Napoleon III

I read a biography of this Emperor a few years back (more like 25 :embarassed: ) and I remember that, unlike his namesake, he actually managed to add territory to metropolitan France (Nice). He was also responsible for creating the Paris that we all know.

However he was/is not remembered as a particularly competent or good leader by the French. Is this because of the debacle of the Franco-Prussian war? Or is it because he was the last 'monarch' to rule France?

I know we could 'wiki' him and all that, however I'd like to gauge the opinion of other posters here, especially our French brethren.

Thanks.

Let me tell you what i know:

There was the Mexican adventure. France gave money to Mexico (maybe not all of the promised money reached Mexico). Mexico was not able to pay it back and Napoleon occupied the country with French forces. He did not want to annect the country straight, therefore he made an Austrian nobleman Emperor: Maximilian. Well, the French troops were defeated by the Mexican people's army and Maximilian was killed.

I think he was very unlucky in internal policiy, too. As far as i have red (but this may only be history from a German view) he tried to provoke Prussia, because he thought he could easily defeat it and so solve the internal problems he had. He failed.

An intriguing man with good intentions, who suffered under bad luck, health problems, and incompetent ministers. Certainly not someone to be praised or condemned too easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

I think he was very unlucky in internal policiy, too. As far as i have red (but this may only be history from a German view) he tried to provoke Prussia, because he thought he could easily defeat it and so solve the internal problems he had. He failed.

---

This is the German view, Bismarck was only too happy to have a reason to start a war and unite the other little German states into one Reich. I'm not saying that it's only Germany's fault, but it certainly isn't only France's.

I always considered Napoleon III as a dreamer trying to impersonate his great exemple: Napoleon. He didn't excell in anything, and was meagre in comparison, but he did conquer Mexico and if it wasn't for the US, it could still be a France dominion (with some Belgian blood in it as well)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

This is the German view, Bismarck was only too happy to have a reason to start a war and unite the other little German states into one Reich. I'm not saying that it's only Germany's fault, but it certainly isn't only France's.

---

Quite aside from Napoleon III, who was probably rather ill at the time, there were plenty of people, some competent and some rather less so, around him pushing him to war; for more information Duel of Giants by David Wetzel is a great read.

Regardless, both sides intended to use the war to bolster public support, which was high on both sides as the war broke out.

He thought Prussia was inferior to France, and couldn't stand up to it. In reality, that's just what Bismarck wanted him to think. Bismarck played Napoleon like a man teasing a dog with a bone.

Quote:

---

This is the German view, Bismarck was only too happy to have a reason to start a war and unite the other little German states into one Reich. I'm not saying that it's only Germany's fault, but it certainly isn't only France's.

---

Bismarck needed that war, and France didn't. There's a really good book explaining both the war, the politics and mobilization, and the aftermath. It's called The Franco-Prussian War by Geoffery Wawro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

However he was/is not remembered as a particularly competent or good leader

---

Originally, he was a symbol of failure: his military adventures, his domestic policies, Sedan. He couldn't live up to his namesake for sheer military glamour, nor could he satisfy progressive demands. He ended up having pleased nobody in particular, being considered a weak leader.

Later on however, a much kinder view of him developed. He did have his good aspects, he was quite liberal for a monarch, he did have a good economic policy, and he came a long way towards achieving many of his goals. Also, a unified Germany was always going to replace France as the dominant power on the continent, one way or another. This was inevitable, Sedan or not.

Personally, I think he was something of a tragic figure. He meant well, he seriously tried and came a long way, but being a Napoleon was always going to be his undoing. With a name like that he had to strive for the impossible, but some legacies are impossible to surpass. What he gained in prestige at Crimea and Italy he lost at Sedan. He had a heart for the common man yet had to witness the uprising of the Paris Commune near his end.
As monarchs go, he wasn't the worst.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm not that hot about his destroying medieval Paris.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Cluny_02.jpg

napoleon the third was also the primary external element in the italian unification wars.

I am no expert, but I've read through a book on Bismarck that he was not terrible. He wanted Belgium to add to his country as it was "French". He was apparently a strong supporter of "National unity" i.e. he wanted all french speakers to be united, and had no problem (officially at least) of having a united Germany.


If I had to guess I would say that he indeed has a bad or mediocre reputation because of the disaster that was the Franco-Prussian war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Bismarck needed that war, and France didn't. There's a really good book explaining both the war, the politics and mobilization, and the aftermath. It's called The Franco-Prussian War by Geoffery Wawro.

---

Also recommended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

I'm not saying that it's only Germany's fault, but it certainly isn't only France's.

---

I know you are right. To me it seemed that both nations, or at least their leaders were eager to make war because they thought a victory would solve the internal problems.

What bad politicians! Gah!

His poor reputation comes mainly from his failure during the 1870 war.
He was not as bad as his reputation but he still was a poor leader.
He was intelligent and his ideas were really modern for his time but he proved unable to maintain an efficient foreign policy and his method of government was a pity.
He promoted the principle of nationalities in europe, something which permitted to italy to be unified and that fuelled nationalism in different groups in central and eastern europe.
But he was unable to manage this situation due to a very personal leadership, to many contradictions into his political doctrine and to his lack of backup : he worked alone, he did not inform clearly the other political leaders of his intentions, he did not manage efficiently his diplomatic tools, he changed his mind often upon very sensitive subjects ...
In the end he appeared as a factor of instability in europe and could not maintain the alliances he would have needed to achieve his aims.
The 1870 war showed that his army was led by incompetents generals, that the officer's corps was corrupted beyond reason and that a successful military career was due to sycophant(?) skills rather than to military skills.
This war was an attempt to regain a form of legitimacy and his miserable capture at sedan was the finale push that qualified him for the junks of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

What bad politicians! Gah!

---

You must admit, however, that it worked quite well for Bismarck. That's hardly an example of bad politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You must admit, however, that it worked quite well for Bismarck. That's hardly an example of bad politics.

---

You must admit that it did not work out quite well for Germany - in the end.
I know that many people think that Bismark was a kind of genius. I do not agree with them. He was a Machiavellian politician, that released a dragon, that only he was able to control and that ate almost all of Europe when Bismark was gone!

I believe that Bismark was attempting to achieve too much, with too little. He did instill among Germany's elite a kind of Machiavelian nature as Franc said. Such an ideal was not plausable in reality as Germany in the long run just did not have the capabilities economically to compete with the other Western powers whom had already snatched up the most economically viable areas of the world for their own uses. Perhaps if Prussia had united Germany after the Napoleonic wars it might have been different

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

You must admit that it did not work out quite well for Germany - in the end.
I know that many people think that Bismark was a kind of genius. I do not agree with them. He was a Machiavellian politician, that released a dragon, that only he was able to control and that ate almost all of Europe when Bismark was gone!

---

I believe that the reason it collapsed after Bismarck was dismissed was a lack of decent political...how should I say this...ability at the top. While he may not have been a genius, he certainly knew how to get the job done. There was a good chance that the war would've happened anyway. I don't believe it would have benefited Germany to back down either.

"Bad politicians" ? I thought it was still very much the norm those days (and would be until the World Wars) that if you had an army and someone you thought you could beat up with it for fun and profit, you went and tried and could count on being cheered by your domestic peers and subjects if things went well.

Modern industrial mass war eventually kinda put a stopper on that line of thinking for the obvious reason major wars became, quite literally, too bloody expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

He was a Machiavellian politician, that released a dragon, that only he was able to control and that ate almost all of Europe when Bismark was gone!

---

...which by the mindset of the period amounts to "job well done" (except for, well, the "dragon" messing up the job) at least from the German perspective. I get the feeling you're not quite remembering to factor in the still essentially Medieval macho-jingoist line of reasoning that was the default logic in Europe (and the Americas as well when it comes to that) for the whole Long Nineteenth Century...?

Alright, let's talk about Bismarck.

He was not a German patriot, but a supporter of the Prussian monarch. He did not care a thing about Germany, he wanted to increase the power of the absolte Prussian sovereign.

He was more than willing to opress the rights of the individuals (religious rights, political rights, social rights, ethnic rights). He was more than willing to spoil blood. He could have achieved a German nation without spilling blood. He did it,because his goal was absolute power for the Prussian Kaiser.

He created German militarism as an idol for whole Germany. He mixed the ideals of nationalism and imperialism. He requested the unity and independency of all Germans (excepts those from Austria!) but he denied the rights of Danisgh, Polish or French, which lived in the countries he could get.

He established hostile relationship with France and England.

Summary: He prepared the road to WW1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Summary: He prepared the road to WW1.

---

I always take the view that WWI is something inevitable. The old Europeans were notorious for continuous wars everywhere and anywhere. The French and the Spanish were engaging in yet another war right after the biggest, bloodiest European War of the 17th century, the Thirty Years' War, ended!

That mindset had not changed until WWI really did everyone in with the new realization that no nation can truly sustain the horrors of an Industrial War without horrendous losses...a lesson soon to be forgotten and repeated upon.

I find Napoleon III to be an intriguing figure. He is often painted as a weakling by the mishandling of the Franco-Prussian War, but I think that is rather unfair. Compare the qualities of monarchs throughout history, he actually ranks pretty high in terms of good intentions and decent, though not spectacular, abilities. Like someone said earlier, the name he bore was arguably the catalyst of both his rise and his downfall. His undoing also, I think, has something to do with his attempt to please too many factions at all times. The Catholics regarded the "Socialist on Horseback" with distrust, which he tried to alleviate by protecting the pope from the newly born Italians - probably a lost opportunity to build a permanent rapport with Cavour, or may be the latter had never really been interested in France as more than a tool to achieve unity. The socialists viewed the Emperor's control with distrust also - and the fact that he was, after all, an emperor; a monarch. The Republicans despised his authoritarian styles used early on. And the Bourbon monarchists would have nothing to do with a Bonaparte scum.

Sorta reminds me of Frederick II (Holy Roman Emperor) in terms of being an intriguing, controversial, even wild figure with not too many real achievements that truly last. Though his many foreign adventures sure impacted Europe in different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Alright, let's talk about Bismarck.

He was not a German patriot, but a supporter of the Prussian monarch. He did not care a thing about Germany, he wanted to increase the power of the absolte Prussian sovereign.

---

Well, good for him. I don't recall ever saying he was a German patriot. He acted in the interests of the Empire, and he did a good job of it. Acting for the Empire, and not always the country, certainly doesn't make him a bad politician.

Quote:

---

He was more than willing to opress the rights of the individuals (religious rights, political rights, social rights, ethnic rights). He was more than willing to spoil blood. He could have achieved a German nation without spilling blood. He did it,because his goal was absolute power for the Prussian Kaiser.

---

He didn't like socialists - and with the restrictions they were trying to impose upon him, I wouldn't have liked them either if I were in his shoes. I could make a long argument for the rest, especially in this case, but it'll have to wait, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

He created German militarism as an idol for whole Germany. He mixed the ideals of nationalism and imperialism. He requested the unity and independency of all Germans (excepts those from Austria!) but he denied the rights of Danisgh, Polish or French, which lived in the countries he could get.

---

I fail to see how this was an uncommon, or even a bad idea for the time. It might be considered extremely unequal and outdated today, but that ideal of nationalism helped win the Franco-Prussian War.

Quote:

---

He established hostile relationship with France and England.

---

The hostile relationship with France was already there. England was a side effect that he should have foreseen, agreed, but the consequences of that didn't appear until the First World War.

Quote:

---

Summary: He prepared the road to WW1.

---

AntiochusIII has already posted my view of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Later on however, a much kinder view of him developed. He did have his good aspects, he was quite liberal for a monarch, he did have a good economic policy, and he came a long way towards achieving many of his goals. Also, a unified Germany was always going to replace France as the dominant power on the continent, one way or another. This was inevitable, Sedan or not.

---

I read Philippe Séguin's biography of him and it largely vindicates your view, although it has to be said Séguin is a Gaullist politician and in some instances he clearly ties N. to his own view of France's future. But by merely enumerating and analysing the good he has done, the book certainly gave me a new perspective on the man. He wasn't a coward either, who stayed right with his troops till the end in 1870 despite his horrible physical condition.

A section in The Franco-Prussian War by Geoffrey Wawro paints an apt portrait of the man on the eve of said war:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Wawro

Now in his sixties, Napoleon III was stooped, fat, tired, and chronically ill. Once spry and full of ideas, he was now dull and listless, frequently drugged to alleviate the pain of his gout, galstones, and hemorrhoids, or away from Paris altogether, taking the spa waters at Vichy, Plombières, or Biarritz. Urgent political problems were a constant annoyance to the flagging emperor.

---

Certainly this view is at odds with the vigorous man decades before, who skilfully maneuvered his way through both domestic and international politics, who struct a careful balance between socialism and conservatism. His later weakness and the dubious qualities of those around him, such as the warmongering tendencies of his wife and the Duc de Gramont, were fatal flaws in a system revolving around the emperor.

Napoleon the Third / Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nick named “Napoleon le Petit” (Napoleon the Small) by Victor Hugo, son of Louis Bonaparte and Hortence de Beauharnais. For my long time ago study, he was elected President of the II Republic, then made a coup as his uncle, established the II Empire, aligned France with GB, went in few military expeditions (Crimea, Mexico, Italy to help Victor Emanuel of Savoy, perhaps first incursion in Indochina) declared himself protector of the Catholic Faith. I vaguely remember in half brother Charles de Morny who was involved in different scandals and his wife Eugenie, who had great influence on him.
He rules as dictator but organised on many occasions plebiscite. He fall in Bismarck trap with the Depêche d’Ems, lost the war and his throne and finished his life in England. His son died under the British uniform during the war against the Zulus.
In term of economy, under his reign, the French Railways were built and the Industrial Revolution really started…