Europe 1807-1809: The Failure of Tilsit 

The British Navy had no food in when Cincinnati became a city. You started eating pork from Ohio and that’s how the north America states betrayed South by getting rich and not feeding ourself in the south

Cannot wait! This video was very good btw 🫡, you're very talented at clear, focused explanations of really complicated shit lmao

Please put caption in this video ❤

You are russia

We will be there no matter what

It's simply amazing the longevity of the Austrian line Habsburgs, they and the Wittelsbachs are truly the last native royal medieval dynasty. The Bourbons a bit younger succeeding the last Valois in 1553 as Kings of France from the beginning were building a modern French nation state based on homogeneous national identity like the handicapped English kings were only that their final stage in that process was their own republican deposition (notice even after their restoration they kept the red, white, blue tricolor and many of Napoleon's reforms, it seems the republic and Napoleon had simply done quicker what they would've done anyway if they were in power over the next 30 years in 15, conservative regimes are slower but the social age of the 1790s-1810s was rapidly progressing so much it demanded faster reformers like the Republicans and Napoleon to take the reigns from the status quo and by 1812 even Napoleon had become considered an autocrat albeit the most enlightened one). Whereas the Austrian Habsburgs did not rule a combined territory of one people/ethnicity, their core the Germanic Austria was outnumbered by Czechs of the Bohemian Crown, Magyars in the Crownlands of St. Stephen(Hungary), Romanians in Transylvania, and the various Slavs in Carinthia and Illyria. They were forced to base the justification of their empire's existence purely on feudal divine right of kings to rule their inherited land alone, something that even the French Kings had to augment with the Estates General in the 1300s and the English Kings had surrendered to the Barons Revolt in 1215 signing Magna Carta. The Spanish Habsburgs got lucky ruling a mostly ethnically homogeneous Spain as long as they let the individual crowns like Aragon, Navarre(the Catalans and Basques respectively) to keep regional autonomy, the subsequent Spanish Bourbons then ruined this delicate balancing act with full centralization and then allowing a liberal parliament which turned on them and created the two Spanish Republics.

@@JBGARINGAN That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but a lot of people actually tend to forget that France was just as diverse as the Hapsburg holdings at the beginning of the 19th century. Beyond the basic linguistic and cultural differences of Bretonnic speakers, Basques, Arpitans, and Alsatians; there were a myriad of regional dialects and cultures littered throughout the southern area of France who were far more loyal to the destiny of their regional communities than to the government of Paris. Lotharignian, Burgundian, Catalan, Provençal, limousin, Occitan etc. The crux of the question isn’t diversity or lack thereof, It is the question of whether or not the construction of identity, and the fiction of sovereignty representative of a state can co-opt and incorporate said diversity; and whether or not the ideal of a states identity can be backed by state policy. All these dialectical and linguistic identities would become “French” to us in the 21st century, due to economic cohesion, reduced trade barriers, propaganda, bureaucratic policy, and a strong fiction of Republicanism and Cartesian thought represented in the principle of assimilation and association. (For more reading, I recommend Eugene Webers fantastic book on the subject; Peasants into Frenchmen) The hapsburgs are much the same. The question of why the Hapsburg monarchy collapsed and their aggregate lands being partitioned have less to do with the diversity of its population, but the underlying fictions and social dynamics that expressed themselves through these differences, and how they played hand in hand with noble autonomy, centralization, the rise of a literate bourgeois, and voting rights. There were multiple attempts to establish a pan Danubian “Hapsburg” national identity, and in some cases it succeeded, Like when Tyroleans would fight back against Bavarian troops in the napoleonic wars, or when peasants from Galicia lodomeria would massacre polish liberators from Krakow in 1846. The crown would, in some cases, Come to represent a symbol of unity and representative government to certain groups, such as agrarian peasants and bureaucrats. But all attempts at centralization would break down due: not diversity, but the way nobles would argue that the rights of the nation (aka: the aristocratic diets of nobles, not the thousands of peasants they worked) superseded the crown’s authority. Hungary was the best at this. While the cisleithanian provinces urbanized and industrialized in the vision of the Hapsburg emperors, and had less control over their own taxation, Hungary would have a very strong agrarian emphasis, as the Magyar nobles would carefully control innovation and industry in a way that would modernize the state without threatening their agrarian interests. Once the Augsleich happened, It not only broke economic and bureaucratic Cohesion of the state, But it also planted in the minds of other imperial lands the idea that maybe they could make their own deal with the crown similar to the Hungarian compromise, which is where Tripartist thought came from. But as the 19th century went on, and mass politics became a staple of domestic politics, what was once an argument of feudal nobles would soon become an expression of more grass roots frustrations. I recommend Peter Judson’s book on the subject: the Hapsburg empire

@@noriyakigumble3011 oh yes there was very much a "pan imperial Austria" err Habsburg monarchy identity which seems strange considering the current day narrative the one pushed by the Kingsom of Serbia to justify creating Yugoslavia post-Trianon: Austrians and Hungarians were horrible savage oppressors we had to save the Croats and Slovenes. Also Romanian annexation of all of Transylvania, in hindsight not the best solution there are alot of Magyars there, to achieve Greater Romania goal. It was amazing, Vienna and Budapest had artisans of all the subject demographics across the Empire immigrate and to an extent even assimilate into at first Austrian then Austrian-Hungarian culture. Especially when reading the memoirs of romantic monarchists like Admiral Horthy(no matter how biased their portrayal of the Empire may be) the archetype of the Victorian gentleman we get the depiction of a beautiful sort of multicultural society. Strangely enough from Jabzy's video about the German goals of expansion he quotes Hitler praising the Austro-Hungarian experiment. This came as a shock to me because I had still been under the mainstream impression that young Hitler(and for that matter his whole life) was a cartoon villain racist which is why he left his native born Austria to join the German army of Wittelsbach Bavaria for disliking the empire's diversity. But it turns out his reasons and views are more nuanced, as a pan-Germanist he joined the German Imperial Army, Austria despite being unarguably German(Habsburg was last president of the confederation, Habsburgs the Holy Roman Emperors) the Habsburgs had the prestige as a subregion to continue running their Danubian empire independently from Bismarck's Germany who pragmatically decided to exclude them, he had to deal with the various Catholics threatening his protestant North German identity already: Poles in Posen, remaining French in Eslass-Lothringien, and the South Germans. Anyway sidetrack, Hitler saw that the Austrians were able to maintain some semblance of peace within their collection of the Balkan races and he admired the achievement, the Nazi ideology despite being inherently ultranationalist, German supremacist and anti-Slavic still advocated pan-European unity a holdover from the Kaiser's plan for the Mitteleuropa sphere and Zollvereign or customs union. It seems many forms of Facsim are pan regionalist: Mussolini played around with a break from Nazi-Germany's foreign policy after the war and forming a Latin Union/Pact with Francoist Spain, Marshal Petain's Vichy France, and possibly Salazarist Portugal. Oswald Mosely supported the creation of the European Union back in the 50s before it materialized into reality decades later and the ultranationalist Shinto Statist Japanese military regime(arguably not Fascist because these were not party politicians who used facade of democracy but straight up military state) were willing to actually go through with the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere not just the ploy it was to use Siam and the other colonized Asians to fight the West, genuinely after the Battle of Tsushima Japan became a sort of beacon of light for the oppressed peoples of Asia and kind of colonized non white people across the world(not the Chinese though). They had beaten the white men in battle and got their technology, some monarchist Buddhists in the government and military thought that instead of colonizing Asia like the white men Japan would liberate the Asian peoples and they would lo ove Japan so much they would form a Asian union. Military planners also considered a pan Turanist state from Finland to Siberia and central Asia. Very interesting stuff.

@@JBGARINGANI’d say those pan-regional visions were merely propoganda and mirages of rhetoric. All 3 of the ideologies you mentioned were inherently racist supremacists, and the only type of ‘regional coalition’ with their so called ‘lessers’ they would ever actually pursue is one of Master & Servants at best, Master & Slaves at worst. Their retoric of a community of allied related nations under their leadership is as empty as that of white southern USA slaveholders beloved by their grateful cattle for educating them, giving them jobs and shelter and christening them. As empty as the grateful savages in the colonies lifted up en mass out of poverty by their benevolent British rulers. I could go on, but you get the point. An ideology that considers a certain ethnic / cultural group as inherently superior to all others can only envision a coalition of lesser related groups under their dictorial leadership against other groups more distantly related. They inherently can not envision a true coalition, because that requires equality between members and that is incompatible with their so called inherent superiority. That kind of views, and the current lack thereof, is why modern day Germany can have such a decent coalition with countries like Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and the Baltic States, despite the obvious difference in population & economic size. Why Brexit failed so miserably, and what caused such tensions during Trump’s presidency between the USA and its ally’s. Or between the French and so-called ‘French Africa’. If you don’t view your partner groups as inherently equal to you, you will not be able to maintain a coalition long-term

Habsburgs

"I have been called. I must answer"

Honey wake up, dietcoke just wrote a gay comment

Least original comment

The label "genius" gets thrown around too much. In certain regards Alexander made good enough decisions at the right time and it worked out for him. Though yes, being Emperor of Russia, does allow for significant geopolitical wiggle room.

​@@nathanrohde3292He wasn't good when it came to his general staff. For example he always scorned and ignored Kutuzov and took the advice of Germans and Austrians in his court. This lead to many notable disasters such as at Austerlitz. Ignoring Kutuzovs better judgement to withdraw further back to the Carpathians.

I think the Tsar was competent enough, but sometimes he believed in his own myth too much, which made him come off as a pompous brat, a spoiled child; and it certainly didn’t help that Napoleon was no chessmaster in diplomacy.

@@FyrdmanKutusov is massively overrated, he wrote the history book about himself

@@matteo2721 By whom, exactly? Lol he wasn't liked by the Tsar and the court which is why he got a bad rep. Anyone that served under him says otherwise. Besides, how does what you said invalidate what I said?

Couldn't agree more

What? It is pretty rodiwmry

His weaknesses are even more hilarious

@@iron2684what were his weaknesses??

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@Fallout3131 Might prove to be so devoid of leadership two of his ministers ended up in a duel. 2:55

Napoleon had taken land from Prussia and given them Hannover in compensation, then he planned to take away Hannover from them to use as a bargaining chip in a potential peace deal with Britain. That's what pissed off the Prussians at the moment.

Yes, this is true. But, I would add that the Prussians were about to join the 3rd coalition in 1805 and then didn't due to the news of the battle of Austerlitz. It's a question of imperialism and balance of power. The Prussians saw Germany as their sphere of influence and were uncomfortable with French expansion during the revolutionary wars of the 1790's. Also, as with all the monarchs of Europe they hated French liberalism and republicanism so wanted to undo anything associated with the revolution.@@masterplokoon8803

Thank you, very glad you enjoyed them.

Both of you are fantastic in your own ways!

Same here ❤

I suggest you check out Perun, he covers modern military logistics and geopolitics but it would be just as useful for your purposes I think. If you want highly detailed analysis of real world geopolitics and diplomacy, he's your guy. He just released a great video about how wars are ended through victory/defeat and negotiation. He often goes a bit into history on his channel too because modern circumstances often require some historical context as to why they exist. He actually has a job in the defense sector too so he really knows his stuff. He's not just wildly speculating like a lot of people who cover current geopolitics.

He lists all the sources at the end so I'd imagine at least a few of those books are a good place to start

Sorry about that, will try to add subtitles over the weekend. Thanks for watching.

@@OldBritannia Thank you 🙏

Thank you. Very glad you enjoy them.

I dont know about books for it but I'd say the reason is actually because of the relationship between Napoleon and his vassals and how he established superiority to them. Napoleon was very easily able to establish himself as the clear leader of the combined forces and had the final say on all matters. Compare this to his enemies, even at the end of the wars at Liepzig, the Austrian general (Schwarzenberg) was Commander n Chief but his plans still needed the green light from the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of Russia to actually get moving. Napoleon on the other hand can just say "hey Italians go here, and Bavaria send me your help over here" and they would have to comply.

It’s a point made frequently by Paul Schroeder. His ‘Napoleon’s Foreign Policy: A Criminal Enterprise’ article goes into it briefly if I remember correctly, with some interesting analysis of his alliance system.

This is completely false. He said that to disengage Britain from the coalitions they built (he is from the UK, he will of course "defend" the british point of view.

What 'momentous consequences'? You mean that Britain did not have hegemony in South America after 1815 , or that the Spanish Empire somehow survived? Or do you mean Napoleon won in Europe? Just wondering.

@@uingaeoc3905 I can't answer for him, but I think the two British defeats in the River Plate were enormously important because they were fundamental in making South Americans realise they could both achieve independence from Spain AND preserve it against other European powers (a lesson reinforced some years later at New Orleans). Most, if not all, wouldn't have been interested at all in exchanging Madrid for London or Paris.

-What direct relevance do the invasions of the River Plate have to the Treaties of Tilsit? -The British economically colonised South America after 1815 anyway, having failed to capture large parts of it directly. The Monroe Doctrine, which the United States was too weak to enforce during the early 19th century & thus largely ignored until after the 1860s, survived a sa concept because it was merely parroting a pre-existing British policy of denying the Spanish Empire a resurgence in South America. -Speaking of the United States, the British weren't trying to terminate American independence during the War of 1812.

@@skibbideeskitch9894 To the Treaties of Tilsit? None or almost none. They could conceivably have influenced Napoleon to think British land power in general, and support for the Spaniards and Portuguese in particular, would be a negligible factor... but even that is highly debatable. To British policy 1807-1809 and after? A lot. And of course the British weren't trying to terminate American independence in 1812, if only because it would have been an exercise in madness to do so during the war against against Napoleon... but my point is, the British defeat at New Orleans further encouraged South Americans to think European armies, even if veterans of the Napoleonic wars, weren't that fearsome in the Americas.

@@uingaeoc3905 momentous consequences: crumbling of Spanish Empire, origin of the independence movement in the river plate.

As always!

I thought I was crazy and misremembering, but you have proved me wrong

Yes. The production quality was just too horrendous for me to justify keeping up. Once I’ve finished the Other Great Game series I’ll remake the video.

Came to ask this, i understand you want to remake it as you gave comments on it yourself, but wouldn’t have mind being to watch it again even unlisted.

I think its pretty ignorant to think alliances aren't transactional today. NATO is an organization that all shares a distrust of Russia, but the value is in the foreign policy reach the US military allows its govt. and the protection provided for those smaller nations. You have to do things the way uncle sam wants for the most part to get under his umbrella. This was the mistake the UK made when leaving the Europe, though i understand their reasons.

@@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab Then why do you think NATO stayed together after the Cold War when they thought Russia wasn't much of a threat? Why do you think a certain level of democratic development is needed to become a member? One of us is pretty ignorant, but it' not me.

@@webcelt I wouldn't call someone ignorant when you're ignoring the interventions of Russia in their foreign neighbors even after the cold war.

Even without Russia, NATO prevents a war in Europe. Everyone is a teammate. And no one has to follow what they consider a peer. The US is the strongest member, but has little desire to micro manage. It is an ocean away. Compare to if France or Germany or the UK were calling the shots, and how the other EU countries would chafe.

@@DarthFhenix55 He called me ignorant for making a comment he disagreed with. Read what I was responding to.

The Roman domination of the Mediterranean was derived from their maritime supremacy. No other state could muster such a large number of ships and skilled manpower. Although France had twice the population of Britain in Napoleon's era they didn't have as many experienced sailors as the British. Obviously the French did have *some* very good sailors but they didn't have enough of them. During the revolution the French Navy was purged of many experienced officers who were considered to have Royalist sympathies. It wasn't simply a matter of building ships ( although that was hugely expensive) you also had to train vast numbers of men to a very high standard. The British were determined to hang onto every experienced sailor which is why they took a hard line with the United States who were poaching British crews by the dastardly tactic of offering them treble wages.

Certainly Napoleon liked to refer to the British as the Carthaginians - and I think his treatment of us would not have been much of an improvement on Cato's plans had the French been able to invade. Counter-factual history is always hard, and generally I try to avoid debating it. As @Georgieastra says, the Royal Navy had far more experienced sailors and officers, that had the benefit of being able to train on the open seas. Even fairly sympathetic Napoleon biographers like Broers argue he never really understood naval matters, and that simply building more ships did not mean automatic victory. That being said - nothing is ever certain in history, and Britain's victory was certainly not pre-ordained. In Spain, Wellington's 1812 campaign would not have been possible had Napoleon not stripped troops from the country to invade Russia. That invasion of Russia was always unnecessary - Napoleon would have had little trouble winning a campaign in Poland, as seemed likely before the invasion. The obvious 'Napoleon wins totally' TL after Tilsit is he accepts Ferdinand's offer to marry a Bonaparte Princess, and leaves Spain as a Bourbon led vassal state. Holds Lisbon and thus has the opportunity to reek havoc on British trade. Alexander chokes on a fishbone and leaves the throne to Constantine, who was a great admirer of Napoleon, and far less intelligent than his brother. Most of his puppet states were fairly long lasting - most only switched sides when Coalition armies physically invaded them in 1813. All of this combined leaves Britain with little option but to seek peace eventually. Of course, this is completely unrealistic, not least because it requires Napoleon to reign in his expansionism somewhat, which Talleyrand was arguing would literally never happen as early as 1803. So IMO it was possible for Napoleon to win decisively. But because his empire was funded by loot, and his own need for expansion, it was always unlikely.

I think he meant that he acted even older than he was. I've heard something similar like "16, going on 30," meaning they act like a 30 year old. :D

@@shorewall That would make sense, I am sorry if this was the intended joke

It exposes the issue of the system A few men made judgements which dictated lives of hundreds of thousands even millions based on personal emotional whims. Whose right to rule was ordained by god, for better or worse napoleon shattered this notion paving way for republics and revolutionaries everywhere

More recent events in this style would be... interesting to say the least.

The closer you get to modernity the harder it is to be an objective narrative, I prefer the videos covering the morally grey napoleonic wars.

@@moskaumaster1594 Yep, we have 2 centuries of historians figuring out these older events with next to none on the newer events. Plus, there is next to no ideological baggage if you are analyzing napoleon vs analyzing modern events.

Please don't

​@flarelia2019 one interesting "modern" topic might be the 100 year arc of Finnish diplomacy.