"Is Napoleon III a ridiculous figure?" Topic

I have never read any history that had any respect for him.
Am I reading the wrong books?

short answer… yes.
next question.

I agree with RavenscraftCybernetics.

I disagree. Despite some false starts, he never gave up until he had restored the Second Empire with himself at the head. As a social engineer, he did good things for France, and her economy and industry thrived as well. He was head of state for twenty-two years, and empreror for over eighteen. He did better than many.

Allen

I agree with Allen. I do wonder if the failures of 1870 – corruption, indecision, and an absence of strategic vision that looks at this distance like some grotesque, tragic comedy – were avoidable, or if the Imperial system he created could have promoted people like Moltke and Bismark.

I think the problem is that a lot of historians imagine that he had more power than he actually possessed. Yes, in 1870 he was a sick, old man, maybe even terminally ill, but even at the best of times, he did not have the kind of power that his uncle or Louis XIV weilded.

And I think that the problem has been exacerbated by the examples of the mid-20th Century. Even Napoleon I didn't have the level of control that was in the hands of Hitler or Stalin, if for no other reason than that he didn't have modern communications at his disposal.

As far as having people like Moltke or Bismarck, the whole French system militated against that. The French military system worshipped at the altar of Napoleon the great tactician, not Berthier the planner and logistician.

Throught French history, diplomacy has been in the hands of men of great personal presence and questionable competence, loyalty, and/or morality. Bismarck, indeed, is a singualr personage, undoubtably competent, unquestionably loyal to the Prussian throne, neither corrupt nor avaricious, and content to work through the normal machinery of government. France generally got people like Talleyrand (competent but disloyal, corrupt, and greedy) or Richelieu (competent and loyal, but terribly avaricious).

I see him in an almost tragic/romantic manner. His social/domestic initiatives seemed pretty progressive from what I know. From the Austro-Prussian War, Mexican Adventure and 1870 all seem like he was chasing Napoleon I's shadow…

He's not 100% ridiculous, but his regime is mighty shaky by the end and his swan song is ridiculous enough to color the rest of his act.

Since I've never had a Republic or Empire to rule, which he did, I'd have to say that he did OK by himself and better than most folks I know.

Better to have had and lost than never to have had at all, hey?

Dan

He escaped from prison and ended up emperor – he has my respect.

Napoleon III was in some ways rather like his big, bad uncle – a romantic adventurer, who ended up as Emperor of France. Pretty good going for anyone. He wasn't ridiculous, he was good at what he was good at.

'The Carnival Empire of Napoleon the III' by ?? is a a good read and an even handed view of him.

If he hadn't been suckedered into war by Bismarck, he'd be remebered as the Emporer who restored the greatness of France. As it was he made them the cultural leader of Europe and arguably, the world.

I wouldn't say he was ridiculous, just a bit overconfident due to his name, and not that terribly bright about certain things. He was a fairly progressive leader by 19th century standards, tried to implement social reforms and wade through the murky French politics of the day.

Of course he was up against Bismarck, somebody who was highly talented, ruthless and had a well-thought out plan of action.

Anybody would look bad after you got trounced by him.

Amen to the above – he was a decent chap who had the bad luck to be up against a few very nasty characters – in fact, if he had had better advice in 1870 (oh – like, just ignore those nasty Prussian barbarians) he would, as noted, have left a very favourable legacy

I wonder if he would not have been tossed out by the French even if he'd avoided responding to Bismarck in 1870.

Those Gardes Mobiles were mighty alientated.

I fancy popping in to Farnborough Abbey one day & paying my respects.

To say the least, he had a very hard act to follow!! Most sons or nephews and such of famous , powerfull figures do have a very hard time living up to expectations! Not a fun situation most of the time!

He was a man that in his uncle's time would have thrived as his uncle did. But he came to a France in a post-Napoleonic state where you had people of every political faction and ideology vying for control as they all thought their vision of France was the right one. Napoleon III did a lot of smart things like taking the public hero of Émile Ollivier who might have otherwise been his worst adversary and turned him into his puppet.

But he had many dismal failures amongst his successes. He brought about a unified Italy but failed to make that unified Italy his puppet. He rescued the Papacy from the "Restored Roman Republic" but failed to gain anything from that except more bills. He almost gained an Austrian ally in Maximillian but his Mexican adventure failed because, unlike his uncle, the legislative bodies were not going to put up with his war bill.

Then, he tangled with the master of deception and strategy – Bismarck. He met a political and loyal monster of the Prussian state that had a certain 'je ne sais pas' that could make others do what he wished. Napoleon III will always be remembered as a dismal failure though because it is not the journey that defines you but how you end it.

Do you mean a certain 'Je ne sais quoi'?

"Napoleon III will always be remembered as a dismal failure though because it is not the journey that defines you but how you end it."

Hardly. The Napoleonic era did not transmute into the Wellingtonian era in June 1815

Yes I did. It was 1 AM and my French is very rusty. lol.

I will agree that Napoleon's journey did define him more than his ending but Napoleon III's journey was not even as close to successful as his uncle's. The French public cried for war in 1869 and 1870 but when they got it, only around 4,000 citizens actually volunteered. Napoleon III lacked the charisma (likely because of how run down he was constantly fighting political opponents) and the power that his uncle had. He also had one problem his uncle never had to contend with – First International. They demoralized the raw recruits long before the fight even began.