jeroenrottgering

I personally think it was because of the British because with almost every coalition the British were funding it and telling the powers of Europe to oppose Bonaparte. Some of his campaigns were his own intend but the majority was organized by the frightened coalition partners because they were scared that their Monarchy would fall. So when people say that Napoleon was a war hungry bandit then that is an insult on him.

But I want to hear your opinions.

Bismarck

I agree. Imagine how frustrating it must have been to have your shipping interfered with and being able to do nothing about it. Its almost enough to make one declare war.

leveller

well what would happen if all the monarchies in europe fell at once? what would be in their place? england had been scarred by centuries of bloody civil wars, and the memory of the short lived cromwell 'republic'. i think britain saw the republican france the same way the americans viewed communism

spellbanisher

Napoleon was very ambitious. I think even without British meddling, Napoleon would have been itching to expand his power. To quote from an entry in his personal diary in 1802: "My power proceeds from my reputation and from the victories I have won. My power would fail if I were not to support it with more glory and more victories. Conquest has made me what I am; only conquest can maintain me."

In 1804 he writes: "My mistress is power; I have done too much to conquer her to let her be snatched away from me. Although it may be said that power came to me of its own accord, yet I know what labour, what sleepless nights, what scheming, it has involved..."

A7X

We have a thread similar to this. It's partially the fault of the British, for defying the Treaty of Amiens. The treaty said that the British had to leave Malta and Egypt, but these were important areas for Britain to control for economic, maritime/military reasons. From the very beginning of the peace of Amiens, the British didn't leave, it was always, "tomorrow, eventually". At the same time, Napoleon wanted to make France stronger. Everyone was in the war for more territory and political gains. France just gets the majority of the blame, like Germany for WW1. Taken from my thread on Nappy:

Russia wants: Poland, lands south of the mainland and Siberia, Caucasus region, Wallachia, Moldova, Finland

Austria wants: Italy, Bavaria

Prussia wants: Poland, Germany

Britain wants: Parts of North America, South America, Caribbean, India

France wants: Italy, parts of Germany, parts of the Netherlands/Belgium

Additions:

Spain wants: To keep it's empire intact

America Wants: Canada, Florida, Everything west of the Mississippi River

Duchy of Warsaw: Ethnic Polish lands

Ottoman Empire: Defend Wallachia and Moldavia against Russian aggression, retake Serbia.

Every country needed to satisfy these desires. But somehow, Napoleon ends up as the bad guy.

spellbanisher

Every good story needs a bad guy, including history.

leveller

id agree with most of that, but what parts of useless land in north america does britain want? other then vague ambitions to create a reservation for natives

Earl_of_Rochester

Or perhaps it was something to do with preventing mass murder and the terror of revolution from reaching the streets of London and other European capitals?

EoR

A7X

The threat of Revolution, as if it was a bad thing, was over by 1799.

A7X

More land around Canada, modern day Washington, Oregon, though these were hardly immediate concerns.