I hope you enjoy this documentary on Europe between 1807 and 1809. This I hope is the start of a new series, which will look at European diplomatic history from 1807-1914. 1807 is obviously a rather arbitrary date, but I think probably preferable to 1815, or 1800. Starting here will allow me to talk about the Prussian reform movement, Alexander’s struggles, and the accession of the Liverpool government in Britain. As well as the political transformation engineered by Castlereagh and Metternich between 1813-1815. Thank you for watching, please point out any mistakes or corrections i need to make. Next up will either be the next part of the Other Great Game, or a video on Vergennes' policy during the American Revolution. Hope you enjoy the video.
The British Navy had no food in when Cincinnati became a city. You started eating pork from Ohio and that’s how the north America states betrayed South by getting rich and not feeding ourself in the south
The Hapsburgs in 1700: “it’ll be a cold day in hell before I see a Bourbon sit on the Spanish throne!” The hapsburgs 1800: “it’ll be a cold day in hell before I see a Bourbon ejected from the Spanish throne!”
It's simply amazing the longevity of the Austrian line Habsburgs, they and the Wittelsbachs are truly the last native royal medieval dynasty. The Bourbons a bit younger succeeding the last Valois in 1553 as Kings of France from the beginning were building a modern French nation state based on homogeneous national identity like the handicapped English kings were only that their final stage in that process was their own republican deposition (notice even after their restoration they kept the red, white, blue tricolor and many of Napoleon's reforms, it seems the republic and Napoleon had simply done quicker what they would've done anyway if they were in power over the next 30 years in 15, conservative regimes are slower but the social age of the 1790s-1810s was rapidly progressing so much it demanded faster reformers like the Republicans and Napoleon to take the reigns from the status quo and by 1812 even Napoleon had become considered an autocrat albeit the most enlightened one). Whereas the Austrian Habsburgs did not rule a combined territory of one people/ethnicity, their core the Germanic Austria was outnumbered by Czechs of the Bohemian Crown, Magyars in the Crownlands of St. Stephen(Hungary), Romanians in Transylvania, and the various Slavs in Carinthia and Illyria. They were forced to base the justification of their empire's existence purely on feudal divine right of kings to rule their inherited land alone, something that even the French Kings had to augment with the Estates General in the 1300s and the English Kings had surrendered to the Barons Revolt in 1215 signing Magna Carta. The Spanish Habsburgs got lucky ruling a mostly ethnically homogeneous Spain as long as they let the individual crowns like Aragon, Navarre(the Catalans and Basques respectively) to keep regional autonomy, the subsequent Spanish Bourbons then ruined this delicate balancing act with full centralization and then allowing a liberal parliament which turned on them and created the two Spanish Republics.
@@JBGARINGAN That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but a lot of people actually tend to forget that France was just as diverse as the Hapsburg holdings at the beginning of the 19th century. Beyond the basic linguistic and cultural differences of Bretonnic speakers, Basques, Arpitans, and Alsatians; there were a myriad of regional dialects and cultures littered throughout the southern area of France who were far more loyal to the destiny of their regional communities than to the government of Paris. Lotharignian, Burgundian, Catalan, Provençal, limousin, Occitan etc. The crux of the question isn’t diversity or lack thereof, It is the question of whether or not the construction of identity, and the fiction of sovereignty representative of a state can co-opt and incorporate said diversity; and whether or not the ideal of a states identity can be backed by state policy. All these dialectical and linguistic identities would become “French” to us in the 21st century, due to economic cohesion, reduced trade barriers, propaganda, bureaucratic policy, and a strong fiction of Republicanism and Cartesian thought represented in the principle of assimilation and association. (For more reading, I recommend Eugene Webers fantastic book on the subject; Peasants into Frenchmen) The hapsburgs are much the same. The question of why the Hapsburg monarchy collapsed and their aggregate lands being partitioned have less to do with the diversity of its population, but the underlying fictions and social dynamics that expressed themselves through these differences, and how they played hand in hand with noble autonomy, centralization, the rise of a literate bourgeois, and voting rights. There were multiple attempts to establish a pan Danubian “Hapsburg” national identity, and in some cases it succeeded, Like when Tyroleans would fight back against Bavarian troops in the napoleonic wars, or when peasants from Galicia lodomeria would massacre polish liberators from Krakow in 1846. The crown would, in some cases, Come to represent a symbol of unity and representative government to certain groups, such as agrarian peasants and bureaucrats. But all attempts at centralization would break down due: not diversity, but the way nobles would argue that the rights of the nation (aka: the aristocratic diets of nobles, not the thousands of peasants they worked) superseded the crown’s authority. Hungary was the best at this. While the cisleithanian provinces urbanized and industrialized in the vision of the Hapsburg emperors, and had less control over their own taxation, Hungary would have a very strong agrarian emphasis, as the Magyar nobles would carefully control innovation and industry in a way that would modernize the state without threatening their agrarian interests. Once the Augsleich happened, It not only broke economic and bureaucratic Cohesion of the state, But it also planted in the minds of other imperial lands the idea that maybe they could make their own deal with the crown similar to the Hungarian compromise, which is where Tripartist thought came from. But as the 19th century went on, and mass politics became a staple of domestic politics, what was once an argument of feudal nobles would soon become an expression of more grass roots frustrations. I recommend Peter Judson’s book on the subject: the Hapsburg empire
@@noriyakigumble3011 oh yes there was very much a "pan imperial Austria" err Habsburg monarchy identity which seems strange considering the current day narrative the one pushed by the Kingsom of Serbia to justify creating Yugoslavia post-Trianon: Austrians and Hungarians were horrible savage oppressors we had to save the Croats and Slovenes. Also Romanian annexation of all of Transylvania, in hindsight not the best solution there are alot of Magyars there, to achieve Greater Romania goal. It was amazing, Vienna and Budapest had artisans of all the subject demographics across the Empire immigrate and to an extent even assimilate into at first Austrian then Austrian-Hungarian culture. Especially when reading the memoirs of romantic monarchists like Admiral Horthy(no matter how biased their portrayal of the Empire may be) the archetype of the Victorian gentleman we get the depiction of a beautiful sort of multicultural society. Strangely enough from Jabzy's video about the German goals of expansion he quotes Hitler praising the Austro-Hungarian experiment. This came as a shock to me because I had still been under the mainstream impression that young Hitler(and for that matter his whole life) was a cartoon villain racist which is why he left his native born Austria to join the German army of Wittelsbach Bavaria for disliking the empire's diversity. But it turns out his reasons and views are more nuanced, as a pan-Germanist he joined the German Imperial Army, Austria despite being unarguably German(Habsburg was last president of the confederation, Habsburgs the Holy Roman Emperors) the Habsburgs had the prestige as a subregion to continue running their Danubian empire independently from Bismarck's Germany who pragmatically decided to exclude them, he had to deal with the various Catholics threatening his protestant North German identity already: Poles in Posen, remaining French in Eslass-Lothringien, and the South Germans. Anyway sidetrack, Hitler saw that the Austrians were able to maintain some semblance of peace within their collection of the Balkan races and he admired the achievement, the Nazi ideology despite being inherently ultranationalist, German supremacist and anti-Slavic still advocated pan-European unity a holdover from the Kaiser's plan for the Mitteleuropa sphere and Zollvereign or customs union. It seems many forms of Facsim are pan regionalist: Mussolini played around with a break from Nazi-Germany's foreign policy after the war and forming a Latin Union/Pact with Francoist Spain, Marshal Petain's Vichy France, and possibly Salazarist Portugal. Oswald Mosely supported the creation of the European Union back in the 50s before it materialized into reality decades later and the ultranationalist Shinto Statist Japanese military regime(arguably not Fascist because these were not party politicians who used facade of democracy but straight up military state) were willing to actually go through with the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere not just the ploy it was to use Siam and the other colonized Asians to fight the West, genuinely after the Battle of Tsushima Japan became a sort of beacon of light for the oppressed peoples of Asia and kind of colonized non white people across the world(not the Chinese though). They had beaten the white men in battle and got their technology, some monarchist Buddhists in the government and military thought that instead of colonizing Asia like the white men Japan would liberate the Asian peoples and they would lo ove Japan so much they would form a Asian union. Military planners also considered a pan Turanist state from Finland to Siberia and central Asia. Very interesting stuff.
@@JBGARINGANI’d say those pan-regional visions were merely propoganda and mirages of rhetoric. All 3 of the ideologies you mentioned were inherently racist supremacists, and the only type of ‘regional coalition’ with their so called ‘lessers’ they would ever actually pursue is one of Master & Servants at best, Master & Slaves at worst. Their retoric of a community of allied related nations under their leadership is as empty as that of white southern USA slaveholders beloved by their grateful cattle for educating them, giving them jobs and shelter and christening them. As empty as the grateful savages in the colonies lifted up en mass out of poverty by their benevolent British rulers. I could go on, but you get the point. An ideology that considers a certain ethnic / cultural group as inherently superior to all others can only envision a coalition of lesser related groups under their dictorial leadership against other groups more distantly related. They inherently can not envision a true coalition, because that requires equality between members and that is incompatible with their so called inherent superiority. That kind of views, and the current lack thereof, is why modern day Germany can have such a decent coalition with countries like Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and the Baltic States, despite the obvious difference in population & economic size. Why Brexit failed so miserably, and what caused such tensions during Trump’s presidency between the USA and its ally’s. Or between the French and so-called ‘French Africa’. If you don’t view your partner groups as inherently equal to you, you will not be able to maintain a coalition long-term
“To lose it at another trafalgar” “actively working themselves to an early grave”. Your writing is improving with every video and your content is getting more flesh out and interesting. Keep going please
Alexander is such a strange character. I used to think he was an insane buffoon but the more I learn about him the more competent he seems. I generally think people are wrong in calling him a "genius" and playing the European chessboard masterfully, but I do now think he was very capable and above all always understood the position and circumstances he was in and acted accordingly. To this end I think he was hugely assisted in the fact that he was the Emperor of Russia, he had a lot of wiggle room to make mistakes and act bellicose (like at the Vienna congress at the end of the war) and could always resort falling back on Russian power and size if he needed to.
The label "genius" gets thrown around too much. In certain regards Alexander made good enough decisions at the right time and it worked out for him. Though yes, being Emperor of Russia, does allow for significant geopolitical wiggle room.
@@nathanrohde3292He wasn't good when it came to his general staff. For example he always scorned and ignored Kutuzov and took the advice of Germans and Austrians in his court. This lead to many notable disasters such as at Austerlitz. Ignoring Kutuzovs better judgement to withdraw further back to the Carpathians.
I think the Tsar was competent enough, but sometimes he believed in his own myth too much, which made him come off as a pompous brat, a spoiled child; and it certainly didn’t help that Napoleon was no chessmaster in diplomacy.
@@matteo2721 By whom, exactly? Lol he wasn't liked by the Tsar and the court which is why he got a bad rep. Anyone that served under him says otherwise. Besides, how does what you said invalidate what I said?
Please keep making these videos. Your channel is unique to other History Channels by having an International Relations/RealPolitik perspective to other channels that focus on Military/personality matters on a Historical period.
I’ve read and heard history for pretty much all my life, being an archeologist nephew. But never have I enjoyed it so much and especially for fascinating and dynamic period of time like the 19th century. The effects of which can be so closely releated to our current situation. Bravo sir!
The amont of work and dedication you put in your videos are remarquable. The maps, the script, the sources (that most so called history youtubers seem to overlook) and the fact that you don't hide the complexity of foreign policy and politics in general, by taking time to present important figures, is why I really enjoy about your channel. I really hope you continue this series.
Dude, for a guy that wants to study international relations and get into the diplomatic academy your channel is soo ideal! I'd be super awesome if you could list each video's bibliography so that we can look into the subjects in more detail ourselves!
I suggest you check out Perun, he covers modern military logistics and geopolitics but it would be just as useful for your purposes I think. If you want highly detailed analysis of real world geopolitics and diplomacy, he's your guy. He just released a great video about how wars are ended through victory/defeat and negotiation. He often goes a bit into history on his channel too because modern circumstances often require some historical context as to why they exist. He actually has a job in the defense sector too so he really knows his stuff. He's not just wildly speculating like a lot of people who cover current geopolitics.
I can listen to you talk about napoleonic history all day you go so in depth but it’s not jumbled and confusing I understand and can easily follow along and to top it off its entertaining the way you speak and explain I love it keep up the good work please we on the history side of UA-cam appreciate your great work
Napoleon had taken land from Prussia and given them Hannover in compensation, then he planned to take away Hannover from them to use as a bargaining chip in a potential peace deal with Britain. That's what pissed off the Prussians at the moment.
Yes, this is true. But, I would add that the Prussians were about to join the 3rd coalition in 1805 and then didn't due to the news of the battle of Austerlitz. It's a question of imperialism and balance of power. The Prussians saw Germany as their sphere of influence and were uncomfortable with French expansion during the revolutionary wars of the 1790's. Also, as with all the monarchs of Europe they hated French liberalism and republicanism so wanted to undo anything associated with the revolution.@@masterplokoon8803
Absolutely loved "the Habsburgs paraded once more their fabled ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" Exceptionally well-detailed video Thanks for putting together all of that content!
really interesting video. I never saw anyone go into this much detail over this short period of time and it's always interesting how you take a more diplomatic angle to it
@@moskaumaster1594 Yep, we have 2 centuries of historians figuring out these older events with next to none on the newer events. Plus, there is next to no ideological baggage if you are analyzing napoleon vs analyzing modern events.
I really really hope you add subtitles to this amazing video so that it could reach and help more people. As a non native English speaker, I very much appreciate subtitles in informative videos like this one. Thank you ❤
@@OldBritannia There is an option is some UA-cam videos to autotranslate subtitles. It could work if there is some way to enable it, meaning you won’t have to translate and upload subtitles in potentially dozens of languages.
Nice video! I wanted to point out that you've messed up borders of Poland by forgetting the Austrian part, but decided to check it before actually writing, so, turns out there's nothing wrong and I just didn't have the full data)
I find interesting your comment that Napoleon was a much more succesful coalition builder than his enemies. Any further detail or book I can read on this?
I dont know about books for it but I'd say the reason is actually because of the relationship between Napoleon and his vassals and how he established superiority to them. Napoleon was very easily able to establish himself as the clear leader of the combined forces and had the final say on all matters. Compare this to his enemies, even at the end of the wars at Liepzig, the Austrian general (Schwarzenberg) was Commander n Chief but his plans still needed the green light from the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of Russia to actually get moving. Napoleon on the other hand can just say "hey Italians go here, and Bavaria send me your help over here" and they would have to comply.
It’s a point made frequently by Paul Schroeder. His ‘Napoleon’s Foreign Policy: A Criminal Enterprise’ article goes into it briefly if I remember correctly, with some interesting analysis of his alliance system.
This is completely false. He said that to disengage Britain from the coalitions they built (he is from the UK, he will of course "defend" the british point of view.
It would have been great if you had mentioned how the British Navy undertook two expeditions to the River Plate in 1806 and 1807 taking advantage of the destruction of the Spanish Navy in Trafalgar, only to be defeated twice with momentous consequences.
What 'momentous consequences'? You mean that Britain did not have hegemony in South America after 1815 , or that the Spanish Empire somehow survived? Or do you mean Napoleon won in Europe? Just wondering.
@@uingaeoc3905 I can't answer for him, but I think the two British defeats in the River Plate were enormously important because they were fundamental in making South Americans realise they could both achieve independence from Spain AND preserve it against other European powers (a lesson reinforced some years later at New Orleans). Most, if not all, wouldn't have been interested at all in exchanging Madrid for London or Paris.
-What direct relevance do the invasions of the River Plate have to the Treaties of Tilsit? -The British economically colonised South America after 1815 anyway, having failed to capture large parts of it directly. The Monroe Doctrine, which the United States was too weak to enforce during the early 19th century & thus largely ignored until after the 1860s, survived a sa concept because it was merely parroting a pre-existing British policy of denying the Spanish Empire a resurgence in South America. -Speaking of the United States, the British weren't trying to terminate American independence during the War of 1812.
@@skibbideeskitch9894 To the Treaties of Tilsit? None or almost none. They could conceivably have influenced Napoleon to think British land power in general, and support for the Spaniards and Portuguese in particular, would be a negligible factor... but even that is highly debatable. To British policy 1807-1809 and after? A lot. And of course the British weren't trying to terminate American independence in 1812, if only because it would have been an exercise in madness to do so during the war against against Napoleon... but my point is, the British defeat at New Orleans further encouraged South Americans to think European armies, even if veterans of the Napoleonic wars, weren't that fearsome in the Americas.
Yes. The production quality was just too horrendous for me to justify keeping up. Once I’ve finished the Other Great Game series I’ll remake the video.
Came to ask this, i understand you want to remake it as you gave comments on it yourself, but wouldn’t have mind being to watch it again even unlisted.
It's amazing how commonly rulers make the mistake of treating allies like subordinates who must do as they are told. It can be tricky to wrap our modern minds around how alliances in the past were just transactional, not based on common values.
I think its pretty ignorant to think alliances aren't transactional today. NATO is an organization that all shares a distrust of Russia, but the value is in the foreign policy reach the US military allows its govt. and the protection provided for those smaller nations. You have to do things the way uncle sam wants for the most part to get under his umbrella. This was the mistake the UK made when leaving the Europe, though i understand their reasons.
@@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab Then why do you think NATO stayed together after the Cold War when they thought Russia wasn't much of a threat? Why do you think a certain level of democratic development is needed to become a member? One of us is pretty ignorant, but it' not me.
Even without Russia, NATO prevents a war in Europe. Everyone is a teammate. And no one has to follow what they consider a peer. The US is the strongest member, but has little desire to micro manage. It is an ocean away. Compare to if France or Germany or the UK were calling the shots, and how the other EU countries would chafe.
Him explaining himself to his mother really snapped me out of the country perspective, like these are REAL people going through these situations Makes it much harder to blame the bad decisions
It exposes the issue of the system A few men made judgements which dictated lives of hundreds of thousands even millions based on personal emotional whims. Whose right to rule was ordained by god, for better or worse napoleon shattered this notion paving way for republics and revolutionaries everywhere
Love the videos, on par with bigger creators like Reallifelore, Wonderwhy, and the like. I really enjoy the content so keep going, I truly believe you'll get to 100k, 200k and even more.
Small nitpick on what is otherwise another great video, at 2:47 you say Portland was “69 going on 90 years old”. I think I’d struggle to govern too if I woke up 21 years older 😂
Marvelous video, one minor criticism. You say that Spanish guerillas costed the french 100 men a day... It wasnt the guerillas, it was the Spanish soldiers. The guerillas more often then not acted as bandits and ransacked civilians who sold grain to the french soldiers. The Spaniards can be admired for their ferocious resistance against the French armies, but the guerillas in my opinion deserve no credit. They never made up any more then 10% of the spanish manpower, and they often failed to achieve anything of value, tactically or strategically.
Thank you for a fascinating discourse. Having recently completed Charles Esdaile's 'Napoleon's Wars,' a fascinating but not easy read, very timely as well. The RN destroying the Danish fleet in 1808, a precursor to Mers -el-Kébir in 1940?
This is such a good video and analysis. Thank you for making this as always. I wish Napoleon was able to compromise more. He should've been smarter and more willing to compromise with the Russians. I think this did him in more than Iberia and the failure of the naval war. Iberia could be contained so long as the East was secure and it was only natural that Russia be that primary ally. The fact that Napoleon failed completely to assure the Russians that they were in fact equals and could be worked with. Ensured that a Russian army would take Paris after the failure of the invasion of Russia.
Im curious, what's Ottomans reaction to French revolution and the raise of Napoleon? What was their policy regarding this? Were they just too busy fighting Russia?
Great video as always, I do hope you'll touch on how Napoleon's invasion of Spain kickstarted Latin american revolutions and Britain's involvement in the process, it's something thats always completely overlooked in history
Great video! One question that I'd like to hear your opinion on: do you think, with the benefit of hindsight, that there was ever a possibility for Napoleon to not just reach a negotiated compromise, but maintain his hegemony and FORCE the british and friends to accept french domination of the european continent against their will, á la the way Rome after Hannibal broke any semblance of balance in the med. and gradually forced Carthage, Macedon, Egypt etc to accept that "there is no more balance of power; we're the ones on top and can crush you whenever we want. You can either accept that, or be conquered and broken, your choice". Is there any combination and sequence of moves that Napoleon can make after smashing Austria and Prussia but before the whole Spain and Russia debacles that can lead to such an outcome? Can he long-term either build a fleet to drive the british navy and economy into the ground or set up such an overwhelming system of lasting alliances (or puppets) that leave Londen no options but to eventually bow to defeat? I'd be very curious if you can think of such a scenario.
The Roman domination of the Mediterranean was derived from their maritime supremacy. No other state could muster such a large number of ships and skilled manpower. Although France had twice the population of Britain in Napoleon's era they didn't have as many experienced sailors as the British. Obviously the French did have *some* very good sailors but they didn't have enough of them. During the revolution the French Navy was purged of many experienced officers who were considered to have Royalist sympathies. It wasn't simply a matter of building ships ( although that was hugely expensive) you also had to train vast numbers of men to a very high standard. The British were determined to hang onto every experienced sailor which is why they took a hard line with the United States who were poaching British crews by the dastardly tactic of offering them treble wages.
Certainly Napoleon liked to refer to the British as the Carthaginians - and I think his treatment of us would not have been much of an improvement on Cato's plans had the French been able to invade. Counter-factual history is always hard, and generally I try to avoid debating it. As @Georgieastra says, the Royal Navy had far more experienced sailors and officers, that had the benefit of being able to train on the open seas. Even fairly sympathetic Napoleon biographers like Broers argue he never really understood naval matters, and that simply building more ships did not mean automatic victory. That being said - nothing is ever certain in history, and Britain's victory was certainly not pre-ordained. In Spain, Wellington's 1812 campaign would not have been possible had Napoleon not stripped troops from the country to invade Russia. That invasion of Russia was always unnecessary - Napoleon would have had little trouble winning a campaign in Poland, as seemed likely before the invasion. The obvious 'Napoleon wins totally' TL after Tilsit is he accepts Ferdinand's offer to marry a Bonaparte Princess, and leaves Spain as a Bourbon led vassal state. Holds Lisbon and thus has the opportunity to reek havoc on British trade. Alexander chokes on a fishbone and leaves the throne to Constantine, who was a great admirer of Napoleon, and far less intelligent than his brother. Most of his puppet states were fairly long lasting - most only switched sides when Coalition armies physically invaded them in 1813. All of this combined leaves Britain with little option but to seek peace eventually. Of course, this is completely unrealistic, not least because it requires Napoleon to reign in his expansionism somewhat, which Talleyrand was arguing would literally never happen as early as 1803. So IMO it was possible for Napoleon to win decisively. But because his empire was funded by loot, and his own need for expansion, it was always unlikely.
I hope you enjoy this documentary on Europe between 1807 and 1809. This I hope is the start of a new series, which will look at European diplomatic history from 1807-1914. 1807 is obviously a rather arbitrary date, but I think probably preferable to 1815, or 1800. Starting here will allow me to talk about the Prussian reform movement, Alexander’s struggles, and the accession of the Liverpool government in Britain. As well as the political transformation engineered by Castlereagh and Metternich between 1813-1815. Thank you for watching, please point out any mistakes or corrections i need to make. Next up will either be the next part of the Other Great Game, or a video on Vergennes' policy during the American Revolution. Hope you enjoy the video.
The British Navy had no food in when Cincinnati became a city. You started eating pork from Ohio and that’s how the north America states betrayed South by getting rich and not feeding ourself in the south
Cannot wait! This video was very good btw 🫡, you're very talented at clear, focused explanations of really complicated shit lmao
Please put caption in this video ❤
You are russia
We will be there no matter what
The Hapsburgs in 1700: “it’ll be a cold day in hell before I see a Bourbon sit on the Spanish throne!”
The hapsburgs 1800: “it’ll be a cold day in hell before I see a Bourbon ejected from the Spanish throne!”
It's simply amazing the longevity of the Austrian line Habsburgs, they and the Wittelsbachs are truly the last native royal medieval dynasty. The Bourbons a bit younger succeeding the last Valois in 1553 as Kings of France from the beginning were building a modern French nation state based on homogeneous national identity like the handicapped English kings were only that their final stage in that process was their own republican deposition (notice even after their restoration they kept the red, white, blue tricolor and many of Napoleon's reforms, it seems the republic and Napoleon had simply done quicker what they would've done anyway if they were in power over the next 30 years in 15, conservative regimes are slower but the social age of the 1790s-1810s was rapidly progressing so much it demanded faster reformers like the Republicans and Napoleon to take the reigns from the status quo and by 1812 even Napoleon had become considered an autocrat albeit the most enlightened one). Whereas the Austrian Habsburgs did not rule a combined territory of one people/ethnicity, their core the Germanic Austria was outnumbered by Czechs of the Bohemian Crown, Magyars in the Crownlands of St. Stephen(Hungary), Romanians in Transylvania, and the various Slavs in Carinthia and Illyria. They were forced to base the justification of their empire's existence purely on feudal divine right of kings to rule their inherited land alone, something that even the French Kings had to augment with the Estates General in the 1300s and the English Kings had surrendered to the Barons Revolt in 1215 signing Magna Carta. The Spanish Habsburgs got lucky ruling a mostly ethnically homogeneous Spain as long as they let the individual crowns like Aragon, Navarre(the Catalans and Basques respectively) to keep regional autonomy, the subsequent Spanish Bourbons then ruined this delicate balancing act with full centralization and then allowing a liberal parliament which turned on them and created the two Spanish Republics.
@@JBGARINGAN
That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but a lot of people actually tend to forget that France was just as diverse as the Hapsburg holdings at the beginning of the 19th century. Beyond the basic linguistic and cultural differences of Bretonnic speakers, Basques, Arpitans, and Alsatians; there were a myriad of regional dialects and cultures littered throughout the southern area of France who were far more loyal to the destiny of their regional communities than to the government of Paris. Lotharignian, Burgundian, Catalan, Provençal, limousin, Occitan etc.
The crux of the question isn’t diversity or lack thereof, It is the question of whether or not the construction of identity, and the fiction of sovereignty representative of a state can co-opt and incorporate said diversity; and whether or not the ideal of a states identity can be backed by state policy. All these dialectical and linguistic identities would become “French” to us in the 21st century, due to economic cohesion, reduced trade barriers, propaganda, bureaucratic policy, and a strong fiction of Republicanism and Cartesian thought represented in the principle of assimilation and association.
(For more reading, I recommend Eugene Webers fantastic book on the subject; Peasants into Frenchmen)
The hapsburgs are much the same. The question of why the Hapsburg monarchy collapsed and their aggregate lands being partitioned have less to do with the diversity of its population, but the underlying fictions and social dynamics that expressed themselves through these differences, and how they played hand in hand with noble autonomy, centralization, the rise of a literate bourgeois, and voting rights. There were multiple attempts to establish a pan Danubian “Hapsburg” national identity, and in some cases it succeeded, Like when Tyroleans would fight back against Bavarian troops in the napoleonic wars, or when peasants from Galicia lodomeria would massacre polish liberators from Krakow in 1846. The crown would, in some cases, Come to represent a symbol of unity and representative government to certain groups, such as agrarian peasants and bureaucrats. But all attempts at centralization would break down due: not diversity, but the way nobles would argue that the rights of the nation (aka: the aristocratic diets of nobles, not the thousands of peasants they worked) superseded the crown’s authority.
Hungary was the best at this. While the cisleithanian provinces urbanized and industrialized in the vision of the Hapsburg emperors, and had less control over their own taxation, Hungary would have a very strong agrarian emphasis, as the Magyar nobles would carefully control innovation and industry in a way that would modernize the state without threatening their agrarian interests. Once the Augsleich happened, It not only broke economic and bureaucratic Cohesion of the state, But it also planted in the minds of other imperial lands the idea that maybe they could make their own deal with the crown similar to the Hungarian compromise, which is where Tripartist thought came from.
But as the 19th century went on, and mass politics became a staple of domestic politics, what was once an argument of feudal nobles would soon become an expression of more grass roots frustrations.
I recommend Peter Judson’s book on the subject: the Hapsburg empire
@@noriyakigumble3011 oh yes there was very much a "pan imperial Austria" err Habsburg monarchy identity which seems strange considering the current day narrative the one pushed by the Kingsom of Serbia to justify creating Yugoslavia post-Trianon: Austrians and Hungarians were horrible savage oppressors we had to save the Croats and Slovenes. Also Romanian annexation of all of Transylvania, in hindsight not the best solution there are alot of Magyars there, to achieve Greater Romania goal. It was amazing, Vienna and Budapest had artisans of all the subject demographics across the Empire immigrate and to an extent even assimilate into at first Austrian then Austrian-Hungarian culture. Especially when reading the memoirs of romantic monarchists like Admiral Horthy(no matter how biased their portrayal of the Empire may be) the archetype of the Victorian gentleman we get the depiction of a beautiful sort of multicultural society. Strangely enough from Jabzy's video about the German goals of expansion he quotes Hitler praising the Austro-Hungarian experiment. This came as a shock to me because I had still been under the mainstream impression that young Hitler(and for that matter his whole life) was a cartoon villain racist which is why he left his native born Austria to join the German army of Wittelsbach Bavaria for disliking the empire's diversity. But it turns out his reasons and views are more nuanced, as a pan-Germanist he joined the German Imperial Army, Austria despite being unarguably German(Habsburg was last president of the confederation, Habsburgs the Holy Roman Emperors) the Habsburgs had the prestige as a subregion to continue running their Danubian empire independently from Bismarck's Germany who pragmatically decided to exclude them, he had to deal with the various Catholics threatening his protestant North German identity already: Poles in Posen, remaining French in Eslass-Lothringien, and the South Germans. Anyway sidetrack, Hitler saw that the Austrians were able to maintain some semblance of peace within their collection of the Balkan races and he admired the achievement, the Nazi ideology despite being inherently ultranationalist, German supremacist and anti-Slavic still advocated pan-European unity a holdover from the Kaiser's plan for the Mitteleuropa sphere and Zollvereign or customs union. It seems many forms of Facsim are pan regionalist: Mussolini played around with a break from Nazi-Germany's foreign policy after the war and forming a Latin Union/Pact with Francoist Spain, Marshal Petain's Vichy France, and possibly Salazarist Portugal. Oswald Mosely supported the creation of the European Union back in the 50s before it materialized into reality decades later and the ultranationalist Shinto Statist Japanese military regime(arguably not Fascist because these were not party politicians who used facade of democracy but straight up military state) were willing to actually go through with the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere not just the ploy it was to use Siam and the other colonized Asians to fight the West, genuinely after the Battle of Tsushima Japan became a sort of beacon of light for the oppressed peoples of Asia and kind of colonized non white people across the world(not the Chinese though). They had beaten the white men in battle and got their technology, some monarchist Buddhists in the government and military thought that instead of colonizing Asia like the white men Japan would liberate the Asian peoples and they would lo ove Japan so much they would form a Asian union. Military planners also considered a pan Turanist state from Finland to Siberia and central Asia. Very interesting stuff.
@@JBGARINGANI’d say those pan-regional visions were merely propoganda and mirages of rhetoric.
All 3 of the ideologies you mentioned were inherently racist supremacists, and the only type of ‘regional coalition’ with their so called ‘lessers’ they would ever actually pursue is one of Master & Servants at best, Master & Slaves at worst.
Their retoric of a community of allied related nations under their leadership is as empty as that of white southern USA slaveholders beloved by their grateful cattle for educating them, giving them jobs and shelter and christening them. As empty as the grateful savages in the colonies lifted up en mass out of poverty by their benevolent British rulers.
I could go on, but you get the point. An ideology that considers a certain ethnic / cultural group as inherently superior to all others can only envision a coalition of lesser related groups under their dictorial leadership against other groups more distantly related. They inherently can not envision a true coalition, because that requires equality between members and that is incompatible with their so called inherent superiority.
That kind of views, and the current lack thereof, is why modern day Germany can have such a decent coalition with countries like Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and the Baltic States, despite the obvious difference in population & economic size. Why Brexit failed so miserably, and what caused such tensions during Trump’s presidency between the USA and its ally’s.
Or between the French and so-called ‘French Africa’.
If you don’t view your partner groups as inherently equal to you, you will not be able to maintain a coalition long-term
Habsburgs
Honey wake up, Old Britannia video just dropped.
"I have been called. I must answer"
Honey wake up, dietcoke just wrote a gay comment
Least original comment
“To lose it at another trafalgar” “actively working themselves to an early grave”. Your writing is improving with every video and your content is getting more flesh out and interesting. Keep going please
Couldn't agree more
What? It is pretty rodiwmry
Alexander is such a strange character. I used to think he was an insane buffoon but the more I learn about him the more competent he seems. I generally think people are wrong in calling him a "genius" and playing the European chessboard masterfully, but I do now think he was very capable and above all always understood the position and circumstances he was in and acted accordingly. To this end I think he was hugely assisted in the fact that he was the Emperor of Russia, he had a lot of wiggle room to make mistakes and act bellicose (like at the Vienna congress at the end of the war) and could always resort falling back on Russian power and size if he needed to.
The label "genius" gets thrown around too much. In certain regards Alexander made good enough decisions at the right time and it worked out for him. Though yes, being Emperor of Russia, does allow for significant geopolitical wiggle room.
@@nathanrohde3292He wasn't good when it came to his general staff.
For example he always scorned and ignored Kutuzov and took the advice of Germans and Austrians in his court. This lead to many notable disasters such as at Austerlitz. Ignoring Kutuzovs better judgement to withdraw further back to the Carpathians.
I think the Tsar was competent enough, but sometimes he believed in his own myth too much, which made him come off as a pompous brat, a spoiled child; and it certainly didn’t help that Napoleon was no chessmaster in diplomacy.
@@OscarDirlwoodKutusov is massively overrated, he wrote the history book about himself
@@matteo2721 By whom, exactly? Lol he wasn't liked by the Tsar and the court which is why he got a bad rep. Anyone that served under him says otherwise.
Besides, how does what you said invalidate what I said?
Please keep making these videos. Your channel is unique to other History Channels by having an International Relations/RealPolitik perspective to other channels that focus on Military/personality matters on a Historical period.
I’ve read and heard history for pretty much all my life, being an archeologist nephew.
But never have I enjoyed it so much and especially for fascinating and dynamic period of time like the 19th century. The effects of which can be so closely releated to our current situation. Bravo sir!
One of, if not the, best UA-cam historians at the moment. Very professional.
The amont of work and dedication you put in your videos are remarquable. The maps, the script, the sources (that most so called history youtubers seem to overlook) and the fact that you don't hide the complexity of foreign policy and politics in general, by taking time to present important figures, is why I really enjoy about your channel. I really hope you continue this series.
I wish I could discover your channel for the first time again, for the wealth of entertaining learning you have provided. Cheers OB.
Excellent work! You never fail to provide me with my necessary dose of well-delivered nineteenth century European history.
Another fantastic video. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Thank you, very glad you enjoyed them.
Both of you are fantastic in your own ways!
Dude, for a guy that wants to study international relations and get into the diplomatic academy your channel is soo ideal! I'd be super awesome if you could list each video's bibliography so that we can look into the subjects in more detail ourselves!
I suggest you check out Perun, he covers modern military logistics and geopolitics but it would be just as useful for your purposes I think. If you want highly detailed analysis of real world geopolitics and diplomacy, he's your guy. He just released a great video about how wars are ended through victory/defeat and negotiation. He often goes a bit into history on his channel too because modern circumstances often require some historical context as to why they exist.
He actually has a job in the defense sector too so he really knows his stuff. He's not just wildly speculating like a lot of people who cover current geopolitics.
He lists all the sources at the end so I'd imagine at least a few of those books are a good place to start
You're having fun with new animations, aren't you?
Great video as always.
I find the fact that "not generally incompetent" is included amongst Lord Portland's strengths freaking hilarious
His weaknesses are even more hilarious
@@iron2684what were his weaknesses??
@@Fallout3131 Might prove to be so devoid of leadership two of his ministers ended up in a duel.
2:55
I am very happy to see a channel cover the geo politics of the era in an involved way, keep it up!
One rule of thumb that I've invented is that when determining whether it's 4d chess or stupidity, always default to the latter option.
I can listen to you talk about napoleonic history all day you go so in depth but it’s not jumbled and confusing I understand and can easily follow along and to top it off its entertaining the way you speak and explain I love it keep up the good work please we on the history side of UA-cam appreciate your great work
Napoleon didn't launch a war against Prussia in 1806 they declared war on him. They wanted to join in 1805 but didn't after hearing about Austerlitz.
Napoleon had taken land from Prussia and given them Hannover in compensation, then he planned to take away Hannover from them to use as a bargaining chip in a potential peace deal with Britain. That's what pissed off the Prussians at the moment.
Yes, this is true. But, I would add that the Prussians were about to join the 3rd coalition in 1805 and then didn't due to the news of the battle of Austerlitz. It's a question of imperialism and balance of power. The Prussians saw Germany as their sphere of influence and were uncomfortable with French expansion during the revolutionary wars of the 1790's. Also, as with all the monarchs of Europe they hated French liberalism and republicanism so wanted to undo anything associated with the revolution.@@masterplokoon8803
Absolutely loved "the Habsburgs paraded once more their fabled ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"
Exceptionally well-detailed video
Thanks for putting together all of that content!
This is probably my favourite historical UA-cam channel
really interesting video. I never saw anyone go into this much detail over this short period of time and it's always interesting how you take a more diplomatic angle to it
"Alexander, 25 at the time and full of contradictions."
"Defiant and Obstinate."
"Ignored advice."
Yeah he never changed did he?
Wonderful video. You’re my favorite history content creator on this platform.
I'm a simple man I see a Old Britannia video and I click it
Same here ❤
@@conqueroryt9639
I'd love to see you deconstruct more modern geopolitical events, could be quite interesting!
More recent events in this style would be... interesting to say the least.
The closer you get to modernity the harder it is to be an objective narrative, I prefer the videos covering the morally grey napoleonic wars.
@@moskaumaster1594 Yep, we have 2 centuries of historians figuring out these older events with next to none on the newer events. Plus, there is next to no ideological baggage if you are analyzing napoleon vs analyzing modern events.
Please don't
@flarelia2019 one interesting "modern" topic might be the 100 year arc of Finnish diplomacy.
I really really hope you add subtitles to this amazing video so that it could reach and help more people. As a non native English speaker, I very much appreciate subtitles in informative videos like this one. Thank you ❤
Sorry about that, will try to add subtitles over the weekend. Thanks for watching.
@@OldBritannia Thank you 🙏
@@OldBritannia There is an option is some UA-cam videos to autotranslate subtitles. It could work if there is some way to enable it, meaning you won’t have to translate and upload subtitles in potentially dozens of languages.
okay, now this is epic.
Nice video! I wanted to point out that you've messed up borders of Poland by forgetting the Austrian part, but decided to check it before actually writing, so, turns out there's nothing wrong and I just didn't have the full data)
I find interesting your comment that Napoleon was a much more succesful coalition builder than his enemies. Any further detail or book I can read on this?
I dont know about books for it but I'd say the reason is actually because of the relationship between Napoleon and his vassals and how he established superiority to them. Napoleon was very easily able to establish himself as the clear leader of the combined forces and had the final say on all matters. Compare this to his enemies, even at the end of the wars at Liepzig, the Austrian general (Schwarzenberg) was Commander n Chief but his plans still needed the green light from the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of Russia to actually get moving. Napoleon on the other hand can just say "hey Italians go here, and Bavaria send me your help over here" and they would have to comply.
It’s a point made frequently by Paul Schroeder. His ‘Napoleon’s Foreign Policy: A Criminal Enterprise’ article goes into it briefly if I remember correctly, with some interesting analysis of his alliance system.
This is completely false. He said that to disengage Britain from the coalitions they built (he is from the UK, he will of course "defend" the british point of view.
Always good to see an upload 🎉
Possibly my favourite history UA-camr, I love the political view on history
Perversely love that you're not more well known because we need to guard the channel like a dragon around gold
It would have been great if you had mentioned how the British Navy undertook two expeditions to the River Plate in 1806 and 1807 taking advantage of the destruction of the Spanish Navy in Trafalgar, only to be defeated twice with momentous consequences.
What 'momentous consequences'? You mean that Britain did not have hegemony in South America after 1815 , or that the Spanish Empire somehow survived? Or do you mean Napoleon won in Europe? Just wondering.
@@uingaeoc3905 I can't answer for him, but I think the two British defeats in the River Plate were enormously important because they were fundamental in making South Americans realise they could both achieve independence from Spain AND preserve it against other European powers (a lesson reinforced some years later at New Orleans). Most, if not all, wouldn't have been interested at all in exchanging Madrid for London or Paris.
-What direct relevance do the invasions of the River Plate have to the Treaties of Tilsit?
-The British economically colonised South America after 1815 anyway, having failed to capture large parts of it directly. The Monroe Doctrine, which the United States was too weak to enforce during the early 19th century & thus largely ignored until after the 1860s, survived a sa concept because it was merely parroting a pre-existing British policy of denying the Spanish Empire a resurgence in South America.
-Speaking of the United States, the British weren't trying to terminate American independence during the War of 1812.
@@skibbideeskitch9894 To the Treaties of Tilsit? None or almost none. They could conceivably have influenced Napoleon to think British land power in general, and support for the Spaniards and Portuguese in particular, would be a negligible factor... but even that is highly debatable. To British policy 1807-1809 and after? A lot.
And of course the British weren't trying to terminate American independence in 1812, if only because it would have been an exercise in madness to do so during the war against against Napoleon... but my point is, the British defeat at New Orleans further encouraged South Americans to think European armies, even if veterans of the Napoleonic wars, weren't that fearsome in the Americas.
@@uingaeoc3905 momentous consequences: crumbling of Spanish Empire, origin of the independence movement in the river plate.
Excellent, as always. Your channel is simply outstanding.
This is really good content. Keep up.the good work.
Love the vids man, great narrative flow
"The Duke of Portland. An experienced statesman, but 69 years old going on 90"
The math aint mathin'
great video. I was very happy to see 10 minutes in that I still had a great deal left to watch
With the upcoming Napoleon movie, this documentary is on point and came in the perfect time👍
Another great video and learning experience. Thank you!
Very exited for this series. Keep up the great work.❤
Excellent, yet another installment from my favourite channel.
didn't there used to be an video about the history of the empire summarised, what happened to it? By the way, you've done another great video.
I thought I was crazy and misremembering, but you have proved me wrong
Yes. The production quality was just too horrendous for me to justify keeping up. Once I’ve finished the Other Great Game series I’ll remake the video.
Came to ask this, i understand you want to remake it as you gave comments on it yourself, but wouldn’t have mind being to watch it again even unlisted.
You deserve more subs man
Another great video. I'm looking forward to this series!
YOOOO THE LEGEND IS BACK
It's amazing how commonly rulers make the mistake of treating allies like subordinates who must do as they are told. It can be tricky to wrap our modern minds around how alliances in the past were just transactional, not based on common values.
I think its pretty ignorant to think alliances aren't transactional today. NATO is an organization that all shares a distrust of Russia, but the value is in the foreign policy reach the US military allows its govt. and the protection provided for those smaller nations. You have to do things the way uncle sam wants for the most part to get under his umbrella. This was the mistake the UK made when leaving the Europe, though i understand their reasons.
@@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab Then why do you think NATO stayed together after the Cold War when they thought Russia wasn't much of a threat? Why do you think a certain level of democratic development is needed to become a member? One of us is pretty ignorant, but it' not me.
@@webcelt I wouldn't call someone ignorant when you're ignoring the interventions of Russia in their foreign neighbors even after the cold war.
Even without Russia, NATO prevents a war in Europe. Everyone is a teammate. And no one has to follow what they consider a peer. The US is the strongest member, but has little desire to micro manage. It is an ocean away. Compare to if France or Germany or the UK were calling the shots, and how the other EU countries would chafe.
@@DarthFhenix55 He called me ignorant for making a comment he disagreed with. Read what I was responding to.
Excellent documentary as always!
Amazing channel. Can't wait for your next video.
One of the best history channels on the platform
Him explaining himself to his mother really snapped me out of the country perspective, like these are REAL people going through these situations
Makes it much harder to blame the bad decisions
It exposes the issue of the system
A few men made judgements which dictated lives of hundreds of thousands even millions based on personal emotional whims. Whose right to rule was ordained by god, for better or worse napoleon shattered this notion paving way for republics and revolutionaries everywhere
I'm so happy this video is out.
Hell yeah! Your videos are always so good!
My dude, I only recently learned about your videos, it's too funny how far ahead you are when compared to mainstream history channels on UA-cam.
What a video can not wait for the next one.
A fantastic watch, thank you.
Just found your channel and I have binge watched all your videos since. Keep it up your videos are awesome!
Thank you. Very glad you enjoy them.
I enjoy your content. It's relaxing and informative.
That 3d CGI shattering of Britain shook me and left me speechless in utter shock and horror
Wonderful content sir!
Fantastic as always
Fantastic video!!!
Love the videos, on par with bigger creators like Reallifelore, Wonderwhy, and the like. I really enjoy the content so keep going, I truly believe you'll get to 100k, 200k and even more.
I'm impressed with the bangers that your videos progressively get, truly a gen on yt and one of the best history channels in the entire web
Such a great video! very informative
I want these videos to play in theaters before a viewing of Ridley Scott's Napoleon.
AYYYYY GOOD TO SEE YOU MATE!
Prestiiiiige😂
Love your videos. Great content. Top quality. ❤
This guy is like a drug dealer, every time I want something way too addicting, I can come here.
this rocks, thanks
3:38, my Italian friends gonna love that bit
I want all of history covered in this style!
Between your last video and this one apparently YT unsubscribed me from you channel. Thank god for recommended vids.
This is brilliant
Old Britannia doesn't mention Salisbury challenge (impossible)
Thanks for this.
Setting myself to absorb all the minute details
I wish you had a patreon or something so I could support this channel.
Small nitpick on what is otherwise another great video, at 2:47 you say Portland was “69 going on 90 years old”. I think I’d struggle to govern too if I woke up 21 years older 😂
I think he meant that he acted even older than he was. I've heard something similar like "16, going on 30," meaning they act like a 30 year old. :D
@@shorewall That would make sense, I am sorry if this was the intended joke
Marvelous video, one minor criticism. You say that Spanish guerillas costed the french 100 men a day... It wasnt the guerillas, it was the Spanish soldiers. The guerillas more often then not acted as bandits and ransacked civilians who sold grain to the french soldiers.
The Spaniards can be admired for their ferocious resistance against the French armies, but the guerillas in my opinion deserve no credit. They never made up any more then 10% of the spanish manpower, and they often failed to achieve anything of value, tactically or strategically.
another lovely short video
As always!
Lol Napoleon was killin' it.
Thank you for a fascinating discourse. Having recently completed Charles Esdaile's 'Napoleon's Wars,' a fascinating but not easy read, very timely as well. The RN destroying the Danish fleet in 1808, a precursor to Mers -el-Kébir in 1940?
This is such a good video and analysis. Thank you for making this as always.
I wish Napoleon was able to compromise more. He should've been smarter and more willing to compromise with the Russians. I think this did him in more than Iberia and the failure of the naval war. Iberia could be contained so long as the East was secure and it was only natural that Russia be that primary ally. The fact that Napoleon failed completely to assure the Russians that they were in fact equals and could be worked with. Ensured that a Russian army would take Paris after the failure of the invasion of Russia.
Honey wake up, Old Britannia just uploaded a new video
I know I'll have a pleasant afternoon when Old Britannia uploads.
if possible, id like to see more videos on 17th and 18th century wars like your video on the 7 years war.
Im curious, what's Ottomans reaction to French revolution and the raise of Napoleon? What was their policy regarding this? Were they just too busy fighting Russia?
Great video as always, I do hope you'll touch on how Napoleon's invasion of Spain kickstarted Latin american revolutions and Britain's involvement in the process, it's something thats always completely overlooked in history
“Determined to build a fleet to be sunk by the Royal Navy….” 😄
Amazing!!
Great video!
One question that I'd like to hear your opinion on: do you think, with the benefit of hindsight, that there was ever a possibility for Napoleon to not just reach a negotiated compromise, but maintain his hegemony and FORCE the british and friends to accept french domination of the european continent against their will, á la the way Rome after Hannibal broke any semblance of balance in the med. and gradually forced Carthage, Macedon, Egypt etc to accept that "there is no more balance of power; we're the ones on top and can crush you whenever we want. You can either accept that, or be conquered and broken, your choice". Is there any combination and sequence of moves that Napoleon can make after smashing Austria and Prussia but before the whole Spain and Russia debacles that can lead to such an outcome? Can he long-term either build a fleet to drive the british navy and economy into the ground or set up such an overwhelming system of lasting alliances (or puppets) that leave Londen no options but to eventually bow to defeat? I'd be very curious if you can think of such a scenario.
The Roman domination of the Mediterranean was derived from their maritime supremacy. No other state could muster such a large number of ships and skilled manpower.
Although France had twice the population of Britain in Napoleon's era they didn't have as many experienced sailors as the British. Obviously the French did have *some* very good sailors but they didn't have enough of them. During the revolution the French Navy was purged of many experienced officers who were considered to have Royalist sympathies.
It wasn't simply a matter of building ships ( although that was hugely expensive) you also had to train vast numbers of men to a very high standard.
The British were determined to hang onto every experienced sailor which is why they took a hard line with the United States who were poaching British crews by the dastardly tactic of offering them treble wages.
Certainly Napoleon liked to refer to the British as the Carthaginians - and I think his treatment of us would not have been much of an improvement on Cato's plans had the French been able to invade. Counter-factual history is always hard, and generally I try to avoid debating it. As @Georgieastra says, the Royal Navy had far more experienced sailors and officers, that had the benefit of being able to train on the open seas. Even fairly sympathetic Napoleon biographers like Broers argue he never really understood naval matters, and that simply building more ships did not mean automatic victory.
That being said - nothing is ever certain in history, and Britain's victory was certainly not pre-ordained. In Spain, Wellington's 1812 campaign would not have been possible had Napoleon not stripped troops from the country to invade Russia. That invasion of Russia was always unnecessary - Napoleon would have had little trouble winning a campaign in Poland, as seemed likely before the invasion.
The obvious 'Napoleon wins totally' TL after Tilsit is he accepts Ferdinand's offer to marry a Bonaparte Princess, and leaves Spain as a Bourbon led vassal state. Holds Lisbon and thus has the opportunity to reek havoc on British trade. Alexander chokes on a fishbone and leaves the throne to Constantine, who was a great admirer of Napoleon, and far less intelligent than his brother. Most of his puppet states were fairly long lasting - most only switched sides when Coalition armies physically invaded them in 1813. All of this combined leaves Britain with little option but to seek peace eventually.
Of course, this is completely unrealistic, not least because it requires Napoleon to reign in his expansionism somewhat, which Talleyrand was arguing would literally never happen as early as 1803.
So IMO it was possible for Napoleon to win decisively. But because his empire was funded by loot, and his own need for expansion, it was always unlikely.
0:18 the word is “clients” and members of the system
You should read Alexander Mikaberidze’s The Napoleonic Wars a global history
Yes! just finished that book. Incredible read
New old Britannia vid THANK GOD
Hey old Britannia. I’m wondering, where do you do the editing for the videos? Premier pro? How do you make the maps, and the portraits?
Good video
@OldBritannia I would just like to ask where the Rise & Fall of Prussia series went? Been looking for it & couldn’t find it. Thank you!
Good video, but small gaffe at @ 2:50 The Duke of Portland could not turn from 69 to 90 lol.