Origins of the Napoleonic Wars: The Peace of Amiens
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 10. 2022
- 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.
Good video. However, it seems hypocritical for Britain to declare "every independent state has a right to resist projects of encroachments and aggrandizement on the part of other states" in 1802 when Britain had itself annexed Ireland in 1801?
Well the independence of Ireland had been essentially void since the seventeenth century which is why it was even incorporated in the first place an analogy for this is Spain which used to be a personal union between Castille and Arragon which were integrated to form modern Spain
Every nation is hypocritical. France spent the entire Napoleonic wars claiming they were fighting for revolutionary ideals when in reality they were just conquering and subjugation Europe.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
I wouldn't say Britain was more committed to a long peace than France, considering the shocking Danish naval campaign against a neutral power. They were both willing to preemptively attack neighbours and constantly finding new fronts while making outrageous demands of each other.
Napoleon himself however was definitely an unabashed warhawk who just had no chill
Partly correct. Warhawk is a poor choice of descriptor for le Petit Caporal. I recommend searching for Napoleon’s thoughts on war - they are very eye-opening. Beyond that, Andrew Roberts’ “Napoleon, A Life” is an excellent read.
@@capablemachine ah yes, people from the Atlantic coast had to naturally almost march to Siberia itself for national defence
@@capablemachine also no, Im a full believer that both sides in a war can be warmongering aggressive imperial powers looking to violently exploit whoever they can reach and beat. Napoleon and the Tsars were no better than each other, both did choose to kill thousands of their countrymen and extort the rest for their palaces, monuments to themselves, elite luxury and political goals regardless of whether these were any good for the people they were supposedly protecting or if they were doing them in ways that harmed those people.
All their rhetoric about liberty or security was just talk is what im saying
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.
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.
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
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
These videos are quickly becoming my favourite history videos on CZcams! Fantastic in depth analysis
Perfect timing as i’m currently in the middle of binging “The Age of Napoleon Podcast”
Quickly becoming my favorite history channel on CZcams, I love your content! Keep it up man
Severely underrated channel, outstanding work.
Another great video as always! Always nice to see a napoleonic wars documentary.
Ohhhh I’ve always been interested in this specific time between coalitions, but I could never find a specific video about it thank you for the upload!
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
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.
Saying that the opium wars were about free trade is like saying the civil war was about states rights
No, because the Civil War was actually for States rights
Another great video, love the topics you are doing, keep them coming.
Loving these. Keep it up mate
Great video as always keep it up
Another great video that is well put together and informative whilst not showing any bias to your own country. Good job mate.
@@janverkoren8516 What was the bias then?
@@janverkoren8516 No
He was open to peace at times, even other European powers had huge ambitions and wanted to expand their territories, look at the british empire itself in 1800s, a great power and economic powerhouse and even though they were over ambitious they always got more than they wanted and wanted even more. The British broke the treaty of amines by destroying the neutral Danish fleet even though they stated that Denmark would always be neutral.
Why did the british do that?
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 imagine for a moment you're a chess player a good player will always look for his oppositions best strategy and move to arrest this and british saw that Denmark could easily become an ally of France and so it was a binary choice an enemy Denmark with a navy or one without.
cuz of the danish beeing plainly stupid in letting their fleet get destroyed like spain by the dutch.
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.
"British policy, far from being nakedly based", truer words have never been spoken.
"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
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!
Thank you for your excellent whole series.
Great Video as always
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.
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)
Always great videos my man
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
Why anyone would expect a channel titled "Old Britannia" to cover the Napoleonic Wars objectively is hilarious to me
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.
Another fantastic video
Glorious, bless you for doing something on France.
Amazing video as always would love more Napoleon era diplomatic videos.
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.
Napoleon and Hawkesbury portraits are gonna make me act up damn
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.
Another great episode
The 1800s power politics fit this channel well!
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.
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.
I enjoy Napoleonic era videos. Thank you, Mr. Old Britannia
Outstanding video. Cheers from Tennessee.
The most British video I've watched this year
Excellent video
your accent is so strong that the only way I can understand something is through the auto generated captions lmao
Excellent job!
Great video as always
can you do one on the Frankfurt proposal
Yet another solid video.
fancy seeing you here
This was very interesting
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.
Loving the channel. Are you from Lancashire?
Haha, is my accent that strong?
You deserve much more subscriber
"It was this ambition that was to destroy France's position forever" - a brilliant summary.
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
Nice video 👍
This sounds very much like a rehearsal for the two world wars in many aspects
Can I ask what is the music used as a background for the introduction?
I really enjoy your videos and the time period that you cover but there are so many adverts that they almost become unwatchable.
Ah sorry about that, I’ve tried to set ads at a rate where you’re only likely to see 2-3 in a video (which is what I’ve seen whenever I’ve tested it), but it may well be you’re either quite unlucky and the algorithm shows you more than usual, or completely correct. I’ve just cut a few out anyway so hopefully that lessens the annoyance.
I unfortunately need to keep a decent number in so I can break even on videos (image licences are quite expensive unfortunately).
Thanks for the feedback anyway, I’ll cut a few out and hope that makes it better.
@@OldBritannia hey we've all got to make money, just thought you'd appreciate the feedback. I'm sure some of your lovely subscribers would be happy to fund a patreon. Anyway, great content, thank you!
How do you make these maps? Whats your base map?
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 😂
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.
To quote my professor from college "Napoleon was always a soldier first and a statesman second."
Every time Old Britannia mentions "the power of the Royal Navy" all I hear is the opening bars of "Rule Britannia"
Hmmmmmm I wonder what his opinions on Napoleon are?
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!
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.
What do you think about the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion.
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.
How did Europe respond to England’s annexation of Ireland at this time?
Music at 10:00?
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.
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
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?
3:12-3:17 talk about British guy talking history 🙈
So unbiased..
Napoleon's diplomatic shenanigans reminds me of modern day "rogue states" today, pushing other countries around and violating international law but then protests hysterically when they felt they are being violated
Austria was a rogue state, but got defeated. Britain invaded France, Prussia got defeated, Russia was an interesting case, but would follow the Austrians. France, the ideas it stood for and the new liberal order of Europe was under constant threat by the aristocracy.
You mean like USA killing million Iraqis because of lies about weapons of mass destruction?
@@gs7828Ah yes, a liberal world order to challenge aristocracies led by… *checks notes*… an emperor.
Your portrait-sketches are good, but sometimes they seem off. I.e. I got confused because of the sketch that Hawkesbury was a woman😂
Hi! How is everyone doing?
Terrible
@@LucidFL oh no
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 ?
why did you make hawksbury so attractive
"British policy, far from being nakedly based on competitive power politics, was centered on a concern for the security of all states."
I must say I disagree with this statement. I think it speaks to a pro-British bias (though perhaps I should expect nothing less from a channel called Old Britannia).
British strategy has always been maintaining a balance of power in continental Europe, because as long as the other European powers remain as a check on one another, Britain can maintain the advantage afforded to it as an island. Whereas a united Europe may have the strengtg nevessary to overcome that advantage.
Still, good content overall.
Truly Napolean never learned to quit while he was still ahead
As Talleyrand said of Napoleon: “What a pity the man wasn't lazy.”
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?
Amiens !!! My city !!
What’s amazing as a history channel the river Mersey and or the Manchester ship canal isn’t on the map of the UK
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.....
this was probably a lesson for Soviet Russia
slowly encroach... do not overextended...
it was working until their economic system collapsed lol
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.