Was Napoleon III really that dumb?

[Faeelin]

This might be me, but I feel like there's a tendency around here to consider Napoleon a bit of a... second string player, who was somewhat of an oaf compared to the Machiavellian mastermind, Bismarck.

But it seems to me that Napoleon III was in many ways a pretty sharp politician as leader. Not only was he able to subvert the French Republic and establish the Second Empire, his economic policies oversaw an economic boom, and allied with Britain during the Crimean War.

His intervention in Mexico, while disastrous in hindsight, does not seem particularly foolhardy to me. Bear in mind that this was an era when Americans like William Walker thought they could stroll across the border, and, being white men, form their own nations. And certainly there were Mexicans (such as Santa Anna) who weren't averse to the idea of a Mexican monarchy.

If Prussia had been a bit less successful in 1866, it seems like he would have been considered one of France's better leaders.

 

[wormyguy]

He was good at getting into power but, with the caveat of Monday-morning quarterbacking, his reign was absolutely disastrous in terms of foreign policy.

 

[Faeelin]

He was good at getting into power but, with the caveat of Monday-morning quarterbacking, his reign was absolutely disastrous in terms of foreign policy.

See, this is what I'm not sure about. He basically caught flatfooted, like a lot of people, but the speed of Prussian victory in the Austro-Prussian War.

Had the war devolved into a slugging match, as he and others predicted, then his actions were pretty much spot on.

 

[Deleted member 36284]

This might be me, but I feel like there's a tendency around here to consider Napoleon a bit of a... second string player, who was somewhat of an oaf compared to the Machiavellian mastermind, Bismarck.

But it seems to me that Napoleon III was in many ways a pretty sharp politician as leader. Not only was he able to subvert the French Republic and establish the Second Empire, his economic policies oversaw an economic boom, and allied with Britain during the Crimean War.

His intervention in Mexico, while disastrous in hindsight, does not seem particularly foolhardy to me. Bear in mind that this was an era when Americans like William Walker thought they could stroll across the border, and, being white men, form their own nations. And certainly there were Mexicans (such as Santa Anna) who weren't averse to the idea of a Mexican monarchy.

If Prussia had been a bit less successful in 1866, it seems like he would have been considered one of France's better leaders.

Yes, much of what you have said is true, but it's not like Prussia got really lucky or something. They defeated a France whose leader was stupid enough to declare war on Prussia while his forces were greatly disadvantaged.

If however you could have him intervene in the Austro-Prussian war then he might have won and been hailed a great hero of France. In addition Prussia wouldn't have been able to unify Germany leaving Austria to do the job.

 

[LordKalvan]

I certainly rate Nappy III as a not-very-bright ruler.
Certainly he managed to become president (and then emperor) riding the fear of rural France for the revolution of 1848. OTOH, up to 1848 he had no real achievement to his name (other than being the nephew of the Corsican).
After that, what did he manage to achieve?
His Italian politics were at least a partial failure: he did manage to expel the Habsburg, which is a plus for sure, but he was overwhelmed by the revolutionary events in 1859 which put paid to his master plan of a divided Italy under French egemony.
The political need of propping up the pope made it impossible for him to cash in the goodwill he had gained by participating in the second war of Italian independence.
His repeated attempts to forge an alliance with Austria failed, both before and after 1866.
The Mexican adventure was madness: he went in without really knowing what to expect, and the only bright point was letting it go before it would really hurt France.
He also alienated Russia, not only by protesting against the repression of the Polish insurrection (which at least was a nice thing to do, if not the best example of realpolitik), but also by snubbing the Russian mission in 1867.
His attempts to cash in from the 1866 war were pretty ham-handed, and did not net him any benefit.
Bismarck suckered him into the Luxembourg crisis, where again he failed.
Internally, the 1860s were troubled years, and ultimately he failed to forge a solid base for his regime (although I've to admit that the voters were still backing him in 1870).

I'm also thinking that he might have suffered the same kind of slow degenerative illness which also affected his more famous uncle (who after 1809 IIRC was more and more subject to illnesses). Certainly he always lived in his shadow.

Don't you think that a real good ruler, given the economical resources of France, could have come out with much better results?

 

[Faeelin]

After that, what did he manage to achieve?
His Italian politics were at least a partial failure: he did manage to expel the Habsburg, which is a plus for sure, but he was overwhelmed by the revolutionary events in 1859 which put paid to his master plan of a divided Italy under French egemony.
The political need of propping up the pope made it impossible for him to cash in the goodwill he had gained by participating in the second war of Italian independence.

As you point out, this was a need. I'm not sure how Napoleon could have squared this circle, can you?

 

[Johnrankins]

Bear in mind that this was an era when Americans like William Walker thought they could stroll across the border, and, being white men, form their own nations. And certainly there were Mexicans (such as Santa Anna) who weren't averse to the idea of a Mexican monarchy

You would think that the fact that it ended in complete disaster would have been a clue to Napoleon that the idea was stupid.

 

[Faeelin]

You would think that the fact that it ended in complete disaster would have been a clue to Napoleon that the idea was stupid.

I don't know. Walker was a single man; the USA managed to walk off with thousands of square miles, including what turned out to be California's gold mines...

 

[I Blame Communism]

I agree with Faeelin. He was a curious and ambiguous figure who deserves a better looking at than he's got.

Anyone who turns up in their supposed homeland with a famous name and their wits and proceeds to be elected president, seize complete power, and run the country for twenty years in spite of wobbles and without actually wrecking anything is clearly a man of some resource. And he presided over relative economic success, pursued a realistic foreign policy that secured some gains for his country, and undertook some worthy measures - rebuilding Paris, legalising unions, pioneering work in historical conservation - that are always forgotten about because he was outsmarted by Otto von Bismarck, where his failures like the Mexican adventure are not obscured by the long shadow of Sedan.

After all, it's not like OvB was any good at outsmarting people!

But you fuck one goat...

In regards to Mexico: the victimisation of non-European peoples was pretty ubiquitous at the time. There was also adventuring in Indochina during his reign, and because it wasn't a disaster it seldom attracts comment.

 

[Faeelin]

In regards to Mexico: the victimisation of non-European peoples was pretty ubiquitous at the time. There was also adventuring in Indochina during his reign, and because it wasn't a disaster it seldom attracts comment.

I actually think the Mexican adventure illustrates a surprising amount of realism, as witnessed by the fact that as soon as the Civil War ended and the USA said "leave," he did. And it's not like he was pushing France into a war it didn't want to fight; when the Franco-Prussian war broke out, after all.

 

[Anaxagoras]

He certainly deserves credit for creating modern Paris.

 

[MSZ]

He was a sentimentalist, especially when it went to Italy and Austria, what clouded his judgement there. IIRC he was an italophilliac, participated in many italian "secret societies" and liberating Italy from "Habsburg Yoke" was his lifes dream (at which he succeeded in a way). It's why he expected Austria to win the war with Prussia (he overestimated it, considered it some kind of greater power) and why he so stubbornly supported Italian irredentism (which allowed for Italy to remain a French ally for quite some time). He also managed to reconcile with Britain, another important foreign policy move. Overall, while he wasn't a top notch politician he could have been much worse, as he avoided a few mistakes others could have made. (Maintaining hostilities with the UK, keeping Italy balkanized, somehow screwing up the french economy, etc.)

 

[Easterling]

Napoleon III le Mal-Aime, as he has been called by some historians, was a rules whose various successes are overshadowed by his ulimate failure. In internal matters he did quite well. Unlike most rulers of his time, he was very interested in economic matters. He correctly grasped the importance of free-market capitalism while at the same time trying to foster social justice and improve the plight of workers, and overall his economic policies seem to have worked reasonably well, especially when compared to other periods of French history.

In foreign policy he allso had some good ideeas, but his problem was that he was ultimately trying to "refight the last war":
Previous French rulers had sacrificed international influence for domination in europe, and in the end achieved neither goal. Napoleon 3 had a more balanced foreign policy. He put the bases of the new French colonial empire, and was successfull in Algeria, Indochina and China. Only in Mexico he failed, but when you play on the world stage, there is allways some risk to get egg on your face (think about the US in Vietnam)
Napoleon I was a bitter enemy of England, and ultimately lost. Napoleon III decided that an alliance with England would be the cornerstone of his foreign policy. He succeded at first, but ultimately the British did not trust him quite that much and when the going got tough, they abandoned him.
Napolon I was allso brought down by the rise of Nationalism. Napoleno III decided to be the champion of Nationalism. Instead of conquering all europe directly, he hoped to be the leader of an alliance of free nations. Teh ideea looked good initially, but this is what ultimately brought him the most grief. In Italy he was not ready to go all the way, and as a result the Italians whom he had helped ended up resenting him instead of loving him. His support for the hopeles Poles alienated the Russians when he was in most need of allies. But his greatest mistake was in Germany. Beeing, as I mentioned, too focused on the past, he still regarded the Hapsburgs as the main enemy, and ignored the growing power of Prussia right until a clash was inevitable.
But his greatest mistake was ignoring the relative decline of France. In this respect he was much like general de Gaulle a hundred years later. But unlike de Gaulle who made global politics "above his means" and mostly got away with it, Napoleon III was less lucky and failed spectacularly. Maybe other alternate rulers could have done better, but most probably not.

 

[Xgentis]

It would interesting to see how we would see Bismarck if he had failed.

 

[Elfwine]

It would interesting to see how we would see Bismarck if he had failed.

An arrogant and reckless meddler whose incompetence saw Prussia's second-rate status (as Great Powers went) confirmed.

 

[LordKalvan]

I don't know. Walker was a single man; the USA managed to walk off with thousands of square miles, including what turned out to be California's gold mines...

Well, the USA did not have to cross an ocean to get there, took a lot of land but not a lot of Mexicans and there were already colonists and prospectors from USA on the ground. They did not go to Mexico City, even if they could have got there, and in any case would not have annexed the core provinces of Mexico. Last but not least, the USA were the only continental power in the Americas. All of this makes quite a difference, don't you think?

 

[Fabilius]

I`m pretty sure someone around here has made a TL or at least started a WI thread on: WI Napoleon III actually had been smart and careful leader. (Could turn into a francowank).

The way he reconstructed Paris makes me think of Turkmenbashi*, but we have to give it to him that his taste in architecture and citydesign is actually pretty good. (Or I at least think so).

I will though always dislike him because he wasn`t a republican.

*Not half as crazy I`ll admit.

 

[LordKalvan]

As you point out, this was a need. I'm not sure how Napoleon could have squared this circle, can you?

He could have squared the circle by making his regime more popular and finding his power base among the liberals. Instead, he went for the clericals and the monarchists support: IMHO, he not only betrayed his own politics during the 1830s as well as the reasons for the insurrections of 1848 but also badly misjudged the trend of the times.

As far as the Italian politics, he made the (wrong) assumption that 1859 was like 1805, and that a Bonaparte could again march into Italy and rearrange it to his wishes - like his uncle did, both in Italy and Germany.
The Roman Question was also badly mismanaged, and Nappy did not understand (or did not want to understand) that the temporal power of the popes was anachronistic. He might have negotiated an agreement between the pope and the kingdom of Italy (independence of the Leonine city, freedom for catholic schools, financial support for the pope) and would have gained a much better place in history. But he did not, and failed.

 

[LordKalvan]

I`m pretty sure someone around here has made a TL or at least started a WI thread on: WI Napoleon III actually had been smart and careful leader. (Could turn into a francowank).

The way he reconstructed Paris makes me think of Turkmenbashi*, but we have to give it to him that his taste in architecture and citydesign is actually pretty good. (Or I at least think so).

I will though always dislike him because he wasn`t a republican.

*Not half as crazy I`ll admit.

The reconstruction of Paris was the brainchild of Haussmann, and at the times was not really appeciated by Parisians. The main criticism was that it destroyed the roots of Parisian history and wounded the social tissue of the city. There was also the problem of the cost for this exercise in urban development which became very hard to finance. In 1870 Haussmann was removed from his place by Nappy, both for financial reasons and to reduce tensions among the populace.
IMHO, given the changes in French society and the richness of the country a renewal of Paris would have happened even under a republican regime.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

I agree and disagree, I do think he was an unlucky man in that his plans didn't come into fruition due to events not going the way he planned (i.e. American Civil War, Seven Weeks War). However he was also a feckless idiot in that he fell into traps, made plans that entirely relied on everything going the way he expected (with no back-up plans), trying to please everyone at once and ignoring the growing nationalism in Europe that did show itself in the year he became President of France.