What do you think?
Rate this book
No More Napoleons: How Britain Managed Europe from Waterloo to World War One
How, for just over a century, Britain ensured it would not face another Napoleon Bonaparte--manipulating European powers while building a global maritime empire
At the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, a fragile peace emerged in Europe. The continent's borders were redrawn, and the French Empire, once a significant threat to British security, was for now cut down to size. But after decades of ceaseless conflict, Britain's economy was beset by a crippling debt. How could this small, insular seapower state secure order across the Channel?
Andrew Lambert argues for a dynamic new understanding of the nineteenth century, showing how British policymakers shaped a stable European system that it could balance from offshore. Through judicious deployment of naval power against continental forces, and the defence strategy of statesmen such as the Duke of Wellington, Britain ensured that no single European state could rise to pose a threat, rebuilt its economy, and established naval and trade dominance across the globe.
This is the remarkable story of how Britain kept a whole continent in check--until the final collapse of this delicately balanced order at the outset of World War One.
At the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, a fragile peace emerged in Europe. The continent's borders were redrawn, and the French Empire, once a significant threat to British security, was for now cut down to size. But after decades of ceaseless conflict, Britain's economy was beset by a crippling debt. How could this small, insular seapower state secure order across the Channel?
Andrew Lambert argues for a dynamic new understanding of the nineteenth century, showing how British policymakers shaped a stable European system that it could balance from offshore. Through judicious deployment of naval power against continental forces, and the defence strategy of statesmen such as the Duke of Wellington, Britain ensured that no single European state could rise to pose a threat, rebuilt its economy, and established naval and trade dominance across the globe.
This is the remarkable story of how Britain kept a whole continent in check--until the final collapse of this delicately balanced order at the outset of World War One.
588 pages, Hardcover
First published June 24, 2025
24 people are currently reading
430 people want to read
About the author
Andrew D. Lambert
62 books40 followersAndrew Lambert, FRHistS, is a British naval historian, who since 2001 has been the Laughton Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies, King's College London
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 5, 2025
An excellent, if albeit meandering, work. Certain chapters are among the most excellent I have read in a while, with poignant perspective and prose, and others utterly uninteresting, repetitive, and generally unnecessary. This book would have gained a lot by being 300 pages instead of 500. Generally fascinating dive into post Napoleonic British foreign policy, but the highlight of the book is the French Policy section. I really want to give it 5/5, but the troubled sections prevent me from doing so. To underline this very strange and unique discrepancy in quality, reading Chapter 9 (?) The Denouement: 1858, I was actually moved to tears. But alas, these reviews are done taking the work into account as a whole, and not its best or worst section.
September 6, 2025
A good book about how Britain built and maintained a grand strategy of an "ordered" Europe after defeating Napoleon in 1815.
Have you ever wondered why Britain always seemed to care about Belgian neutrality throughout it's history? It's because the Scheldt is the best staging waters for an amphibious invasion of England. Don't let that be in a rival's hands.
Britain was the NAVAL hegemonic power of th 19th century (not the military hegemonic power like the US of the 20th century). They used this in combination with ecomomic/trading dominance to be the leading maritime empire of the 19th century.
Britain had no interest in being a "continental" power in Europe. Lambert writes that Britain only viewed Europe as a problem to be managed and "ordered". Britain's only goal was that no continental hegemon existed in Europe and to maintain access for its commerce.
British politicians and military leaders wisely remembered and implemented Duke Wellington's 'system' to use a expeditionary army along with other allies to stop powers from taking over Belgium but not to get embroiled in continental warfare.
This was a lesson that was foolishly forgotten on the eve of WW1 where the BEF was created and decided to fight a continental war with France against Germany. A generation of Britain's youth would be lost in that war.
The British navy did an excellent job of maintaining dominance through all of the technical innovations of the 19th century (steam, artillery). They pioneered the ability to reduce enemy ports to rubble which only increased British naval dominance.
Finally, does this scenario sound familiar? An existing hegemonic power is unsure on whether to defend the neutrality of a small country that a rising power considers to be within its "natural" boundaries. The current international ordering that benefits the hegemon depends on this small country staying independent. This was Belgium on the eve of WW1 with Germany on the rise.
Have you ever wondered why Britain always seemed to care about Belgian neutrality throughout it's history? It's because the Scheldt is the best staging waters for an amphibious invasion of England. Don't let that be in a rival's hands.
Britain was the NAVAL hegemonic power of th 19th century (not the military hegemonic power like the US of the 20th century). They used this in combination with ecomomic/trading dominance to be the leading maritime empire of the 19th century.
Britain had no interest in being a "continental" power in Europe. Lambert writes that Britain only viewed Europe as a problem to be managed and "ordered". Britain's only goal was that no continental hegemon existed in Europe and to maintain access for its commerce.
British politicians and military leaders wisely remembered and implemented Duke Wellington's 'system' to use a expeditionary army along with other allies to stop powers from taking over Belgium but not to get embroiled in continental warfare.
This was a lesson that was foolishly forgotten on the eve of WW1 where the BEF was created and decided to fight a continental war with France against Germany. A generation of Britain's youth would be lost in that war.
The British navy did an excellent job of maintaining dominance through all of the technical innovations of the 19th century (steam, artillery). They pioneered the ability to reduce enemy ports to rubble which only increased British naval dominance.
Finally, does this scenario sound familiar? An existing hegemonic power is unsure on whether to defend the neutrality of a small country that a rising power considers to be within its "natural" boundaries. The current international ordering that benefits the hegemon depends on this small country staying independent. This was Belgium on the eve of WW1 with Germany on the rise.
October 20, 2025
This was an interesting, if longer than I really needed on the topic, analysis of British military policy toward Europe from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the start of World War I. Andrew D. Lambert argues that Britain's primary strategic interest with respect to Europe was keeping the Scheldt, and the ports of the Low Countries more generally, out of the hands of a great power potentially capable of invading Britain: initially France, but after 1870 or 1900, the German Empire. I hadn't understood that the Scheldt and Low Country ports were particularly suited to cross-Channel invasions was such a big part of why Belgian neutrality was so important to the Great Powers. It was also interesting to read about the ways in which the British army and navy leadership used the somewhat implausible threat of French invasions to justify their own projects: the construction of "harbors of refuge" along the British coast and arranging the army and militia in a way that would permit the deployment of an expeditionary army to Europe despite Parliament's disinterest in funding a substantial army.
November 30, 2025
A good book, providing a chronological history of Britain’s grand strategy in the 19th century. The author, maritime historian Andrew Lambert examines how Britain sought to shape European affairs after the Napoleonic Wars, weaving together diplomacy, economics, culture, and military policy into a framework of maritime-centric national power. Lambert shows how Britain’s leaders balanced continental commitments using the capacity and capabilities of naval supremacy. By utilizing ordering and offshore balancing against its two main adversaries of that time, France and Russia, Lambert explains how Britain maintained influence without succumbing to continental entanglements. The book highlights the interplay between land- and sea-based military power, demonstrating how Britain’s strategic choices were informed by both geography and political necessity. A great book for readers interested in the connections between different elements of national power and the development of long-term strategy. Highly recommended for those studying 19th‑century European politics, naval history, and the broader principles of strategic statecraft.
December 28, 2025
A polemic for a scholars theories. Disappointing
The author is an evident expert in his history. But he is unable to write a narrative inviting the reader to participate. I finally gave up. He refers to multiple crises and incidents as important but never deigns to explain them to lesser lights like readers. There’s a lot of interesting history in the issues of this era. But this book fails to articulate them in a manner accessible to a general reader.
The author is an evident expert in his history. But he is unable to write a narrative inviting the reader to participate. I finally gave up. He refers to multiple crises and incidents as important but never deigns to explain them to lesser lights like readers. There’s a lot of interesting history in the issues of this era. But this book fails to articulate them in a manner accessible to a general reader.
December 29, 2025
Fascinating but academically aligned and deeply repetitious of the overriding hypothesis.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews