Origins of the Napoleonic Wars: The Peace of Amiens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- This video aims to be a short documentary/ analysis, looking at the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Amiens that ended the French Revolutionary Wars. It then aims to chart the breakdown of the peace, and start of the Napoleonic Wars.
Sources:
Paul W. Schroeder, Napoleon's Foreign Policy: A Criminal Enterprise (Without doubt the best article I have ever read on Napoleon's Foreign Policy, and explains comprehensively why it was so disastrous for Europe).
Andrew Roberts, Napoleon the Great (The best single volume biography of Napoleon, and used heavily for the French side of the negotiations).
Thomas Goldsmith, British Diplomatic Attitudes towards Europe, 1801-4 Ignorant and Indifferent?, International History Review (An excellent article for an assessment of Britain's foreign policy between 1801-1804).
Graeme Callister, Britain’s Continental Connection and the Peace of Amiens: A Reassessment, International Historical Review (An interesting and useful article for looking at British foreign policy in the era by focusing on London's relationship with the Netherlands. However, I fundamentally disagree with the thesis that Amiens was some kind of British success).
Roger Knight, Britain Against Napoleon (An excellent book looking at Britain's war effort).
Modern British Foreign Policy, The Eighteenth Century (A good book for analysis, though arguably shows its age with the occasional false fact, such as arguing France didn't legally break any part of Amiens, ignoring her economic violations etc.).
#Napoleon, #BritishEmpire, #History
Calling Napoleon erratic is a little off the mark in my estimation. He certainly was capable of making bold and even brazen moves, but these were calculated to have a beneficial effect for France’s position. His ambitions as a ruler are often cited as the reason he rarely made genuine offers at lasting peace, but that was largely due to the fact he did not expect the other European Powers to idly accept one. The very existence of a non-Bourbon France posed a threat to the legitimacy of their states. One often forgets that the coalitions begun most of Napoleon’s wars, not himself. Anyway, remarkable video! Your style and coverage is something to admire. If you have not come across it, I recommend Andrew Roberts’ biography of Napoleon. It is one of many, but it is a gem that stands out.
says napoleon
I'm sure you're very unbiased towards Napoleon just looking at your username
@@jakemurray2635 consider me well-read.
It’s ironic they call you biased, ah anglos
What about Russia?
Excellent to see that more people are covering Napoleon
Actually laughed out loud and woke my kid up hahaha. So simple, very well done.
The British: Switzerland should be independent
The Irish: 🙁
Well not the first time brits are caught being double faced hypocrites lol
Swiss aren't sub human cockroaches though
The British: We have a public reason and then the real reasons.
Napoleon: I am so great I don't even need to make up excuses for my real (personal gain) reasons.
@@Chrysobubulle Britain just wanted to get rid of Napoleon plain and simple.
UK 1914: Noooo you can’t invade Belgium!
UK 1914-1918: invades Iran, Greece, and other neutral countries
It may be a stretch to say the British were searching for a lasting peace "unlike Napoleon". They both had their skepticism, and many in the British government saw this peace as an experiment and didn't expect it to last. It's fair to say that neither side really saw this as a long term option and were buying time for the next war to break out, exemplified by both sides breaking their agreements nearly immediately.
I enjoyed this video, but it definitely sets the tone that Napoleon is to blame for everything. It is much more nuanced than that. This video also does not mention any of the British sponsored assassination attempts he would see in this period and through the rest of his reign.
Not to say Napoleons ambition wasn't a major if not the contributing factor to the breakdown of peace, but the British were certainly not acting in 100% good faith, either.
Can't you tell by the accent that he's an anglo, half of the video can be disregarded based on his nationality alone
@@SneedEnjoyer R@SIST TTVV@TT.
@@OsFanB94 This is pure stupidity. Because there were no such attempts during this period, so they could hardly be blamed for disrupting negotiations…
@@TheGreatAmphibian lol. Ok buddy. Maybe you should do a bit more research before you just get mad about it. Historians have gone into detail about 20-30 known assassination attempts starting in 1799. The British government landed dozens of agents and assassins in mainland Europe
Briton wanted balance of power in Europe so that it can continue to expand and dominate rest of the world without any threat to home island. Balance of Power was not for the sake of peace or Pan-European order.
British expansion from the possessions it gained after the Napoleonic wars was non almost non existent until the scramble for Africa when the European powers started rapid colonisation projects. there was no Master plan For British world domination as this would turn Europe against Britain leading to major loss. it was for the sake of a pan European peace as this suited all the respective powers of the time. war at this point had devastated the continent for the last 50 years!!!!
Killing of the Danish fleet, without any reason other trhan "could be used against us, in Copenhagen shows what had top priority.
France though had conuered several neighbours and allied Spain so she had secured the avenues into France by foreign armies (also rich areas that could pay for French troops there).
Well obviously. That was Britain’s policy for centuries.
Yep and worked for Britain by and large, and European countries tried to abide by Britain's policy.
Funny thing about all this Anti Napoleon sentiment from Britain was the fact that they allowed Louis Napoleon exiled in their soil and did nothing to stop restoration of the second French Empire and even side with them during Crimean war against their former ally Russia. At this point it clear to me that it's not about peace or balance of power but rather than how much profit Britain could gain from their pragmatic foreign policy.
Napoleon was the threat to British hegemonic ambitions. And they won.
By the time of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, France had been aready relegated to the role of a lesser power and was no more a threat to the british world order.
Plus having Louis Napoleon as a refugee made him very anglophile, and he got inspired by the Brits to make many reforms when he assumed power.
pardon me? 30 years is a lot of time and i dont think the russians whould still be thanking the english 100 years later esp. when chad alex I. thought it was gods will to kill france . imagine when they established power over the black sea and india, with persia under their hand threatening china and the african colonies of britain, syria falling under their sphere and tsarigrad beeing a new capital? we should know whos is the bigger devil here. the russians was seen as the new turk since poltava 1700 and swedish decline. all of the world would have always backed off more when russia wouldnt be around like it is. imo swedish russia, polish russia , heck, even ottoman russia would be better for the world. england did the world a favour in wasting good men in those krim wars, the ottomans couldnt held st. petersburg from constantinople for 2 months.
Literally every country is like that.
Louis Napoleon was a bumbling fool stuck in his uncle's shadow. He wasn't 1/100th the threat that the true Napoleon was at his height
The Crimean War was due to a balance of power problem-if the Russians won they would’ve had Constantinople and easy naval access to the eastern Mediterranean. That was totally anathema to the British, as they wanted retain control to their links with India through the Suez Isthmus. (Not canal yet, as that was opened for business in 1869.) Britain was deathly afraid this was the first thrust of Russian expansion that would lead to the Russian incursion and possible conquest of a good chunk of India.
"Evil French demanded we return all the territories we stole from them, which proved they were expansionists." Listening to British version of history is a surreal experience to anyone who was not infused in it since childhood.
Its funny to see all the anglos congratulating themselves in the comments for this very nuanced video 😅
OP could have posted a video just saying BRITANIA GOOD FRANCE BAD to save some time though
I mean any country does that for its own history. Ask a person from spain and their own imperialism was entirely justified and somehow different or italians claimed to have invented basically everything despite it most often just tweaking someone elses work. China truly feels its the true enlightened race and has a mandate of heaven so all their actions are justified. Garuntee your countries do the same thing
what territories do u mean? like ceylon? or aquitaine? in both places french were only occupiers themselves. never more , never less. the illusion of romes fall blinding ur arrogance is absolutely barbaric seen by a fellow european.
britain's based france sucks, simple as, short baguette hitler lost 💪
@@UnholyWrath3277honestly I think this is one thing that American education seems to do pretty well compared to other countries, and American education doing something correctly is a rare feat. We are always taught about the negative pieces of our past, and it is rarely justified to us. We all know and recognize the bad things our country has done, and it’s shocking that, education wise, America is doing something good that others aren’t. Because they sure as hell aren’t doing much else
I can't tell how perfectly timed this is all to me. You must consider venturing out to Patreon, your content and word is utterly stellar.
I disagree with the idea that the main European opposition to Napoleonic France was due to him violating the balance of power and rules of diplomacy. The exact second that France became revolutionary, far before it conquered a single kilometer of land, practically all of Europe unilaterally declared war on it. As the revolution promised the lower classes more rights, I see the idea of "Oh well, we just dislike Napoleon because he violated the Balance of Power and rules of diplomacy" as simply an excuse to the peasantry. The most important reason for all members partaking in the coalitions, was because the idea of a spreading revolution was threatening the social order of all of Europe, and particularly everyone in power.
The Napoleonic Wars includes 7 Coalitions, the Peninsular War, and the Napoleonic Invasion of Russia. Every one of the 7 coalitions were defensive wars, the Napoleonic Invasion of Russia was due to Russia violating numerous treaty obligations, and the Peninsular War is the only war I can confidently call unjustifyingly offensive and aggressive in nature. Napoleon's conquests could've been mostly avoided, if Britain had stopped bribing nations to try and take him down. Napoleon was not the enemy of Europe, Europe was the enemy of Napoleon.
The Idea of France breaking the Balance of power of Europe especially for the time was mostly a intellectual opinion in some niche and 100% the idea justifying the UK.
Because it coudnt exactly claim the revolution as justification which was closer to their system until they killed the King and when Napoleon took power as Consul for Life even if granted it was a barely hidden dictatorship, and their whole thing was "yes Europe should have the Balance of power going on so that we can dominate everyone through trade and its a win win".
But you are right indeed in that the idea is not the main one, Austria and Russia especially didnt give a sh** about of Power they just didnt want their own diverse population to get any ideas, Austria even more because of the HRE and the battle of Influence within German States and Prussia because same, Revolution was a complete 180° to the Europe led by Royal Families.
Hell Europe was not the Ennemy of Napoleon, far from that, Europe BECAME the ennemy of Napoleon when the values shared by the revolution awoke Nationalism within the population which understandably then went hostile as hell towards the French invaders.
Napoleon's ennemy was the system in place of the "Europe des Princes" where geopolitics were led not by the peoples decisions which didnt matter at all (Napoleon did put his familly in power later but thats honestly a bit of Charlemagne inspiration there otherwise he was a firm supporter of a meritocracy where those proven better have the power), but by old famillies whose legitimacy behind their rule wasnt their capabilities but their luck at birth
Thank you for the respectful critique. So to start with I'd recommend Paul W. Schroeder's, 'Napoleon's Foreign Policy: A Criminal Enterprise', which I'll rely on to answer these objections.
Post-Amiens destroying the French revolution and Napoleon was not a primary aim for any of the European powers. Most were actually somewhat pleased when he crowned himself Emperor, as they thought it may bring France back into the international system. Instead what they found was Napoleon refused to be part of any system that he was not dominant in and put any restraints upon his policy. As described in the video there were regular and blatant violations of international agreements on a scale Europe had never really seen before. Frederick II's seizure of Silesia or Louis XIV's projects pale in comparison to Napoleonic ambition.
The idea that because Napoleon did not declare the majority of his wars, he was not the aggressor is a fundamentally misguided one, and a very reductive way of looking at diplomatic history (I hope that doesn't come across as patronising, I don't mean it to). All of the European Great Powers at different times attempted to come to an accommodation with Napoleon, and live within a French dominated system. All resorted to a degree of appeasement that would make even Chamberlain blush. Every single time they found that war, with all its associated risks, was a preferable choice. There is a reason you had extremely paranoid conservatives like Francis, and extremely indecisive and weak monarchs like Frederick William resorting to war. Napoleon could never be relied upon to abide within diplomatic norms, and would use his position to abuse and bully powers until he got his own way.
There's a lot more to say, so if you have any further comments I will elaborate some more. Thank you nonetheless for your pleasant critique.
@@OldBritannia I've been watching your videos for quite a while and I'd like to say that your unfaltering dedication to accuracy, extending to correcting any errancy in the videos, as well as your encouragement of debate are unfortunately unique qualities which set you apart. Really good job mate, and good to see such a community and ethos cultivated.
@@OldBritannia Thank you for such a meticulous response. I unfortunately am quite broke and unemployed right now, so I doubt I could afford the book, but Christmas is coming up so perhaps that'll change. One of the reoccurring sources I use (among other lesser ones) is "‘We Are Constituted as a Nation’: Austria in the Era of Napoleon" by Martin P. Schennach. I also found myself using coincidentally Paul Shroeder's "The Collapse of the Second Coalition."
Napoleon's self-coronation as Emperor was quite frowned upon through most of relevant Europe. In Austria, it was seen as an illegitimate farce, as Napoleon's coronation was not sanctioned directly by the pope (due to it being a self-crowning) was not a past title, and undermined their rightful Emperorship over the Holy Roman Empire. Also, Napoleon's title wasn't "Emperor of France" but "Emperor of the French", which suggested to Austria & Russia a nationalist overtone, which directly threatened their multi-ethnic empires. Within the numerous sister-republics of Napoleon, the coronation was perceived as a betrayal of Revolutionary ideals. France's allies such as Spain were silent about the issue, but many aristocrats abroad from Britain to Portugal to the German states, were appalled at the Coronation, as Napoleon was lowborn and thus did not have a right to any titles that would dare suggest King of Kings. The only really people who supported it were the nationalists within France, and nationalism in France wasn't near unanimous, as nationalism as a concept was still in infancy. I do not know of any arguments that it was hoped France would return to the accusation, and I perceive that as counterintuitive due to the arrogance that comes with Emperorship, but I also am not educated on the intricacies of that topic so I do not have the right to argue against it. Europe had seen attempts to violate international agreements even larger then Napoleon at that point. Louis XIV's projects included attempting to subjugate the entire Spanish empire, which with all its land combined was larger then Europe, and richer then any state Napoleon had subjugated. That I believe sets enough precedent in it of itself to make Napoleon's ambition not seem totally alien. Also, most of Napoleon's conquests at this point weren't direct at all, and were simply aligned sister republics, usually with entirely independent courts & armies, most of which didn't even contribute troops to Napoleon's future wars. No doubt they were under the thumb of Napoleon, and had no choice but to accept Napoleon's diplomatic will, but it still is fundamentally different from directly annexing land. The only land Napoleon annexed, was land that the French monarchs had sought over for the last millennium - a rhine border. He also annexed Piedmont, however that isn't too drastic. Silesia had a higher population then Piedmont, if we are to use that example.
When it comes to Napoleon being defensive, it could be simply a matter of perspective, but let me lay it out how I see it. Before I go into it, I must say that I consider the wars of the 1st & 2nd coalitions to still be Napoleonic despite him not being in power, as they executed by many of the same politicians (Talleyrand for example), all their majors victories were won by Napoleon, and Napoleon personally signed the peace treaties of such conflicts.
The 1st Coalitionary War was triggered by the Declaration of Pillnitz, which was a literal statement saying that Prussia & The Holy Roman Empire didn't recognize the revolution and would support an active invasion to install a new government. That is the most blatant threat they could possibly make on the revolutionaries in power, and already expresses their core central desire throughout the war, which was to topple the revolution. France, rightfully worried about its national sovereignty, would declare war.
The 2nd Coalitionary War was explicitly for the purpose of recovering from the humiliation of the 1st Coalitionary War. France's Treaty of Leoben remained vague on whom was to receive Venetia, which would become a point of diplomatic contention and slowness between Austria & France. Naples had sworn to pay tribute to France, but immediately refused too as the Treaty was put into action, and a rebellion by its peasants, hoping for Napoleonic reforms to be spread to Naples, would for a short time dethrone the Neapolitan government in favor of the Parthenopaean Republic. Switzerland would have its own peasant rebellion and (notice, not by French invasion, but by popular revolt and sovereignty) establish the Helvetic Republic. These revolts, which were only influenced by French liberalism, and not by the will or invasion of France or Napoleon, would be the main justifications for war with France. This shows a reactionary side to the coalition, as they were scared that more people would be inspired by the French Revolution to revolt, and they wished to prevent any more future revolts. AFTER the Helvetic Republic was established and solidly set, it signed an alliance with France and invited the French to protect their borders against an increasingly weary Austria, triggering the first conflict of the war. The following battle sat Winterthur, Frauenfeld, Feldkirch, and Stockach were all defensive battles, with Austrian armies assaulting French ones wintering in Switzerland.
The 3rd Coalitionary War's politics I believed you covered very well and honestly. Napoleon's invasion of Haiti though justified, did piss the British off. I don't believe this was a valid excuse for escalated tensions, but I can understand it was diplomatically stupid of Napoleon. Generally, I agree that Napoleon stalled all peace terms he had signed with Britain, and perhaps didn't intend to respect them at all. Though this is the exception to the wars rather then the norm. When it came to every other nation in the war (Austria & Prussia namely), he committed to all his promised concessions, and pronounced an opinion that he desired for a longstanding peace in Europe.
The 4th Coalitionary War is weird in which its not one unified war. Russia & in practicality, Britain, weren't peaceful with Napoleon before this war, however it was marked by the entrance of Prussia, whom's explicit designs were to seize the Confederation of the Rhine, which had been rightfully established by Napoleon and approved by previous peace treaties.
The 5th Coalitionary War (spearheaded by Austria) was triggered mainly by the Napoleonic Invasion of Spain, which I agree was a dick move. This made Austria question the security of any French alliance. Napoleon had no right or justification to invade, and puppeting a country merely because its royal family annoys the hell out of you is no way to execute diplomacy. However, even with this unjustified invasion, Austria did fire the first shot, and Napoleon still maintained his pre-3rd coalition opinion that peace - at least in broad strokes within Europe's mainland - was an objective of his. The 5th coalition was not instigated nor intended by the French Empire, and was a defensive conflict against a weary Austria.
The 6th Coalitionary War was triggered by Russia upfront refusing to comply with treaty terms they had signed in the 5th coalition. They had promised to abide by the continental system, and they refused to do so. This is a blatant and crystal clear violation, and is impossible to interpret otherwise. France was wholly in their right to invade.
The 7th Coalitionary War was declared on France the second Napoleon gained power, with no reason whatsoever. Europe was scared to shit of Napoleon, which I can't blame them, but Napoleon explicitly just wanted to live the rest of his life in peace as leader of France, and bargained throughout the 100 days of the coalitionary war, for a peaceful end to it, even promising territorial concessions. It can not be framed as anything else then Europe refusing to allow the existence of a Revolutionary France.
Sorry for such a long response, there are a lot of components I had to cover. Apologies in advance for any carpal syndrome symptons, lmao. The whole purpose of all of this is that Napoleon simply wanted to rule France in a new revolutionary legal system, which threatened the monarchies of Europe, inevitably resulting in seven consecutive defensive wars. Though a couple of coalitionary justifications could be argued legitimate, the vast majority of them is blatant aggression, with the desire to restore France to a less tumultuous system of government. Napoleon was no doubt ambitious, but he didn't even get the chance to be peaceful, as every year another European army was marching on him, attempting to depose him. His only inexcusable invasion or intrusion is Spain, and that is only one of the many many conflicts of the war. You mention that the Europeans attempted to appease France, but - unless your counting forceful concessions from war - I do not know of any of these concessions, so I would like if you could elaborate.
@@OldBritannia the 3rd 4th and 5th coalitions were absolutely defensive on Frances part mate.
The idea that Napoleonic Europe was fundamentally unstable is something that's largely unprovable. We'll never know because Napoleon did invade Russia and the rest is history. Had a Romanov princess been old enough and available Napoleon would have married her and not the Austrian princess and Napoleonic Europe may well have settled down
That is a good video but in my opinion it sould be more balanced.
It is unfair to consider Napoelon greed as the only cause of the failure to reach a lasting peace as most of Napoleon wars (as well as revolutionnary France wars before that) were defensive ones. And the fact that he was a "dictator" is irrelevant: Uk allies against Napoleon were far more authoritarians and the French Empire, despite its despotic form of governement, was the champion of political modernity in continental Europe. Moreover, Napoleon then repeatedly asked for peace but it was denied because the coalition just wanted to get rid of him. In 1815 this choice of the UK arguably undermined the future balance of powers in Europe and permitted the rise of the German power and eventually the two world wars.
And if you consider that the French ambitions in North America were unacceptable because these lands would naturally be "UK national interest", you therefore have to admit France could legitimately interfere in border territories like Northern Italy, the Netherlands or Switzerland as well. There even were "sibling republics" of Revolutionnary France at some point and obviously were strategic vital assets for its national security.
However it is interesting to learn about the British perspective regarding this.
Metternich tried to offer Napoleon peace on relatively generous terms as late as 1813 only for Napoleon to reject it. The idea that Napoleon's opponents were implacable and determined to hunt him to the end of the Earth only becomes true when Napoleon refused, over and over again, to come up with some way to live side by side the rest of Europe. By the time Napoleon sued for peace, he was already beaten and had no right to a seat at the table anymore.
@@pattersong6637 Arguably, this is also due to him knowing they were already plotting the next coalition. He knew he had to be prepared, and that peace was offered to France only because it was in a position of power. So he moved to maintain it in long-term way. With time, it escalated more and more. Though, I am not pleased with the invasion of Spain and Russia. I'm afraid it was already at the point of no return, with the two blocks knowing that fighting was going to be inevitable.
@@gs7828 Sure, by 1813 Napoleon had already marched into Russia with a giant army and marched out without it and already looked extremely vulnerable and the vultures were already circling. Which is why his rejection of Metternich's offer is even more striking: Napoleon preferred one more major gamble after his last failed gamble. Napoleon ends up like a drug addict hoping for another hit of Austerlitz or Jena style total victory and making increasingly bad decisions in pursuit of it.
jumping from napoleon to ww2 is like jumping from galic wars to the fall of constantinople.
@@pattersong6637napolean isnt going to make peace anymore with the same people that declared war on him 5 times.
I think you might be overstating the respect Britain and the other powers had for international law. For all the talk of inalienable sovereignty, they were more than willing to sacrifice the interests of small states like Sardinia Piedmont if it meant peace with France. Of course, by that time they had about as much chance of kicking Bonapart off those lands at the allies had of freeing Eastern Europe from Russian domination.
I don't know if you study Renaissance history, but I have, albeit only as an undergrad, and it is interesting to look at Napoleon's actions in relation to the aims of previous French wars. In Italy especially his actions read as an enlightenment era update to the policy of Francis I, Henri II, and Louis the xiv. Both Francis and Henri had sought to dominate the Savoyard State, and later to rule it, press their direct claims to Milan and Naples, and maintain dominion over central Italy by backing the various children and or kin of whomever the current pope was in establishing proxy states.
As far as I know, Louis xiv never tried to directly claim Naples but he did try and then succeed, in putting his grandson on the throne of the Spanish Empire, though in fairness he would have probably favored partition had the Spanish not made it clear that they would offer the crown only to a prince who would rule the entire empire.
And of course, the French had ambitions to dominate the low countries as early as the middle ages. The difference the Revolution and Napoleon brought was a new political system capable of mobilizing greater resources and commitment from the population, and an ideological justification that did not depend on blood claims or unpaid doweries. The reason Louis xiv was never able to rule over the low countries or Italy was not for want of trying, it was because his opponents were able to keep him in check.
Bruh, he's literally called 'Old Britannia'. Pro British bias reeks of his videos.
This is my favorite channel, the nuance and conditions of the periods you talk about really come to life when you start talking. It's quite clear you have deep insight into these historical topics.
Lol
i have been a huge history nerd since forever. this is easily the best history channel i've ever seen.
@@genovayork2468 they're getting very annoying with their use of words like "daddy" and get outclassed heavily by bazbattles and Historymarch. I'll give them credit for covering cultural topics tho. Can't say I'm pleased with the positive light they shine on specifically and only the Mongols considering we all had a ancestors who was killed or raped by them
Good video. Really like how you explain everything pretty well. Balanced except for a few details. While the British Cabinet member complained about the Swiss situation under France no one mentioned Ireland’s right to self determination. Hehe other than that great.
Perfect timing as i’m currently in the middle of binging “The Age of Napoleon Podcast”
Severely underrated channel, outstanding work.
Great video (as always)! The actions of Britain v France in this situation shows the importance of diplomacy, restraint and getting international support, not just acting unilaterally. Even if the British were already dominant in trade and technology, they knew that to preserve their dominance they needed other countries to buy into the sytem by respecting international norms and treaties.
International norms are made up in this case. They wanted to destroy first the republican experiment, then liberalism. It was a long term game and so Napoleon took the best position possible. Once it was obvious they were going to counter France no matter what, it becomes inevitable for Napoleon to seek the best position from which to defend in a conflict.
@@gs7828 No there were different moments like this peace treaty where Napoleon could have preserved his power and been the man who preserved the revolution, despite restoring the aristocracy, the Catholic Church's power and slavery. It's harder to make peace and build a lasting system than to continue waging war. However, the French economy would have recuperated etc
0:26
you have to admit frances natural borders do look aesthetically pleasing
also kinda would love to have see a bourbon restoration under those borders
@@m.j.vazquez4720 Outrageous! :O
"Natural borders" (annexing smaller neighbors and trying to Francify them)
@@reidparker1848 to be honest at 1802 except for the German speaking territories at the right bank of the rhine nearly every part of that map was either French speaking or had been a part of France (I mean Belgians still speaks French to this day and were majority Catholics)
Quickly becoming my favorite history channel on TH-cam, I love your content! Keep it up man
"British policy, far from being nakedly based", truer words have never been spoken.
This is all very interesting and informative, I’m just looking forward to part 2 of the Great Game between Britain and the U.S. I hope that part 2 will be released very soon.
These videos are quickly becoming my favourite history videos on TH-cam! Fantastic in depth analysis
This is a very "British" viewpoint.
Entire channel is british point of view.
British propaganda would be more appropriate i think
@@Chrysobubulle not propaganda but certainly the British point of view not the French.
@@rebeccaorman1823 point of view for the british, propaganda for the rest of the world
@@Chrysobubulleand how is France natural borders doctrine not French propaganda when they occupate Belgium, parts of Netherlands and the German Reinland when non of does people who live their are French ?
Another great video as always! Always nice to see a napoleonic wars documentary.
I really enjoy your videos. I'm a big fan of history, and more specifically, the 18th through 20th centuries. I feel that this period of time is both distant and modern, featuring all of the drama, glory, and horror that makes history so compelling. I appreciate the time you spend talking about important events which are often relegated to mere footnotes in videos of larger scope.
I know that theory of Napolean being driven by his ambition, but he actually offered peace agreements several times and was being rejected by repeated coalitions.
Why anyone would expect a channel titled "Old Britannia" to cover the Napoleonic Wars objectively is hilarious to me
It is a great dichotomy that although Napolean was a fantastic strategist and commander, his statecraft was always a means to fulfill his own megalomania. Since he never knew when to stop he eventually led to his own destruction and ended up depriving France of a competent and moderate leader.
Great video!
The most British video I've watched this year
Napoleon and Hawkesbury portraits are gonna make me act up damn
Every time Old Britannia mentions "the power of the Royal Navy" all I hear is the opening bars of "Rule Britannia"
The 1800s power politics fit this channel well!
A very harsh interpretation of Napoleons actions around Amien all things considered.
I've always read that Amien being so favourable towards France was why Britain so readily refused to honour it and resumed the war that would go on for another 13 years. I've never understood what exactly the plan was after signing Amien. It clearly left France in a dominant position on the continent but then they'd won that through warfare. But if Britain wasn't willing to accept France as the dominant power then why sign the treaty in the first place? Was it really just to see what peace with a dominant France would be like? And it was readily decided that war was preferable?
Addington and Hawkesbury hoped to make the best of a bad situation, and work with what was a clearly victorious France. The plan was that by conceding much ground to France, she might be satiated and return to the international system.
As it was, even though Napoleon now ruled a country more powerful than any bourbon king, he refused to abide by the treaty.
@@OldBritannia Does the British refusal to evacuate Malta not signify they were always very iffy on the Treaty?
@@OldBritannia The only international system was power, though. If you consider it as "system", then it's liberalism vs conservatism/aristocracy.
It’s called buying time. When you can’t defeat immediately an ennemy, concede victory to him and regroup to muster your forces.
Thats basically the logic that was behind the politic of appeasement before WW2: Britain and France knew they couldnt defeat Germany so soon, so letting Hitler annex Austria and the Sudetenlands was just a way to temporize while boosting all military budgets and reforce their armies. It paid off in the end, even though many more mistakes were made at the beginning of the war.
@@OldBritanniaBritain was also making plans of their own though. Your view in this video appears very one sided.
They refused to give up Cape Colony, Refused to leave Malta, refused to leave Egypt, began to openly negotiate and court with Toussaint in Haiti as an independent power, hypocritical demanded Swiss self determination which strangling Ireland.
Addington's refusal to demobilize (neither did France, but you can't make an arguement that Napoleon alone wasn't acting in good faith). It also doesn't help matters that his replacement in Pitt literally worked with French royalists to ferment new revolts in France and to try and kidnap and murder Bonaparte.
The French may not have been genuine post Amiens, but London certainly was not either. Your video here seems really, really biased.
"It was this ambition that was to destroy France's position forever" - a brilliant summary.
oh my god thank you, dont know if you remember me but i was the one who originally asked you to do something about napoleon. thank you for this lmao, please do the war aims of each nation for the napoleonic wars.
This video is slightly different to my usual content, in that it is more focused around my own analysis (though of course based upon that of actual historians, whose works are cited in the description), rather than purely narrative history. This naturally means my interpretation (which is not exactly pro-Bonapartist) is just that. You are of course thus welcome to disagree with my conclusions.
Nonetheless, I hope you can to some extent enjoy it, any feedback is as always appreciated.
Correction: I wrongly say Mallorca, rather than Minorca at 3:31, apologies.
Nice excuse for british propagandism
@@luisandrade2254 What does that even mean lol? Everything I've said I can and do, cite from respected historians. The video relies heavily on Paul Schroeder who was an American.
@@luisandrade2254 maybe British Bias, but for it to be Propaganda, it'd need to be dishonest, and I think this video is everything but dishonest.
@@OldBritannia respected BRITISH historians I’m sure respected French or neutral historians would disagree. “Respectability” is not the same as honesty or fairness
@@olefante380 it is very dishonest it presents napoleon as war mongerer and the British as peaceful heroes of small nations. Everyone who knows anything about this time knows this is very simplistic at best and downright false at worst
Ironic that Britain in 1802 was the lone standard-bearer for a cold, calculated Balance of Power policy, only to exit 1815 as the sole advocate for Alignment policy just as Revolutionary France had once been.
Hi Sam 👋🏽 I love your vids dude 😊👍🏼
And so Britain spent the next 50 years after the Crimean war in "splendid isolation" from Europe's issues because so long as Europe was balanced it didn't need to concern itself with German unification or Jewish issues in Eastern Europe or with Bulgarian Independence it was content to sit and make the occasional written protest (the Government not so much the public) and build Empire in Africa and Asia.
Currently making a map which takes place in 1790, and the timing could not be more wonderful. Your videos provide lovely insight and much-needed honesty from a consistent perspective, along with nice border visuals. Great content as always, looking forward to seeing your inevitable success.
This does sound a little bit like British propaganda, I've got to say. Is that kind of the goal of the video? To see it from the perspective of the British government?
Love this Channel so much, hidden Gem. Please do consider Patreon because this is a Channel I would actually love to support.
Thank you, it means a huge amount that you’d be prepared to donate. Currently I don’t really feel comfortable asking for money for what is still quite a new channel. But I’ll look at setting one up towards the end of the year I think. Thank you so much.
if this vid is uncomfortable to watch, make a vid about other nations' perspectives of this history. I'm very amused to see a British perspective of this war. As such, I need the French perspective, Austrian perspective, and Purrusian and Russian perspective of this war too. as other smaller or lesser participant's perspectives such as the Netherlands and Spain and Swiss.
There's a reason we are still separate nations worldwide. and this gap is quite not quickly amendable.
Another wonderful video! I would love if you covered the build up to the 7 years war and how Prussia under Fredrick the great found itself so isolated on the continent, facing down all 3 great continental powers (France, Austria and Russia)
This is an excelent video with great production value, thank you for making this, i wish you the best of luck with your next video as well
My only small complaint is that you called the Netherlands "Holland" a few times in this video, you did call it the Netherlands pretty consistently through most of the video though, so good job
your accent is so strong that the only way I can understand something is through the auto generated captions lmao
How did Europe respond to England’s annexation of Ireland at this time?
Another excellent video! Your work has been a small contributor to an optimistic shift within myself where I give more credit to historical actors for their nobler intentions. You cover diplomats who again and again show humility and wisdom, who by their own success are often viewed as secondary to the leaders of crises which erupted. I eagerly await your next upload!
Great video as always keep it up
Lore of Origins of the Napoleonic Wars: The Peace of Amiens momentum 100
Very insightful video; I was always interested in how do powers bargain over terms of the peace treaty and looking into how are treaties are enforced or evaded.
Hmmmmmm I wonder what his opinions on Napoleon are?
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, while there was a Britain to stop French dominance of Europe, there was no power to stop the British dominance of the world.
There was Germany but the Eternal Anglo wouldn't put up with it
every other European power During the scramble for Africa shows otherwise.....
Another great video, love the topics you are doing, keep them coming.
Gary Neville knows his history.
If that's referring to me, this is without doubt the most offensive comment I have yet received. 😂
@@OldBritannia Haha yes, but if its any consolation your content is very good. And Gary Neville was a decent player as well.
Thank you for your excellent whole series.
I really enjoy your videos on pre modern politics because it is very detailed and informative. I just wish you could drop a little of the British bias (I know your channels name and expect some bias) because in almost all your videos the French or Americans come off as the ones to blame for all the problems of the period and the British as upright defenders of liberty.
Could you make a video on the Second French Republic and Napoleon III or France's recovery and rebuilding from the Franco-Prussian War up to WW1? (Personally I prefer the latter)
I’m going to do a series on all major powers leading up to WW1 . Austria-Hungary will come first then France.
Napoleon III will get his own video at some point yes.
@@OldBritannia wow i wonder if those videos will be as nuanced and not biased at all as this one 😂
Mr Old Britannia, i love ur videos, the detailing, the perspective. i dont understand how napoleon can be honestly seen as a saviour but an insatiable warmonger.
There is a lot of historical revisionism that happened in this video. Britain was breaking the terms of the treaty just as much as France was, and napoleon wasn’t an evil expansionist, he was a ambitious ruler. That doesn’t make him morally good, but this video paints the situation as much too “Britain is the victim of France expansionism” than is historicaly realistic. I recommend looking into it more closley. Napoleon was a very interesting character, and defining him as either a good fit or a bad guy is a gross oversimplification
Always great videos my man
The British had violated the treaty by never giving Malta back
As for Leclerc his moves were absolutely what you’d expect from a peaceful France, also any relation to the WWII general?
Excellent video
This was very interesting
3:12-3:17 talk about British guy talking history 🙈
So unbiased..
The British are know to be the best to rewrite History, hope this is not the case here.
It is
This sounds very much like a rehearsal for the two world wars in many aspects
Hi! How is everyone doing?
Terrible
@@LucidFL oh no
Extremely bias and inaccurate commentary against Napoleon, the French, their revolution, etc. and in favor of Britain! The author forgets about the Royal Navy actions of October 5th, 1804, when they unilaterally broke the Treat of Amiens with Spain attacking the fleet bringing the taxes from the American colonies (Indias) and capturing 3 out of 4 boats forcing Spain be an ally of France again!
From day one, Napoleon should have gone on his knees in London and showered the anglos with presents. If he could convince Britain that future Russia would be a greater threath to Britain’s interests in Europe than France ever was and start an uneasy friendship between the two countries Republican France's future in Europe would be ensured by Napoleon's military supremacy and economic security thanks to Britain’s neutrality. What Revolutionary France needed wasn't hegemony but security and a powerful ally.
Another great episode
Strongly disagree with this video conclusion. Napoleon never declared war and Britain was more than happy to occupy Malta and Egypt and other oversears territories as well as shipping revolutianarises to South America ie Bolivar Britain was concerned with Britain
This video sounds a little biased.
There was NO advantage for Britain to go to War with Napoleon other than to keep him constrained. He would not be so and therefore there had to be a war against Napoleon. It is notable that britain had NO territorial demands at this point, cedig back its previous gains, merely requiring Napoleon's withdrawal from Holland and Switzerlan, how could it ahve benefitted from that?
Would you ever make a video about the 1783 Paris peace talks between Great Britain and the United States?
Definitely. All major negotiations like this in the 19th and 18th centuries will be covered eventually I hope.
That’s great to hear!
One day you’ll be a staple of every A-Level History Classroom.
The British only fought with bows and currently only fight on sea because they shit themselves at the prospect of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy consists of hiding their island, keeping a strong navy to prevent anyone from landing there so as to avoid having to fight anyone directly and, the most important part, BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend), to please come save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news. But the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories they've had have been by surprise attacks (such as the batte of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter two German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against three British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy", the Bismarck alone defeated the three British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck). That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk). Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies if it furthers its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark was not at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it just in case Napoleon conquered Denmark, or when the French surrendered in World War II and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrifyied that that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediatly forgot about their ertswhile "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir or when they betrayed the Portuguese (their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy those areas just so the Britsh could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediatly forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they fight others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants".
Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats:
Afghans
6-13 January 1842 - retreat from Kabul - entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA)
3 September 1879 - Kabul ...again
27 July 1880 - Maiwand - 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed
By Mahdist
March 13, 1884 - January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum - 7,000 force lost to Mahdis
February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb
Chinese
4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon - defensive victory
June 24-26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts
Russians
Petropavlovsk - British landing repelled
Battle of the Great Redan - British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff
Balaclava - British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated.
Taganrog - failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog
Siege of Kars - Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars
Zulus
Isandlwanna - an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed
Intombe - supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead
Hlobane - No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed
Bulgarians
Battle of Kosturino 1915
Battle of Doiran 1916
Battle of Doiran 1917
Battle of Doiran 1918
Argentinians
2 April 1982 - Invasion of the Falklands - 100+ Marines and sailors captured
3 April 1982 - Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs
10 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Sheffield
22 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Ardent
23 May 1982 - Battle of Seal Cove
24 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Antelope
25 May 1982 - SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians
25 May 1982 - HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft.
29 May 1982 - Mount Kent Battle - 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident.
6-7 June 1982 - British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes
8 June 1982 - Bluff Cove Air Attacks
10 June 1982 - Skirmish at Many Branch Point - capture of the SAS contingent.
Ghurka victories
January 1814 - Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi - British army kept at bay
January 1814 - Battle of Jitgadh - British attack repulsed with 300 KIA
Spring 1814 - Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi - British Indian army stymied.
November 1814 - Battle of Nalapani - British force decimated with 700+ casualties
December, 1814 - Battle of Jaithak - 53rd Div. defeated and repelled.
Dutch
16 August 1652 - Battle of Plymouth - De Ruyter's triumph
30 November 1652 - Battle of Dungeness - Dutch gain control of the English Channel
4 March 1653 - Battle of Leghorn - 5 ships captured or sunk
2 August 1665 - Battle of Vågen
1-4 June 1666 - Four Days' Battle - 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded
2-5 September 1666 - Burning of London
9-14 June 1667 - Raid on Medway - Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships
28 May 1672 - Battle of Solebay
7 -14 June 1673 - Battle of Schooneveld
August 21, 1673 - Battle of Texel
Others
- by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta),
- by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans),
- by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola),
- by the native Indians (at Monongahela),
- by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad)
- by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by
sea)
Among many, many, others.
You sad pathetic cretin, do you seriously hate British people that much?, even liking your own comment? French t*at.
@@ChrisCrossClashHe destroyed you.
absolutely GOLD comment. Thank you.
@@smal750 Look at all you French t*ats, umm what language are we speaking again? 😂😂 French is a dying language even your youth has started with the English, and your government is seriously panicking, you even have a comity set up with old members of your empire because you are so scared to lose the value of the French language.
@@ChrisCrossClash While his comment feels petty and gratuitous, he did say some truth, didn't he? Could you believe that one doesn't need to be French to see it? What he said is biased, but so is this video. About languages, the more you know, the better, it makes you a more complete person. French is also by no means a dying language, it is thriving and one of the few languages found on every continent.
What do you think about the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion.
Trinidad and Ceylon were clear British gains as before they were just occupied territory
this was probably a lesson for Soviet Russia
slowly encroach... do not overextended...
it was working until their economic system collapsed lol
Excellent job!
13:33 "...destroyed France's position in the world forever".
Not true. Unlike Germany in 1945, France was still a major power in the Europe after 1815.
They were never again the hegemonic power in Europe.
@@gumdeo The fact is they were between 1852 and 1870, under the Second Empire, which is why the Franco-Prussian War had such dramatic consequences in the history of Europe, for Germany replaced France as the "gendarme of the Continent", as the British would say.
Right after 1815, not really. By 1830, yes.
Can I ask what is the music used as a background for the introduction?
The British claiming someone was not trustworthy in negotiations; that's rich. Napoleon was absolutely correct about Talleyrand.
But Talleyrand did what was right in 1814 because Napoleon like all dictators can never admit personal wrongdoings oh it wasn't Napoleon no! It was one of his Marshals or one of his ministers or generals or vassals never Napoleon and so it took a man like Talleyrand to see the war was lost and in a bid to save lives opened negotiations with the alliance.
@@t.wcharles2171 Funny to call Napoleon a dictator at a time when Europe was ruled by absolute monarchs who all waged war in pursuit of personal glory, never admitting their personal wrongdoings.
@@fireandblood8142 i never said nobody else Europe wasn't also a dictator however they knew when to quit at least Napoleon had to be forced to give because he couldn't take no for an answer.
Bonapartists be like : Napoleon wasnt a warmonger ;<
meanwhile Napoleon invading, threatening and extorting literally every single Neighbour he ever had, and arguably every state in europe.
Nice video 👍
Napoleons ambition also destroyed Europe's hold of America
The problem is than "napoleonic wars" means it's Napoleon the agressor, yes he was in 1812 that said he was (in his imperial career) a defensor against the British coalitions more than an agressor.
A lot of British ignore their country was not a great democracy at this time, it was an aristocratic autocracy yes with a great financial liberalism but nothing more, you should learn about the luddites who lived in Manchester and the terrible military-state repression they were striked, never these things happened in the country of the "oppresive corsican dictator" with a such extreme brutality.
Now Napoleon had very good as very bads attitudes.
You should learn better English if you want to argue with Englishmen online
You sound like thoughty2
This video is biased rubbish. Napoleon breached some terms of the Treaty of Luneville, of which Britain was not a signatory, but the British breaches of Amiens were much more serious, and included the refusal to abandon Malta and Egypt, and the failure to return Cape Colony to the Netherlands. The Treaty of Amiens was signed by the British government in bad faith and it had no intention of following through on its terms. 200 years later Britain negotiated Brexit with the EU in similar bad faith, showing that little has changed in British foreign policy!
The eternal anglo
@@elemperadordemexico Shut up you Mexican clown, just be glad Spain ruled over you and not Britain, you would soon have your faces left in the dirt.
why did you make hawksbury so attractive
Huge British bias as always. Do they teach a completely different history in Britain?
interesting video as usual, france's arrogance led it to short term glory but long-term defeat
Music at 10:00?
What’s amazing as a history channel the river Mersey and or the Manchester ship canal isn’t on the map of the UK
That's Minorca, not Mallorca!
Haha, yes you're right. Apologies, extremely silly mistake.
Never ask a Briton his opinion on Napoleon, worst mistake of my life.
I mean, contemporary French opinions weren't exactly all glowing...
@@OldBritannia If we don't try and escape our respective biased views, we might as well give up on history and just admit we're writing propaganda...
Many liberals in France despised Napoleon for its restauration of a monarchical order and for the concentration of power in his own hands, much more than for his external policy which, up until 1814, had proved quite effective.
It's quite a repetitive pattern. Americans are already depicted in quite a...peculiar light in some of your previous content ; but here, it has been taken up to a new level. Britain, the parangon of virtue, that's the underlying pattern of this whole video. A pattern which is, in my opinion, debatable, to say the least.
Of course we're all free to have our own opinions. I'm just a bit disappointed, considering the usual quality of your work whenever they do not involve, say, major topos of the British national mythology.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Finland a part of the Russian Empire by 1801?
finland was annexed from sweden as an autonomous grand duchy in 1809, so no
not until 1809 after the Finnish War of 1808-1809
It is really in Napolean's domestic and diplomatic approach that one gets to appreciate why he was considered a tyrant. A man who had no respect for international conventions, no respect for the sovereignty of other nations and turning his own country into a militaristic, police state, which in some areas deindustrialised due to the disastrous trade policies he pursued and gutting of the manpower of his nation. It is in this context, that Louis XVIII's epithet, 'the Desired'.
I have been reading Philip Mansel's Louis XVIII, which is a really interesting book about the king.
Commenting 4 algorithm
This video is british propaganda at its finest
í
Then explain which parts are incorrect and why.
@@Carl-Gauss propagnda doesn’t mean incorrect lmao
The characterization of Napoleon is nothing short of a caricature
@@fusionreactor7179 „information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.“
What was biased or misleading?
Basée
First!
Great video!
Britain defending the sovereignty of European states.....not much has changed in British foreign policy 🤣