>Lets waste money defending the Ottoman Empire while Prussia asserts hegemony over Central Europe
Shpuld have done literally anything else >Alliance with Russia >Alliance with Austria >Actually modernizing the military >Just paying people to have kids and fix France’s demographics crisis
Napoleon III came to power with Europe still deeply mistrustful of France and shunned by the conservative great powers that were joined together in the Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia). With his clever maneuvering, Napoleon III was able to break France out of its isolation while also neutralizing the Holy Alliance. He aligned with the British over the Eastern question and fought side-by-side with them in the Crimean wars, while also rousing support from the catholics and bourgeois classes in France. The gap between Austria and Russia widened when Austria stood by as the French and British besieged Sevastopol for a year. Then, he denied Austria its Italian backyard, directly and indirectly assisting Italian revolutionaries.
It dawned on him too late that Prussia was soon becoming France's strongest neighbor, and that he had helped neutralize Prussia's rival for German hegemony. Still... France was in much better posture in 1870 than it was in 1859. There was now a friendly Britain off the coast, and Austria, Prussia and Russia were no longer working in concert to keep France chained... Although Bismark later temporarily reinstated the alliance in 1871, though it later faltered... over Austria and Russia bickering over lands lost by the Ottomans... So a breach that Napoleon III had helped open.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He aligned with the British over the Eastern question and fought side-by-side with them in the Crimean wars, while also rousing support from the catholics and bourgeois classes in France. The gap between Austria and Russia widened when Austria stood by as the French and British besieged Sevastopol for a year. Then, he denied Austria its Italian backyard, directly and indirectly assisting Italian revolutionaries.
None of that helped France. Italian unification didn't leave France with an ally, it didn't weaken an actual threat and indirectly empowered a threat.
>It dawned on him too late that Prussia was soon becoming France's strongest neighbor, and that he had helped neutralize Prussia's rival for German hegemony.
Maybe he shouldn't have indirectly aided German unification.
>There was now a friendly Britain off the coast
Not friendly enough to help keep France from getting overrun by Germans
>Austria, Prussia and Russia were no longer working in concert to keep France chained
Instead Prussia could chain France all by itself
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is your brain on teleology
2 years ago
Anonymous
He spread out manpower France didn't have fighting wars which didn't benefit them thus ending up too weak and isolated to resist Prussia resulting in a part of France which had been held for centuries being annexed by a hostile power and his government being deposed. His son would be stabbed to death by a black man. There are countless ways he could have better led France when it came to geopolitics and he chose the absolute worst way.
>Lets help Italy because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to weaken a bulwark against Prussia >Lets put an Austrian on the Mexican throne because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to get an Austrian prince executed >Lets support the Ottomans over Russia because it benefits Britain, proceeds to lose 135,000 Frenchmen in order to get the Ottomans a few slivers of land >Lets annex Luxembourg oh wait Prussia refuses lets not >Oh no the Prussian king insulted us lets declare war on all of Germany with a backwards military and no allies
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why even reply when you're ignorant of basic facts on top of ignoring most of the other anon's post?
2 years ago
Anonymous
None of Napoleon's actions were thought out, he lacked any clear goals. Why did he unite Italy? How did that benefit France? Why weaken Russia? How did that benefit France? Why invade Mexico? How did that benefit France? Why declare war on Prussia? How did that benefit France? If all of these pointless endeavors led to France dominating European politics you might have a point, but when France was at war with Prussia who came to their aid? Nobody. Not Italy, not Britain, not Austria, not the Ottomans, not the Mexicans, not the Belgians, not the Dutch.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why did he unite Italy? How did that benefit France?
Because it weakened Austria, France's long time rival >Why weaken Russia? How did that benefit France?
Because it keeps them out of the Med. Remember that France was a major player in Egypt and the Levant >Why invade Mexico? How did that benefit France?
Because Mexico held loads debt to France. And are you really asking how a French puppet would benefit France? >Why declare war on Prussia? How did that benefit France?
Muh honor, which was a thing in the 1800's >If all of these pointless endeavors led to France dominating European politics you might have a point,
More hindsight. At their outset it's easy to see why these would benefit France.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Because it weakened Austria, France's long time rival
Austria hadn't been France's rival since the War of Spanish succession.
>Because it keeps them out of the Med. Remember that France was a major player in Egypt and the Levant
And look at what those ambitions got them, British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
>Because Mexico held loads debt to France. And are you really asking how a French puppet would benefit France?
Yes, a puppet on the other side of the globe bordered by a nation hostile to its existence that France couldn't defend it against.
>Muh honor, which was a thing in the 1800's
Got it declare war to LARP as your uncle
>More hindsight. At their outset it's easy to see why these would benefit France.
No it isn't, Napoleon simply weakens or distracts the primary threats against the rising power of Europe and then surprise surprise he gets assraped when said rising power attacks him. A nation should contain threats and empower nations opposed to those threats, Austria wasn't a threat to France, Italy wasn't opposing threats to France, Britain wasn't opposing threats to France.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>since the War of Spanish succession
Right, nevermind this thing called the War of... Austrian Succession. Never mind the Holy Alliance that followed the Diplomatic Revolution... >And look at what those ambitions got them, British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
Why do you like to talk about things that hadn't happened yet? For the time being, the interventions in Liban and Syria, France being the protector of the ottomanic christians or the Suez Canal certainly weren't nothing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Even if the outcome of the war was entirely reversed, he forces the German allies to surrender within six months with Wilhelm and Moltke being captured what would he demand to make the conflict actually worth it except getting to feel like his uncle did once?
You're a proper fricking moron. Are you really saying that France shouldn't have gone to war with Prussia because you can't think of a peace deal? That doesn't fricking matter. What matters is that in 1870, it was reasonable for France to think they could beat Prussia
>Austria hadn't been France's rival since the War of Spanish succession.
Just ignore the War of Austrian Succession and, oh I don't know, the Napoleonic Wars >And look at what those ambitions got them, British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
More hindsight bias. You're saying that because France got less than Britain, they shouldn't have fought Russia. But how was France in 1850 supposed to know the outcome of diplomacy that would happen decades later >Yes, a puppet on the other side of the globe bordered by a nation hostile to its existence that France couldn't defend it against.
Because European empires would never set up puppets in far away lands >Got it declare war to LARP as your uncle
Yeah? This was a thing back then. Personally I think it's moronic, but France is hardly alone here >More hindsight. At their outset it's easy to see why these would benefit France. >A nation should contain threats and empower nations opposed to those threats, Austria wasn't a threat to France, Italy wasn't opposing threats to France, Britain wasn't opposing threats to France.
You are a genuine moron. Austria opposed France in Italy and South Germany. Italy was never an enemy of France, I don't see why you keep bringing them up as a German ally. Britain was the primary adversary of France from 1066-1905 you homosexual. Saying that Prussia was the "real" threat is the definition of hindsight bias. This was NOT obvious in 1850-70
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Britain was the primary adversary of France from 1066-1905
Austria has been much more of a nuisance to France all throughout. Not only did they look like the potential hegemon for a while (Charles Quint, Spanish Habsburgs suddenly able to finance their wars with American gold, etc.) but when France dominated, Austria was the restless adversary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Just ignore the War of Austrian Succession and, oh I don't know, the Napoleonic Wars
A single war that wasn’t focused on removing Austrian power specifically and the Napoleonic wars give Russia and Britain a much bigger claim to being France’s rival. Once the Habsburgs no longer encircled France they ceased to be France’s primary rival.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And why doesn't that apply to the Spanish one exacly? After all, it only aimed to replace the Habsburgs with a friendly house. It wasn't aimed at them right?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Habsburgs encircle France >Fight war to stop Habsburgs from encircling France >Habsburgs stop being primary rival to France
If you mean why wouldn’t Spanish Hapsburgs be France’s rival it’s simply because Spain was often less concerned in European affairs than Austria who had no other continents to worry about. France was still encricled and had to fight that encirclement, but one of the foes encircling it was much more aggressive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's not the part I had a gripe with. It's just that if you say that the War of Austrian Succession wasn't made to weaken the Austrians then the same kind of case could be made with the Spanish one. Just a change in management.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A single war that wasn’t focused on removing Austrian power specifically
How many examples do you want? The HRE and France were at odds from day 1 and once the Austrians became emperor they inherited this dispute. There's also the Italian Wars, Thirty Years War, and Nine Years War. All of which were French attempts to expand its influence in Central Europe at Habsburg/Austrian expense. inb4 "they're not the same" Habsburg and Austrian are synonymous and were right up until the end of the monarchy. >the Napoleonic wars give Russia and Britain a much bigger claim to being France’s rival.
Which is why France also spent the post-Napoleonic period fighting them. This is an odd thing for you to say when earlier you asked "How did fighting Russia aid France". >Once the Habsburgs no longer encircled France they ceased to be France’s primary rival. >primary rival
You can have more than one rival dumbass. Remember that the whole point of this discussion was you asking why France focused on cucking Austria instead of Prussia and the answer is that everyone thought Austria was the more important Germanic power at the time. Even in 1866 most of Germany sided with Austria against Prussia. So to say that Napoleon III was a dumbass for not focusing Prussia is the definition of hindsight bias. Yes, Austria and France shared no border, however Germany was nominally under Austrian protection and therefore that made France an enemy.
>Wow, they should have made Italy promise to be nice. What amazing diplomacy >Hey we’ll help you out if you sign a treaty of alliance with me
Wow that’s real frickin hard, but no just good will with no treaties in any fashion.
Italy DID play nice with France. Again, I don't know why you keep claiming that Italy was inherently a German ally when Italy backed off from Tunis. Yes, Italy did weaken Austria and weakening Austria would empower Germany who would end up being a threat to France, but Austria was seen as the greater threat. There is no way for any contemporaries to know that Prussia would be able to punch above it's weight in the way that it did
2 years ago
Anonymous
>British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
France was much more pre-eminent in the Levant until the end of the First World War, with francophone schools and so throughout Syria, Lebanon... Even the Young Turks that were influenced in part by the French.
And the Levant was then split evenly between France and Britain with the Sykes-Picot treaty.
As for Egypt, the real reason for France missing out is even more comical, and unrelated to the Franco-Prussian War. In 1892, the French and British sent ships to signal their support for the Egyptian governor against rebels. Then Britain unloaded men onto the shores, and France just never did... Even though they had just as much right as the British to help in occupying the country (since they had led the efforts for the Suez Canal construction and owned as much shares as the British). So they then sulked and focused on the Maghreb instead.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again, why do you think it's worthwhile to engage someone that clearly hasn't done any basic reading on what he's puzzled by? This isn't even about distributing rights and wrongs, realistic goals and delusions, just motives that any well-rounded historian could give you a rundown on. Maybe consider that getting angry at something doesn't mean that something necessarily doesn't make sense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why did he unite Italy? How did that benefit France?
Weaken Austria (firmly established in Northeastern Italy all the way down to Rome since the Congress of Vienna), keep the Austrians behind a friendly Italian state as a buffer, and prop up the friendly Savoy dynasty as rulers of the new Italian state (future trade partners, etc.)
>Why weaken Russia? How did that benefit France?
Policeman of Europe and the muscle behind the Holy Alliance anti-liberal policies (intervening to shut down liberal protests in Austria in 1848, intervening in Congress Poland, etc.)
>Why invade Mexico? How did that benefit France?
Establish a North American trading partner (besides the United States, that would always privilege their relationship with the British over that with France). Also, provides a channel for France and Austria to mend their relationship by sponsoring an Austrian heir as the new Mexican emperor.
>Why declare war on Prussia? How did that benefit France?
Pretty much forced into it, otherwise he might have picked much better timing (when the Austrians were no longer quaking in their boots and could have come to France's aid).
The biggest mistake in his record as ruler is one you failed to mention, i.e. promising to Prussia to remain neutral when they fought Austria. The Prussians then reneged on their promises for France's expansion into Luxembourg (which is insignifiant, barring some mineral reserves).
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He spread out manpower France didn't have fighting wars which didn't benefit them
Pure hindsight bias. You have no way of knowing that these wars would be of little benefit >His son would be stabbed to death by a black man. There are countless ways he could have better led France when it came to geopolitics and he chose the absolute worst way. >Black folk Black folk Black folk out of NOWHERE
Kek, obsessed >Lets help Italy because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to weaken a bulwark against Prussia
Again, you're fixated on Prussia but at the time Austria and Russia were much bigger threats. >Lets put an Austrian on the Mexican throne because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to get an Austrian prince executed >Lets annex Luxembourg oh wait Prussia refuses lets not
These I'll give you, as they were bad moves >Lets support the Ottomans over Russia because it benefits Britain, proceeds to lose 135,000 Frenchmen in order to get the Ottomans a few slivers of land
Not because it benefits Britain alone. France also benefited from Russia being contained in the Black Sea >Oh no the Prussian king insulted us lets declare war on all of Germany with a backwards military and no allies
France had better rifles in 1870. The fact that you call their military backwards is another instance of hindsight bias
2 years ago
Anonymous
In most other time periods he probably would have been a great man, but he tried to hard to be his uncle without the determination. Take the Mexican War. He committed limited resources and when America threatened intervention he left. Napoleon I would have stuck everything out to the bitter end like he always did. And who knows, maybe a post civil war USA would have decided the costs of "saving" Mexico to be too high.
>None of that helped France. Italian unification didn't leave France with an ally, it didn't weaken an actual threat and indirectly empowered a threat.
Again, this is not something that could have been known at the time. It's reasonable to assume that since France basically made Italy possible, Italy would suck France off in return >Maybe he shouldn't have indirectly aided German unification.
Explain, in detail, how it would be possible to weaken Austria (who was seen as stronger) without aiding Prussia >Not friendly enough to help keep France from getting overrun by Germans
Courting Britain was never about Europe. London wanted nothing to do with the continent. Courting Britain was what allowed France to pursue colonial gains more aggressively without the Albion breathing down its neck. >Instead Prussia could chain France all by itself
Again, this is not obvious without hindsight. Even in 1870 the Prussians expected a hard war.
Frankly, your whole post reeks of using hindsight bias to appear smarter than men operating with limited knowledge
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He committed limited resources and when America threatened intervention he left.
Lol Maximilian was deposed by Mexico and the US only threatened their asses long after the CW was becoming a lopsided affair.
Imagine getting btfo by 5'5 indios.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you moronic?
Maximilian was deposed like a year after the French had left
>With the end of the American Civil War in 1865, the United States began providing more explicit aid to Juárez's forces. French armies began to withdraw from Mexico in 1866. The Empire collapsed without French aid, and Maximilian was captured and executed by the restored Republican government in 1867.[4]
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's reasonable to assume that since France basically made Italy possible, Italy would suck France off in return
Just like because France made America possible America would suck off France in return. There's no reason to assume Italy would repay an imagined debt to France, if he wanted allies he should have forced Italy to sign a long term treaty in exchange for aid.
>Explain, in detail, how it would be possible to weaken Austria (who was seen as stronger) without aiding Prussia
Don't weaken Austria, they share no border with France, they have no desire to claim French lands, they are diametrically opposed to a growing European power which borders France and has had major diplomatic incidents with them several times.
>Courting Britain was never about Europe. London wanted nothing to do with the continent. Courting Britain was what allowed France to pursue colonial gains more aggressively without the Albion breathing down its neck.
None of France's colonies except Algeria which they already had control over were worth the losses they incurred. Even then to back Russia and gain an ally against Central European powers.
>Again, this is not obvious without hindsight. Even in 1870 the Prussians expected a hard war.
Prussia still expected to win, the French army was outdated, Napoleon wasn't a military genius like his uncle. The only reason to fight a war over such petty reasons was if Napoleon expected to be leading a triumph through Berlin in a few weeks. Even if the outcome of the war was entirely reversed, he forces the German allies to surrender within six months with Wilhelm and Moltke being captured what would he demand to make the conflict actually worth it except getting to feel like his uncle did once?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Just like because France made America possible America would suck off France in return.
Which America did, until the Revolution when they decided not to bother anymore. >There's no reason to assume Italy would repay an imagined debt to France, if he wanted allies he should have forced Italy to sign a long term treaty in exchange for aid.
Wow, they should have made Italy promise to be nice. What amazing diplomacy >Don't weaken Austria, they share no border with France, they have no desire to claim French lands, they are diametrically opposed to a growing European power which borders France and has had major diplomatic incidents with them several times.
This is how I know you have no understanding of European history. Austria wanted to maintain its influence in Italy and South Germany while expanding it's interests in the Balkans. France opposed this because it had its own interests in those regions. "No common border" means nothing when the two have overlapping ambitions. . >None of France's colonies except Algeria which they already had control over were worth the losses they incurred. Even then to back Russia and gain an ally against Central European powers.
Not only is this part incoherent, your evaluation of what colonies "matter" means nothing. Why should France allow Russia a free hand in Central Europe when they are fighting Austria for that exact reason >Prussia still expected to win, the French army was outdated, Napoleon wasn't a military genius like his uncle. The only reason to fight a war over such petty reasons was if Napoleon expected to be leading a triumph through Berlin in a few weeks.
Entirely incorrect. Both armies were evenly matched
1/2
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Entirely incorrect. Both armies were evenly matched
The french army undisputably had known problems. But it's not like the government didn't try to solve them either as evidenced by the proposed Niel law, it's just that coincidentally all stratas of society had reasons to oppose it and the empire wasn't as authoritarian as before.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Wow, they should have made Italy promise to be nice. What amazing diplomacy >Hey we’ll help you out if you sign a treaty of alliance with me
Wow that’s real frickin hard, but no just good will with no treaties in any fashion.
>won the Crimean War for Britain >humiliated China in the Second Opium War >won Italy's independence by BTFOing Austria in 1859 >conquered Southern Vietnam >conquered Mexico easily and occupied it for years before the US told him to frick off
His war record is actually pretty good aside from the war against Prussia
>conquered Mexico easily and occupied it
no, they conquered the capital and the provincial cities, most of the countryside remained in the hands of the republicans and the frenchies/their puppet empire were doomed to a guerrilla war like that in Spain with the other napoleon
the US didn't have to tell them to frick off, they did that due to the threat that prussia posed
I mean, look at your own pic
The blue part is what the French controlled in 1864, but by 1866 they controlled everything between Chihuahua and Oaxaca, and most of the country
>the US didn't have to tell them to frick off, they did that due to the threat that prussia posed
Cope spic
America saved you from frogs
You're welcome btw
>supported Italian reunification >witnessed a battle firsthand, immediately started crying and withdrew all support from Piedmont
Always thought that was funny.
Solferino and Magenta are said to have some of the worst post-fighting battlefields, so much so they inspired the founding of the Red Cross. The lethality of firepower, artillery, etc. starting to take its toll on the battlefield without any of the later adaptations (trenches, helmets, etc.)
The prefect Haussmann helped him in that, but he took quite an active part in it and besides you need a strong-handed government from that kind of upheaval. After that mayors set to imitate his example in Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Rouen etc.
For interesting insight, some historians write that it was at the time that cities started being something to *look at*, with all the boulevards, cafés, posters, cabarets, gardens and department stores, instead of just something to stroll through. Baudelaire wrote about it, although not in really in a positive light.
He was, in my opinion, one of the best rulers we ever had. His reign saw the greatest economical growth in our entire history, he helped build infrastructure and improved entire cities.
He neutralised the holy alliance, befriended the UK while defeating Russia. Regained lost territories in Savoy and Nice.
But of course paradox gamers will consider him a bad emperor because he lost against le based Prussia at the very end of his rule, when he was slowly dying
Very decent domestic administrator,
and understood he was not his Grandfather: Unfortunately bad at foreign policy and cursed to have lived during Bismarck's rise — ended up mostly remembered for his mistakes
He is the sort of King who would do fine by themselves but is right next to a great man who derails his entire reign
Buonaparte groupies really are pathetic. They'll sperg out and call you a paradoxgay or pop-historian if you point out that their idols were far from perfect. Even with clear failure like Napoleon III. They are to history what Justin Bieber groupies are to music.
But morono in either cases there is a very simple solution. If you found some posts to be lacking too much, why don't you reply to them instead of playing the diva in the lockers?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Who said I disagree with your arguments schizo? I’m just pointing out that you’re a moron for imagining everyone who disagrees with you as being a single person.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The IRONY of this post. Who told you I was the one you were originally answering to? And were you not b***hing about getting called so and so?
not as glorious as his uncle but a far better political leader who did a lot more for the country, the last remnant of French soul before the republic finally destroys it
>decides to invade Mexico
>gets btfo'd
3 years later...
>declares war on Prussia
>gets btfo'd
>abdicates as emperor
he sucked at waging war
>he sucked at waging war
what about other things ?
What about the Crimean War?
wouldn't have won without the UK & Ottoman Empire
France carried the war effort.
great victory that gained absolutely nothing for france besides some deaths
Absolutely based pop-his tard.
>Lets waste money defending the Ottoman Empire while Prussia asserts hegemony over Central Europe
Shpuld have done literally anything else
>Alliance with Russia
>Alliance with Austria
>Actually modernizing the military
>Just paying people to have kids and fix France’s demographics crisis
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Napoleon III came to power with Europe still deeply mistrustful of France and shunned by the conservative great powers that were joined together in the Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia). With his clever maneuvering, Napoleon III was able to break France out of its isolation while also neutralizing the Holy Alliance. He aligned with the British over the Eastern question and fought side-by-side with them in the Crimean wars, while also rousing support from the catholics and bourgeois classes in France. The gap between Austria and Russia widened when Austria stood by as the French and British besieged Sevastopol for a year. Then, he denied Austria its Italian backyard, directly and indirectly assisting Italian revolutionaries.
It dawned on him too late that Prussia was soon becoming France's strongest neighbor, and that he had helped neutralize Prussia's rival for German hegemony. Still... France was in much better posture in 1870 than it was in 1859. There was now a friendly Britain off the coast, and Austria, Prussia and Russia were no longer working in concert to keep France chained... Although Bismark later temporarily reinstated the alliance in 1871, though it later faltered... over Austria and Russia bickering over lands lost by the Ottomans... So a breach that Napoleon III had helped open.
>He aligned with the British over the Eastern question and fought side-by-side with them in the Crimean wars, while also rousing support from the catholics and bourgeois classes in France. The gap between Austria and Russia widened when Austria stood by as the French and British besieged Sevastopol for a year. Then, he denied Austria its Italian backyard, directly and indirectly assisting Italian revolutionaries.
None of that helped France. Italian unification didn't leave France with an ally, it didn't weaken an actual threat and indirectly empowered a threat.
>It dawned on him too late that Prussia was soon becoming France's strongest neighbor, and that he had helped neutralize Prussia's rival for German hegemony.
Maybe he shouldn't have indirectly aided German unification.
>There was now a friendly Britain off the coast
Not friendly enough to help keep France from getting overrun by Germans
>Austria, Prussia and Russia were no longer working in concert to keep France chained
Instead Prussia could chain France all by itself
This is your brain on teleology
He spread out manpower France didn't have fighting wars which didn't benefit them thus ending up too weak and isolated to resist Prussia resulting in a part of France which had been held for centuries being annexed by a hostile power and his government being deposed. His son would be stabbed to death by a black man. There are countless ways he could have better led France when it came to geopolitics and he chose the absolute worst way.
>Lets help Italy because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to weaken a bulwark against Prussia
>Lets put an Austrian on the Mexican throne because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to get an Austrian prince executed
>Lets support the Ottomans over Russia because it benefits Britain, proceeds to lose 135,000 Frenchmen in order to get the Ottomans a few slivers of land
>Lets annex Luxembourg oh wait Prussia refuses lets not
>Oh no the Prussian king insulted us lets declare war on all of Germany with a backwards military and no allies
Why even reply when you're ignorant of basic facts on top of ignoring most of the other anon's post?
None of Napoleon's actions were thought out, he lacked any clear goals. Why did he unite Italy? How did that benefit France? Why weaken Russia? How did that benefit France? Why invade Mexico? How did that benefit France? Why declare war on Prussia? How did that benefit France? If all of these pointless endeavors led to France dominating European politics you might have a point, but when France was at war with Prussia who came to their aid? Nobody. Not Italy, not Britain, not Austria, not the Ottomans, not the Mexicans, not the Belgians, not the Dutch.
>Why did he unite Italy? How did that benefit France?
Because it weakened Austria, France's long time rival
>Why weaken Russia? How did that benefit France?
Because it keeps them out of the Med. Remember that France was a major player in Egypt and the Levant
>Why invade Mexico? How did that benefit France?
Because Mexico held loads debt to France. And are you really asking how a French puppet would benefit France?
>Why declare war on Prussia? How did that benefit France?
Muh honor, which was a thing in the 1800's
>If all of these pointless endeavors led to France dominating European politics you might have a point,
More hindsight. At their outset it's easy to see why these would benefit France.
>Because it weakened Austria, France's long time rival
Austria hadn't been France's rival since the War of Spanish succession.
>Because it keeps them out of the Med. Remember that France was a major player in Egypt and the Levant
And look at what those ambitions got them, British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
>Because Mexico held loads debt to France. And are you really asking how a French puppet would benefit France?
Yes, a puppet on the other side of the globe bordered by a nation hostile to its existence that France couldn't defend it against.
>Muh honor, which was a thing in the 1800's
Got it declare war to LARP as your uncle
>More hindsight. At their outset it's easy to see why these would benefit France.
No it isn't, Napoleon simply weakens or distracts the primary threats against the rising power of Europe and then surprise surprise he gets assraped when said rising power attacks him. A nation should contain threats and empower nations opposed to those threats, Austria wasn't a threat to France, Italy wasn't opposing threats to France, Britain wasn't opposing threats to France.
>since the War of Spanish succession
Right, nevermind this thing called the War of... Austrian Succession. Never mind the Holy Alliance that followed the Diplomatic Revolution...
>And look at what those ambitions got them, British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
Why do you like to talk about things that hadn't happened yet? For the time being, the interventions in Liban and Syria, France being the protector of the ottomanic christians or the Suez Canal certainly weren't nothing.
>Even if the outcome of the war was entirely reversed, he forces the German allies to surrender within six months with Wilhelm and Moltke being captured what would he demand to make the conflict actually worth it except getting to feel like his uncle did once?
You're a proper fricking moron. Are you really saying that France shouldn't have gone to war with Prussia because you can't think of a peace deal? That doesn't fricking matter. What matters is that in 1870, it was reasonable for France to think they could beat Prussia
>Austria hadn't been France's rival since the War of Spanish succession.
Just ignore the War of Austrian Succession and, oh I don't know, the Napoleonic Wars
>And look at what those ambitions got them, British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
More hindsight bias. You're saying that because France got less than Britain, they shouldn't have fought Russia. But how was France in 1850 supposed to know the outcome of diplomacy that would happen decades later
>Yes, a puppet on the other side of the globe bordered by a nation hostile to its existence that France couldn't defend it against.
Because European empires would never set up puppets in far away lands
>Got it declare war to LARP as your uncle
Yeah? This was a thing back then. Personally I think it's moronic, but France is hardly alone here
>More hindsight. At their outset it's easy to see why these would benefit France.
>A nation should contain threats and empower nations opposed to those threats, Austria wasn't a threat to France, Italy wasn't opposing threats to France, Britain wasn't opposing threats to France.
You are a genuine moron. Austria opposed France in Italy and South Germany. Italy was never an enemy of France, I don't see why you keep bringing them up as a German ally. Britain was the primary adversary of France from 1066-1905 you homosexual. Saying that Prussia was the "real" threat is the definition of hindsight bias. This was NOT obvious in 1850-70
>Britain was the primary adversary of France from 1066-1905
Austria has been much more of a nuisance to France all throughout. Not only did they look like the potential hegemon for a while (Charles Quint, Spanish Habsburgs suddenly able to finance their wars with American gold, etc.) but when France dominated, Austria was the restless adversary.
>Just ignore the War of Austrian Succession and, oh I don't know, the Napoleonic Wars
A single war that wasn’t focused on removing Austrian power specifically and the Napoleonic wars give Russia and Britain a much bigger claim to being France’s rival. Once the Habsburgs no longer encircled France they ceased to be France’s primary rival.
And why doesn't that apply to the Spanish one exacly? After all, it only aimed to replace the Habsburgs with a friendly house. It wasn't aimed at them right?
>Habsburgs encircle France
>Fight war to stop Habsburgs from encircling France
>Habsburgs stop being primary rival to France
If you mean why wouldn’t Spanish Hapsburgs be France’s rival it’s simply because Spain was often less concerned in European affairs than Austria who had no other continents to worry about. France was still encricled and had to fight that encirclement, but one of the foes encircling it was much more aggressive.
That's not the part I had a gripe with. It's just that if you say that the War of Austrian Succession wasn't made to weaken the Austrians then the same kind of case could be made with the Spanish one. Just a change in management.
>A single war that wasn’t focused on removing Austrian power specifically
How many examples do you want? The HRE and France were at odds from day 1 and once the Austrians became emperor they inherited this dispute. There's also the Italian Wars, Thirty Years War, and Nine Years War. All of which were French attempts to expand its influence in Central Europe at Habsburg/Austrian expense. inb4 "they're not the same" Habsburg and Austrian are synonymous and were right up until the end of the monarchy.
>the Napoleonic wars give Russia and Britain a much bigger claim to being France’s rival.
Which is why France also spent the post-Napoleonic period fighting them. This is an odd thing for you to say when earlier you asked "How did fighting Russia aid France".
>Once the Habsburgs no longer encircled France they ceased to be France’s primary rival.
>primary rival
You can have more than one rival dumbass. Remember that the whole point of this discussion was you asking why France focused on cucking Austria instead of Prussia and the answer is that everyone thought Austria was the more important Germanic power at the time. Even in 1866 most of Germany sided with Austria against Prussia. So to say that Napoleon III was a dumbass for not focusing Prussia is the definition of hindsight bias. Yes, Austria and France shared no border, however Germany was nominally under Austrian protection and therefore that made France an enemy.
Italy DID play nice with France. Again, I don't know why you keep claiming that Italy was inherently a German ally when Italy backed off from Tunis. Yes, Italy did weaken Austria and weakening Austria would empower Germany who would end up being a threat to France, but Austria was seen as the greater threat. There is no way for any contemporaries to know that Prussia would be able to punch above it's weight in the way that it did
>British control of Egypt and later British control of the Levant.
France was much more pre-eminent in the Levant until the end of the First World War, with francophone schools and so throughout Syria, Lebanon... Even the Young Turks that were influenced in part by the French.
And the Levant was then split evenly between France and Britain with the Sykes-Picot treaty.
As for Egypt, the real reason for France missing out is even more comical, and unrelated to the Franco-Prussian War. In 1892, the French and British sent ships to signal their support for the Egyptian governor against rebels. Then Britain unloaded men onto the shores, and France just never did... Even though they had just as much right as the British to help in occupying the country (since they had led the efforts for the Suez Canal construction and owned as much shares as the British). So they then sulked and focused on the Maghreb instead.
Again, why do you think it's worthwhile to engage someone that clearly hasn't done any basic reading on what he's puzzled by? This isn't even about distributing rights and wrongs, realistic goals and delusions, just motives that any well-rounded historian could give you a rundown on. Maybe consider that getting angry at something doesn't mean that something necessarily doesn't make sense.
>Why did he unite Italy? How did that benefit France?
Weaken Austria (firmly established in Northeastern Italy all the way down to Rome since the Congress of Vienna), keep the Austrians behind a friendly Italian state as a buffer, and prop up the friendly Savoy dynasty as rulers of the new Italian state (future trade partners, etc.)
>Why weaken Russia? How did that benefit France?
Policeman of Europe and the muscle behind the Holy Alliance anti-liberal policies (intervening to shut down liberal protests in Austria in 1848, intervening in Congress Poland, etc.)
>Why invade Mexico? How did that benefit France?
Establish a North American trading partner (besides the United States, that would always privilege their relationship with the British over that with France). Also, provides a channel for France and Austria to mend their relationship by sponsoring an Austrian heir as the new Mexican emperor.
>Why declare war on Prussia? How did that benefit France?
Pretty much forced into it, otherwise he might have picked much better timing (when the Austrians were no longer quaking in their boots and could have come to France's aid).
The biggest mistake in his record as ruler is one you failed to mention, i.e. promising to Prussia to remain neutral when they fought Austria. The Prussians then reneged on their promises for France's expansion into Luxembourg (which is insignifiant, barring some mineral reserves).
>He spread out manpower France didn't have fighting wars which didn't benefit them
Pure hindsight bias. You have no way of knowing that these wars would be of little benefit
>His son would be stabbed to death by a black man. There are countless ways he could have better led France when it came to geopolitics and he chose the absolute worst way.
>Black folk Black folk Black folk out of NOWHERE
Kek, obsessed
>Lets help Italy because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to weaken a bulwark against Prussia
Again, you're fixated on Prussia but at the time Austria and Russia were much bigger threats.
>Lets put an Austrian on the Mexican throne because I want to be an imperialist, proceeds to get an Austrian prince executed
>Lets annex Luxembourg oh wait Prussia refuses lets not
These I'll give you, as they were bad moves
>Lets support the Ottomans over Russia because it benefits Britain, proceeds to lose 135,000 Frenchmen in order to get the Ottomans a few slivers of land
Not because it benefits Britain alone. France also benefited from Russia being contained in the Black Sea
>Oh no the Prussian king insulted us lets declare war on all of Germany with a backwards military and no allies
France had better rifles in 1870. The fact that you call their military backwards is another instance of hindsight bias
In most other time periods he probably would have been a great man, but he tried to hard to be his uncle without the determination. Take the Mexican War. He committed limited resources and when America threatened intervention he left. Napoleon I would have stuck everything out to the bitter end like he always did. And who knows, maybe a post civil war USA would have decided the costs of "saving" Mexico to be too high.
>None of that helped France. Italian unification didn't leave France with an ally, it didn't weaken an actual threat and indirectly empowered a threat.
Again, this is not something that could have been known at the time. It's reasonable to assume that since France basically made Italy possible, Italy would suck France off in return
>Maybe he shouldn't have indirectly aided German unification.
Explain, in detail, how it would be possible to weaken Austria (who was seen as stronger) without aiding Prussia
>Not friendly enough to help keep France from getting overrun by Germans
Courting Britain was never about Europe. London wanted nothing to do with the continent. Courting Britain was what allowed France to pursue colonial gains more aggressively without the Albion breathing down its neck.
>Instead Prussia could chain France all by itself
Again, this is not obvious without hindsight. Even in 1870 the Prussians expected a hard war.
Frankly, your whole post reeks of using hindsight bias to appear smarter than men operating with limited knowledge
>He committed limited resources and when America threatened intervention he left.
Lol Maximilian was deposed by Mexico and the US only threatened their asses long after the CW was becoming a lopsided affair.
Imagine getting btfo by 5'5 indios.
Are you moronic?
Maximilian was deposed like a year after the French had left
>With the end of the American Civil War in 1865, the United States began providing more explicit aid to Juárez's forces. French armies began to withdraw from Mexico in 1866. The Empire collapsed without French aid, and Maximilian was captured and executed by the restored Republican government in 1867.[4]
>It's reasonable to assume that since France basically made Italy possible, Italy would suck France off in return
Just like because France made America possible America would suck off France in return. There's no reason to assume Italy would repay an imagined debt to France, if he wanted allies he should have forced Italy to sign a long term treaty in exchange for aid.
>Explain, in detail, how it would be possible to weaken Austria (who was seen as stronger) without aiding Prussia
Don't weaken Austria, they share no border with France, they have no desire to claim French lands, they are diametrically opposed to a growing European power which borders France and has had major diplomatic incidents with them several times.
>Courting Britain was never about Europe. London wanted nothing to do with the continent. Courting Britain was what allowed France to pursue colonial gains more aggressively without the Albion breathing down its neck.
None of France's colonies except Algeria which they already had control over were worth the losses they incurred. Even then to back Russia and gain an ally against Central European powers.
>Again, this is not obvious without hindsight. Even in 1870 the Prussians expected a hard war.
Prussia still expected to win, the French army was outdated, Napoleon wasn't a military genius like his uncle. The only reason to fight a war over such petty reasons was if Napoleon expected to be leading a triumph through Berlin in a few weeks. Even if the outcome of the war was entirely reversed, he forces the German allies to surrender within six months with Wilhelm and Moltke being captured what would he demand to make the conflict actually worth it except getting to feel like his uncle did once?
>Just like because France made America possible America would suck off France in return.
Which America did, until the Revolution when they decided not to bother anymore.
>There's no reason to assume Italy would repay an imagined debt to France, if he wanted allies he should have forced Italy to sign a long term treaty in exchange for aid.
Wow, they should have made Italy promise to be nice. What amazing diplomacy
>Don't weaken Austria, they share no border with France, they have no desire to claim French lands, they are diametrically opposed to a growing European power which borders France and has had major diplomatic incidents with them several times.
This is how I know you have no understanding of European history. Austria wanted to maintain its influence in Italy and South Germany while expanding it's interests in the Balkans. France opposed this because it had its own interests in those regions. "No common border" means nothing when the two have overlapping ambitions. .
>None of France's colonies except Algeria which they already had control over were worth the losses they incurred. Even then to back Russia and gain an ally against Central European powers.
Not only is this part incoherent, your evaluation of what colonies "matter" means nothing. Why should France allow Russia a free hand in Central Europe when they are fighting Austria for that exact reason
>Prussia still expected to win, the French army was outdated, Napoleon wasn't a military genius like his uncle. The only reason to fight a war over such petty reasons was if Napoleon expected to be leading a triumph through Berlin in a few weeks.
Entirely incorrect. Both armies were evenly matched
1/2
>Entirely incorrect. Both armies were evenly matched
The french army undisputably had known problems. But it's not like the government didn't try to solve them either as evidenced by the proposed Niel law, it's just that coincidentally all stratas of society had reasons to oppose it and the empire wasn't as authoritarian as before.
>Wow, they should have made Italy promise to be nice. What amazing diplomacy
>Hey we’ll help you out if you sign a treaty of alliance with me
Wow that’s real frickin hard, but no just good will with no treaties in any fashion.
I like how nobody talks about one of the main goals for the venture, even though that one was accomplished.
Thought he was the smartest man in Europe. Realized in the absolute worst way possible that this was not the case.
What did Bismarck think of the worst world leader of the 19th century?
>won the Crimean War for Britain
>humiliated China in the Second Opium War
>won Italy's independence by BTFOing Austria in 1859
>conquered Southern Vietnam
>conquered Mexico easily and occupied it for years before the US told him to frick off
His war record is actually pretty good aside from the war against Prussia
>conquered Mexico easily and occupied it
no, they conquered the capital and the provincial cities, most of the countryside remained in the hands of the republicans and the frenchies/their puppet empire were doomed to a guerrilla war like that in Spain with the other napoleon
the US didn't have to tell them to frick off, they did that due to the threat that prussia posed
I mean, look at your own pic
The blue part is what the French controlled in 1864, but by 1866 they controlled everything between Chihuahua and Oaxaca, and most of the country
>the US didn't have to tell them to frick off, they did that due to the threat that prussia posed
Cope spic
America saved you from frogs
You're welcome btw
>supported Italian reunification
>witnessed a battle firsthand, immediately started crying and withdrew all support from Piedmont
Always thought that was funny.
Solferino and Magenta are said to have some of the worst post-fighting battlefields, so much so they inspired the founding of the Red Cross. The lethality of firepower, artillery, etc. starting to take its toll on the battlefield without any of the later adaptations (trenches, helmets, etc.)
Trucker who sucked dick to pay startups getting his contracts running for a while before getting a job at Arby’s
He was a very good country ruler with regards to administration and development, but terrible at war
didn't he build paris from a shithole to an actual nice place?
The prefect Haussmann helped him in that, but he took quite an active part in it and besides you need a strong-handed government from that kind of upheaval. After that mayors set to imitate his example in Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Rouen etc.
For interesting insight, some historians write that it was at the time that cities started being something to *look at*, with all the boulevards, cafés, posters, cabarets, gardens and department stores, instead of just something to stroll through. Baudelaire wrote about it, although not in really in a positive light.
ITT: paradox games understanding of history
Me or him?
He was, in my opinion, one of the best rulers we ever had. His reign saw the greatest economical growth in our entire history, he helped build infrastructure and improved entire cities.
He neutralised the holy alliance, befriended the UK while defeating Russia. Regained lost territories in Savoy and Nice.
But of course paradox gamers will consider him a bad emperor because he lost against le based Prussia at the very end of his rule, when he was slowly dying
Very decent domestic administrator,
and understood he was not his Grandfather: Unfortunately bad at foreign policy and cursed to have lived during Bismarck's rise — ended up mostly remembered for his mistakes
He is the sort of King who would do fine by themselves but is right next to a great man who derails his entire reign
You mean uncle. Nappy III was Nappy I's nephew, Nappy II died before he was an adult.
>Nappy II
that one had a sad story
he showed much promise in the military sense but the austrians were fearful
Buonaparte groupies really are pathetic. They'll sperg out and call you a paradoxgay or pop-historian if you point out that their idols were far from perfect. Even with clear failure like Napoleon III. They are to history what Justin Bieber groupies are to music.
all believers in the great man theory of history have unresolved daddy issues
it's not normal to simp for historical figures
>he got BTFO so thoroughly that he still isn't able to make counter points
cute
>he
get some meds
Own your fail morono
>21 posters
>he
But morono in either cases there is a very simple solution. If you found some posts to be lacking too much, why don't you reply to them instead of playing the diva in the lockers?
Who said I disagree with your arguments schizo? I’m just pointing out that you’re a moron for imagining everyone who disagrees with you as being a single person.
The IRONY of this post. Who told you I was the one you were originally answering to? And were you not b***hing about getting called so and so?
not as glorious as his uncle but a far better political leader who did a lot more for the country, the last remnant of French soul before the republic finally destroys it