|
|
Post by halferking on Apr 5, 2021 11:58:33 GMT
Napoleon needs to tread careful with Great Britain and recognise that although he commands Europe he cannot hope to capitalise on his new found power as long as Great Britain is in opposition. Giving Hanover back to the Hanoverians would be a big sacrifice, but one worth making. Hanover was more a matter of honour for Great Britain than anything else. As I say France has to treat Europe's British addiction. Napoleon cannot hope to eliminate it overnight as that would annoy Russia and achieve nothing vis a vis Great Britain. Internal politics Emperor Napoleon I was crowned King of Italy so he had that in the bag and he, I believe, had Friedrich Wilhelm II under his thumb so it was worth keeping him in place. I think you are right about Napoleon giving his vassal states some form of autonomy. The Emperor would or rather should learn from his own country's history - The Revolution had sparked the flame of nationalism in Europe. As a multi-national Empire Napoleon would have to understand that he could not enforce his rule on his subjects in other lands instead he should give them limited self-governing powers creating a Federation similar to the United States. As for the Ottomans Napoleon could enter in to a treaty with Russia that should the Ottomans attack Russian territory The Napoleonic Federation would commit troops. This should be enough to keep Moscow on side and Constantinople in check.
Here I would have to agree with eurofed - suspect that would surprise both of us  . There was a dynastical attachment but that was markedly weaker at this point. George III after all as a young king had emphasised his status as a British monarch to distance himself from his grandfather's attachment to the dynasty's German origins. Plus Napoleon was too great a threat to British independent while he had such power. Furthermore before his attack on Prussia in 1806-07 Hanover had been under Prussian occupation as part of an earlier deal between Paris and Berlin.
On the French side I can't see him agreeing to a permanent peace with Britain either or giving up land. Plus Hanover in British hands would give a clear route for British goods to flood into central Europe which would boost Britain's economy and cause problems for the French.
By this point, with rare exceptions, Russia was clearly stronger than the Ottomans so a defensive alliance with France against the Turks really offers them little. An offensive alliance, which would have been difficult logistically for the French might have done it possibly. Plus as part of his divide and rule tactics he established the Duchy of Warsaw after the defeat of Prussia and Russia in 1806-07 and given Poland's historical claims over much of the western provinces of the Russian empire this was a continued source of tension between the two empires.
However the continued threat that a continental Europe united under an expansionist military ruler and the handicap of Napoleon's continental system on Russia trade were the key issues.
Steve
I think possession of Hanover was more about honour than material. Napoleon will have to do something big to stop Great Britain from interfering. Don't forget that the Royal Navy is perhaps the world's greatest naval power so without Britain on side Napoleon is going to struggle. Remember London threatened to sink ships.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 5, 2021 12:20:34 GMT
Here I would have to agree with eurofed - suspect that would surprise both of us . There was a dynastical attachment but that was markedly weaker at this point. George III after all as a young king had emphasised his status as a British monarch to distance himself from his grandfather's attachment to the dynasty's German origins. Plus Napoleon was too great a threat to British independent while he had such power. Furthermore before his attack on Prussia in 1806-07 Hanover had been under Prussian occupation as part of an earlier deal between Paris and Berlin.
On the French side I can't see him agreeing to a permanent peace with Britain either or giving up land. Plus Hanover in British hands would give a clear route for British goods to flood into central Europe which would boost Britain's economy and cause problems for the French.
By this point, with rare exceptions, Russia was clearly stronger than the Ottomans so a defensive alliance with France against the Turks really offers them little. An offensive alliance, which would have been difficult logistically for the French might have done it possibly. Plus as part of his divide and rule tactics he established the Duchy of Warsaw after the defeat of Prussia and Russia in 1806-07 and given Poland's historical claims over much of the western provinces of the Russian empire this was a continued source of tension between the two empires.
However the continued threat that a continental Europe united under an expansionist military ruler and the handicap of Napoleon's continental system on Russia trade were the key issues.
Steve
I think possession of Hanover was more about honour than material. Napoleon will have to do something big to stop Great Britain from interfering. Don't forget that the Royal Navy is perhaps the world's greatest naval power so without Britain on side Napoleon is going to struggle. Remember London threatened to sink ships.
Do you mean interfering in a Franco-Russian attack on the Turks or more generally opposing the continued French military domination of the continent? Either way I doubt Britain would be willing not to oppose either. While Russia is allied with France its an additional threat. Definitely going to oppose Napoleon as he's an existential threat for Britain while he has that level of power.
After Trafalgar Britain was definitely on top at sea by quite a way and while Napoleon made attempts to rebuild French and allied/puppet naval power Britain was always some way ahead.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Apr 5, 2021 14:37:36 GMT
I think possession of Hanover was more about honour than material. Napoleon will have to do something big to stop Great Britain from interfering. Don't forget that the Royal Navy is perhaps the world's greatest naval power so without Britain on side Napoleon is going to struggle. Remember London threatened to sink ships.
Do you mean interfering in a Franco-Russian attack on the Turks or more generally opposing the continued French military domination of the continent? Either way I doubt Britain would be willing not to oppose either. While Russia is allied with France its an additional threat. Definitely going to oppose Napoleon as he's an existential threat for Britain while he has that level of power.
After Trafalgar Britain was definitely on top at sea by quite a way and while Napoleon made attempts to rebuild French and allied/puppet naval power Britain was always some way ahead.
Steve
The only way Napoleon can realistically transform the Empire in to a federation is through peace and that means he has to keep Great Britain on side. Britain was more concerned about her imperial obligations garrisoning troops around the world, it is thought that a quarter of British troops were tied up with colonial administration leaving approximately 40,000 men available to deploy. London would therefore only fight if Napoleon threatened British interests for example Sicily for London Napoleon's presence on the island was seen as a direct threat to British interests i.e. Malta and her African possessions.
Russo-Turkish relations were complex for example The Ottoman mirrored Russia in military and administration in an attempt to modernise and Russia needed the Ottomans to manage their relations with the Middle East. We also have to address the fact that the Ottomans had a sizeable Slavic population that looked to Alexander I has their natural leader and likewise Alexander I had a large Russian Muslim population who looked to the Middle East for leadership. I think France would best stay out of it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 6, 2021 10:53:32 GMT
Do you mean interfering in a Franco-Russian attack on the Turks or more generally opposing the continued French military domination of the continent? Either way I doubt Britain would be willing not to oppose either. While Russia is allied with France its an additional threat. Definitely going to oppose Napoleon as he's an existential threat for Britain while he has that level of power.
After Trafalgar Britain was definitely on top at sea by quite a way and while Napoleon made attempts to rebuild French and allied/puppet naval power Britain was always some way ahead.
Steve
The only way Napoleon can realistically transform the Empire in to a federation is through peace and that means he has to keep Great Britain on side. Britain was more concerned about her imperial obligations garrisoning troops around the world, it is thought that a quarter of British troops were tied up with colonial administration leaving approximately 40,000 men available to deploy. London would therefore only fight if Napoleon threatened British interests for example Sicily for London Napoleon's presence on the island was seen as a direct threat to British interests i.e. Malta and her African possessions.
Russo-Turkish relations were complex for example The Ottoman mirrored Russia in military and administration in an attempt to modernise and Russia needed the Ottomans to manage their relations with the Middle East. We also have to address the fact that the Ottomans had a sizeable Slavic population that looked to Alexander I has their natural leader and likewise Alexander I had a large Russian Muslim population who looked to the Middle East for leadership. I think France would best stay out of it.
Have to disagree with the 1st bit. Britain was acutely aware that it couldn't indefinitely maintain it's independence in the face of the sort of empire Napoleon was establishing. A lot of the military was engaged in colonial activity because they needed to protect British colonies and capture French/allied ones but that was to provide security for British commerce so it could provide additional net wealth for the war against France.
Also while I agree that the only way the empire would survive in a lasting manner would be if it had peace and decentralization but I'm doubtful if Napoleon could provide either as he was too much of a warrior and an autocrat.
At this point there were the remains of groups like the Crimea Tartars and others in parts of the Volga valley and the Cis-caucsus region but I don't think they had made great progress into Central Asia at this stage, where the empire by ~1900 had a lot of Muslim subjects. However it was definitely an issue I agree.
Steve
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Apr 6, 2021 16:07:40 GMT
I think possession of Hanover was more about honour than material. There was no meaningful point of honor for Britain in its dynastic ties with Hanover. After England lost the HYR and moreso Calais in 1559, English/British ruling elites stopped regarding possessions on the continent as desirable and refocused their ambitions on colonial expansion. They never cared much for Hanover, apart from it being a convenient source of Protestant Kings that did not overstep their bounds as the Stuarts had done. Once the dynasty took root and Anglicized after George II, even its origin became politically insignificant. This is proved by the fact nobody in the British government or Parliament showed unease when different succession laws caused the personal union to be dissolved in 1837 or when Prussia annexed Hanover in 1866. Bismarck did exactly the same thing Napoleon had done and nobody in London cared. This disproves your assumption loss of Hanover was a serious obstacle to peace with France. George III had done a purposeful effort to cultivate the British character of the Royal family before going mad, and the Prince Regent/George IV cared for little besides his decadent lifestyle and the money to support it. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Apr 7, 2021 9:29:38 GMT
It is true TTL Napoleon (and his successor) may find peace necessary to focus on domestic reforms and state-building of his empire, including poltical liberalization and fostering its evolution into a genuine federation. However, this mainly concerns the land wars, which were the main economic and manpower burden, not to mention the existential threat, for his empire. The conflict with Britain alone was much less troublesome in this regard, since the British were unable to threaten a successful European hegemony without the support of another great power. Once TTL Napoleon has a solid grip on Germany and Italy, Austria and Prussia are no more, Spain and the Nordic countries are turned into allies/clients, and Russia is onboard, there is nothing that London can do to threaten him. There is no one left that is willing and able to take British money to organize another Coalition.
At that point, all that London can do is keep up the blockade of European trade with the rest of the world, which is a significant irritant but far from an unsustainable burden in economic, military, or political terms. This is especially true if Napoleon drops the Continental System notion, turns a blind eye to smuggling of British goods that cannot yet be easily replaced, implements economic policies that foster continental free trade and industrialization, and waits for European manufacturing to develop and replace those goods. This has the additional benefit of making Russia and the other allies less likely to turn against him. Over time, Napoleonic Europe can defend its coasts and build up its navy into an instrument that can fight the RN on equal terms and protect its trade with a fraction of its economic and manpower resources. In all likelihood it is going to be a wholly sustainable burden that is not going to threaten the stability of the hegemony or hamper its evolution into a liberalizing federation.
The Euro-British conflict then becomes a Whale vs. Tiger strategic stalemate. If cooler heads and pragmatists prevail in London that can see the writing on the wall, the natural outcome is a peace settlement based on the facts on the ground that accepts the European hegemony as inevitable and divides the world in spheres of influence: Europe and the Mediterranean to the Napoleonic Federation, the colonies to Britain. If the British hawks stay in power and in denial longer, it becomes a Warm War that is broadly similar to the Arab-Israeli or Indo-Pakistani conflicts and Europe can live with w/o excessive effort. This kind of situation didn't stop Israel or India from being functional democracies, it won't stop the Napoleonic hegemony from becoming a liberal federation.
As it concerns Russia, dropping the Continental System is going to help considerably to keep it on Napoleon's side. I agree the days Turkey could be a serious threat to the European powers or Russia are gone and hence a defensive alliance is worthless for the Russians. Now, an Euro-Russian offensive alliance to kick the Ottomans out of the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the northern Near East is another thing entirely and much more valuable and enticing for the Russians. Within these strategic bounds, I do not see any crippling strategic difficulties for the allies, since the Grande Armee can penetrate in the Balkans from its bases in Germany, Hungary, and Italy, and the Russians can attack from Ukraine and the Caucasus as they did in all the 19th century Russo-Turkish wars. With the exception of Northern Caucasus, they are going to march into lands peopled by Christian peoples that yearn to cast off the Ottoman yoke and are going to welcome the allies as liberators. The Ottoman army of the time is sure to be crushed against these odds. We may certainly expect the British to be incensed and intervene, but just as surely their army won't be enough to turn the tide and save the Ottomans. The Euro-Russian alliance just heightens the strategic inferiority of the British military playing solo in a land war to an overwhelming degree. The Ottoman Empire has entered its terminal decline and cannot be the functional great-power ally the British would need.
At the most, a combination of logistic difficulties, British intervention and naval power, and resistance of the Muslim populations can preserve the Ottoman Empire in its core of western-central Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia, and prevent the Euro-Russians from enacting its complete dismantlement and partition. I am not entirely sure about the most likely outcome for the Turkish Straits, although the Euro-Russians are surely able to overrun the Balkans and besiege Constantinople. I am also uncertain about the role of Egypt in these circumstances.
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Apr 7, 2021 10:10:42 GMT
By this point, with rare exceptions, Russia was clearly stronger than the Ottomans so a defensive alliance with France against the Turks really offers them little. An offensive alliance, which would have been difficult logistically for the French might have done it possibly. Plus as part of his divide and rule tactics he established the Duchy of Warsaw after the defeat of Prussia and Russia in 1806-07 and given Poland's historical claims over much of the western provinces of the Russian empire this was a continued source of tension between the two empires. To be fair to Napoleon, he didn't have a flawless solution available for Poland once he realized the strategic necessity of crippling Prussia. TTL circumstances only heighten the problem once he has the foresight Prussia and Austria have to be destroyed to secure his back and allow a thorough reorganization of Germany into part of his European Federation. This leaves Congress and Austrian Poland in a geopolitical limbo, and he only has a couple choices: giving them to Russia, or setting them up into a Polish client state. He might also immediately make Poland part of the Federation, but unlike Germany and Italy, political and strategic circumstances probably make it best to delay such full union, although it is in the cards down the road. The first choice is doable, he did something similar for Venice in 1797 and the other European powers did mostly the same for Poland in 1814-15, but it is a huge gift to the Tsar that considerably strengthens Russia and leaves the Napoleonic hegemony with a vast salient on its eastern side that weakens its security. It is also politically less than ideal since it contradicts the image of Napoleon as the liberator of the European peoples from Ancient Regime despotism that his TTL version is sure to use to help legitimize his rule on the liberal side. At the very least, going this way would require substantial concessions from the Tsar to compensate, beyond his acceptance of the new status quo in Western-Central Europe, or Napoleon might go this way if it seems there is no other way to make Russia accept the destruction of Austria and Prussia in good grace. The second choice is indeed going to create a potential friction point with Russia in terms of Polish irredentist claims on the Western Krai/Kresy, but it seems otherwise more convenient in strategic and political terms for the European Federation. The Tsar showed at Tilsit he was potentially willing to live and work with Napoleon being the overlord of the West even without getting all of Poland. If TTL Napoleon strives to keep his mind set by not trying to enforce the Continental System on Russia and offering help to Russia vs. the Ottomans, the new spheres of influence settlement may work. The same issue also concerns post-Habsburg Hungary, but Tsarist Russia never showed much strategic interest on it, so there seems to be no real problem with the natural solution of Napoleon setting it up in a client state. Yeah, but the second issue is going to go away as an effect of the insight-driven policy changes TTL Napoleon needs to do in order to succeed. As it concerns the first issue, if the Napoleonic Federation mostly turns inward to focus on consolidation and nation-building once it secured its Western-Central European core, and otherwise only flexes its military muscles for a defensive naval war vs. Britain and quite possibly helping the Russians turn the Balkans and the Near East into their playground if St. Petersburg agrees to an offensive alliance, it is not going to look that threatening in Russian eyes. Russia has the size, population, and resources to make itself at best a worthy peer, at worst a junior partner/rival, of an European Federation for the foreseeable future. Moreover, at this point in time, it did not yet suffer the big shocks of the invasions of 1812 and 1941 that made it much more paranoid about the security of its western flank. The PLC admittably was a worthwhile rival for a while, and a serious threat during the Time of Troubles, but it is dead and buried. Poland on its own cannot ever recover to those levels w/o Russia suffering a similar disaster or massive Western help. Otherwise, the serious historical threats were the Tartars, the Swedes, and the Turks. The first two are gone or fallen beyond hope of recovery. The Turks still stand as Russia's main historical enemy at the time, but they are seriously weakening, and hold a lot of stuff the Russians covet including their best chance of getting access to the warm seas. The time is ripe for a strike if peaceful coexistence with the European hegemony can be secured. If it can be done with active Euro help, all the better. TTL Napoleon can certainly accept a sphere of influence agreement that leaves the Balkans and the Near East as Russia's playground. |
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Apr 7, 2021 18:46:05 GMT
The only way Napoleon can realistically transform the Empire in to a federation is through peace and that means he has to keep Great Britain on side. Britain was more concerned about her imperial obligations garrisoning troops around the world, it is thought that a quarter of British troops were tied up with colonial administration leaving approximately 40,000 men available to deploy. London would therefore only fight if Napoleon threatened British interests for example Sicily for London Napoleon's presence on the island was seen as a direct threat to British interests i.e. Malta and her African possessions.
Russo-Turkish relations were complex for example The Ottoman mirrored Russia in military and administration in an attempt to modernise and Russia needed the Ottomans to manage their relations with the Middle East. We also have to address the fact that the Ottomans had a sizeable Slavic population that looked to Alexander I has their natural leader and likewise Alexander I had a large Russian Muslim population who looked to the Middle East for leadership. I think France would best stay out of it.
Have to disagree with the 1st bit. Britain was acutely aware that it couldn't indefinitely maintain it's independence in the face of the sort of empire Napoleon was establishing. A lot of the military was engaged in colonial activity because they needed to protect British colonies and capture French/allied ones but that was to provide security for British commerce so it could provide additional net wealth for the war against France.
Also while I agree that the only way the empire would survive in a lasting manner would be if it had peace and decentralization but I'm doubtful if Napoleon could provide either as he was too much of a warrior and an autocrat.
At this point there were the remains of groups like the Crimea Tartars and others in parts of the Volga valley and the Cis-caucsus region but I don't think they had made great progress into Central Asia at this stage, where the empire by ~1900 had a lot of Muslim subjects. However it was definitely an issue I agree.
Steve
Great Britain was in a position to dictate terms. The Battle of Copenhagen was a prime example of this - Nelson attacked the harbour and bought an end to the League of Armed Neutrality and forced the new Tsar Alexander I to relinquish Russia's claim to Malta. British naval superiority and Ottoman troops they defeated Bonaparte's Army in Egypt. It is without a doubt that Great Britain was suffering at the hands of Napoleon and was almost brought to its knees, but Great Britain continued to exert pressure on the French by driving their seaborne trade in to the ground which triggered a financial crisis forcing Napoleon to rely on the spoils of conquest to 'keep the lights on'...
Not only could Great Britain strangle European seaborne trade they also effectively controlled the continent's finances having developed a sophisticated banking system. Napoleon also relied from time to time on revenue raised by corn exports to Great Britain and he always seems to have demanded financial compensation rather than goods. Great Britain naval superiority meant that they effectively controlled global trade. It's also worth noting that France was stretched militarily speaking with the conquests in central and eastern Europe.
This is Napoleon's problem wage war with Great Britain and suffer the consequences or maintain a peace of sorts by not interfering in British affairs and have space to reorganise the continent.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 8, 2021 11:52:48 GMT
Have to disagree with the 1st bit. Britain was acutely aware that it couldn't indefinitely maintain it's independence in the face of the sort of empire Napoleon was establishing. A lot of the military was engaged in colonial activity because they needed to protect British colonies and capture French/allied ones but that was to provide security for British commerce so it could provide additional net wealth for the war against France.
Also while I agree that the only way the empire would survive in a lasting manner would be if it had peace and decentralization but I'm doubtful if Napoleon could provide either as he was too much of a warrior and an autocrat.
At this point there were the remains of groups like the Crimea Tartars and others in parts of the Volga valley and the Cis-caucsus region but I don't think they had made great progress into Central Asia at this stage, where the empire by ~1900 had a lot of Muslim subjects. However it was definitely an issue I agree.
Steve
Great Britain was in a position to dictate terms. The Battle of Copenhagen was a prime example of this - Nelson attacked the harbour and bought an end to the League of Armed Neutrality and forced the new Tsar Alexander I to relinquish Russia's claim to Malta. British naval superiority and Ottoman troops they defeated Bonaparte's Army in Egypt. It is without a doubt that Great Britain was suffering at the hands of Napoleon and was almost brought to its knees, but Great Britain continued to exert pressure on the French by driving their seaborne trade in to the ground which triggered a financial crisis forcing Napoleon to rely on the spoils of conquest to 'keep the lights on'...
Not only could Great Britain strangle European seaborne trade they also effectively controlled the continent's finances having developed a sophisticated banking system. Napoleon also relied from time to time on revenue raised by corn exports to Great Britain and he always seems to have demanded financial compensation rather than goods. Great Britain naval superiority meant that they effectively controlled global trade. It's also worth noting that France was stretched militarily speaking with the conquests in central and eastern Europe.
This is Napoleon's problem wage war with Great Britain and suffer the consequences or maintain a peace of sorts by not interfering in British affairs and have space to reorganise the continent.
Some good points here. Both sides were suffering from the war but fortunately [Eurofed will disagree here ] Britain proved the most durable.
Also I do remember reading one case where an issue for Russia was they were following Napoleon's continental system, at some considerable cost to them and then found out Napoleon had ordered large supplies of boots for his army from Britain. He also fell out with his brother Louis who he had made king of the Netherlands because the latter tried to help the people there who were badly affected by Napoleon's economic policies as they relied heavily on overseas trade. Ultimately Napoleon removed him and annexed the country directly to France.
Britain had a more advanced fiscal system and that definitely helped. Both in maintaining its own economy and forces but supplying subsidies to allies to help them keep fighting. This was probably especially important in Spain after the revolution there.
Napoleon not only depended on large indemnities whenever he defeated an opponent but also on basing many of his forces in occupied territory, especially in Germany. This caused a lot of resentment. Its noted that when the French were driven back onto French territory in 1814 his popularity dropped drastically because the French population found the army was so used to living off the land.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Apr 8, 2021 18:36:41 GMT
Great Britain was in a position to dictate terms. The Battle of Copenhagen was a prime example of this - Nelson attacked the harbour and bought an end to the League of Armed Neutrality and forced the new Tsar Alexander I to relinquish Russia's claim to Malta. British naval superiority and Ottoman troops they defeated Bonaparte's Army in Egypt. It is without a doubt that Great Britain was suffering at the hands of Napoleon and was almost brought to its knees, but Great Britain continued to exert pressure on the French by driving their seaborne trade in to the ground which triggered a financial crisis forcing Napoleon to rely on the spoils of conquest to 'keep the lights on'...
Not only could Great Britain strangle European seaborne trade they also effectively controlled the continent's finances having developed a sophisticated banking system. Napoleon also relied from time to time on revenue raised by corn exports to Great Britain and he always seems to have demanded financial compensation rather than goods. Great Britain naval superiority meant that they effectively controlled global trade. It's also worth noting that France was stretched militarily speaking with the conquests in central and eastern Europe.
This is Napoleon's problem wage war with Great Britain and suffer the consequences or maintain a peace of sorts by not interfering in British affairs and have space to reorganise the continent.
Some good points here. Both sides were suffering from the war but fortunately [Eurofed will disagree here ] Britain proved the most durable.
Also I do remember reading one case where an issue for Russia was they were following Napoleon's continental system, at some considerable cost to them and then found out Napoleon had ordered large supplies of boots for his army from Britain. He also fell out with his brother Louis who he had made king of the Netherlands because the latter tried to help the people there who were badly affected by Napoleon's economic policies as they relied heavily on overseas trade. Ultimately Napoleon removed him and annexed the country directly to France.
Britain had a more advanced fiscal system and that definitely helped. Both in maintaining its own economy and forces but supplying subsidies to allies to help them keep fighting. This was probably especially important in Spain after the revolution there.
Napoleon not only depended on large indemnities whenever he defeated an opponent but also on basing many of his forces in occupied territory, especially in Germany. This caused a lot of resentment. Its noted that when the French were driven back onto French territory in 1814 his popularity dropped drastically because the French population found the army was so used to living off the land.
Steve
If Napoleon can achieve the balance of keeping Great Britain and Russia happy he can keep the Empire together.
|
|
. There was a dynastical attachment but that was markedly weaker at this point. George III after all as a young king had emphasised his status as a British monarch to distance himself from his grandfather's attachment to the dynasty's German origins. Plus Napoleon was too great a threat to British independent while he had such power. Furthermore before his attack on Prussia in 1806-07 Hanover had been under Prussian occupation as part of an earlier deal between Paris and Berlin.