Napoleon Bonaparte Was Not a Warmongering Conquerer

Thanks for an insightful and intellectual response. It is most enjoyable to debate a knowledgeable person of history as yourself. : ) Invigorating. Indeed, Russia, though not a signature of either treaty, was affected tremendously by both of them. My opponent voiced it exactly. Tsar Alexandre was pressured by his court and influential mother. This, also, and he eventually detested Napoleon once again, due to Napoleon's aggression, "He or I, I or He: we cannot longer reign together!" (Direct quotation Courtesy of Wikipedia) And his original sentiments were expressed blatantly, "The oppressor of Europe and the disturber of the world's peace." (Courtesy of Wikipedia) Wikipedia also proclaims, "Alexander in fact already believed himself to be fulfilling a divine mission." * Tsar Alexandre thus had great reason to be concerned and begin taking steps to withdraw from Napoleon's warmongering ways. "Refusing to be cowed by the appearance of a French army on his borders in 1812, Alexander showed remarkable strength of character to refuse to hold talks with his invader even after the capture and burning of Moscow." ** This indicates Napoleon's manipulation of other leaders in provoking them to battle. It is Napoleon, let us not forget, who marched all the way to Moscow despite bitter weather and disease. It was not Alexandre who marched his soldiers onward to Paris, even as they were being plagued by disease, lice etc. And let us ask why Austria declared War first in the Fifth Coalition. After Pressburg, Napoleon attempted to replace the Austrian throne with Charles, who was brother of Francis II (emperor of Austria after Austerlitz). Francis II obviously objected, but appointed Charles in a supreme position of the military. Also, besides meddling in affairs in Austria, Napoleon created the so called, 'Confederation of the Rhine', a buffer of Germanic Provinces, some of which formerly belonged to Austria and Prussia. They needed victory for the people and the treasury. They needed it for self esteem and they needed it to avenge the indignities inflicted upon them by Napoleon in the Third. To be frank, Napoleon's arrogance and presumptuous actions needed to be halted. "Prussia, the instigator of the war, received the harsh repercussions: the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw." One second, the Duchy of Warsaw was formed in 1807, amid the Fourth Coalition. Prussia also started the Fourth. And Alexander was forced to sign the Treaty of Tilsit. What have these repercussions to do with the Third Coalition? But since you have led us to this, let us discuss why Prussia, infatuated by Napoleon's arrogance and disregard to peace, declared war. Marshal Bernadotte illegally violated the neutrality of Ansbach on their march to face the Austrians and Russians in 1805. Schï¿½nbrunn was signed, but Napoleon modified the convention promising to give Hannover to Prussia in exchange for Ansbach going over to France's ally, Bavaria. Except that Napoleon had secretly promised Hanover to England during their peace talks. Also, Napoleon formed the Confederation of the Rhine, meddling in affairs regarding German homogeneity without conferring with or receiving the consent of either Austria or Prussia. "Napoleon did not wholeheartedly call for a peace with England, even with France's economy in shambles and England's still comfortable. Rather, he aspired to achieve naval dominance (or, at least, draw the Royal Navy away from the Channel) and conquer England (plans abandoned after Trafalgar)." This was my statement from argument one. I will expound upon it in my next argument. In the meantime I look forward to what my opponent has to say about my queries and the invasion of Spain. * http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.absoluteastronomy.com... ** http://www.napoleonguide.com...