I think to be honest that to some extent this trivializes the wars in Europe, and that's probably going too far. For the Spanish in the Peninsular War it was very much a war of national survival, and against Napoleon "an easy to see territorial compromise" for the states in question was no compromise at all - it meant having to pay heavily for the upkeep of French armies, to provide large drafts of manpower as French armies themselves, to lose large quantities of terrain (often to give royal titles to Napoleon's favourites, or his relatives, or to be used to pay off other powers).
For Britain meanwhile it was well understood that Napoleon intended to invade if he had the chance.
There is a reason why the powers of Europe were consistently willing to go to war against Napoleon over and over again, despite repeated defeats and harsh peace, and it is that they could see that a compromise with Napoleon was not truly possible - Napoleon would always double down and always seek to push.
Let us not forget that in 1806 Napoleon demanded territory from Prussia under threat of force, then tried to bribe Britain into neutrality with the promise of more Prussian land. That is the background under which Prussia goes to war; conversely, Napoleon was offered France's pre-war borders in 1814 (and his confirmation as Emperor) but refused, expecting that more conflict and more lost lives would give him a better position.
It is consistently the case that "easy to see territorial compromise" is either not enough for Napoleon or the "compromise" means allowing the nation losing vast chunks of territory to still exist... or installing one of Napoleon's brothers as the ruler of that nation, making it a French puppet.