Is it possible for Napoleon to get a lasting peace with all of Europe, instead of what happened in OTL? If so, what are the conditions for it to happen?
AHC/WI: Napoleonic peace
- Thread starter Tredecimus
- Start date
The problem is that a lot of the wars were not his doing, but rather
1. The European monarchies had set out to crush the republic and it's threatening ideals.
2. They got really scared when France was winning
3. They got even more panicked when Napoleon, the genius military commander took over.
Basically, the wars of the coalition happened because neither side could leave each other alone, for fear of being pounced on first. France had been under incessant siege, and many figured that in order to stop the fighting, one side just had to win. Then Napoleon's constant winning made him a megalomaniac who wanted to conquer beyond his reach.
Even without a Napoleon figure, there would be no peace until either the revolution is crushed, or the monarchial system disbanded.
No need to call Nappy a megalomaniac. He was very ambitious but finally did not know when to put reasonable limits to France's exception. This does not make him a mentally sick man. Not more than William Pitt the elder of the younger who were much more war-mongers than Napoleon.
But the situation was very complicated and it is France's rivals that forced an unending conflict in Europe.
So basically Napoleon needs not to ruin the russian campaign that was initially had a good strategic plan.
And idéal ou, he should not invade Spain.
But the situation was very complicated and it is France's rivals that forced an unending conflict in Europe.
So basically Napoleon needs not to ruin the russian campaign that was initially had a good strategic plan.
And idéal ou, he should not invade Spain.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
If he subjugates everything from Portugal to Novosibirsk, then, yes, you would have peace, maybe a very productive and liberal one. Europe would be some kind of federations, Napoleon would be it's emperor. But as long as oune old monarch reigns in a Euroepan country, Great Britain will always have an ally to form a new coalition against France.
Also, before absolute peace can reign in Europe, GB has to decide on making peace. But to achieve this, the continental blocus has to be maintained. And this will provoke new unrest in Europe.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Matteo,
it's just as wrong to portray Nap as a misunderstood victim as it is to portray him as the main aggressor at fault for all the coalition wars (with usual addition that peace could be had if not for Nap's ego).
It was indeed a complicated situation, but France at the start and Napoleon afterward were just as responsible for the conflicts as the rest of the various coalition powers. He agressed against others and caused them to agress against him through his actions just as much, or more than others being the agressors without any blame from Nap.
Nap was not interested in a balance of power, and without that, the coalition powers couldn't accept a Napoleonic France. However, various coalition powers did play their part in causing Nap to not pursue a balance of power.
Ultimately, what brought peace to Europe was not the defeat of Napoleon, but a restoration of balance of power. Figure out how to achieve balance with Nap in charge, and you have the answer to the OP. The entire problem is that coalition didn't think Nap would balance, and Nap didn't think the coalitions would let France be a major power. Both were right, but both were also guilty of creating the situation.
The Peace of Amiens was the breaking point. Neither side had honest intentions. both sides like to point at the other and blame them for breaking the peace, but the reality is that both sides had no intention of holding the peace. Nap still wanted a little more, and Britain thought he already had too much.
it's just as wrong to portray Nap as a misunderstood victim as it is to portray him as the main aggressor at fault for all the coalition wars (with usual addition that peace could be had if not for Nap's ego).
It was indeed a complicated situation, but France at the start and Napoleon afterward were just as responsible for the conflicts as the rest of the various coalition powers. He agressed against others and caused them to agress against him through his actions just as much, or more than others being the agressors without any blame from Nap.
Nap was not interested in a balance of power, and without that, the coalition powers couldn't accept a Napoleonic France. However, various coalition powers did play their part in causing Nap to not pursue a balance of power.
Ultimately, what brought peace to Europe was not the defeat of Napoleon, but a restoration of balance of power. Figure out how to achieve balance with Nap in charge, and you have the answer to the OP. The entire problem is that coalition didn't think Nap would balance, and Nap didn't think the coalitions would let France be a major power. Both were right, but both were also guilty of creating the situation.
The Peace of Amiens was the breaking point. Neither side had honest intentions. both sides like to point at the other and blame them for breaking the peace, but the reality is that both sides had no intention of holding the peace. Nap still wanted a little more, and Britain thought he already had too much.
I of course agree with your first sentence.
But I disagree when you say that Napoleon was the agressor. Until mid 1807, he was not the agressor. Britain was the war-monger because it just did not accept the perspective of a too powerful France. Its policy had been to bring down France from at least the middle of 18th Century. This is precisely why I mentioned Pitt the elder.
This is not a judgment of value from my part. This was a great game and Britain played it remarkably cleverly and ruthlessly.
But I disagree when you say that Napoleon was the agressor. Until mid 1807, he was not the agressor. Britain was the war-monger because it just did not accept the perspective of a too powerful France. Its policy had been to bring down France from at least the middle of 18th Century. This is precisely why I mentioned Pitt the elder.
This is not a judgment of value from my part. This was a great game and Britain played it remarkably cleverly and ruthlessly.
unprincipled peter
Donor
the problem is
a too powerful France.
obviously, any rational opponent of France doesn't want a too powerful France.
no sane neighbor would accept a growing power.
Initial coalition mistake was trying to reduce France to minor power status (understandable overall. that should be the goal in any power balance equation), while France was trying to expand its notion of freedom (obviously a threat to power holders everywhere).
Nap was absolutely an aggressor. it was the wise move. He wanted to come out on top of the power struggle game. only hindsight says he should have stayed pat. I don't think Britain would have accepted that, but it is the only possibility for peace with Nap in power. Britain needs to accept that France is a major power without being THE predominant power without peer. that's the crux of the problem Nap wants France to be overall the predominant power. it's rational. you want your country to be a top dog. Britain feels threatened by this. also rational. only an idiot allows an ambitious neighbor grow in power. At this point there's a possibility of compromise of France saying this is enough, and Britain saying we can live with this. However, and this is where I think we differ, is that Nap said "nope, we're not holding still. we're going to expand to protect ourself" Britain said "nope, we don't trust you". Both sides were wrong. both sides escalated the situation.
my point is that Nap shouldn't be painted as the bad guy. but he is in NO way innocent. Personally, I think the situation boils down to: France wanted to expand its notion of revolution of the people. Europe (including Britain) wanted to take advantage of a self implosion of a major power. France wanted a war to keep control of a revolution. France manages to come out on top, and a general takes control. Britain can't accept this situation of a France who has beaten it's enemies. the general sees an opportunity and seeks to expand France. Britain convinces others, rightfully, that France is a problem. France tries to control all others to break Britain. others said hell no.
Nap absolutely was a prime player in escalating the situation, from the very beginning. he was expanding at every opportunity. he was ordering all of Europe to accept his economic plan. From top to bottom, he demanded to be treated as top dog. you simply cannot excuse him from blame. he wanted France to be the predominant country (which is not a bad thing), but he took it too far, pushed it too far, and pushed his enemies to believe there was only one way to stop him, which was to crush him. I accept that he had a tough row to hoe, with the situation France was in, but there's no way I accept that he was the victim. he made France into a dangerous entity that no sane neighbor would accept.
a too powerful France.
obviously, any rational opponent of France doesn't want a too powerful France.
no sane neighbor would accept a growing power.
Initial coalition mistake was trying to reduce France to minor power status (understandable overall. that should be the goal in any power balance equation), while France was trying to expand its notion of freedom (obviously a threat to power holders everywhere).
Nap was absolutely an aggressor. it was the wise move. He wanted to come out on top of the power struggle game. only hindsight says he should have stayed pat. I don't think Britain would have accepted that, but it is the only possibility for peace with Nap in power. Britain needs to accept that France is a major power without being THE predominant power without peer. that's the crux of the problem Nap wants France to be overall the predominant power. it's rational. you want your country to be a top dog. Britain feels threatened by this. also rational. only an idiot allows an ambitious neighbor grow in power. At this point there's a possibility of compromise of France saying this is enough, and Britain saying we can live with this. However, and this is where I think we differ, is that Nap said "nope, we're not holding still. we're going to expand to protect ourself" Britain said "nope, we don't trust you". Both sides were wrong. both sides escalated the situation.
my point is that Nap shouldn't be painted as the bad guy. but he is in NO way innocent. Personally, I think the situation boils down to: France wanted to expand its notion of revolution of the people. Europe (including Britain) wanted to take advantage of a self implosion of a major power. France wanted a war to keep control of a revolution. France manages to come out on top, and a general takes control. Britain can't accept this situation of a France who has beaten it's enemies. the general sees an opportunity and seeks to expand France. Britain convinces others, rightfully, that France is a problem. France tries to control all others to break Britain. others said hell no.
Nap absolutely was a prime player in escalating the situation, from the very beginning. he was expanding at every opportunity. he was ordering all of Europe to accept his economic plan. From top to bottom, he demanded to be treated as top dog. you simply cannot excuse him from blame. he wanted France to be the predominant country (which is not a bad thing), but he took it too far, pushed it too far, and pushed his enemies to believe there was only one way to stop him, which was to crush him. I accept that he had a tough row to hoe, with the situation France was in, but there's no way I accept that he was the victim. he made France into a dangerous entity that no sane neighbor would accept.
Napoleon dies during the Peace of Amiens. Talleyrand negotiates a permanent peace treaty.
This is wrong and biased.
The fact is that Napoleon's first agression war in Europe occured in late 1807 against Portugal.
Britain torn apart the treaty of Amiens just after it was signed because Britain's goal was : freezing the situation in continental Europe and keeping for itself a monopoly outside Europe.
Britain was not liberal : it was a mercantilist monopolist country.
France was its most dangerous and in fact its only competitor. That's why the french power had to be broken. It was a new hundred years war that had several episodes and Britain won the 2 most important : the seven years war and the last one, the napoleonic wars.
Britain and France were not the only imperialist States. The way Russia, Prussia and Austria torn Poland apart in 1772, 1793 and 1795, the way Austria annexed Venetia, had shown what game they were playing.
He did.
There wasn't another war between great powers for almost 40 years after Waterloo. The fear of another Napoleon emerging was an important factor in keeping them together. Nobody gave him the credit, of course, but that long stretch of peace was indirectly his work.
Basically, you're going to have to kill Napoleon in some way before the Treaty of Tilsit and the Continental System was put in. Napoleon trying to dictate to all of Europe and just making mistake after mistake made conflict inevitable. Maybe Napoleon dying before the outbreak of the Coalition in 1805 prevents France from provoking them into going with the UK and a general peace settles for the time being.
Well the "Blame Britain for everything" did not take long.
Napoleon's actions are hardly pure and selfless, he violated Amiens at least as clearly as Britain, annexing Piedmont, Mediating the Swiss Confederation, oh and re-establishing slavery!!!
And Napoleon continued the Wars of the Revolution, which were hardly unaggressive.
Anyway, Bonaparte could have had peace as late as the 1813 Frankfurt Proposals, even Britain was wavering.
Napoleon aggressively responded to any enemy attacks, and demanded significant concessions after achieving victory, thus provoking further paranoia and fear of him and causing further coalitions. This cycle essentially continued until finally one of the coalitions ended up winning. You'd probably need a different Napoleon for this to be achievable.
Did I blame Britain for everything ? No. They were even. There was no good side and no bad side. It was all about realpolitics and, in the end, vae victis.
Though this last statement is debatable given the quite astonishing popularity of Napoleon in many countries : the ones he did not invade of course.
Britain's foreign policy, vis-a-vis the continent, was to do their best to ensure there was no hegemonic power on the continent as a hegemon (or even disproportionately strong power) on the continent would be threatening to Britain. A balance on the continent, which also gives Britain the ability to shift its weight around as needed to keep a balance and prevent hegemony is what Britain always strove for.
A France that was strong enough to be a hegemon on the continent was very threatening, and when you combine that with the "continental system" Napoleon tried to impose, which would be extremely harmful to British mercantile interests. That combination ensured British hostility to Napoleon.
A France that was strong enough to be a hegemon on the continent was very threatening, and when you combine that with the "continental system" Napoleon tried to impose, which would be extremely harmful to British mercantile interests. That combination ensured British hostility to Napoleon.
I'm not of the "Blame Britain for everything camp" but I don't see how the Frankfurt Proposals would have stuck. Britain was not about to accept letting Napoleon control Belgium after they just got a major victory over him.
In my opinion, the best case scenario is Napoleon somehow forces Britain to the table. I believe a timeline was done a long time ago on a Napoleonic Victory based off an 1807 POD, but probably the earlier the better. Keeping France's navy in a state where it can at least stand up to the Royal Navy is important, so pre-Trafalgar (or better yet, pre-battle of the Nile) POD is probably best.
Is it just me, or is the best of the Napoleonic Peace timelines available the ones where Bonaparte is not alive anymore to muck things up?
Hitler also falls into this category.
Maybe the Roman Senators knew what they were doing when they knocked off Julius Caesar.
"Brutus we have to kill him, guys like Julius don't know when to quit when their ahead, we don't take him out eventually Rome will be a pile of burning rubble, don't worry history will thank us."
Hitler also falls into this category.
Maybe the Roman Senators knew what they were doing when they knocked off Julius Caesar.
"Brutus we have to kill him, guys like Julius don't know when to quit when their ahead, we don't take him out eventually Rome will be a pile of burning rubble, don't worry history will thank us."
unprincipled peter
Donor
Matteo,
you say one thing but argue another. You clearly blame everyone but Napoleon, outright disagreeing with me when I say both sides are to blame, but then say both sides are bad. Everything about your arguments put you as a Nap apologist. As someone else said, and as I've argued, Nap was just as complicit in breaking the peace of amiens as britain. You can't ignore Naps role in creating an adversarial situation from the time of his rise to power to the time of his demise. Early on, he was not merely reacting to the aggression of others. he was actively pushing others to be aggressive because his actions led to unacceptable circumstance. Continental system, anyone? War of Oranges, anyone?
you say one thing but argue another. You clearly blame everyone but Napoleon, outright disagreeing with me when I say both sides are to blame, but then say both sides are bad. Everything about your arguments put you as a Nap apologist. As someone else said, and as I've argued, Nap was just as complicit in breaking the peace of amiens as britain. You can't ignore Naps role in creating an adversarial situation from the time of his rise to power to the time of his demise. Early on, he was not merely reacting to the aggression of others. he was actively pushing others to be aggressive because his actions led to unacceptable circumstance. Continental system, anyone? War of Oranges, anyone?