"The most important reason for Napoleon's downfall was...?" Topic

"The British narrative is that he had the hubris to oppose Britain, and for that he is eternally condemned."

Hubris? Or lack of understanding of international commerce and finance?

Great comments from all posters? He should have stayed on Elba and write a book, much better than getting a final defeat at Waterloo. His insatiable ego got the better of him.

Money is not a malady, but only a symptom.

As is everything mentioned, apart from "Napoleon"

"The British narrative is that he had the hubris to oppose Britain, and for that he is eternally condemned."

Not to "oppose Britain" per se, but to try to reduce Britain and all the other Great Powers to client status. That was bound to provoke those powers – including Britain – into resisting him.

Napoleon's fatal misapprehension was to believe he could beat all comers, come what may.

I agree with Red Coat. His downfall was that it was truly France vs. the World. Not his personality defects or anything like that, but one vs all is not possible to do, especially on a weak economy with a finite number of men that can be used.

As we all know from playing the highly accurate military simulation Risk, all he needed was to start in Austrailia.

Not his personality defects or anything like that

You will probably find that thinking you can fight the whole world is generally held to be a "personality defect".

France as a nation didn't get up one morning and decide to fight the world.

Himself.
For example, he was offered peace, on terms, by Metternich in 1813, but rejected the offer, which led to his ultimate downfall.
Ego, an inability to understand economics, a belief in his own propaganda, un inability to understand sea power.

Knowing that the Royal Navy was always at sea and just over the horizon.

"And there it is again: Napoleon could have kept his prize if only he had been humble and accepted Great Britain's demand that they dominate Europe. Uppitiness was his downfall."

When, ever, did Britain seek to dominate Europe?

A fair comment. Britain was not a Continental European power.

So long as the Continent was open to British trade I don't think London cared which country had hegemony.

The Continental System, Spain, Russia. Putting family members on thrones. Not knowing when to quit. Not understanding sea power. Himself. The usual suspects.

So long as the Continent was open to British trade I don't think London cared which country had hegemony.

I don't agree here. England cared a lot about Europe's balance of power. She regularly opposed any country that looked like it was about to get hegemony in Europe, at least since early XVIIth Century. For all her purported isolationism, Britain, and England in particular, was obsessed with preserving the balance of power in Europe. First, it was Spain, then France, Russia and finally Germany (nowadays is Brussels, but that discussion is for the Blue Fezz!). Look at what happened in the War of Spanish Succession when archduke Charles inherited the Austrian throne: Britain abandoned him as soon as possible; she couldn't tolerate the idea of recreating the empire of Charles V.

Nope. England never tolerated any hegemony in Europe. She knew it was bad for business!

Best

When, ever, did Britain seek to dominate Europe?

Indeed, dominate Trade, absolutely, but Europe nah!

The balance of power was so important to England presumably because if one nation (God forbid, France) dominated the continent it could:

1) use the Low Countries deep-water ports to invade England and/or attack London up the Thames Estuary without any other Great Power to distract its attention – much as our Corsican friend tried to do in 1805 (and might well have been able to do at some point thereafter had he kept his sticky fingers to himself for five minutes and focussed on rebuilding the French navy);
2) pull down the shutters to British imports – much like our Corsican friend did with the Continental System.

A lot of interesting posts. The answer has to be the economics. It does seem that Napoleon and his Marshal's did create a nice line in extortion. Ultimately you can only squeeze so much from the lemon.

Yes it all comes back to that line of storm tossed, weather beaten ships just off the horizon – The wooden walls of old England…

economics and the character of Napoléon

Over extension of his empire and too many fronts to deal with. Should have never gone to Russia! England was never a problem except their navy, but entered the conflict only when they saw weakness in the Empire. I didn't see Wellington meet Napoleon face to face when both was in Spain. Anyway you have it, an empire never works out in the long run. Mongols, Turks, Persian, Greek, Roman, British, etc. Over extension and economics are the key works. Look at the British empire after WWII. Glad the US didn't get into the race. They tried.

I didn't see Wellington meet Napoleon face to face when both was in Spain.

Wellington and Napoleon both in Spain together – when was that mate? You sure you're not thinking of Sir John Moore?

Anyways, they did meet up later in Belgium – little place called, let me think –

Waterloo?

Napoleon lost because he didn't understand economics. The Continental System was a disaster for all of Europe and it didn't help Britain either.

Had he thrown his markets open to the English, Europe would have prospered as the British and European merchants smuggled goods to and from the continent. While the British fleet may have been able to pen-up the French navy, it didn't have near enough ships to curtail smuggling at which the British merchants were experts.

In short France and all of Europe would have prospered and the temptation of British gold to go to war with France would have been diminished.

Bob Coggins

Just a minor question, if Napoleon didn't understand economics, how did he put France's finances on a sound footing during the Consulate?

By reading France Under Napoleon by Bergeron and Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms by Owen Connelly, the impression is given that Napoleon did understand economics, even though the Continental System was a major mistake.

And since the finances of Prussia, Russia, and Austria were not on a sound footing (else why would they need large subsidies in cash and kind during the wars in order to keep troops in the field, especially in 1813 and 1814) why didn't economics defeat them?

And it is also interesting that Wellington's armies in Spain were supplied by American foodstuffs even during the War of 1812, which usually isn't talked about.

Money and economics is always a problem, but Napoleon had France's financial situation on a sound footing through at least 1811.

It was the allies, funded by the British, acting in concert after the summer armistice of 1813 that finally defeated Napoleon-economics was a factor, but it wasn't the primary factor.

Nor was Napoleon's character a factor as too many tend to mention.

Sincerely,
K

To Sparker, Napoleon was in Spain but not at the same time as Wellington, sure they met at Waterloo, but all I am saying was Wellington never confronted Napoleon during his Spanish campaign.

He was simply unable to get-on with any of his neighbours. Foreign relations are like personal relations only writ large.

10th Marines,

Excuse me Russia violated the Continental System because it was an economic basket case and so too was Austria not to mention Portugal. Prussia was just plain poor. The Continental System was one of the major reasons for the wars from 1808 to 1812.

Napoleon's insistence on enforcing it led to the invasion of Portugal and Spain, not to mention Russia, actions which gave Britain a reason for war a war without the blood of Russia, Spain and Austria would have been ineffective.

Bob Coggins

One could argue that the US economy was sound until 2010, because it seemed to be. However, it wasn't. France's economy in 1811 was similar. An economy sustained by conquest and tribute from neighbours isn't an economy that has a sound basis.