Was Napoleon III really that dumb?

[Mikestone8]

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.

The problem was his family name.

France was no longer what it had been, so what was called for was a conservative alliance, presumably with Austria, to maintain pretty much the status quo - because any change thereto was more likely to work against France than for her. Unfortunately, he was a Bonaparte, which meant this went against all his instincts - he was the great intervener, here to put the world right. He could never resist the temptation to give the status quo a kick. In the end, of course, it was he who got kicked.

 

[Snake Featherston]

He knew how to turn a republic into an autocracy based on his last name, and he also parlayed that last name into an enduring power-base that lasted for a few decades. His intelligence is not the issue, his handling of geopolitics shows a blend of clumsiness and disasters with astuteness and success. The one thing that he did really wrong was to go to war with the Prussia of Otto von Bismarck and deciding to directly command an army in combat. He was no Franz Josef in this regard and his political power did not survive Sedan.

 

[Snake Featherston]

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...

The USA grabbed half of Mexico and that didn't do much in the way of good for the United States as I remember it. The French were smart enough not to try to grab anything and just to get the Hell out of dodge.

 

[Max Sinister]

He certainly deserves credit for creating modern Paris.

He and Haussmann. But note that Nappy III only did this to be able to control the population better. A big city with many twisted little streets is impossible to control by the military / police. Ideal for urban guerillas. However, on the long straight streets he had built, you can even use artillery against protestors. (Damn... is this the reason why almost every US city is designed like a chessboard?!)

 

[Dave Howery]

The USA grabbed half of Mexico and that didn't do much in the way of good for the United States as I remember it.

uh... huh? CA alone was worth it, with the gold mines, superb farmland, and port cities. Even the deserts had gold and silver mines scattered around...

 

[Snake Featherston]

uh... huh? CA alone was worth it, with the gold mines, superb farmland, and port cities. Even the deserts had gold and silver mines scattered around...

Talking about the crisis that led up to the Compromise of 1850 and what happened 11 years after that compromise. That had everything to do with grabbing 1/4 of Mexico and the decision of how that territory would wind up, slave or free. Sometimes extreme military success can really, really backfire on the societies that get it, and Nappy the III simply had the wisdom not to even chance that in Mexico.

 

[Sumeragi]

I believe the final thing that got Louis in the end was his contradictory position on liberalism and conservatism. He was the symbol of both the liberal tradition of the French Republic and yet also the supporter of the reactionary monarchies of Europe. That paradox ultimately led him to be pulled into events he might have been able to avoid should he have focused on only one side.

 

[wolf_brother]

History is written by the victors, and all that.

Plus the board's general, anti-French, Germanophilia.

 

[Yorel]

Napoleon III wasn't an idiot. Like his uncle before him, he was pretty intelligent but like his uncle he wasn't without failures. Napoleon I lost when he stop realizing when he should stop. Napoleon III, for his part, lost because he failed to realize the realities of foreign policies.

Napoleon III's domestic and internal policies were pretty effective and useful: had it not been for the Franco-Prussian War and the establishment of the Third Republic, he would probably be well remembered by the French as the Republicans never loved him: to them, he was Napoléon le Petit, as Victor Hugo said.

I'd rather rank Napoleon III as a tragic figure rather than an imbecile. He has one common point with his uncle: he rose high and fell hard. Very hard: Napoleon I is still regarded as a "Great Man" that marked history by some, while Napoleon III is just seen as a fool.

 

[MAlexMatt]

Talking about the crisis that led up to the Compromise of 1850 and what happened 11 years after that compromise. That had everything to do with grabbing 1/4 of Mexico and the decision of how that territory would wind up, slave or free. Sometimes extreme military success can really, really backfire on the societies that get it, and Nappy the III simply had the wisdom not to even chance that in Mexico.

You act like getting rid of slavery was a bad thing...

Every drop of blood on the battlefields of Antietam and Gettysburg was worth it. Even the immense damage done to the nature of the republic was worth it. All the suffering and misery that an over-powerful, imperial Federal government could ever cause is a small price for the freedom of millions and of future generations.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

Louis Napoleon got burnt pretty hard with his foreign endeavors and barring that I'd say he wasn't that bad. If you want two really incompetent Bonapartes I'd point to Jérôme and his son Plon-Plon.

Talking about the crisis that led up to the Compromise of 1850 and what happened 11 years after that compromise. That had everything to do with grabbing 1/4 of Mexico and the decision of how that territory would wind up, slave or free. Sometimes extreme military success can really, really backfire on the societies that get it, and Nappy the III simply had the wisdom not to even chance that in Mexico.

I don't see how this is relevant to Louis Napoleon.

 

[raharris1973]

How impressed should we be with his relations with britain?

The lack of prolonged or sharp Anglo-French antagonism in his reign seems to be his foreign policy masterpiece. One would have thought tar euppe as a wile and britain in particular would have been quite antsy about him given his infamous name.

Even just comparing post 1815 French governments, napoleon III got on much better with Britain than the bourbons (think their opposing positions on the congress of Verona, Iberian revolutions and Latin American independence), the Orleanists (think of france' isolated position on supporting Muhammad Ali, opposed by an Anglo-Russian-ottoman coalition and which led some French politicians to threaten reprisals in germany), or the Third reupublic for it's first 35 years (think the fashoda incident and Siam crisis).

How much of the credit for positive relations does napoleon III deserve? And how much of it was due to Britain being in a much more detached, relaxed and unparanoid mood about the European balance of power coincident with his regime compared with the 18th century, 1st French empire and 20th century eras?

 

[Elfwine]

I don't see how this is relevant to Louis Napoleon.

Napoleon III not inflicting such a major war as the ACW was to the US on France being a mark in his favor?

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

Napoleon III not inflicting such a major war as the ACW was to the US on France being a mark in his favor?

That's like saying "You didn't nuke anyone, here's a medal" to every world leader (those with nukes anyway).

 

[Elfwine]

That's like saying "You didn't nuke anyone, here's a medal" to every world leader (those with nukes anyway).

Well, he had the opportunity to do so, and chose not to.

Besides, I support doing that in the hopes some of them get the hint.

I'm not saying I fully agree with Snake's comment, just that I think that's what he meant.

 

[hairysamarian]

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.

The fact that it did not do so, and that the French were caught so badly off-balance by the tactics and technology of the Prussian army, shows his failure as a military leader. How hard could it have been to look into his next-door-neighbor's yard and see the training, and to observe the new artillery, and then to look at his own stuff and say, "Huh, theirs is better. We should fix that" ?

Napoleon III earned his reputation, I believe.

EDIT: Of course, I'm jumping ahead to the Franco-Prussian War. If I wasn't about to fall asleep on my keyboard, I'd have said that first. Apologies.

 

[Elfwine]

In fairness to the emperor (meaning Napoleon III), it wasn't just him. And the French army should have been better off than it was (partially his fault and partially responsibility within the army).

 

[wolf_brother]

In fairness to the emperor (meaning Napoleon III), it wasn't just him. And the French army should have been better off than it was (partially his fault and partially responsibility within the army).

In 1870? Only if you change the nature of the regime. Since the late 1860s the aging and sick Louis-Napoléon had granted most day-to-day powers of the state to the parliament as part of his vision of creating a constitutional monarchy à la Britain, particularly to the Sénat, which was dominated by conservative monarchists who wrecked the military power of the state in their bid to weaken Bonapartist rule. To avoid the trainwreck of the Franco-Prussian War for the French you'd have to either weaken the monarchists (Legitimists & Orléanists), and/or strengthen the Bonapartists (likely featuring Eugénie as Regent).

 

[victoria944]

Although popular early on - in 1848 he won a landslide election he frittered this by siezing power and becoming Emperor, this was at a time when France was polerizing beetween growing Conservatism who wanted the Monarchy back, growing Liberalism - who wanted democratic reforms, and growing socialist aspirations of workers who were beginning to organise unions and associations.

Napoleon represented none of these, he was shackled by having no popular base to call on to assert his authority. True he had the army but the French Revolution had proved having the power to order an army about was meaningless, without the backing of a robust social group that could fight and defend its interests on the battlefield of social conflict.

Napoleon I had come to power with widespread acclaim and popular support, this support was robust enough to allow him to institute his Code Napoleon, which was far ranging and far reaching. Napoloeon III could do no such thing, if he came into conflict with any of the social forces vying for dominance in france, he had no social force of his own to call on. He was like Gorbachev in a sense, a bright star without a following, consequently he veers from project to project hoping to achive a victory that will win him acclaim, he was rudderless.

Had he been the King of Prussia or Austrian Emperor he would have had less trouble as they were relatively socially backward compared to France. Thanks to the revolution Liberalism was stronger and had more ambitions in France, France was pregnant with Liberal expectation, but he disappointed them. He was not, and possibly could never have been a Liberal or democrat, he distrusted democratic government believing in the rule of the one wise man.

His mistake was to sieze power and declare himself emperor, he didn't have a robust enough base to cary it off, he had however 3 years earlier won a landslide, a possibility might have been to have championed the liberal and democratic forces, he had no future attempting to champion conservatives or socialists. However this would have been against his instinct and beliefs.

His manouvering on the high wire beween contending social groups, whilst carrying the weight of Napoleon Ist's Mantle portrays a man of unreliable beliefs and aim. I think he did well to last 22 years and have the successes he had.

He was no dullard or fool, he was however undermined by the forces ranged against him and the lack of a reliable natural base of support. I think this shows in his war with Prussia. Had he been more confident and energised - he was also ill -by a strong reliable base he may have led the French army into the Rhineland in a quick preemptive strike causing Prussia to hesitate and falter. He would then have looked very different from the perspective of history.

 

[Snake Featherston]

You act like getting rid of slavery was a bad thing...

Every drop of blood on the battlefields of Antietam and Gettysburg was worth it. Even the immense damage done to the nature of the republic was worth it. All the suffering and misery that an over-powerful, imperial Federal government could ever cause is a small price for the freedom of millions and of future generations.

Getting rid of slavery would have meant much more if the segregation era hadn't succeeded slavery. Emancipation was the only enduring outcome of the war and it proved to be a purely legal victory, no more and no less, as the Union did not secure the moral and cultural fruits it had won on the battlefield. Abolition is definitely good, Jim Crow and its ilk that replaced it was not exactly good.

I don't see how this is relevant to Louis Napoleon.

He didn't stick in Mexico logic be damned and risk a major political crisis at home of the sort that would have given opportunity to other factions.