Napoleon III's biggest mistake
- Thread starter Ellie
- Start date
Taking Bismarck's bait and starting the Franco-Prussian War? That's just off the top of my head.
Anaxagoras
Banned
I don't see how it could anything other than falling into Bismarck's trap and declaring war on Prussia.
He may have been more prepared for the worst had he not embarked on the disaster in Mexico.
Last edited:
And if he hadn't attacked Prussia it wouldn't have mattered how prepared he was.
Napoleon III didn't want this war; as aged and sick as he was, he was in state of resisting pressure from public opinion and the war party of which Gramont and the Empress were part.
The Mexican Expedition was a great failure but hardly a mattering one. Napoleon III's management of the Austro-Prussian War and the Luxembourg Crisis was much more damaging.jkarr said:
Though the Liberal Empire is my preferred part of the Second Empire, it badly weakened Napoleon III's authority; the indecise stance of the 1860's very much contrasted with the very active albeit authoritarian 1850's. The Napoleon III of the 1850's wouldn't have had any difficulty to enact the whole Niel reforms. In this regard, I look at the free trade agreement of 1860 as the biggest mistake he made for it alienated him the support of the industrialist and merchant class, forcing him to make political concessions to anchor the popular legitimacy of his regime.
yeah, he probably had the chance to annex big parts of Prussia/Germany after a possible victory and to impede any German unification attempts - so France would become the dominant and leading power in Europe (again). The Austrian Empire will still be a mulitethnic great power, perhaps it could regain Lombardy from Italy after the war
In 1870 NapoleonIII was in a much less comfortable strategic position and the declaration of war was very stupid.
I'm not sure he really ever did anything right in the foreign policy arena. The Crimean War, The Austro-Italian War and the Mexican adventure were all patently unnecessary and did not do anything for France. The sidelining of a possible bulwark against German Unification, the replacement of a fragmented Italy with a nation state and the waste of resources in Mexico all played to French disadvantage.
Then it gets worse. Abstention in the Austro-Prussian War was unforgivable. The deal was done. Prussia was ascendant in Germany. That's the biggest mistake.
Then it gets worse. Abstention in the Austro-Prussian War was unforgivable. The deal was done. Prussia was ascendant in Germany. That's the biggest mistake.
I disagree with the point on the Austro-Prussian War. Virtually everyone expected Austria to win; it shocked the world when Prussia suddenly won in just a few weeks. There was no time for France to intervene, not when it was already busy elsewhere; the whole thing was over too quickly.
The Franco-Prussian War, on the other hand… that was stupid. His arny was grossly unprepared, he'd just seen a clear example of how excellent the Prussian army was, and when given a choice between obeying the newspapers or avoiding a disastrous war he chose to obey the newspapers. He could have resisted the public pressure and followed his own established policy of "L'Empire, c'est la paix" (basically "honest, guv, I'm not as violent as Napoleon I") but he chose not to. That choice destroyed him.
Alternatively, I'd suggest his proposal to Bismarck that France might take some of western Germany as part of a bargain with Prussia. Bismarck promptly leaked it to Bavaria, Württemberg, Hesse and Baden and thus got them on his side out of terror of French expansion. But I think that entering the Franco-Prussian War was sillier.
The Franco-Prussian War, on the other hand… that was stupid. His arny was grossly unprepared, he'd just seen a clear example of how excellent the Prussian army was, and when given a choice between obeying the newspapers or avoiding a disastrous war he chose to obey the newspapers. He could have resisted the public pressure and followed his own established policy of "L'Empire, c'est la paix" (basically "honest, guv, I'm not as violent as Napoleon I") but he chose not to. That choice destroyed him.
Alternatively, I'd suggest his proposal to Bismarck that France might take some of western Germany as part of a bargain with Prussia. Bismarck promptly leaked it to Bavaria, Württemberg, Hesse and Baden and thus got them on his side out of terror of French expansion. But I think that entering the Franco-Prussian War was sillier.
dead_wolf
Banned
France was actually going to intervene in the Austro-Prussian War, the troops were deployed, plans were in place, etc. iirc the French had some 80,000 troops at the border ready to go, and expected another 200,000 reservists to reach the front within a few weeks time. The fact that Prussia had so wholly committed to smashing the Austrians in a quick conflict meant they had essentially zero defenses along the French border so the French would have just walked into the Rhine territories virtually unopposed. On the eve of the invasion Napoleon III suddenly changed his mind over the matter and cancelled the entire operation. This was before Königgrätz, so it's not like he realized the Austrians were defeated and decided not to commit to their defense, he simply had a change of heart, as he was want to do. Key figures in the emperor's council like Empress Eugenie had been pushing for a conflict to settle the German Question for several years. The fact that it didn't happen owes more to Napoleon III's romanticism-mysticism and the fact that he was an absolute monarch with no real checks on his power (at least until 1867-1870s 'Liberal Empire' period).
I like that one and it is a good also-ran. Why bother doing this? Why weaken Austria which was certainly not in the position to attack France? How on earth did it help the French position? it seems to be a purely ideological war.
Following it up by reneging on his deals with Sardinia and basically throwing them into the arms of Prussia didn't help either. Really, it's harder on the foreign policy front to come up with something he did right.
Anyone up for that challenge?
Yes. Napoleon III knew perfectly well that his uncle had made a mistake by constantly antagonising the British and he constantly appeased the British instead. Given which era of history he was living in, that was a smart move.
I agree, it is difficult to think of any other smart moves, but Napoleon III was the first French leader who made serious efforts to undo Anglo-French enmity and he largely succeeded, which was a very good thing for France in the long term.
Though as A J P Taylor noted, he personally did no better with British friendship than his uncle had done without it - except to the extent that Chislehurst is a more comfortable retirement home than St Helena.
Napoleon III's mistake was that he was mediocre in everything.
He tried to create a napoleonic empire without a napoleonic army, e.g. a mass army. Instead, he relied on a small army of regulars. This worked against other mediocre nations but not against Prussia.
He came to (absolute) power via a coup but wasn't ruthless enough to rule in such a fashion. And when he went with a liberal empire, he didn't go all the way as a constitutional monarchy.
He supported Italian unification but not sufficiently to make Italy a true ally. He fought wars with Austria but neither defeated them fully or turned them into an ally.
He led armies but never exercised full, authoritive command. Yet his presence, especially in 1870, paralyzed other generals who could have led.
He was an intellectually challenged politician and leader but not quite as dumb and ineffectual as his opponents thought. Unfortunately, he also wasn't as smart as he thought himself.
And I could go on and on. In short, he had just enough ability/ambition to be dangerous but not enough to be effective.
He tried to create a napoleonic empire without a napoleonic army, e.g. a mass army. Instead, he relied on a small army of regulars. This worked against other mediocre nations but not against Prussia.
He came to (absolute) power via a coup but wasn't ruthless enough to rule in such a fashion. And when he went with a liberal empire, he didn't go all the way as a constitutional monarchy.
He supported Italian unification but not sufficiently to make Italy a true ally. He fought wars with Austria but neither defeated them fully or turned them into an ally.
He led armies but never exercised full, authoritive command. Yet his presence, especially in 1870, paralyzed other generals who could have led.
He was an intellectually challenged politician and leader but not quite as dumb and ineffectual as his opponents thought. Unfortunately, he also wasn't as smart as he thought himself.
And I could go on and on. In short, he had just enough ability/ambition to be dangerous but not enough to be effective.
Personally at the end of his life, yes, but for France it did a lot of good (however sceptical one might be of the idea that Napoleon III was only acting for the good of France). And it surely strengthened his hand in the Americas and in Europe that he didn't have to worry about a hostile Britain constantly threatening his ambitions because their interests were largely aligned.
Last edited:
I assume the step to a liberal empire gradually weakend France. While being liberal (democratic) is a way to be seen positive the danger is that too many (conflicting) political interests lead to spending your resources in a way they disappear without having a positive effect. Also internal bickering saps strength and time.