Why didn't the United Kingdom make peace with Napoleon after 1804?

I've always wondered about this. While all of Europe was at one time or another at war with Napoléon the only power to remain continuously at war was the United Kingdom. After the breakdown of the Treaty of Ameins there was not another peace treaty until Fontainebleau in 1814. So what made England, alone among all powers, unwilling to make even a short peace with the French conqueror? Pride? The fact that both nations were basically at a standstill? Or another reason I haven't thought of?
 
A single power dominating Europe is a nightmare scenario for the United Kingdom. The reason being that while no individual power could really hope to threaten Britain on its own, a power with the resources of Europe at its command really stands a good chance of doing so.

Also Napoleon really didn't have the best interests of his neighbours in mind so there's that to consider.
 
I've always wondered about this. While all of Europe was at one time or another at war with Napoléon the only power to remain continuously at war was the United Kingdom. After the breakdown of the Treaty of Ameins there was not another peace treaty until Fontainebleau in 1814. So what made England, alone among all powers, unwilling to make even a short peace with the French conqueror? Pride? The fact that both nations were basically at a standstill? Or another reason I haven't thought of?

Reason:
1 - Making peace with Napoleon would be the same has admitting that they can't defeat him;
2 - The UK had bet to much money on this war;
3 - If they made peace they would allow France to create a powerful navy, that could be used in an invasion;
4 - They didn't trust Napoleon to keep his word;
5 - Their European policy was to stop a country to dominate the continent;
6 - The desire to capture more colonies, if they are at war with France the Netherlands and Spain are also at war with the UK, so the RN can steal their colonies;
7 - Isolation, the UK had been isolated from Europa for a long time, the only reason the rest of the continent didn't join France in a war against the UK was because they were more afraid of France, a close neighbor, than the UK, a far away neighbor;
8 - The continental system;
9 - The Sicilian question. Unlike what you may think the UK and France made several peace talks. In exchange for confirming the continental conquests, the UK got to stay with the colonies that conquered. The main problem was Sicily and Hanover, France wanted Sicily in exchange for the restoration of Hanover;
10 - For the majority of the war period the British Army (BA) waged low-intensity warfare, so their wasn't big manpower losses that forced a peace treaty. In the peninsula war, it were the guerrillas that killed the majority of the french casualties. Only in Waterloo and in the latter stages of the peninsular war that the BA played a central role;

I think these are the most important reasons.
 
Essentially boils down to Britain needing to maintain a balance of power on the continent and that after Trafalgar France could not do a whole lot to hurt Britain directly.
 
As others have said, a united Europe is a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom. Britain would not allow this, no matter what. But with that in mind, one is forced to ask the question, was Napoleon really a warmonger, or was it that the British kept bribing people to attack him and he was merely trying to defend himself and his empire?

I find myself feeling the latter as of late with the caveat that reality is never completely one thing or the other.
 
As others have said, a united Europe is a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom. Britain would not allow this, no matter what. But with that in mind, one is forced to ask the question, was Napoleon really a warmonger, or was it that the British kept bribing people to attack him and he was merely trying to defend himself and his empire?

I find myself feeling the latter as of late with the caveat that reality is never completely one thing or the other.

Considering that Napoleon only started wars in Spain and against Russia I'd say Britain's more to blame. The rest were Coalitions formed against him. That's not to say that Napoleon was innocent or something; he would have probably started other wars if the rest of Europe stood down, but in no way was it all on Nappy.
 
Was it the traditional Anglo-French rivalry that caused Britain to prefer a hamstrung France (without her Rhine borders etc) post-Waterloo, or the possibility of a Napoleon 2.0? Or was that more Europe's consensus?
 
Reason:
1 - Making peace with Napoleon would be the same has admitting that they can't defeat him;
2 - The UK had bet to much money on this war;
3 - If they made peace they would allow France to create a powerful navy, that could be used in an invasion;
4 - They didn't trust Napoleon to keep his word;
5 - Their European policy was to stop a country to dominate the continent;
6 - The desire to capture more colonies, if they are at war with France the Netherlands and Spain are also at war with the UK, so the RN can steal their colonies;
7 - Isolation, the UK had been isolated from Europa for a long time, the only reason the rest of the continent didn't join France in a war against the UK was because they were more afraid of France, a close neighbor, than the UK, a far away neighbor;
8 - The continental system;
9 - The Sicilian question. Unlike what you may think the UK and France made several peace talks. In exchange for confirming the continental conquests, the UK got to stay with the colonies that conquered. The main problem was Sicily and Hanover, France wanted Sicily in exchange for the restoration of Hanover;
10 - For the majority of the war period the British Army (BA) waged low-intensity warfare, so their wasn't big manpower losses that forced a peace treaty. In the peninsula war, it were the guerrillas that killed the majority of the french casualties. Only in Waterloo and in the latter stages of the peninsular war that the BA played a central role;

I think these are the most important reasons.

But that doesn't make much sense to me. England made peace with France in 1802 at Amiens. That means that the UK was willing to make peace with France at one point. They had basically already acknowledged that they couldn't beat Napoléon.
 
Was it the traditional Anglo-French rivalry that caused Britain to prefer a hamstrung France (without her Rhine borders etc) post-Waterloo, or the possibility of a Napoleon 2.0? Or was that more Europe's consensus?

I think the answer is "all of the above." None of them wanted France to be too strong, but Britain especially did not want France getting control of Belgium. Britain's guarantee of Belgium's neutrality, which ultimately led to the UK declaring war on Germany a century later, was originally made with France in mind.
 
But that doesn't make much sense to me. England made peace with France in 1802 at Amiens. That means that the UK was willing to make peace with France at one point. They had basically already acknowledged that they couldn't beat Napoléon.
The land powers made peace with France when Napoleon's armies beat them up or forced enough of their neighbors out that their positions were untenable. That never happened with Britain.
 
The land powers made peace with France when Napoleon's armies beat them up or forced enough of their neighbors out that their positions were untenable. That never happened with Britain.

But again England made peace in 1802, so they clearly weren't completely opposed to treating with France. After all at that point the French Republic dominated much of western Europe, so the balance of power argument wouldn't have flown then.
 
But that doesn't make much sense to me. England made peace with France in 1802 at Amiens. That means that the UK was willing to make peace with France at one point. They had basically already acknowledged that they couldn't beat Napoléon.

Simple in 1802, Napoleon still didn't had a reputation of ignoring every treaty they sign. The british resented the fact that they had to give up the colonies they capture. Bonaparte was pissed because of Malta, since the Brits didn't remove their troops from the island. Bonaparte spent the majority of the money from the Louisianan purchaser in a planed invasion of the UK. The execution of Louis Antoine butterflied in all of Europe, making Napoleon look like a barbarian that would murder anyone.
 
I think the answer is "all of the above." None of them wanted France to be too strong, but Britain especially did not want France getting control of Belgium. Britain's guarantee of Belgium's neutrality, which ultimately led to the UK declaring war on Germany a century later, was originally made with France in mind.


And also why we had fought Louis XIV a century before.
 
Top