepitude (under-equipped, obsolete, not that willing to fight, divided in factions as well)
That was the plan. But from the moment the revolts began, it seems the French army went into "military occupation mode", which only created more problems.
OTOH, i'd like to point out that even that decrepit army was able to score a victory on a field battle against the French (Bailen), a victory that forced French retreat behind the Ebro, forced Napoleon to use the full might of the Empire against Spain, and set in motion the 5th Coalition. Without Bailen, there might have been no generalized insurrection.
 
Last edited:
Top