Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 16th, 2017, 10:37 PM   #171
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Do you deny that it was British who broke the peace treaty of Amiens by seizing Franco-Dutch ships by surprise?
Really?, @pugsville
No. i don't but that does not the British the primary mover in events 1794-1815.

France under Napoleon was going to hang onto occupations in Holland, the Rhine, Switzerland, and Italy. This was in direct contravention to treaties France had signed. Highly favourable treaties. Napoleon was incapable of giving stuff up, he want dot hang onto everything. And once in partial possession he wanted consolidate. And when faced with opposition, or people who would not follow along as he felt they should , he was always quick to use the sword.

The British would have been incapable of fighting war without Allies. BNaoleon constantly created Allies for the,.

Napolen was ambitious , a dreamer and inveterate tinker who would not leave well enough alone, and a Man convinced he was right about everything. That he should be allowed to dictate the economic policies of every neutral nation in Europe.

Napoleon came to power when France was in occupation of Holland, the Rhineland, Switzerland and Italy which would cause fruition with Britain, Prussia and Austria.

Napoleon was more Bold, more proactive, More sure of himself and his army than his fellow monarchs. i don't make a moral case here, Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia would all have their own ambitions, and where not opposed to strengthening themselves by conquest, the partition of Poland for example, but they were in general smaller, more distant and much slower about going about realising and much more concerned about how other powers would react.

Napoleon was the principle actor changing the status quo, he was breaking more treaties more often, he was acting heedlessly and giving offence to other powers, as he simply did not understand the conventions under which Europe had been operating, he was clumsy, ham fisted, and repeatedly reaching for more.

Fairly timid Monarchs like Francis and Fredrick William were not gamblers or aggressive operators sure they would partition Poland, but they would not keen of war with another Major power, and would only go to war with France when they felt they had no other choice. Neither Britain or Russia could have fought France effectively without one of Austria or Prussia.
pugsville is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2017, 10:42 PM   #172
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Do you deny that it was British who broke the peace treaty of Amiens by seizing Franco-Dutch ships by surprise?
Do you deny that British continued occupation of Malta and Egypt they said they would withdraw from, according the peace treaty they signed?
Did the peace treaty mention seizing of foreign ships in accordance with the British desires? "Dieu et Mon droit"?
Really?, @pugsville
The French published that they had plans to reoccupy Egypt. So the British dragged their feet but they did withdraw from Egypt. Malta they really wanted to keep, and there were a lack of someone to hand Malta over to, the Knights f Malta were hardly in shape to take over, and now the Tzar (both Paul and Alexander) were claiming to be the Grandmaster of the Order (strange as an Orthodox head of a Catholic order is )

Amiens was dependent of the treaty of Luneville. The French failed to withdraw as well. Holland was a vital British interest, they would accept a French client state, but not a French occupation. Much like Austria with Switzerland and Italy.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 10:51 PM   #173

phil1904's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: An Hotel of the French Riviera
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 1

@pugsville
So what?
Anyway Napoleon didn't want resumtion of war in Europe, he only wanted to build the more modern country of the world with the more modern administration.
He knew that France had so many assets that it could became the world leader in the 19th century.
He knew that peace was much more favorable to France than war!
Then in one world, he didn't want war and it was British who revived the war
The old legend of the so called war monger is disappearing, read Roberts, (a compatriot?) Who rehabilitate Napoleon.
phil1904 is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:00 PM   #174

phil1904's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: An Hotel of the French Riviera
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
The French published that they had plans to reoccupy Egypt. So the British dragged their feet but they did withdraw from Egypt. Malta they really wanted to keep, and there were a lack of someone to hand Malta over to, the Knights f Malta were hardly in shape to take over, and now the Tzar (both Paul and Alexander) were claiming to be the Grandmaster of the Order (strange as an Orthodox head of a Catholic order is )

Amiens was dependent of the treaty of Luneville. The French failed to withdraw as well. Holland was a vital British interest, they would accept a French client state, but not a French occupation. Much like Austria with Switzerland and Italy.
You've already posted this in another thread and that'not true to claim that "the French published they had a plans to reoccupy Egypt"
It was just an isolated article in a newspaper, with what fleet did French could do it in 1803?
Why did they do it? No expeditionary forces existed in French, no Napoleonic sources.
Still a legend and an excuse to deny British responsibility.
phil1904 is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:04 PM   #175
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
@pugsville
So what?
Anyway Napoleon didn't want resumtion of war in Europe, he only wanted to build the more modern country of the world with the more modern administration.
He knew that France had so many assets that it could became the world leader in the 19th century.
He knew that peace was much more favorable to France than war!
Then in one world, he didn't want war and it was British who revived the war
The old legend of the so called war monger is disappearing, read Roberts, (a compatriot?) Who rehabilitate Napoleon.
Most rulers want peace, but peace of their terms. Napoleon's terms were a little larger than other peoples.

Napolen was going to hang onto most of the fRench gains in the revolutionary wars against the treaties he had signed and was looked to consolidate/expand (depending on who's looking at it)

Roberts, a populist amateur historian who likes to myth over facts. A banker who made money so he thinks he knows stuff. George W Bush's favourite historian. A sloppy historian who is too fond of a good story to be bothered with the facts.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:07 PM   #176
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
You've already posted this in another thread and that'not true to claim that "the French published they had a plans to reoccupy Egypt"
It was just an isolated article in a newspaper, with what fleet did French could do it in 1803?
Why did they do it? No expeditionary forces existed in French, no Napoleonic sources.
Still a legend and an excuse to deny British responsibility.
Umm offical paper of record, it was published t was more or less an offical statement. i don't say that it was a credible plan, more a pretty hollow threat meant to intimidate. but the British were pretty sensitive about any possible therat to India and took it seriously.In the End the British DID evacuate from Egypt. I think the only place they didnt was Malta. While Napoleon connoted with occupations in Holland, Switzerland and Italy.

I'm not saying that there were not other factors at work, or the British or other powers were totally blameless. But principle mover, Napoleon.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:31 PM   #177

phil1904's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: An Hotel of the French Riviera
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Umm offical paper of record, it was published t was more or less an offical statement. i don't say that it was a credible plan, more a pretty hollow threat meant to intimidate. but the British were pretty sensitive about any possible therat to India and took it seriously.In the End the British DID evacuate from Egypt. I think the only place they didnt was Malta. While Napoleon connoted with occupations in Holland, Switzerland and Italy.

I'm not saying that there were not other factors at work, or the British or other powers were totally blameless. But principle mover, Napoleon.
"More and less official statement"??? You imagine it.
Why a so called "official statement" for an operation that was never planned?

About Egypt you claim "in the end the British DID evacuate Egypt".
What do you mean?
Before or after the Alexandria expedition on 1807?
In 1807 Napoleon had to deal with the 4th Coalition ( Prussia, Saxony, Russia)
He didn't want to invade these countries.
phil1904 is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:45 PM   #178

phil1904's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: An Hotel of the French Riviera
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
o
Roberts, a populist amateur historian who likes to myth over facts. A banker who made money so he thinks he knows stuff. George W Bush's favourite historian. A sloppy historian who is too fond of a good story to be bothered with the facts.
I'm not interested in politics and I don't care he supported the 2d Iraq War or the "4th World War" but about his historical works, you should be more modest. Andrew Roberts studies were awarded many times ,he performed excellent works, you should read his Chamberlain's and Wellington/Napoleon's books, he's highly graduate in history (for instance a first class honnours BA in modern history) and respected in the Academic Miles.
I consider him as a very interesting and original historian.

Last edited by phil1904; January 16th, 2017 at 11:50 PM.
phil1904 is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:47 PM   #179
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
"More and less official statement"??? You imagine it.
Why a so called "official statement" for an operation that was never planned?
.
There was no free press in Napoleonic france, it was published because Napoleon wished it to be published. IMHO a clumsy threat , which was Napoleon's style. Perhaps not objectively credible,. But saying you will rec -invade Egypt is hardly something to hurry the British out of Egypt.

"Bonaparte formally protested the continuing British occupations, and in January 1803 published a report by Horace Sebastiani that included observations on the ease with which France might capture Egypt, alarming most of the European powers.[32][33] In an interview in February 1803 with Lord Whitworth, Britain's French ambassador, Bonaparte threatened war if Malta was not evacuated, and implied that he could have already retaken Egypt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
About Egypt you claim "in the end the British DID evacuate Egypt".
What do you mean?
Before or after the Alexandria expedition on 1807?
In 1807 Napoleon had to deal with the 4th Coalition ( Prussia, Saxony, Russia)
He didn't want to invade these countries.
The British did withdraw. Later they Invaded. Then they Withdrew. Britain had no long terms plans to occupy Egypt at this stage.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 16th, 2017, 11:53 PM   #180
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
I'm not interested in politics and I don't care he supported the 2d Iraq War or the "4th World War" but about his historical works, you should be more modest. Andrew Roberts studies were awarded many times ,he performed excellent works, you should read his Chamberlain's and Wellington/Napoleon's books, he's highly graduate in history (for instance a first class honnours BA in modern history) and respected in the Academic Miles.
I consider him as a very interesting and original historian.
He was not a professional historian spending long years of study. His books cover a wide range and tend to have a highly political view point. He's been pretty biased in his political biographies. There are many historians devoted many more years of study who I would take more seriously. Roberts is unobjective about Napoleon.

Saw an on line talk where he just repeated the myth that Hitler meddling with me262 for the bomber role was the primary reason the me262 was not in service earlier. Anyone with even a remote passing interest knows that tis is false and the enormous problems they had with the engines was the real reason, this is something he's repeated in one of his books. That the sort of amateur error that just undercuts his credibility as a serious historian.
pugsville is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
ambition, british, fault, napoleonic, wars



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lusitania Sinking-Who's at fault? Heidi XX War and Military History 77 January 25th, 2014 03:54 PM
Advice needed on English soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars MissH European History 3 January 8th, 2011 01:09 AM
Leading intellectuals/figures of the Napoleonic Wars A7X European History 4 June 25th, 2010 06:30 PM
napoleonic wars piet hein War and Military History 8 June 28th, 2008 01:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.