Redpill me on Napoleon III. My limited knowledge on him tells me he was quite decent, but I need to study more. Many people say his reign was good, others say the Second French Empire was disastrous... What do (You) think?
I personally think he was pretty bright and made alot of good moves.
However, his greatness was unfortunately in direct conflict with Bismark who had a better army.
But Napoleon's decisions I would defend as being the right ones.
The French army was better than Prussia's on paper and everyone at the time thought so.
In reality the French army had already turned in to the stereotypical surrender monkeys they are in popular culture. They were poorly trained with the latest weapons and undisciplined.
He knew it but his parliamen did not think that expansion was necessary and ruined it for him.
He didn't even want the war and knew how it would end.
>>1313912
>popular culture
anglo culture, french army have one of the greatest history
>>1313912
Judging how he needlessly pulled France into the Crimean war all for the sake of 'glory', he was too swayed by imagining himself as a second Napoleon to think critically. 19th Century wasn't too good for France.
>>1313912
"Redpill"? This isn't /pol/, kid. We don't talk about "le secret knowledge" about the Jews manipulating this or that, we mostly talk about mainstream history.
Let me give you a tl;dr on him, and why he was actually a pretty decent rule though not a perfect one. Before we start off you need to realize Napoleon III was a product of romanticism and truly believed he had a great destiny. He believed that he would either be proven right and fulfill that destiny, or be proven wrong and fade into obscurity. Personally I'd argue the former happened rather than the latter.
>Napoleon's only son died young, he's the oldest son of Napoleon's oldest brother and therefore his legitimate heir
>Attempts to create an army to march on Paris twice but fails (the first time would see the creation of the French Foreign Legion)
>Escapes to Switzerland and later England, starts publishing proto-socialist pamphlets on the abolition of poverty
>When the Second Republic is established (intentially intended as an intermediary government until a new monarchy is established), Napoleon III returns to France and is extremely popular due to his liberal and socialist views
>But not popular enough to be voted into office for life like his uncle before him
>Coup d'état ensues and he's declared president
>Extremely popular on the countryside, hated by Republicans in Paris (including Victor Hugo, who spent a lot of his exile bashing Napoleon III)
Here we see Napoleon III's policies truly start. They can be best summed up as alleviating suffering for the poor, maintaining friendly relations with the UK, tearing apart the Concert of Europe and colonial expansion while maintaining peace in Europe.
cont.
>>1315234
His regime saw Paris rebuilt quite literally from scratch (Hugo whined about Paris' medieval charm being gone, including the medieval charm of unhygienic little alleys where disease festered and rotted), the advancement of women (the first woman in French history achieved a university-level degree under his regime), the industrialization of France (the term "industrial Revolution" was initially applied to France, as it pretty much happened overnight compared to the slow development in England and Germany), the introduction of universal male suffrage for the first time since Robespierre, the second abolition of slavery (under the Second Republic), the true beginnings of France's second colonial empire and perhaps less impressively but still worth noting the creation of Louis Vuitton (who made purses and suitcases for his wife).
>>1314244
>In reality the French army had already turned in to the stereotypical surrender monkeys they are in popular culture
But that's wrong, you fucking retard. Studying the Franco-Prussian war actually tells you the exact opposite. The moment Napoleon III was captured and capitulated, his enemies in Paris took the opportunity to declare a new Republic and continued the fight. The Prussians literally had to starve the city for a year to the point where Parisians were eating rats and animals from the zoo to force a surrender. Where do you even get your historical knowledge from, the back of a milk carton?
His conflict about with parliament was mostly about expanding CONSCRIPTION, which the senate and many generals opposed because they preferred working with a small team of professionals rather than a large group of untrained peasants. That, and the german army simply had a better military staff, a model pretty much every country copied after the Franco-Prussian war.
This is wrong too. I expected better from you, /his/. Glory, in the sense of showing the world that France was still the most powerful military in the world, was a big part, but there were other strictly pragmatic considerations.
First of all, what did Napoleon III got himself involved with? A war in which the Russians tried to expand into the Mediterranean at the cost of Ottoman power which was something that worried Britain. Let me spell out the interests here:
>The Russians wanted to expand into the Mediterranean (France's turf)
>The Russians were having a conflict of interest with the British: the two biggest parties of the Concert of Vienna were close to war
It was in the interests of France to join on the side of Britain, on the one hand to keep the Russians out of the Mediterranean and on the other to tear apart the Concert of Vienna. One of the most powerful parties siding with the one they're supposed to keep down against another one of the strongest parties? Perfect!
And then there's also the problem of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, especially Lebanon and Syria. The Ottomans had declared themselves their protector, and France was interested in taking over this title. This probably played a great role in the French mandate in Syria and Lebanon after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, rather than the Russians gaining access to a warm water port (which has been their grand strategy goal for centuries).
It wasn't just a mindless glory quest. I agree that the 19th century wasn't a good century for France overall though, but not because Napleon III was an idiot.
>>1314244
>The French army was better than Prussia's on paper and everyone at the time thought so.
>In reality the French army had already turned in to the stereotypical surrender monkeys they are in popular culture. They were poorly trained with the latest weapons and undisciplined.
Well memed
The French army was outnumbered (900,000 vs 1.2 millions), outmanoeuvred (Prussian rails system) and outgunned (Prussian artillery and machine guns were far superior)
It's actually a miracle they managed to hold for 9 months instead of getting BTFO in 5 weeks like in 1940
Overall he was decent. Good ruler, France was pretty great at the time, he made good social reforms too, and he even expanded France's borders.
The problem is his disastrous performance during the Franco-Prussian war. First the way he handled the Ems Dispatch, and then the way he got utterly rekt at Sedan at the very beginning of the war. That almost nullifies 20 years of decent reign.
>>1315244
>The Prussians literally had to starve the city for a year
>In a 9 month war
t. Butthurt frog
>>1315593
How different would things have been if he did better in the War or didn't allow himself to get dragged into it? I'm not talking outright win but at least forcing things into a stalemate/draw.
>>1313912
>be nap III
>dream of achieving the same fame of your uncle, Napoleon, who made the anglos eternally buttblasted
>to follow this dream, fight alongside the anglos to save the t*rks and send your own son to his death fighting the Zulu with the anglos
>then let Prussia invade your capital
>>1315291
If you go read newspapers in France and other neutral countries most commentators believed France was superior.
When I said stereotypical surrender monkeys I wasn't referring to literally surrendering but the lazy soldiers at the maginot line that were supposed to be in the best army in the world but were actually just lazy shitters.
>>1315244
>>1316596
>what is la commune
Do yourself a favour and try to learn a bit more before making a fool of yourself
