Napoleon III tried to improve France similar to how his uncle Napoleon I did. He didn't quite make the cut. This video goes over his reign from prince-president to emperor.
Just for a heads up, my collaboration with AlternateHistoryHub will be here soon! They'll have part 1 by tomorrow and I'll have my part on Wednesday. See you guys then!
I think that calling Napoleon III the failed emperor is a bit of a exaggeration. Yes, he wasn't the genius conqueror like his uncle and most of his foreign policy was failure but he did a lot of good domestic reforms. He renovated Paris and gave it sewers. He reformed agriculture and stopped famine in France. He gave workers the right to strike. And he drastically improved the education system and encouraged girls to go to school.
Totally agree, he helped France out a lot in the homeland. If he hadn't let his ego take over and want more from the rest of the world he easily could be considered one of the greatest leaders ever but because he failed on the foreign level he's mainly forgotten in history
Considering what he did for France economically, he is not a failure. You seem to have this extremely juvenile view that military success alone determines success.
Yeah, but he was looking at it through the perspective of him trying to emulate Napoleon I, and thus military success *did* determine how much he achieved that, which he didn’t.
@@gwest3644 he didn’t try to emulate his uncle. He was very different. What he was trying to do was hold up the reputation due to them being related. In fact their rules are greatly different and one of the few things they had in common though was that they both would actually be on the battlefield during wars, however Napoleon III would only send instructions after confirming them to his generals
Resumed Napoleon III with Franco-Prussian war is a non-sens, it's without doubt the best ruller at the national level. Amazing industrialisation, evening classes for the workers, generalisation of public instruction, refoundation of Paris, 73% of economic growth in 20 years, the wealth accumulated during the reign of Napoleon made it possible to pay the debt to the Prussians in 2 years, whereas they took a century to pay it. We must stop masturbating on the war without thinking about the economic and social contexts, the development. Napoleon was a god of war, but Napoleon III was a god economic and human wealthfare.
Christopher Columbus: I "discovered" America (even though the vikings were here centuries before me, and all I did was slaughter a bunch of natives, but ignore that).
While Napoleon III gets a lot of stick for his failed foreign policy, his economic and infrastructural achievements are pretty substantial. Plus he wasn't as clueless as some people protray him. His original military reforms of 1867 would have given France around 800,000 reserves, which would definetly have turned the tide of the war on Prussia. But the Corps Legislatif blocked and hacked at the reforms to no end. While the military itself hated his ideas like 'cavalry is outdated' or that 'we need better artillery' if he had been given a free hand, Napoleon III might have been more successful.
Totally right! And it is quite ironic, that despite Napoleon's best attempts to create a "liberal Empire" by allowing his political opponents to return, that was one of the reasons of his eventual downfall, since not only they manages to block that specific bill but to overthrow the Empire immediately after the news of Sedan reached the capital. Had Napoleon remained an authoritarian politician as he was in the 1850's the outcome of the war might have been very different.
Aplieox eeeerh no. Napoleon the III rd lost only the Franco-Prussian war. For example he won the Crimean War of 1853, The Second Italian war of independence and he contribued to modernize France.
As a french student in history, there is plenty of wrong I see in this video. First of all, you may call him as a failed emperor but in France, we don't see him like this as he massively industrialized the country. Then, no conquest, why ? Well because, Europeans country have a bad memory of Napoleon I. Each government of France sicne Napoleon I had this huge thing to deal with. France was occupied after the Napoleonic wars and was kicked form any european diplomatic event. There was that silly thing called the "Holy Alliance" wich was build to countain France and to maintain the old order across Europe. When France was permitted into it, the Monarchy had to prove itself worthy of it by sending troops in Spain to restore order (Carlists rebellions). And then, the greek war for independance happened and the Holy Alliance backed up Greece. Again in order to show its new allegiance with its old ennemies, France had to intervene along Russians and british. When in 1830, the July revolution happened in France and kicked away the king for a new one (more liberal) Louis Phillip. Again European nations were afraid : a Revolution in France could make Europe instable again. To prove France had no intention to wage war in Europe, Louis Phillip helped the Belgians to obtained independance and guaranteed Belgium. Moreover, the only wars he made was to conquer Algeria, outside of Europe. Again, another Revolution : 1848. Again Europe is Afraid : the king, a liberal one, is kicked and a republic is proclaimed : its the French Revoltuion all over again. And who is the leader of France now ? Napoleon ! If Napoleon III was to conquer lands in Europe he would have been at war against a huge coalition. He still manage to do good work by retaking Savoy and Nice. Europe was not fine with this as the border of France were decided at Vienna in 1815, and should not be changed. Lucky Napoleon, those territories were massively inhabited by french people and were quite little actually. Moreover, Sardinia cede it. There were no conquest of any kind. Napoleon did a great job in making UK a friend of France with the Crimean war. The invasion of Mexico was not a French idea. Europeans powers (germanic ones especially) wanted to put there own king there meanwhile USA was in a civil war that prevented them to apply the goold old Monroe doctrine. France, in a way to prove itself again as a country that doesnt want to invade all of Europe, offer to help. Even if it was a military defeat, it had a huge impact. As at that point, the French Foreign Legion was barely born (1831) and most of the French generals were still against recruiting foreigners to fight for France. Their sacrifice at the battle of Camerone (where the legionnaires fought to the death even when they were outnumbered and without ammo) make them worthy in the eye of the french military staff (and the battle is still rembered by all legionnaires). The purchase of Luxembourg was a long story : Luxembourg is bankrupt, ans it is a weird country. Indeed, it was suppose to be a part of the Netherlands, but the eastern half was part of the German confederation. The western half became part of Belgium when the country took its independance (trivia : Belgium tried to annex Luxembourg after WW1 because the German Confederation was no longer and most of it was already belgian). After the Belgium independance, the eatern half also get its independance but was still in the the German Confederation. When Prussian began the German unification, Luxembourg was huge problem : they wanted to annex it but had no way to do so without a war. When Napoleon wanted to buy it, Prussia said no, and the other European country either were against because of the good old "Napoleon souvenir" or because they wanted to have peace in Europe. The Franco Prussian war was also a huge problem : Initially, the Kaiser was not in a aggressive mood agaisnt France and was ready to make a deal with Napoleon over the Spainish problem. But Bismarck had other plans and made a fake letter that basically triggered the french govenrment. Since 1860, most of the french elites and especially, Napoleon 's wife wanted war against Prussia. But Napoleon was aware of the french bad military state and refused during a long time. When Ems Dispatch was made public, the people and the elites wanted war and Napoleon had to do it. It was a huge mistake for two reasons : 1) we lost of course, but also, by declaring this war, most of the European natiosn were supporting (at least diplomatically) Germany as they were the defenders. Overall, Napoleon III wasn't a failed emperor. He did well in internal affairs, transformed Paris form a medieval town to to one we know nwoadays and industrialized the country. As a failed Napoleon ? Well Napoleon I did loose at the end and the country was in deep shit at the very end of his reign so... meh ? For more informations, the good old "Napoleon souvenir" that pretty much tied the french hands siplomatically didn't end with Napoleon demise. Between WW1 and WW2, when France was pressuring Germany into paying their debt, many countries were afraid of the frnehc warning of taking the "money themselves". When Germany refused to keep up the payment, the French invaded the rich Rhur in Germany. Even though, the belgians helped, there was a huge backlash against France, especially since a rhenanic republic was proclaimed along the western side of the Rhine : the French Revolution did the same to expand their influence. Again at this time, France was seen as dangerous and most of the countries in Europe stopped their cooperation with France or were at lteast reticent to do so.
Reprendre la Savoie et Nice ? Ces deux "départements" n'étaient pas français mais piémontais depuis respectivement 800 et 500 ans. Ils furent parfois occupés par les Français mais jamais de manière légitime. D'ailleurs il y a beaucoup à dire sur le fameux vote de rattachement ayant eu lieu...
A shame (and curious) you forgot his biggest military success, the Crimean war, which was mostly won by France (though allied with the Ottomans and Britain) that did most of the job. Not really on the Napoleonic scale, but still his best war. On a side note (because he was indeed disliked), Victor Hugo always called him "Napoleon the small" as opposed to Napoleon the first which he always called "Napoleon the great".
Барак Обама -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War I didn't think there was really any debate about it to be honest, obviously an allied victory. Maybe historically it became worthless in the long term (if that's what you mean, ok), but the war itself ended with Russia losing without any doubt or anything like that.
We can thank Napoleon the third for modern Paris for he got the town planner baron Haussman to put in those grand boulevards and the Champs de Elysee but some of the quaint Mediaeval parts had to be demolished to accomplish this.This redisigning of the city also had the effect of making paris easier to defend from insurgents and revolutionaries as cannons could now be put in place to sweep down the boulevards and demolish barricades.
1) Those quaint medieval parts were filthy. Inadecuate sewer systems meant that urine and feces would be all over the place. It is not quaint when someone shouts at you to get out because they are dumping their chamberpots through the window 2) As for defending against insurgents, this is condemnable only if you think that shooting and barricades are a proper form of conducting politics.
Napoleon 3 did not want to imitate the conquerors, he himself said he did not like war and he does not want to do like his uncle. Before talking about the History of France, you can go read a book.
@@anonymous-mi8su Napoleon III fought in two wars but only won one (the Franco-Austrian war). The French empire under his reign fought in many wars (the Crimean war, taiping rebellion, opium war, Mexican intervention) but he himself fought two of them
While the video is overall quite informative, I will say that I think you underplayed the popularity of Emperor Maximilian of Mexico quite a bit. The conservatives of Mexico were happy to have him as a monarch, as was the church, and his popularity was only boosted by his complete devotion to ruling his country, his last words being, "Viva Mexico, viva la independencia!"
Kaiser Nikolaus That's pretty much bullshit, at the time literally everyone un Mexico hated him, the conservatives thought he was too liberal when they only wanted a puppet Today there's a big part of the population who really like Maximilian (me include) but it was't the case untill the modern times
While I'll concede I'm no expert on the topic, I believe even Juarez liked the man, saying he deeply regretted that he "had" to order his death. If I'm not mistaken, it was mostly the conservative aristocracy with whom he ruled that were most disappointed in his liberalism and not so much the common religious man. Feel free to further correct me if you're certain of my being wrong here.
Kaiser Nikolaus That's not quite right, most of population in the time were illiterate, so it's hard to say if they were happy with the emperor, as most of them saw him as a invasor and didn't know about the kind of people he was, and maybe, this ignorance about the good intentions of the emperor of make Mexico a competent country may be the reason why Juarez had to kill him even if Juarez did known that Maximilian wasn't a bad guy and was only a puppet
Nah the Americans almost declared war against the Mexican and French imperials And instead gave weapons to Mexican republicans ... at the end guess who won... LOL
I don't agree with the saying of "Mexico of all places", I'm a Mexican, Mexico had a lot of advantages at the time: 1 Mexico had come from a civil war, making it more easy to conquer. 2 The church was defeated, and its property nationalized by Juarez, Napoleon did sent troops to Rome after all. 3 Many Mexican conservatives wanted a European monarch and ask Napoleon to put one. 4 Napoleon wanted to lead a Latin block or zone of influence against Anglo-Saxons, with France, Mexico and Brazil as its centerpieces. 5 The US civil war was in full swing, the Monroe doctrine couldn't be fulfilled, and France was a seriously considering to recognize the South. While I agree the campaign was a failure, and actually was the thing that brought the empire down, he also started the beginning of France's colonial empire, so yeah, he failed in some things and succed on others.
He didn't mention it but the Crimean war was his main military success, and was mostly won by France (though allied with the Ottoman empire and Britain).
MastemaJack Or at least the beginning of what later became French Indochina, after some struggles with the Vietnamese Kings. He began the colonialism that the fourth republic later expanded.
Damn, I usually think your videos are well researched but this is downright embarrassing content. He broke France out of containment enforced on it by the Holy League, and yet this is a failed foreign policy according to you? Lest you forget he vanguarded social policies for the poor, sanitized much of France, curbed Russia and Austria both, drew the lines in the sand for the coming french African empire, and made France the most powerful financial nation in Europe, to the point it was consequently able to fund the whole of Serbian and Russian industrialization. Not everything is counted in military victories. I wouldn't call him the best, but he very easily reins in the best France has had, along with Charlemagne, Louis IX, Phillipe-Auguste, Phillipe the Fair, Richelieu and his uncle. Wow yikes, what a clickbait title.
He's failed in the sense of living up to Napoleon and for bringing the downfall of his own empire in an embarrassing fashion. I already said he did a good job building France's infrastructure and economy in the video.
EmperorTigerstar Ok my bad, I did write this up a bit hurriedly about reading the title and sensing the way the video was going. Thank for you answering the criticism though, that's not many youtubers that do that!
I believe had he been a more peacetime ruler he would’ve been better remembered. But from what I’ve read about him (which I admit wasn’t much) he seems to be trying too hard to look like a military genius all the time instead of focusing more in domestic policy which was easily his strong suit
Democracy needs that the players respect each other and not try to kill them. The Second Republic had barely been founded when it had to face down a workers' insurrection that was put down with a lot of dead. Not much hope then for mutual respect and peaceful negotations.
No, Napoleon III was actually a really good emperor. He's just so misunderstood. He did so many great things but all we remember him for is the Prussian defeat.
Failed? Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte governed France from 1848 to 1870 (22 years). During this time, France was the leading nation on the European continent. I don't call this a failure...
6 лет назад
Napoleon III's regime was one of the longest during the 1815-1870 period. The Second Empire is somewhat the opposite of all the previous regimes of the period : started in an authoritarian way , then turning more liberal. In 1870 , it's the Parliament , elected by a restored yet limited universal suffrage (Residency rules) that voted the war credits
6 лет назад
And don't forget that the lack of conquest during his reign is somewhat intentional , it's important to keep in mind that LNB was a carbonari during his youth , and he pretty much embraced the national identities principle. Napoleon III is in no way like his uncle (and lasted longer , 19 years , longer than the July Monarchy (18 years) and the Consulat-1er Empire (16 years))
I guess his success only becomes apparent after a hundred years, after all his effort in beautification makes France the number one tourist destination nowadays.
Chris Gurney Napoleon III was no longer emperor at that time. He capitulated in September in an attempt to save his army, as he was no longer governing France since he went to war
Usually I like your content, but had to click dislike on this one. I can't fathom what agenda pushed you to misrepresent this leader by overblowing small things like Luxembourg instead of talking about bigger things like Crimea and Colonialism.
Got to give Napoleon III credit for doing the one thing that even the first Napoleon couldn't do at the height of his power, he legitimized Bonaparte rule in France something that in his uncle's time was unthinkable to the ancient monarchies of Europe and the justification for several wars against France.
No he didn't, the Habsburgs and the Romanovs only recognized Napoleon at gun point and were the first to betray him at the moment they smelled weakness.
He also stopped England's constant attacks on France by making friends with it. His uncle could never achieve this, and in the end the English did him in.
I think Napoleon III is underrated. He turbo failed against Austria, sure, but the infrastructural improvements he made to Frances was a big deal. He got rid of the many outdated medieval neighborhoods in Paris while also modernizing France's banking and railway systems. Things like these aren't something to look over and trivialize, as it's what made France much more stable and livable in contrast to somewhere like Russia (which was part of the reason they had a Communist revolution). You make it sound like his expansionism was a joke, but he was successful in expanding into places like Algeria and Senegal which made up for a lot of land Napoleon I had lost after the Napoleonic Wars. He was also successful in the Crimean War and his support in the reunification of Italy was influential. You could use his failures in Mexico and against Austria to paint his foreign policy as a disaster, but it was anything but that. Also, you refer to how Napoleon III censored the press which, while true, also ignores how he would relax the censorship by 1862, later on in his regime. France was prosperous under Napoleon III, and there was good reason why his government garnered the nickname the "liberal empire." People like to call Napoleon III a failure because he lost to Austria or didn't relish in the glory of Napoleon I, but let us not forget that the original Napoleon was in many ways a failure too. He failed in Russia, he failed in Waterloo, and he also lost portions of the French empire because of those losses. Why you'd call him more of a success than Napoleon III is dubious to me.
While you are indeed right about Napoleon III, you are completely unfair to Napoleon I. Napoleon, apart from a great military commander, was also a great reformer that changed France and Europe for good. It was Napoleon who founded the Legion d'honneur, the Council of the State, the lycées, the famous military academy of Saint-Cyr, the Bank of France as well as the man responsible for architectural marvels of the Arc de Triomphe, the Vendôme Column, the Madeleine Temple, as well the famous Pont d'Iena, Pont d'Austerlitz and Pont des Arts, feats whose results survive to this day in France. The Emperor was also responsible for the reorganization of France's entire legal system in the form of the famous _Napoleonic Code_ . Things like feudalism, the Holy Inquisition, privileges of the clergy and the nobility were abolished while at the same time, religious toleration, meritocracy, equality before the law, recognition of property, legalization of divorce as well as the emancipation of the Jews were introduced in the entire Continent. The man succeeded to keep the best ideas of the French Revolution and combine them with the best ideas of the Old Regime and as a result created a new era that changed the whole world completely. Yes, his military career although brilliant, ended in failure, but Napoleon's legacy remains by his code which was adopted and its basic parts still exist today in modern legal systems, in France, Germany, Greece, Austria and generally central Europe as well as Italy, Spain and parts of the United States and Canada. Lastly, the reasons he is much more remembered than Napoleon III, is his fantastic life in which he managed to rise from an insignificant artillery captain, to Emperor of the French and master of all Europe through his sheer success on the battlefield, the massive reforms he undertook and of course the fact that the entire European monarchical establishment opposed him and despite having every advantage, they struggled very hard to bring him down. That is why, he is remembered as one of the most amazing individuals to have ever lived. He was indeed a genius.
I wasn't trying to be unfair to Napoleon I so much as I tried to argue that Napoleon I wasn't any less of a "failure" than the III. Indeed Napoleon was great and deserves the reputation he earned, but I don't think we should look back at him and ignore his faults while calling a perfectly competent leader like Napoleon III a failure by comparison. As far as I'm concerned, both men were successes even if their rule ended with dramatic failures. I was mostly bothered by how he puts Napoleon I on a pedestal while acting as if Napoleon III was far worse even though they both failed at the end of their military careers. Personally, I'd argue that Napoleon I is remembered more for the impact of the Napoleonic Wars than his upbringing. While Napoleon III did influence Europe and other places in the world, I don't think it was as impactful as I. The Napoleonic wars were not only impactful to Europe but it also impacted the politics of the entire world - for example, much of the negligence Britain had shown towards the Canadian colony was a result of the Napoleonic wars. It also had profound influences in places like Morocco and Haiti as well. Napoleon III just didn't have as comparable of an impact on the world.
DrewbusDumbledouche In that case I have to agree, although, regarding as to why he is remembered, I speak about people who are mostly aware of what Napoleon was and actually did, not the people who just know he was a great commander who was eventually defeated at the battle of Waterloo. In conclusion however, you are completely right about Napoleon III and how unfairly he is really seen by historians...
This video is really prejudiced, Nap III has rekt Austria and Russia He founded Italia Improve (/creat under his reign) sociology, occupational Medicine, ... Workers has better life in France than in other country. He gets Savoy and Nice who are not cheap land He clean a sick Paris.... And he has never want start a war vs Prussia, this war was voted by parliamentarians, he was emperor but he hasn't the right to declare a war. (The same people who fled to Bordeaux at the beginning of the war, they know the French army wasn't ready and they send them to the death to remove the Empire and make a new Republic) He has a bad reputation cause he wasn't republican but he wasn't so bad.
Disliked for biased, anti-French cherry-picking. It's like saying Frederick the Great was a terrible leader for losing Silesia and East Prussia during the Seven Years' War before Peter III rescued him from destruction.
Honestly missed a chance with this video. You should have went on about his actions at Sedan, wife's reaction, and then his last words before death. Also should have went over his many attempts at modernizing the army, which his advisors completely ignored and fought against every step of the way. He was not a terrible Emperor, just a pawn to the brilliance of Bismarck. He lived a more tragic life than Heraclius.
Napoleon III: emperor for 20 years, didn't try to fight the entire world, supercharged France's economy "Failure" Napoleon I: emperor for only 10 years, tried to fight the entire world, ruined France's economy "Real Emperor" Maybe it's good that Napoleon III was a failed emperor because emperors kinda suck. I mean, he was a dictator, but he was far more interested in being a benevolent dictator than a warmonger. He wanted to rise his country up, not crush all other nations down.
He’s a real good emperor, and the fact that he modernized and industrialized both Paris and France is a great feat, he just got outplayed by a better Prussian.
When you lose a war that you didn’t want to fight at a time where you weren’t even running the country anymore nor a leader of the army and basically as powerful as an average soldier so you’re somehow a “failure”
As a mexican. I honestly wished the french and mexican conservatives had won against the republicans. Mexico would’ve been such a powerful empire with the help of french influence
Ouinn Ouinn Napoleon I installed self governing republics and kingdoms. There were representative systems with senators being elected. He spread the ideals of revolution. Sure, especially in the North, those republics were puppet states however they were in a way more free and not under Austrian dominion. Napoleon the III on the other hand always opposed the idea of a full unification of the country, preventing the conquest of papal states and therefore avoiding the government to establish a capital in Rome.
I disagree with this video. Napoleon III modernized France a lot. The bad management of the Orléans between 1830 and 1848 drove France backward and he made a great and fruitful effort to bring back France as an authentic great power. You may mock him for his little expension, but I think it was smart. Napoleon the first lost all his conquests at the end right ? He got defeated in Russia by his own hybris. Napoleon III took a similar path as what the French kings always did : take one province, make their inhabitants French patriots, then years later take another province. Expand slowly and carefully. His uncle lost all his conquests, but Napoleon III's little conquests are still French in 2018, not bad right ? If France is the largest nation in the EU, it is because during centuries each leaders just took two or three provinces. Moreover the French army did not lose in Mexico, they withdrew because Napoleon wanted the army ready in Europe in case of Prussian threat, and because the USA had started supporting the Mexican Republicans, and he wanted to keep good relations with them.
He built railways and ports which enabled france to have the second largest merchant marine, he started the industrialisation of france so that france became the 2nd largest economy in the world, expanded the colonial empire and built modern paris as we know it today. So yeah...k
I’m not falling for this. You can’t just combine the most common French king name with the most popular French general’s name and expect me to believe this is the real person
Napoléon III a failed Emperor ? Seriously ? - He make France the champion of economy. - Modernized all the country, especially in industrial way, France had a same level od industrial power than UK beside the fact France was exhausted by the Napoleonic wars. - He took a lot of colony, took Nice and Savoy. - Participate of the unification of Italy - Won colonial wars - Create the first step of the social rules of France and western country. - Be a great support for the french art. - Built the mordern Paris, so the most beautiful city in the world. But yes he lose the Franco-Prussian war, but there are reason at that. - Republican wanted to destroy the Second Empire, they used propaganda for use the french people for declare war against Prussia. Without that and with probably 10 years more of preparation, Prussia will be destroyed. - He was very sick aty this period, he canno't be a good war leader. - France was exhausted by all this european coalition this all this century, the demographic balance was a catastrophic state. Of course i don't said he was perfect, he just was not the best french leader of our history, but he was pretty good. His reputation is not good, but only for people didn't know a lot history. So like you can see, not bad for a "Failed Emperor" ;)
He never wanted to conquer and expand in a territorial nor a military fashion. One of his most famous speeches is known as the "Empire is Peace" speech, ffs. And there would be so many more corrections to be made. On a general note, this was really badly researched.
I live in Chistlehurst just outside Kent and the church I used to go to is where he was buried (they moved him back to France eventually). There's a sweet little chapel there covered in imperial Eagles with a effigy of Napoleon III. I also visit the house he lived in with his wife very frequently as it's now a golf club down the road from that church. Cheers for the video!
Napoleon III made some great social progress for France in the 1850's and 1860's ! France's industry nearly doubled, and at the same time all workers wore guaranteed a minimum wage, and a retirement pension, as well as national free healthcare ! We could do this today, but the banks are bleeding us dry !
A failed emperor is still an emperor. I'll be honest, while I tend to go unreasonably hard on Heads of State and leaders from History I kinda have a soft spot in my heart for NIII. Not entirely pity, but definitely consisting of a bit of it, I feel history has given him a bad wrap. Emphasized his failures (which certainly were not lonely amongst themselves, mind you) while down-playing other aspects of his reign. He's like a personification of how History remembered Italy in WW2. I saw "remembered" - using past-tense intentionally - because we now know better about Italy during the war, and we may very well remember NIII in a different light, too. Not as a *successful* leader, mind you, but certainly more nuanced than a failed Emperor.
Fuzzy Dunlop Actually, Napoleon 3 was objectively quite a successful leader, it s when he actually accepted to be more « democratic » that things turned bad.
Fun Fact he wasn't a Bonaparte. His mom had a Lover. Napoleon III has a different Y Haplogroup then Napoleon I. It's actually rumored he is a Tallyrand
Wilhelm I didnt try appoint his relative Leopold, Prince of Hohenzollern to the throne of Spain. After the Spanish Revolution of 1868, which overthrew Queen Isabella II, Leopold was offered the Spanish Crown by the new government
I mean, I wouldn’t say he failed at all. Napoleon was a hard act to follow, so all things considered I would say he did good as ruler of France. After all, it’s because of him that Paris became known as “the city of lights”, haha. At least, as far as I know. I could be wrong.
I earlier took you on your word about him and now revise my opinion. This guy wasn't a failed emperor at all. He expanded the French Empire, he pretty much renovated Paris, he modernised the country, restored better relations with Great Britain, and brought in other reforms too. He won two wars, but failed against the Mexicans and the Prussians. If he weren't compared to his uncle, he'd be perceived as a moderately successful emperor.
He gets points for actually leading troops into battle even in the absolutely horrendous state of health he was in. Very few leaders would actually fight alongside their soldiers at the time
Even if he wasn't successful in military affairs for sure, I wouldn't say he was a failed emperor. He put France on the path of industrial growth, stabilise the economy, began great engineering works among other things that gave a solid base for the third republic to build on.
Very good video as always, I appreciate that you took the opportunity to make this video because I feel like the 2nd French Empire isn’t covered enough in history. It just makes you think of “what If France won the Franco-Prussian war” or “what if Napoleon III was allowed to still be in power after the war” “what would France look like” it’s a time that really creates two different paths for France in my opinion
Hello Emperortigerstar, I'm interested for a moment your mapping videos but I'm bad in English (the proof, I use a translator lol). Could you put French subtitles because the subject interests me as an admirer of Napoleon III. I also want to thank you for the video on the French army, it changes the bashing ;) Have a good day. PS: Sorry if the translator made unpardonable grammar mistakes :)
Miss leading video , he did a lot for the french , perhaps not the military genius like his uncle, he knew his way around economical policies . Keep in mind , France was coming out of one civil strife after another he put it back on it's feet.
I don't think calling Napoleon III a "Failed" emperor is appropriate. What most people see as "Good" or "Competent" is a leaders' Military prowess or just in the case of a Military Leader. Napoleon III actually did a lot of things for France. Before Napoleon III was emperor, France and Paris was Medieval and barely up to the times but during his reign he significantly modernized France, In fact without Napoleon III French Modernisation would have delayed by a while (Maybe until the end of the Belle Époque), He is essentially kind of alike a "French" Peter the Great if you will, just minus a victory against Sweden and replaced with it Russia. His social reforms cannot be overstated. The Reasons why Napoleon III is given the image of "failed" is due to the loss in the Franco-Prussian war and its aftershocks. Sure, Napoleon III lost that war and overestimated his abilities sometimes, but Prussia itself was using tactics that France could not combat against. Napoleon III is not "Incompetent" or "Failed" to put it at that
Being French and a big fan of history I find it shameful that we do not learn French schoolchildren that there was a Napoleon III everyone see (for those who know him ^^) at home like a monster from the cartoons of Victore Hugo and the Franco-Prussian war. But he brought the industrialization, the moderation and the beginning of a great alliance with the United Kingdom. To tell you that it is entered in England and that nobody has asked for his return to France! Shame on the French generation of which I am a part!
The politician to give France the best domestic reforms, and the leader who made France a modern industrialized power is known as a failed emperor because he was a Bonaparte, and Napoleon had left a clean name up for grabs. Napoleon III was based on domestic reforms and growing the country in every way but territorially. Calling him a failed emperor is disgusting and untrue
While controversial, the French involvement in the Second Opium War was launched partially due to the mistreatment of religious workers (the Chinese BRUTALLY executed a French Christian missionary for simply preaching in an unapproved area). In the peace treaty, the French demanded a clause that ended nearly all religious persecution within China's borders. Aside from this stuff, Nap 3 made a genuine effort to ensure longer term peace with the British, even hosting Queen Victoria as his guest of honor in 1855. Apart from Mexico and the Prussia threat, his foreign policy was pretty darn successful.
This man actually lived in exile in my town of Southport. Some have suggested he remodeled the streets of Paris to look similar to the tree lined boulevard of Southport's Lord Street.
@@fahoodie1852 And his love for England made him put an end to the endless wars that England and France had been fighting against each other for centuries.
Although not as famous as Napoleon I, he is constantly maligned as a failure. He was in power for longer than the his namesake (1848-1870) although he involved France in 4 major wars, 2 were successes, Italy and Crimea. He did not drench blood from Lisbon to Moscow in wars trying to conquer Europe. He is responsible for much improvement in Paris, especially bringing on Baron Haussmann who cleaned out slums, straightened and widened streets, and a host of other municipal improvements. He encouraged France to build more railways, factories and industry to further the country’s industrial revolution. Mexico did not “defeat” the French on 5 May. An advance guard of 8,000 French led by an incompetent haughty general were repulsed by a strongly fortified village of Puebla held by 4,000 Mexican soldiers. Once reinforcements were received the main opposition was defeated and the capital taken. The arrogance of trying to impose an Austrian Archduke as Emperor of Mexico is a major black eye and eventually the drain on men and money led to a humiliating withdrawal. But that was one event and France acquired New Caledonia, Cochinchina and various colonies in Africa during his reign. The empire gradually became the “liberal empire” as power was whittled away from the emperor to the National Assembly. He was completely outfoxed and outfought by Bismarck who used the Franco-Prussian war to create a united Germany, but being old and in constant pain from kidney problems hampered his actions during the war. He died in exile in England from complications resulting from a operation to remove kidney stones. But Paris today is basically the Paris of Napoleon III. It is sad that only the military failures of his regime are highlighted in rapid fire, uninformed commentaries.
