"Single most important opposing country to France" Topic

I always tend to think of Russia as the single most important opponent of Napoleonic France during the period. Not only because they were responsible for almost single handedly destroying the cream of his army of 1812 (regardless of whether they fumbled though to victory) but because they never really gave in to the French (after 1805 Alex seemed to think Tilsit meant they were friends and equals).

Will be interesting to see who people rate as the single most important foe of France.

I would say Austria

Perhaps Austrian. They fought Napoleon several times and their army was sizeable enough to be a distraction.

I would also go with Austria.
William

Distance from France both distance wise and politically gave Russia an independence other nations (apart from Britain) didnt have. I think Austria would covet the title of most troublesome of the main powers. Prussia was was a complete failure early on and could have troubled the French immensely if she had joined the allies against him. I would say politically Britain was by far the most troublesome. She ruled the seas, disrupted trade, she co-ordinated many of the alliances against france and helped rearm most of europe through her funding. Certainly not conventionally, but definitely politically Napoleons biggest pain I think.

England was the only relentless opponent to Napoleon during his entire career. He said so himself.

Militarily it has to be Austria, they fought the French whenever they had the resources from the start of the Revolution to Boney's demise.

In more global terms it was probably Britain. The combination of naval power and financial clout kept the war against Boney going. His underestimation of their determination and the effects (long term) of the blockade were a significant factor in his defeat.

The Russians were, at least in theory, the most powerful opponent but not seen as the most reliable ally by other states.

England, only one that never gave in.
Would be intresting to see how the wars would have ended with out English money.

The prussians probebly couldn't have rebbeled, there would be no Continental System so Napoloen wouldn't have needed to invade Russia to force them to use it ect.

Obviously the Netherlands.

After all, we defeated the French at Waterloo, with some assistance of the Brits who made a mess of the scenery, and some Prussians who arrived almost too late to be of any service.

It has to be England. Seapower was critical at the time and wars are fought by economies as much as armies.

To prove the point another question could be asked: which of her enemies, if they switched sides, would it take for France to conquer all the rest?

Russia and Austria were French allies at one time or another and she still could not defeat Britain.

Britain's money

I would also say Great Britain for economic reasons if nothing else. British money kept Austrian and Prussian armies in the field and armed the enlarged Prussian army after 1810.

Miitarily British expeditions ensured Napoleon never had complete control of the Iberian peninsula. Lastly sea power meant that France was unable to sustain her own empire and trade effectively.

In purely military terms it has to be the Austrian empire, they never knew when to give in and always came back to have another go at the French.

I would contend that one of Napoleon's errors was actually trying to bring Britain to the peace table. Really there was little that the Brits could do about Napoleon's dominance in Europe other than bank-roll anyone that was keen to field and army against France. In 1812 there was only the Russians that were able to oppose Napoleon…

TW

I agree with Britain as the choice. Until Napoleon was destroyed they would not rest.

Britain i would say if only for her army in the peninsular

who the french never managed to beat in open battle……

driven too the sea at Corruna,….battered to pulp at

Albuuera……BUT never soundly beaten,

the closest the french got was Waterloo.

with an abundance of Gold an a sublime navy i rate them

top dogs

with the Russains second due to the damage caused by

mother nature.

and thirdly the oft beaten Austrians for tenacity

regards

Ged

gjm.figurines.co.uk/

British gold and Austrian blood.

What Gungnir said!

Rick

The Industrial Revolution also allowed Great Britain to provide a lot of muskets, equipment and uniforms for the other Allies, in addition to the gold that paid the wages of the men who carried and wore those items. The relative political, social and ethnic homogeneity of British (and even, to a surprising extenet, Irish society), prevented any serious opposition to the defeat of Napoleon, and was why the British were the only Europeans who never allied with Napoleon.

Great Britain.

I'm suprised that so many has said Great Britain.

There has been a lot downgradeing of GB involvment in the war the last few decades.

This seems to me to be a reaction to the over representation of GB the first 100 years after the war.

Mabye now both those over reactions have neurtilized eachother and might get a balanced view, not to BG horny and not to anti BG either.

- was why the British were the only Europeans who never allied with Napoleon.-

Austria was basically forced to be Napoleon ally through military defeat. If it had the luxury of being on an island, I'm pretty sure it never would have become Napoleon ally, either.

My vote goes to Austria. Their incessant wars against the French weakened Napoleon's army a lot more than people give them credit for.

GB a close second…so it's either Austria or GB, I think we all agree on this.

Great Britian…whos involvement in europe….kept the main army out of the U.S. in 1812.

Great Britain.

Napoleon never seemed to have any trouble dealing with the Austrians when he needed to do so.

And if you answer "single, most important country" and consider the impact of the Royal Navy, influence of British funding, ability to keep allies in the war and the Spanish ulcer – then no other nation had that ability.

And frankly "Russian" weather is not national.

I go for Britain's money first and then the Spanish Ulcer that kept Napoleon's best troops far away at critical moments and cost him a few 100.000's casualties. But agree also with the constant role of Austria and the terrible Russian army and winter, not certain which of the last two should come first.

Spanish resistance, that is the spark that ignited nationalism. Napoleon pretty much admitted this himself.

You all need to look at this from a gaming perspective….

Brunswick!!!!! Without them, we would not have all those grim-faced black uniformed fellows that everyone just has to paint to say they have some!

Have to go with Austria – most persistent, most able to bounce back, most determined

Great Britain would be second, Russia third

Prussia.

If Prussia was not opposed to France then it was allied to it. So long as Prussia remained allied to France or neutral, France would have been able to recover from Russia. Indeed, if Prussia had remained in the French camp, Austria would not have gone to war in 1813.

It was not the stubborness of the Russian serfs or the pockets of British bankers that drove Bonaparte back across Germany, it was German nationalism and passion. It was the same Prussian energy that would result in so many Confederation of the Rhine nations deserting the French.

As for Britain, the question is not 'who was the most determined foe'. Britain's influence as an enemy should be ranked lower simply because they were at war the entire time …and could not accomplish anything. Sure they were a 'nuisance' but they were not the deciding factor in Napoleon's defeat.

Great Britain first for finances and blockade, then Austria with sheer will power and men.

Sorry England……

It most certainly was not Prussia…they had less involvement than most of the main nations. They stuffed pretty easily everytime before 1813. i agree they were pivotal at the end. But if you could call their cowardly lack of ultimatum during 1805 (and Hageuwitz subsequent congratulation of Napoleon after Austerlitz)pivitol then there is something wrong. The Prussians were petrified of confrontation with Napoleon (unlike the Austrians). When they eventually did get some balls I think they became a thorn in the side of Napoleon and were able to fight effectively. They cannot be called Napoleons most important enemy as their involvement was patchwork at best. Austria was definitely more of an important enemy, certainly militarily. Britain was certainly the most effective economically and political and indeed navally…is that a word?

But Britain and Austria and Russia were all fighting the French in 1805 and still fighting them in 1815 and weren't making any headway. When Britain and France go to war, those wars can last for , oh, a hundred years or more unless others get involved to end them.

If Prussia hadn't weighed in, there might still be a Bonaparte on the French throne. ok, that may be a stretch. :)

- It was not the stubborness of the Russian serfs or the pockets of British bankers that drove Bonaparte back across Germany, it was German nationalism and passion -

A passion useless without the 1812 fiasco in Russia and the destruction of the Grande Armée. I have to agree with Greenryth on this.

IIRC, I've seen a couple of modern histories which suggest it was Alexander stirring up trouble all the time (for Russia's gain) which kept the wars going at times when peace was achievable and sought on the continent.

Now, these could well be written by old cold warriors with an axe to grind, but if accurate, it would bump Russian up the stakes a bit.

I lean toward Austria though.

And again, Napoleoin wouldn't have gone into russia if it weren''t for his continental system, which he tried to use to bankrupt GB,

So no Britian, No 1812 invasion, no German liberation. No end to the war.

Britain. Money, Navy, the ability to challenge France throughout the world – India. Egypt, Spain – while supporting other nations. No Austria, Napoleon would have been beaten. No Britain, he wouldn't.

If you mean country and not army then it has to be Russia with Spain a close second

In both cases the weather and distance contributed to Napoleon's defeat.

I think that it took a combination of countries to defeat Napoleon. No single country had the combination of money and manpower resources to go it alone. So my vote goes to Austria plus Britain.

Austria, they had armies in the field for more time than any other opponent of the Revolution and Empire.

Britain had a huge contribution, followed by the other powers of Prussia, Russia, Spain etc. Just remember that they all allied with or ceased fighting the French for personal gain. Austria only did so when finally forced to do so after 17 years of war.

Austria on the continent certainly in terms f armies and fighting.
Britain for its pressure at sea, economic pressure, economic support of allies ect ect.

Britain provided the economic pressure and only maintained a two short periods of peace with the France. The ability of Britain to directly intervene on mainland Europe was limited before 1809.

Austrian was the most troublesome of the continental powers.

Like World War II the expenditure of Russian lives in freeing Europe from General di Buonaparte can not be underestimated.

Spanish ulcer, as he said……

here is the answer

I agree with the comment Austrian blood and British money

Britain then Russia.If it wasn't for the 1812 Russian campaign then France wouldn't have lost it's best army.if it wasn't for Britain there probably wouldn't have been a 1812 campaign.No 1812 campaign Austria probably remains a French ally,Napoleon was married to a Austrian princess.Prussia would most likely end up plotting some war with Russia against France but with Austria as a ally of France they wouldn't have a chance.IMO.

I would assert that from this vantage point in time it seems that no single country could have defeated Napoleon by itself. Maybe another way of tackling this would be whether there is a single country that if it hadn't participated, even all the other countries together might not have been able to defeat Napoleon?

I think that referring to the "Spanish ulcer" as a major contributing factor is incorrect. After all, Napoleon was still able to raise and deploy a massive army into Russia and keep the Spanish campaign going at the same time (even if it wasn't exactly working out too well for them).

In terms of Spanish nationalism, I think that that first spark of the nationalism that would define warfare for the next 100 years was first felt during the French revolutionary wars and not so much in Spain. I always tend to think of the Spanish guerrilla as a bunch of cut-throats and criminals rather than a group of hand-on-heart Spanish Nationalists.

If I had to put it in order for the main nations involved it would be Russia, Austria, Britain, Prussia.

I really do think that Britain's involvement was never decisive, they just never suffered any major disastrous defeats. If you took them out of the picture, at worst for the French I think it would have meant a Europe shared between them and the Russians, where as if you take the Russians out of the picture, you end up with a Europe dominated by the French, and I think Britain would have either been forced to the peace table or would eventually have been invaded and defeated (if there was still a French commander capable).

TW.

Clearly, Wurzburg! Enough said.

Duchy of Grand Fenwick!

Austria and Britain for most tenacious enemies of Napoleon Bonaparte

"freeing Europe from General di Buonaparte" yes and enslaving it to the likes of Metternich, Louis XVII, Charles X, Ferdinand VII, Ferdinand I, Poland to Russia e.t.c.

"I always tend to think of the Spanish guerrilla as a bunch of cut-throats and criminals rather than a group of hand-on-heart Spanish Nationalists."

No not criminals but neither nationalists. Like the Vandee they were peasants rebelling against what they saw as a challenge to their way of life.