DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - What if Napoleon didn´t over-extend himself?

**dWSOj26H** · 06-02-2008, 02:37 AM

This is a rather strange what-if question, as all napoleonic wars were declared by his enemies - England (6 coalition wars).

The spanish case is special. It's more a revolt from a p-ed off ally.

And France did not really overstretched, as after beating Austria (1805) and Prussia (1807), France sign peace and withdraw.

France had to beat Austria (5th coalition) a second time (1809) to have it tamed.

Neither Austria nor Prussia were 'occupied', neither under french rule, but tied to peace with France by treaty.

When facing a 6th coalition, Napoleon indeed had to go as far as in Russia to fight his ennemies (through austrian 'allied' territory).

So, shouldn't the question be: What if England had not be so eager to beat Napoleon, that they forced him to beat the enemies she put against him several times, until dragging him in the plains of Russia?
Or:
Would Bonaparte (The consul) have become Napoleon (the emperor, the conqueror) without England's persistence to crush the french revolution (and then the self-proclaimed emperor)?

My answer: enlightment ideas wouldn't have spread to all Europe.
Napoleon might have been a dictator, but without his conquests, europe probably wouldn't have been as democratic as it is.

06-02-2008, 02:37 AM	#9
dWSOj26H Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 497 Senior Member	This is a rather strange what-if question, as all napoleonic wars were declared by his enemies - England (6 coalition wars). The spanish case is special. It's more a revolt from a p-ed off ally. And France did not really overstretched, as after beating Austria (1805) and Prussia (1807), France sign peace and withdraw. France had to beat Austria (5th coalition) a second time (1809) to have it tamed. Neither Austria nor Prussia were 'occupied', neither under french rule, but tied to peace with France by treaty. When facing a 6th coalition, Napoleon indeed had to go as far as in Russia to fight his ennemies (through austrian 'allied' territory). So, shouldn't the question be: What if England had not be so eager to beat Napoleon, that they forced him to beat the enemies she put against him several times, until dragging him in the plains of Russia? Or: Would Bonaparte (The consul) have become Napoleon (the emperor, the conqueror) without England's persistence to crush the french revolution (and then the self-proclaimed emperor)? My answer: enlightment ideas wouldn't have spread to all Europe. Napoleon might have been a dictator, but without his conquests, europe probably wouldn't have been as democratic as it is.
	Quote