make peace. In 1806-7, Frederick William’s internal problems were brought about by disasters on the battlefield and a treaty that cut his kingdom’s size in half, and in 1813 they were caused by his unwillingness to take up arms against Napoleon. Opposition against Francis built up after his surrenders in both 1805 and 1809 and Alexander risked removal from his throne had he surrendered to Napoleon in 1812. Schroeder also points out that at several stages in his career, Napoleon lost campaigns without damaging the integrity of his regime. In particular, Schroeder points to Egypt, Spain, Russia, Germany in 1813, France in 1814, and the Waterloo campaign as examples that “his followers would have continued to serve him in defeat; they had done so for some time.”57 But none of these examples stand up to any significant scrutiny. Napoleon’s abortive conquest of Egypt occurred before he had come to political power and, despite ultimately ending in defeat, was carefully spun by his army of propagandists into a brilliant victory and a key piece of the Napoleonic myth. While Napoleon did initiate the Peninsular War in Spain, his personal involvement was limited to a handful of victories in 1808. Since he was not personally involved in any of the disasters that would later befall the French army in Spain, it would be unreasonable to expect them to tarnish his cult of personality, and even so, there
are extensive reports that the Peninsular War did cause discontent in France. The Russian debacle triggered not only the Malet conspiracy but also a number of plots in the south of France that “with time could have become very dangerous.”58 After the disastrous German campaign of 1813, confidence in Napoleon fell to such a low that he was unable to rally more than 70,000 troops to defend France in the next year. And Napoleon’s defeats in the 1814 campaign for France and the Waterloo campaign would both result in huge political pressures that forced him to abdicate from his throne. Ultimately, there can be no doubt that support for Napoleon’s regime could be shaken by defeat to at least the same extent as for his ancien régime peers. Still, it is one thing to say that defeat and surrender could shake Napoleon’s rule and something very different to say that that regime would have ended had he signed a compromise peace. As Schroeder points out, political discontent with Napoleon during the last years of his rule seems to have been overwhelmingly focused around the seemingly endless continuation of his wars. Was it possible that, had he simply brought these wars to a close, his critics would have melted away? Schroeder and most other historians in his school of thought operate from the assumption that Napoleon’s domestic position was quite secure and that “only one thing
57. Ibid, 468. 58. Price, The End of Glory, 31.
63