This thread was made in the name of Napoleon III, the most Gracious, the most Merciful.
Great leader?
Incompetent wastrel?
Did nothing wrong?
Bane for his nation?
>Bane for his nation?
Bane?
>>299878
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bane
>1. a person or thing that ruins or spoils
>>299877
>wanted his armies to emulate Napoleonic France
>made his men wear bright blue uniforms and red hats
>got raped in the Franco-Prussian war because b-but I'm Napoleon!
Fuck this guy.
>>299878
Uhm, you don't get to bring vassals.
>>299878
Was getting encircled at Sedan a part of his plan?
>>300013
Uhh, you don't get to keep Savoy.
>>299877
was getting caught part of his plan?
>>300030
>Napoleon suffered intensely from bladder stones and hemorrhoids at Sedan and exposed himself to danger during the battle, seeking death.
>>300030
>>299877
He did some good things and some bad things
His pros are building modern rail networks all over France, industrialization of the country and in general a revitalization of the economy, as far as i remember he also had minor colonial successes in Algeria and Tunis. And don't forget France's great share in the construction of Suez canal in 1869.
The cons mostly come from his vast overestimation of his own forces and strengths, especially in the terms of military and diplomacy. His Mexican adventure with Maximilian I was absolutely insane and unnecessary. He let Bismarck play him like a fiddle prior to the Franco-Prussian war. Loads of unrealistic plans, loads of stupid and pointless decisions.
Alright /his/, what did they talk about?
>>300300
Their military performance
>>300282
If you look at train maps just after Napoleon's reign and just after 1890, they're a lot more extensive. The Third Republic did a lot more to get railways going, but they did build on Napoleon's foundation. I actually read that Napoleon's railways actually made some regions of France more remote because they were completely bypassed.
>>300007
Prussian army won because it was better educated than the french one. They had no problem to transmit orders and every soldier could perfectly understand what they had to do. They also accurately calculated distances. Meanwhile hon hon army was composed of men who could only speak their regional dialect and moved around thinking renforcements would reach them easily when actually they isolated themselves and offered their asses to the pointy helmets
>>300300
>u fuken cuntnigger you promised you'd let me annex the southern confederate states in exchange of my neutrality
>nein you narrow skull gaulic fagget I said I 'd think about it. And no you won't get a foot of sacred german land. By the way alsace is german now
>>300822
>Prussian army won because it was better educated than the french one
Not really
They mostly won because they used railways and had superior artillery
Technology was the key
>>300282
His political legacy is huge as well. Universal manhood suffrage was introduced in 1848 for the presidential elections, which Louis-Napoleon won; but it was far from the ideal mode of suffrage envisaged by the prominent liberal republicans of the time. The subsequent hold Nap III had on power, amongst other things by the means of plebiscites, really made universal suffrage a fundamental feature of French politics
>>299877
To expand on >>300911, I'd say that Napoleon III was an especially complex and seemingly self-contradictory character: a brillant politician and ideologue, but one that ultimately was destroyed by the very forces which swept him to power: the popularity of a strong, glory-driven political leader. Imperial expansion and international prestige was amongst others what N3 promised to bring to the French in 1848; it is also what, in 1870, the French demanded he get from Prussia despite his own reluctance. I'd also credit him with the flexibility of reforming his Empire towards a more liberal model in the late 1860s instead of obstinately sticking with the absolutist empire. Also general achievements in industry, finance, and other forms of modernity which I'm sure you can find on wikipedia.
As for his failures, I'd argue that he failed to anticipate and control the foreign policy developments he himself brought about. The unification of Italy under his auspices was the first major blow against the Vienna settlement of 1815; however, instead of paving the way for further French revision, instead it left the Prussians free to work towards hegemony of the germanic world. The Crimean War (+ later sympathy for Polish independentists) antagonised Russia, whilst the Italian issue made an enemy out of Austria; both of whom N3 should have, in retrospect, tried harder to enlist as allies against Prussia.
>>300954
I wouldn't call angering Austria a mistake, but rather not properly allying with Italy. Not like either would have properly aided him against Prussia.
