Why did British pay all those countries to invade France? Was

>>3337503
Les deux mon commandant

>French warrior
I laughed

>>3337503
Napoleon recognised that France would only be the dominant power in Europe if Britain were defeated, so he dedicated everything towards that end. The British (or rather Tory, the Whigs were in favour of a truce) response was completely reasonable.

>>3338012
You're getting it reversed
The British were the ones who started shit, and Napoleon's actions was the response

>Matters reached a diplomatic crisis point when the British rejected the idea of mediation by Tsar Alexander, and instead on 10 May ordered Whitworth to withdraw from Paris if the French did not accede to their demands in 36 hours.[42]
>Last minute attempts at negotiation by Talleyrand failed, and Whitworth left France on 13 May. Britain declared war on France on 18 May, thus starting the Napoleonic Wars that would rage in Europe for the following 12 years.[43]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens#Breakdown

>>3338046
>French Hitler
>Peace possible

You seem to be confused honey.

>>3338046
Much of that was to do with internal politics in Britain with the Whigs being in favour of a deal with Napoleon while the Tories violently against it. Either way allowing Napoleon breathing space would only allow him to consolidate his position on the mainland and build a fleet large enough to actually threaten the Royal Navy.

The truth is the Napoleonic Wars was a hegemonic conflict much like the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage; there could only be one dominant nation in Europe and it would either be Britain or France. Both sides recognised this and sought to utterly defeat the other.

>>3338093
>The truth is the Napoleonic Wars was a hegemonic conflict much like the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage; there could only be one dominant nation in Europe and it would either be Britain or France.

But in the end, while French dominance ended in 1815, Britain still never dominated Europe

Russia "dominated" from 1815 to the Crimean War, and then Prussia/Germany became the dominant power

>>3338093
That's a wrong analogy since 17th and 18th century Europe was defined not by one super power, but by different great powers, which all tried to tip the scale into their favour. Britain had always sought to have non-unified continental threat.

>>3337503
Because they could afford it. The French army was too formidable for them, just like the French restored to economic warfare because of British supremacy on sea.

>>3338161
Britain wasn't interested in dominating Europe. Britain wanted a world empire and only needed to be the world's sole naval superpower. As long as no single country achieved hegemony on the continent, the English were satisfied.

>>3338161
Britain, instead, ruled over the world through its colonies.
The UK did not want a French European Union because such a power would have always been a potential threat. Moreover, it would've dwarfed all other great powers at the time and the UK would not have been able to conduct its business peacefully if it had meant challenging the whole of Europe united under French rule.
Divided

>American Revolution fails
>European history 1776-1800 still goes as normal
>Napoleon wins, conquers both Britain and Portugal, sending their crowns to exile in North America

Seems like a cool alt-his premise.

>>3337503
French funded the US war against British. It broke their bank.

The British merely returned the favor.

>>3337503
It started because the British were worried that Napoleon's intentions would run contrary to British interests (i.e. a balance of power on the continent). Britain was also well aware that in those early years they did not have an army suitable for facing the French in Europe (coming off of their losses in Flanders and America). Thus they resorted to their natural strengths; the Royal Navy and economic power. At the start of the Revolutionary Wars Britain had the strongest economy in Europe and arguably the weakest army, so of course it made sense for them to use their huge wealth to fund coalitions against France. The British public were also very hostile to paying for a large standing army and even more averse to sending it on risky overseas ventures, yet they were keenly aware of the threat France posed to British hegemony in trade and power. It was for that reason that funding allies to fight on their behalf seemed like the best bet with the least risk.

>>3338078
>French Hitler
Are you stupid or just English?