Why did Napoleon not break up the Austrian Empire?

[IrishBlood]

I just don't understand why he didn't. The Austrians were ever a thorn in the side of the French and were one of the premier powers of Europe. Napoleon defeated them time and again, why didn't dismantle their empire completely?

It's not like it was completely without precedent. Napoleon didn't mind toppling monarchs and governments and replacing them with whatever suited him. He also had no problem reviving old countries and creating new ones such as the Duchy of Warsaw and the Confederation of the Rhine.

Sure there were more than enough restive minorities within the Austrian Empire that had previous histories of sovereignty. The Czechs, the Hungarians and the Serbs could all have been established as independent (albeit perpetually tied to France) nations along the lines of the Duchy of Warsaw.

The benefit of this would be two fold; firstly they would have provided plenty of troops. The Poles proved to be loyal supporters of Napoleon and made a significant military contribution to his campaigns. I'd imagine that other 'liberated' countries would prove just as supportive.

Secondly and probably most importantly, the loss of their empire would cripple the Austrians and severely deplete their available manpower, making it extremely unlikely that they would be capable of significantly challenging Napoleon.

Now chances are even if Napoleon had done this he would still have lost in the long run if he went ahead with his ill advised invasion of Russia. However, in general, crippling Austria could only have benefited France, so I just don't understand why he didn't do it.

[Dick Cheney.]

Because of her:



And because politically Napoleon needed prestige, an heir, and validation for his Empire, which he hoped to gain by marrying into one of Europe's royal houses.

[Cyclops]

...
And because politically Napoleon needed prestige, an heir, and validation for his Empire, which he hoped to gain by marrying into one of Europe's royal houses.

Indeed. The house of Hapsburg Lorraine was a (perhaps the) font of legitimacy, almost to the extent that East Roman princesses had been a millennia before.

The two "new" powers of Great Britain and Russia had slugged their way to the top of the heap from 1700 (before that both were a bit of a joke) while Bourbons and Hapsburgs clawed at one another's throats like the fight scene at the end of a James Bond movie lasting several centuries. The sound basis of "legitimate rule" and even "divine right" was shaken badly as and odd series of "rent-a-kings", mistresses turned Empresses and other manifestations of the "monstrous regiment (=rule) of women" led the newbs to new heights while if the oldies did well they were zerg rushed (the Austrians in the 30 years war, the French in a series of wars up to the 1750's).

Many powers had slipped from greatness: Russia had mopped up fragments of the Swedes and Poles, and Britain skimmed international trad and a bunch of other men's colonies for their own benefit. The Hapsburgs could not tolerate the threat that the revolution in France manifested: their own rule was less strongly founded than the Bourbon absolutists state yet that had been swept away in a tide on nationalist blood: however they were so worried by Russia and Prussia's aims in Poland they missed the first chance to invade France in 1792, so its clear they were deathly afraid of the Supreme Autocrat's ambition.

Napoleon returned France to Monarchy, took on the trappings of legitimism, and sought the hand of the emperor's daughter. Four times Napoleon overthrew the Austrian armies, but he never deposed the Emperor. Like Charlemagne or the heirs of Clovis (both of whom he consciously imitated) he needed the imprimatur of an older dynasty to establish his own. Francis II hastily dissolved the HRE (which would have cloaked French rule in a very prestigious garment indeed) once Napoleon captured the majority of electorates and formed the "Austrian Empire" instead (a shabby innovation, but the house of Hapsburg Lorraine had a fund of legitimacy), but agreed to the alliance with France after the defeat in 1809 in an effort to calm French ambition with a meal of legitimacy.

Sadly it did not work and the Corsican traipsed to Borodino and thence Leipzig and Waterloo. The hundred days in particular smashed the old pretence of legitimate rule and the dispositions of the Congress of Vienna were a cynical, and for a long time successful, attempt to freeze the rivers of nationalist lava that would sweep across Europe in waves from 1792 to 1945.

[Condottiere 40K]

I believe the Poles heavily lobbied Napoleon's pole.

If Napoleon had concentrated on a limited punitive expedition in eighteen twelve, and maintained a reserve to act as deterrence, the Austrians may well have behaved.

[Owlparrot3]

I think it was more of a policy of Napolean to unify rather than break .His ultimate dream was to unify Europe .This dream would be made easier by a bunch of defeated great powers rather than a balkanized stew of nationalist countries .Napolean did not want to encourage too much nationalism .
Proof:He unified a Bunch of german states into the confederation of the rhine.
He unified Italy under his brother .
Imagine a jigsaw puzzle of about 102 small parts or one containing 12 big parts .Which one would be easier .

[contempted]

I agree. While he had reasons as the other poster noted, they arent really arent GOOD reasons, if he ever wanted to consolidate and stabilize his empire. The point of a legitimate Hapsburg heir would be moot if he had stability and power. The French were already won over, the rest would have recognized his heir as long as they had peace and prosperity, which they wouldn't under permanent war. The point about destabilizing the Hapsburg Empire also seems irrelevant to me. Its better to have them neutered than to have them constantly waiting to pounce. If 20 nations arose from their ruins, they would be divided and not a threat to FRANCE ITSELF. In the long run, after sever minor wars, the situation would have resolved itself and a status quo would have formed.

He made a HUGE mistake in not deposing the Hapsburgs.

How many of these unified stated were ruled by the previous regime?