If mister Napoleon didn't invade Spain and became better

Napoleon was great friends with Alexander after 1807. He was totally convinced he had charmed him and had nothing to worry about. Alexander, on the other hand, was always wary of Napoleon. I don't see what Napoleon could have done about this.

His biggest mistake was the implementation of the Continental System, a trade embargo, as a means to bring down the UK. It ended up hurting France and her European neighbours (whom Napoleon had enforced it on) more than Britain. It was the failure to implement the Continental System which forced Napoleon to invade Spain in 1807 and Russia in 1812. This policy ultimately lost him many friends, but his hubris clouded his judgement late in his career and he believed he was invincible. Spain and Russia would have been worthy allies.

>>2912845
and if no continental system occours?

>>2912849
Napoleon's ultimate victory in Europe relied on him convincing the other European powers to align with him instead of Britain. The Continental System was a disaster because the UK was the only industrialised nation in the world at this point and pretty much every country in Europe relied on imports from them.

There would be no need for an invasion of Russia or Spain. He also would have probably done a better job of getting along with Austria whom he should have had an excellent relationship with after he married Marie-Louise, an Austrian princess, to cement the alliance.

Although he had forced Prussia to ally with him it was unlikely they would ever get over losing 1/3 of their territory. But if he had the rest of the European powers on his side there is nothing the UK could do.

>>2912895
But if they relied on britan for import then what will convince them to not trade with them and align more with Napoleon?

>>2912810
People have over romanticized Napoleon. He invaded Spain for greed and he invaded Russia for greed. The vontinental blockade was stupid and he had time on his side as he had access to way more forests than Britain which could have lead to a bigger navy. But the manlet wanted all the glory to himself and sperged out without reason against Spain which directly leaded to the fifth coallition and thenche chimped out against Russia. With Spain and all its colonies as an ally and with Russia neutral Britain had no chance in the long run.

ITT:Napoleon had a Ceasar conplex

>>2912952
French military supremacy on the land. Britain had control of the sea so they could never be dealt with. But the other European powers kept getting BTFO'd by Napoleon's armies and France was such a powerhouse that it was virtually unchallengeable on the land. When French supremacy on the land deteriorated after the invasion of Russia (as a result of them refusing to implement the Continental System) the other European states, Napoleon's "allies", all attacked him with their armies financed again by Britain. Napoleon almost won here again against the odds, but he eventually lost at Leipzig in 1813 and was forced back to France where he simply didn't have an army large enough to fight all the Allied armies at the same time.

>>2913010
So you are saying that had he sit on his ass and just generally ruled europe without invading spain or russia the british would've eventually said "fuck it" and not financed the enemies of Napoleon anymore?

>>2913047
He would have been in a stronger position had he done this. After Tilsit he had already defeated all the other continental European powers several times and should have worked diplomatically instead of trying to enforce his stupid embargo and carve up Europe between his family. If Napoleon did not give the other European states cause to believe that he was an upstart tyrant obsessed with European conquest then they would have started to question the obsessive British vendetta against him. Napoleon's position in on the land was unchallengeable anyway in 1807 and it was only really the invasions of Spain and Russia which changed that.

>>2913074
Btw the invasions of Spain and Russia were the only offensive wars he launched all the others were coalitions against HIM personally launched by the British so he had victimhood on his side up to 1807.

>>2912845
Spain was an ally but planned to betray him after losing the Battle of Trafalgar. Plans were scrapped after Napoleon stomped the Prussians in 19 days. Napoleon simply struck first by replacing the retarded spanish monarch with his brother. Remember that a lot of the Spanish government and people continued to fight with him. The Russian campaign was winnable but Bessieres' incompetence robbed him of the decisive victory he needed at Borodino.

>>2912810

this
the sad thing about Napoleon is he could have won. The Spanish and Russian mistakes were not necessary.
He should have acted like a Pharao and order his Dutch and French subjects to continue building ships like crazy, in a few years he would have outnumbered the British, even if the Brits would have had far more experienced sailors.

>>2913542
Still if Napoleon was not completely incompetent at diplomacy and was not blinded by hubris he might have been able to avoid both of those wars which were completely unnecessary.

Even if the Spanish betrayed him it's not like they would have been a threat to Napoleon considering their army was utter garbage as shown in the Peninsular War. After they were BTFO'd by Napoleon they would realise that trying to fight with France, the continental superpower, was stupid.

>>2913542
Godoy planned to betray France. Ferdinand IV was sycophantic and wanted to marry into the Bonaparte family. Nappy should have supported Ferdinand, and given up on trying to spread his dynasty so far and establish englishtment government in the backwards arse Spain