I'm going through a lot of the sources (treaty of luneville and Amiens) and I'm finding it very difficult to find anything solid to say that napoleon was a peacemaker: just the opposite. Pretty much after the peace of the treaty of Amiens fell a year later, he pretty much goes on an anti Britain expansionist rampage. I see that in the treaties he is restoring a lot of conquered territories to their rightful monarchs or dukedoms, other than that I'm stuck. Please help.
First, I would recommend looking at two books:
Garb, Alexander. Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)
Broers, Michael. Europe Under Napoleon (London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 2015)
These books look at the make up of the Napoleonic empire country by country, outlining how much co-operation, coercion or upheaval there was in each.
To me, the only way you could even loosely describe as a 'peacemaker' would be that he was only the aggressor in one of the coalition wars: 1812-14. Besides that you would have to argue that Napoleon used war, and his strategy of total victory, in order to capitalise on favourable treaties.
Looking at treaties and international politics therefore, you should look at Talleyrand, as Alistair Horne writes; “Wellington understood. ‘A conqueror, like a cannon-ball,’ he observed, ‘must go on; if he rebounds, his career is over’. Napoleon and Hitler never perceived this; Talleyrand did; Hitler had no Talleyrand” – How Far From Austerlitz?: Napoleon 1805-1815 (London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 1997) p. xxvi
And David Lawday; “Napoleon lives for conquest, Talleyrand abhors it. France can only ruin herself, he believes, by expanding outside her natural frontiers … he constantly attempts to put a brake on the warrior emperor” – Napoleon's master: a life of Prince Talleyrand. (New York: Random House, 2011) p. 5
Could the Concordat of 1801 be seen as making peace with French catholics? (M. Barbara. 'Napoleon Bonaparte and the Restoration of Catholicism in France' in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jul., 1926), pp. 241-257)
Could Napoleon's seizure of power be seen as making 'peace' with the French failure in democracy? "“the republicans of 1795 wanted to establish a liberal republic without accepting the imperatives of liberal politics. The notables of 1795 wanted to preserve what they had won” - (Hunt, Lynn, David Lansky, and Paul Hanson. "The Failure of the Liberal Republic in France, 1795-1799: The Road to Brumaire" in The Journal of Modern History (1979): pp. 734-759.)
I had to argue a similar question of "Was Napoleon Bonaparte a true 'son' of the Revolution?", arguing to see whether he upheld the three 'standards' of the Revolution; a weakening of the church, a weakening of feudalism and the 22 May 1792 declaration against French wars of outward expansion.
This defence can be summed up quite nicely by three authors;
Andrew Roberts: “’They seek to destroy the Revolution by attacking my person’, he [Napoleon] said in 1804 after an assassination attempt … ‘I will defend it, for I am the Revolution’, and this was right. What he did was to save the best bits of the Revolution; equality before the law, religious toleration, the abolition of feudalism … and he swept away the worst parts; the ten day calendar, the Cult of the Supreme Being and the Terror. In a sense, one can understand why he felt that it was necessary to do all of this, and why also the British and indeed the old legitimists, the ancien regime, desperately wanted to get rid of him.” - Debate with Adam Zamoyski and Jeremy Paxman
Louis Bergeron: “Bonaparte belongs to the Revolution, surely, in matters that seemed irreversible at the time— civil equality, the destruction of feudalism, the ruin of the privileged position of the Catholic Church. As for the rest … so much instability, so many contradictions between grand principles and the practice of governments, so much persistent uncertainty on the outcome of the war and the unity of the nation, that the field lay open for a strong man.” - France under Napoleon. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981)
Herbert Spencer: “the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences … Before he can remake his society, his society must make him” - The study of sociology. (New York: Appleton, 1892) p. 34
It's currently 6:55am here, if you need further help in source location feel free to ask. I hope some of this makes sort of sense to you in terms of guiding your argument ...
edit: Of course disagreeing with the set question entirely is also a valid response for an essay.