The battle for the place of "king of the hill"

8 020 26
The battle for the place of "king of the hill"
"The Pudding in Danger." Prime Minister Pitt (England) and Napoleon (France) divide the world. Cartoon by James Gillray


prehistory


Having defeated the Second Anti-French Coalition, France became the hegemon of continental Europe. However, the peace was short-lived. It could have been maintained by a strategic alliance between Paris and St. Petersburg, Napoleon and Paul I. However, the British quickly eliminated this possibility by removing the Russian sovereign at the hands of the Russian aristocracy.How England killed Russian sovereignsBonaparte bluntly declared that the assassination of Pavel Petrovich was a blow to him. France's alliance with Russia collapsed, burying hopes for peace in Europe.



Austria was defeated, losing a significant portion of its possessions and influence in Italy and Western Germany, which was replaced by France. It was clear that the Viennese court would wait for an opportune moment to take revenge.

England, left without "cannon fodder" (Austria and Russia), was forced to sign the Treaty of Amiens in March 1802. England pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of European countries and to return most of its captured lands (including Malta) and colonies.

It is clear that this was only a temporary truce between France and England, who were both vying for dominance in Europe and the world: “There can only be one here.”

England, which was then becoming the "workshop of the world," the most advanced trading and industrial power, had no intention of yielding to France. But a pause was needed to prepare for a new round of confrontation and find allies who would fight for Britain on the continent.

British capital was unwilling to cede Belgium and Holland, the left bank of the Rhine, and Italy to France. Furthermore, from a military-strategic standpoint, England's security was compromised. While Bonaparte reigned over Belgium and Holland, he said that "Antwerp is a pistol pointed at the English breast."

Therefore, peace in Europe was short-lived. Two years – from the spring of 1801, when the French made peace with the Austrians, to the spring of 1803, when war with England broke out again.


Bonaparte, First Consul. Artist: Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

"King of the Hill"


The Napoleonic Wars (wars of anti-French coalitions) were inevitable. It was a struggle within the Western project, within European civilization, for leadership and dominance in Europe and the world. First, Britain crushed the Spanish Empire and Holland. Now it had a new competitor: French capital, laying claim to hegemony in Europe.

At the same time, France was led by a true genius. In particular, Bonaparte understood perfectly well that Britain's "thorn in the side" was the economy. Hence the continental blockade. He also understood that communications and key points were crucial. Hence the focus on Egypt (the future Suez Canal) and India.

British India, which would become the most populous and wealthy colony, played a key economic and strategic role in the power and grandeur of the global British Empire, became known as the "Jewel of the British Empire" or "Diamond in the Crown." This is why Napoleon dreamed of breaking through to India.

Naturally, the British wanted to crush their competitor and waged a stubborn and relentless struggle against them. In this struggle, Britain's advantages included enormous capital, a powerful economy and colonies around the world, global trade links, and the world's most powerful military. fleetIn this struggle, England successfully used European monarchies and their armies, financing and arming them against France.

In this struggle for the "king of the mountain" (master of the planet), the British were true masters. They successfully "divide, pit, and conquer." When William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), who served as British Prime Minister for nearly 20 years, gave millions in subsidies to Russia, Austria, and Prussia to rouse them against France, he was doing the same as his father, William Pitt the Elder (1708–1778, Secretary of State for War and Prime Minister). During the Seven Years' War, William Pitt the Elder avoided participation in the bloody but, in his view, futile battles on the European continent and focused his attention on the colonial fronts—in India and America. In particular, they armed and incited Native American tribes against the French.

This British policy proved to be quite far-sighted. They succeeded in driving the French out of Canada and India. Thus, they created a global empire on which the sun never sets.


Portrait of William Pitt the Younger by John Hopper

On the way to a new war


English capital—aristocratic landowners and the upper bourgeoisie (owners of factories, mills, and ships)—were disillusioned by the Peace of Amiens. Bonaparte stopped allowing English goods into the vast European markets under his control. Formerly independent countries also came under France's sphere of influence.

London realized that Bonaparte was far more dangerous than Louis XIV, the "Sun King," at the height of his power. The new ruler of France ruled Europe as if he were at home, irritating the British.

Thus, in the autumn of 1802, Napoleon announced to Switzerland his desire to introduce a new governmental structure there and install a government "friendly to France." He backed this demand with Ney's corps, which he sent to the Swiss border. Switzerland submitted. Almost simultaneously, the French First Consul formally and definitively declared the Kingdom of Piedmont annexed to France. Holland was under Bonaparte's control; the West German monarchs, deprived of Austrian support, de facto became vassals of the great Frenchman.

For its part, England, citing Napoleon's actions, refused to fulfill the terms of the treaty, specifically the evacuation of Malta, which Napoleon had particularly insisted on, as well as Alexandria, Cape Town, and the French cities in India. The British were attempting to rebuild the anti-French coalition, making corresponding hints in Vienna and St. Petersburg.

Peace was crumbling not only in London but also in Paris. Napoleon saw that the English had not given up their interference in European affairs, and this irritated him. He believed that Europe was now his destiny.

New diplomatic negotiations began. Both sides were unwilling and unable to compromise. There were, of course, hesitations in both London and Paris. Not all English ministers believed the country was ready for a new war. Napoleon knew that some of France's bourgeoisie (especially the merchants of Paris and Lyon) were profiting handsomely from trade with England. On the other hand, a new war offered an opportunity to impose new restrictions and keep English goods out of France and Europe.

Napoleon, in his usual manner, tried to put pressure on the British. But then his sword met a rock. The British had no intention of handing over Europe to the Corsican. The English government increased funding for the navy and made extensive military preparations.

Malta or War


On March 13, 1803, at a reception in the Tuileries, Napoleon ended a sharp conversation with the British ambassador, Lord Whitworth, with the exclamation: "So, you want war... You want to fight for another 15 years, and you will make me do it." He demanded the return of Malta:

"The English want war, but if they are the first to draw their sword, let them know that I will be the last to sheathe it... If you want to arm, I will arm too; if you want to fight, I will fight too. You may kill France, but you cannot intimidate her... Woe to those who do not fulfill the conditions!... Malta or war!"

Not only did Britain not want to leave Malta, but it also demanded the withdrawal of French troops from Switzerland and Holland.

In early May 1803, Whitworth left Paris, and war had begun. This war between France and England continued until the end of Bonaparte's reign.

In London, they understood that the war would be difficult and dangerous. The enemy was clever and powerful. William Pitt the Younger, the man who had fought the French Revolution for nine years, once again headed the cabinet. He was prepared to take any measures to eliminate the threat posed by Napoleon and consolidate the successes of the British Empire.

Napoleon first occupied Hanover, a large German possession belonging to the English crown. He then ordered the occupation of several points in southern Italy, where French troops had not yet been deployed. He ordered Spain and Holland to send soldiers and ships to France's aid. He also ordered the confiscation of English goods in all subject lands, the arrest of all Englishmen, and their detention until peace with England was concluded.

Three Foggy Days


Napoleon began preparations for the invasion and conquest of England across the English Channel. From 1803 to 1805, Napoleon's 200-strong army, known as the "Army of England" (Armée de l'Angleterre), was assembled and trained in camps in Boulogne, Bruges, and Montreuil. An entire flotilla of transports and rowboats was built and stationed in French ports on the English Channel coast and in the Netherlands. It was initially led by the energetic and experienced Vice-Admiral Étienne Bruys (who died in March 1805).

"I need only three days of foggy weather, and I will be master of London, Parliament, and the Bank of England," said Bonaparte in June 1803. A flurry of activity was underway in all French ports and shipyards.

Foggy weather would have allowed the French flotilla to evade the powerful British fleet and land an amphibious force on the English Isles. Bonaparte would then have easily routed the weak English army and entered London. This was the belief of Napoleon himself, as well as many in Europe and England itself.

On the one hand, the British tried to ridicule these plans. On the other hand, by the end of 1803 and especially in 1804, the British were no longer in a mood for laughter. Britain hadn't been so afraid since the arrival of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

The British were afraid. They were confronted by a man who, in 1798, with a large squadron and army, had eluded the British fleet, which had been trying to catch him throughout the Mediterranean. Along the way, he had managed to capture Malta and successfully landed in Egypt, which he also conquered. Such a man could take advantage of the bad weather in the English Channel and land an army in England. The British could not stop him on land.

Source: "Military Encyclopedia of I. D. Sytin". St. Petersburg; 1911.

To be continued ...
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    29 September 2025 07: 58
    ,
    who in 1798 with a large squadron and army eluded the British fleetHe didn't escape for long—in the same year of 1798, the Mediterranean tried to catch him. Along the way, he managed to capture Malta and successfully landed in Egypt, which he also conquered.

    He didn't slide for long - in the same 1798, in the Battle of Aboukir, Nelson destroyed the French fleet and cut Napoleon off from France, thereby dooming the Egyptian adventure to defeat.

    The result was the capitulation of the French troops.
    1. -4
      29 September 2025 09: 23
      Nelson, a pathetic and insignificant plagiarist, like the entire Anglo-Saxon tribe, stole the tactics of conducting naval battles from Ushakov, and never said a word about it, the vile bastard, taking all the credit for himself
      1. 0
        20 November 2025 17: 55
        Borrowing military techniques from other countries is common practice throughout history. Nelson had more ships at his disposal, and therefore, the results were greater.
  2. -2
    29 September 2025 09: 18
    There is a lot of Russian blood and vile deeds on the hands and crown of vile Albion, and let it be over the country of “One Rocket” as damocles the sword hangs Sarmat
  3. +1
    29 September 2025 09: 39
    While in retirement, Giscard d'Estaing gave birth to an alternative to "Victory of the Great Army" at the level of a schoolboy, but entertaining.
  4. +5
    29 September 2025 10: 06
    However, the peace was short-lived. It could have been maintained by a strategic alliance between Paris and St. Petersburg,

    Just an alliance? Without an alliance, no way? What if there was just a peace treaty, mutual neutrality, and an end to wars of conquest...
    During the Napoleonic Wars, France was the main aggressor and invader, and it was its actions that led to the creation of those very "coalitions" - an attempt to abandon the madman.
  5. 0
    29 September 2025 11: 23
    If Russia had come to an agreement with France, England would have been doomed.
    All that needed to be done was to guarantee the purchase of goods that were sent from St. Petersburg to England, and France was quite capable of doing this.
    1. +3
      29 September 2025 12: 21
      And then they discussed the treacherous Franks, who bribed the stupid Tsar and Russia ended up dependent on the Frogs, missing the chance for a great future.
      1. +1
        29 September 2025 12: 25
        Quote: Cartalon
        And then they discussed the treacherous Franks

        the French were quite satisfied with mutual neutrality
        And what did Russia get? The devastation of most of the country's west, the burning of Moscow.
        And they were also at great risk of losing the war. Was that better than friendly neutrality?
        1. +4
          29 September 2025 12: 46
          Attention to the question: what place would Russia occupy in the hierarchy of powers if France controlled all of Europe and possessed unlimited naval power?
          1. +1
            29 September 2025 13: 34
            Quote: Cartalon
            Attention to the question, what place in the hierarchy of powers would Russia occupy if

            That wasn't the problem—the Habsburg Empire had existed throughout Europe before, and that didn't bother anyone. The problem was France's form of government, which was outside the hierarchy of European monarchies, and the fact that they executed their monarch.
            1. +1
              29 September 2025 13: 49
              When was the Habsburg Empire the whole of Europe? It was such a bummer under Charles V, and the Ottomans were still around then.
              But if the invincible emperor entered London, everything would be out, no counterweights.
              1. +1
                29 September 2025 16: 40
                Quote: Cartalon
                And now let the invincible emperor enter London

                it was unrealistic.
                But even if he did enter, what's wrong if the terms of coexistence have already been agreed upon?
                The French, even with all their arrogance, could not, like the United States, bend everyone at once.
                1. +3
                  29 September 2025 17: 38
                  No, it is unrealistic that Napoleon Bonaparte, having conquered one country, would not decide to conquer a couple more. Let me remind you that we are talking about a man who said that in his little finger there is more common sense than in the heads of all his subjects.
                  We are talking about a power with an army of a million and a fleet of hundreds of ships, led by a man who considers himself the new Alexander.
                  And you think he will comply with some conditions.
                  No one ever abides by the terms unless he is strong enough to disobey them.
                  1. +1
                    30 September 2025 08: 27
                    Having conquered one country, he won't decide to conquer a couple more

                    I would like to remind you that France fought for many years with hostile countries and its puppets (puppets) like Holland, who wanted to suppress the revolution and restore the monarchy.
                    No one knows what she would have done with those who wanted an alliance.
                    But the fact is that France did not touch Sweden.
                    1. +1
                      30 September 2025 08: 47
                      Because Sweden was a little overseas.
                      But the completely loyal and allied Spain was very much touched
                      1. +1
                        30 September 2025 08: 49
                        As far as I remember, it was far from faithful.
                      2. +1
                        30 September 2025 09: 03
                        Of course, only a person with the last name Bonaparte can be truly faithful, but even his last name didn’t help Louis.
                    2. 0
                      1 October 2025 16: 20
                      Quote: multicaat
                      But the fact is that France did not touch Sweden.

                      Oh really!
                      And from whom was Pomerania taken?
        2. +1
          30 September 2025 08: 32
          Quote: multicaat
          the French were quite satisfied with mutual neutrality

          Is that why he invaded Russia?
          And what did Russia get? The devastation of most of the country's west, the burning of Moscow.
          Let me remind you that all this happened after such a wonderful Tilsit
          Was this better than friendly neutrality?

          There could be no friendly neutrality with Napoleon. We signed a peace treaty, and he violated it. The result is on the scoreboard.
          All this talk about some kind of agreement with Bonnie is like talking about agreements with Willie or Adik. If a pan-European mess has started, there's no chance of slipping past it.
    2. +2
      29 September 2025 14: 35
      Quote: multicaat
      All that needed to be done was to guarantee the purchase of goods that were sent from St. Petersburg to England, and France was quite capable of doing this.

      But this is highly unlikely.
      Firstly, France doesn't need that much, as it has its own. Secondly, Napoleon wasn't exactly a big buyer. His entire empire was built on the plunder of captured lands for the benefit of the "old departments" (that is, France).
  6. +1
    29 September 2025 17: 49
    Very interesting cartoon, Pitt (England) takes the ocean, Napoleon (France) Europe.
    1. 0
      30 September 2025 01: 23
      No, England intends to gain half the Earth – the Atlantic, the Americas, the Pacific, and India and Southeast Asia. France, however, lays claim to the Mediterranean in addition to Europe.
    2. +1
      1 October 2025 14: 55
      Today, much of that time is perceived as anything but caricature.
  7. 0
    2 October 2025 12: 13
    Napoleon didn't escape, it was the English who escaped.
  8. 0
    20 November 2025 17: 48
    Napoleon was a very good administrator/commander. And not at all bloodthirsty. He would have been better off fighting England.
    And with Russia he is finished!