I’d argue 1807, Treaty of Tilsit. He was actually ALLIED with Russia at this point. If he cooperated with them to foster the relationship and not sandbagged their economy and tried a land grab in Poland (why does that keep happening) I think this was the best window for him to take his foot off the gas.Also it was before he invaded Spain which was his second biggest blunder after invading Russia.
>>18667127He could have, but that doesn't mean Britain would've stopped just because he did. He knew it first-hand from experience: first, second, and third coalition. He was willing to abide by the treaties signed at Amiens, but Britain was Britain and undermined that, so Napoleon stuck to it and went with "it takes two to tango." Look at it: First Coalition (war declared by France on Austria, but British money dragged everyone else into it), Second Coalition (war initiated by the coalition after French expedition to Egypt with Britain as the main financier and organizer), Third Coalition (declared and organized by Britain), and Fourth Coalition (declared by Prussia but Britain didn't waste time giving aid). And as if he needed more proof, Austria started the Fifth Coalition after receiving British aid.Poland was a classic buffer state move, nothing special about it. He also got lots of Polish soldiers who were loyal to him, so it was actually a worthwhile move.British propaganda makes it as if replacing Bourbons in Spain was an arbitrary move without reason and it was done by invasion, which is what you're parroting. The Bourbons were corrupt and unreliable even as sovereign allies, and they wanted to join Britain after Trafalgar, only to switch back after French victory at Jena. However, the advice to replace Bourbons in that manner and with Joseph, was given to him by Talleyrand who at that point wanted to see him fail.The real question is how Napoleon was blind to Talleyrand at this point. His mistake was that he founded an empire and tried to compromise and stop, when he should've went full revolutionary after a respite.
>>18667200>British propaganda makes it as if replacing Bourbons in Spain was an arbitrary move without reason and it was done by invasion, which is what you're parroting. The Bourbons were corrupt and unreliable even as sovereign allies, and they wanted to join Britain after Trafalgar, only to switch back after French victory at Jena.Your justifications, like many of your fellow Bonapartists, only relate to the strategic imperatives of France and don't even pretend to engage with the concept of Spanish sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any of the other conquered nations. 'Legalism for me but not for thee' might as well be the motto of Napoleonic France, and indeed Soviet Russia with which it shares many other similarities.
>>18667200Are you both defending Napoleons decision to replace the Bourbons and saying it was all the fault of another guy conspiring against him.
>>18667403Britain bitching about soverignty as if they didn't spent 1780-1800 killing the Irish parliament for their own strategic interests.
>>18667449Lots of people cared about the crown of Spain while none cared about the IrishHope that helps.
>>18667449Ireland not much after 1798 expect overseas military commander
>>18667200But with hindsight Spain was a massive mistake to invade. Shaky allies are better than a guerrilla war that ties up hundreds of thousands of men.
