Origins of the Napoleonic Wars: The Peace of Amiens

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

[emperornapoleon]

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.

[dapperbunch]

Excellent to see that more people are covering Napoleon

[OsFanB]

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.

[stephenmeier]

The British: Switzerland should be independent
The Irish: 🙁

[saint_ruth]

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?

[olefante]

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.

[sus]

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.

[OldBritannia]

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.

[lukaswilhelm]

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.

[madsrolstad]

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.

[jackbharucha]

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.

[Rynewulf]

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

[aydnov]

i have been a huge history nerd since forever. this is easily the best history channel i've ever seen.

[CristinaMarshal]

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.

[michaelkazam]

Severely underrated channel, outstanding work.

[tragicomix]

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.

[Sila]

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.

[WanukeX]

Perfect timing as i’m currently in the middle of binging “The Age of Napoleon Podcast”

[hatefulwaffler]

These videos are quickly becoming my favourite history videos on YouTube! Fantastic in depth analysis

[hh]

Quickly becoming my favorite history channel on YouTube, I love your content! Keep it up man