What if the French Second Empire tried to occupy Egypt?

Louis Napoleon could have successfully taken Egypt during his regime

  • yes

    Votes: 28 43.8%
  • no

    Votes: 36 56.3%

  • Total voters
    64
I was under the impression that one of the main reasons why he had to fight so many wars was because his regime was weak and that he had to shore it up with victories.

Perhaps early on, but by the 1860s he seemed to be in a pretty secure position. He'd conquered some territory (Savoie/Nice), was on good terms with the British, and became less dictatorial. His constitutional reforms were strongly supported in the 1870 referendum.

He wasn't very popular in Paris itself, though. There was a big divide in public opinion between Paris and the provinces.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps early on, but by the 1860s he seemed to be in a pretty secure position. He'd conquered some territory (Savoie/Nice), was on good terms with the British, and became less dictatorial. His constitutional reforms were strongly supported in the 1870 referendum.

He wasn't very popular in Paris itself, though. There was a big divide in public opinion between Paris and the provinces.
And isn’t that all that matters?That Paris dictates what happens in France?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
As long as Britain 'rules the waves', it is not going to be succesful.

If Egypt is too sensitive a point, what about Lebanon (and perhaps more of coastal Syria)? In OTL the French did intervene in the war of 1858-1860 and did achieve establishment of the separate, Maronite-dominated territory of Mount Lebanon. Can the French go further and make a colony of it.

Maybe the British compensate themselves with Cyprus or a Druze state in northern Palestine.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
If Egypt is too sensitive a point, what about Lebanon (and perhaps more of coastal Syria)? In OTL the French did intervene in the war of 1858-1860 and did achieve establishment of the separate, Maronite-dominated territory of Mount Lebanon. Can the French go further and make a colony of it.

Maybe the British compensate themselves with Cyprus or a Druze state in northern Palestine.

The revival of the Outremer by Napoleon III does sound interesting.
 
Perhaps early on, but by the 1860s he seemed to be in a pretty secure position. He'd conquered some territory (Savoie/Nice), was on good terms with the British, and became less dictatorial. His constitutional reforms were strongly supported in the 1870 referendum.

He wasn't very popular in Paris itself, though. There was a big divide in public opinion between Paris and the provinces.

He was on so good terms with the British that they not only didnt mind the Prussians beating him but saw it as the removal of the most dangerous element for the status quo - and at the time they might have been right. If I remember correctly it was with the acquisation of Nice end Savoya that he lost the goodwill of London and he only managed to make things worse from than on. A move to conquer Egypt would result in a war for sure.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
He was on so good terms with the British that they not only didnt mind the Prussians beating him but saw it as the removal of the most dangerous element for the status quo - and at the time they might have been right. If I remember correctly it was with the acquisation of Nice end Savoya that he lost the goodwill of London and he only managed to make things worse from than on. A move to conquer Egypt would result in a war for sure.

Dang- just annexing two little border provinces was enough to wipe away the sweat equity built up with Britain fighting alongside them against Russia and then China.

Still I don't think this turned into full hostility. Britain went along with France in Mexico, at first, and when the broader French agenda became clear, Britain merely abstained rather than working to sabotage it.
 
Perhaps early on, but by the 1860s he seemed to be in a pretty secure position. He'd conquered some territory (Savoie/Nice), was on good terms with the British, and became less dictatorial. His constitutional reforms were strongly supported in the 1870 referendum.
That's quite the contrary. The liberalization happened because he was losing grip on his traditional base, industry and finance barons, with the treaty of free trade of 1860 (it was nicknamed a "coup d'état douanier" or customs coup), and one concession leading to another, he went all the way to the point it was either nothing or all, and with the appointment of Ollivier and the subsequent Constitution of May 1870, he did that.

Plus, he did never "conquer" Savoy and Nice, far from it. These Piedmontese territories were promised by Piedmont to France at Plombières in exchange for its military support against Austria and a bunch of territories in Austrian held Italy. But since Napoléon III had to exit the war early because of the threat of a Prussian intervention and couldn't deliver on all the Austrian territories promised to Piedmont, he was reluctant to annex Savoy and Nice outright, but a compromise was found because Piedmont had largely made up the lack of conquest of Venetia with its annexations in central Italy, in contradiction of the Plombières accords which had central Italy remaining independent within some federation, so the cession was still to happen albeit with the condition of a referendum which resulted in a majority in favor of annexation to France.

If Egypt is too sensitive a point, what about Lebanon (and perhaps more of coastal Syria)? In OTL the French did intervene in the war of 1858-1860 and did achieve establishment of the separate, Maronite-dominated territory of Mount Lebanon. Can the French go further and make a colony of it.
You never really understand Napoléon III's foreign policy agenda if you don't get his number 1 priority in foreign policy: never piss off the British and try to make friends with them.
Beyond that, the whole direction of Napoléon III's foreign policy was to break the isolation France suffered since the days of the Restauration, and in a stark contrast with his uncle, decidedly favored diplomacy over war, going at war only in the last instance or if there is no risk:
  • against Russia, he had active British support and the neutrality of pretty everyone else; plus, it provided Napoléon III with an excellent opportunity to break diplomatic isolation and assuage the fears of European powers after the restoration of the Empire by allying with France's very mortal enemy against Russia, a common cause found for reconciliation.
  • in Italy, the British were neutral if not sympathetic, and all of Europe didn't care, at least until Prussia got involved to rein in Franco-Piedmontese ambitions, upon which Napoléon III immediatly backed off.
  • in China, he did come in support of the British to both bolster the friendship with the UK and expand French commercial and cultural influence here, taking a piece of Indochina (with Spanish support)
  • Mount Lebanon intervention was essentially an answer to a humanitarian crisis, and if France was leading the charge, it wasn't alone, providing only half of the force; the other half was provided by other European powers, the whole intervention being allowed in by the Ottoman government.
  • Mexico began as a multinational venture before French partners withdrew and left it alone, and with the stalemate going nowhere and the US resurgent, he came to cut the losses.
  • All along, Napoléon III was against going head on against Prussia, in 1859 and 1866, and if not for his bad health, he would have had the strength to stand up against hotheads of his government and his court in 1870; he didn't decide it, he was drawn into it by the warmongers and the excited public opinion manipulated by Bismarck.
So, Egypt is never going to be in consideration because the Suez canal makes it a strategic location the British want to keep safe. The only occasion the French had to put a foot in would only happen when they were invited by the British in a joint intervention against the Nationalists in 1882, but that was long after the death of Napoléon III and the establishment of the 3rd Republic.
As for Lebanon or any part of the Ottoman empire, the policy of the UK and that of France too was to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, the very reason of the Crimean War; we're not quite yet at the point the Turks alienate all Europe with the massacres in the Balkans during the 1870s, so nobody cares when Russia comes in to finish off what it started in 1853. In the context of the humanitarian crisis and the multinational French led intervention, the political settlement that gave autonomy to Lebanon (I should say Mount Lebanon) was the conclusion of it. Also, the term of colony in either settlement or economic meaning is completely irrelevant in this case, as there is no potential for a colony to be made out of it.

EDIT: I forgot to speak of the Roman intervention of 1849. In that case, the reason was essentially grounded in domestic politics, due to Catholic influence. On the diplomatic scene, the British and Prussia were basically neutral, Spain was probably sympathical and Austria a co belligerent by then, so an intervention wasn't a risk at all.
 
Last edited:
Top