In a way he could be seen like Charles de Gaulle. Sure, he didn't create a vast empire, but many of his greatest accomplishments laid the groundwork for France to survive as an independent and self-confident nation today. The renovation of Paris alone is a huge factor in making France the most visited country on earth, and the French still have an inordinate degree of soft power because of it.
It's interesting how similar Napoleon III was to a fellow emperor of the time, Dom Pedro II of Brazil. Both men were rather idealistic and energetic and came to ignominious depositions after they both began to lack the energy to rule as they used to. Napoleon III with his illness and awareness of how bad a situation France was in and Dom Pedro with the loss of his sons and belief the Brazilian Monarchy was a doomed project.
What an excellent summation. Napoleon III's reign could very well have its own series given just how eventful and varied it was. Spanning multiple continents, major wars, etc. I agree with AM in that he is quite an inconsistent figure. A man with lofty ambitions but one who had a hard time actualizing them. Bismark is quite the juxtaposition.
The irony is that while he thought he was continuing the first Napoleon's task, in fact he did the opposite of his uncle, for the benefit of France. You read Alan Schon's book you realize what a nasty destructive man the first Napoleon was who continuing bled France of men and resouces, while looting the conquered lands just to pay for his endless wars, while Napoleon III all of he cared was to make France a better, richer, more just country. While Napoleon ran away from losing battles, abandoing the army to its own devices, Napoleon III gave himself up to save the lives of his soldiers. While Napoleon was famous for his ingratitude to those who helped and served him, Napoleon III was grateful. While Napoleon made women powerless, Napoleon III he educated them and opened to them the doors of the Sorbonne. Too bad that Napoleon III could not see throught the Napoleonic legend and be his own man.
Have you read Andrew Robert's book yet? Much newer information provided than Alan's book written two decades ago. The wars Napoleon fought was mostly declared against him and France.
First and I am glad to have caught the stream. His story is sad in that although I would prefer a Monarchy, the Catholic support for him could have been used for some good and instead he failed. That being noted apparently his Mexican adventure was in line with his liberalism. Anyway wonderful stream Your Apostolic Majesty!
Napoleon III n'est pas un "petit empereur". C'est lui qui a modernisé la France : Il a créé les premières banques (CIC, Crédit Foncier, Société générale...). Le réseau de voies ferrées est passé de 3 000,00 à 23 500,00 km (la moitié du réseau actuel). Il a agrandi Paris (Belleville, Montmartre) et refait la ville (grands boulevards, parcs) et traité le problème de l'insalubrité (égoûts). Création du réseau d'eau potable. Les premières caisse de retraites françaises datent de son époque. Développement du commerce extérieur. La croissance économique s'est envolée. Les échanges commerciaux internationaux se sont développés. Il a aussi fait construire les premiers logements sociaux. Il a fait gagner Nice et la Savoie au pays. C'est grâce (entre autre) a cette croissance économique que la France a pu payer les 5 milliards de francs or à la Prusse (Bismark a été bluffé) Il avait, par contre un côté "aventurier" (Mexique, Crimée, Italie). Il semblait très limité au niveau diplômatique (pas d' alliances militaires) Il porte aussi (pas que lui), une responsabilité dans la déclaration de guerre à la Prusse.
Thank you for making and posting this. I came here to get away from the recent BBC documentary about Napoleon I, which is full of revisionist history and fanboy praise for that murderous tyrant. His nephew is a lot more fun.
1:05:44 The Thai bowing thing is a nowadays antiquated Thai custom when in the presence of a ruler, not necessarily one of vassalage to a foreign power.
have you been to St Mary's Church, Chislehurst? the Emperor was buried there as was the Prince Imperial (their bodies since moved by the Empress). they also offer the Traditional Latin Mass at 11am on a Sunday
I think that Napoleon 3 together with the French Elites that supported him saw Napoleons biggest mistake that he fought the British & wanted to be a Junior Partner to the Empire He came into Power when GB was the absolute Nr.1 You said it yourself that he antagonized every other Power in Europe & had a totally incoherent Foreign Policy & let's not forget the decision to impose a Free Trade policy that was highly unpopular in France at the time but was something that was pushed by GB The Suez Canal was also more in GBs interest then that of France I see him as somebody who wanted to please the British so much so that they would make no trouble for his West Africa Empire just like today Europe is destroying it's Economy in the Proxy War with Russia for the US This doesn't mean that there was no friction between France & the UK but all in all this was Napoleon 3 Foreign Policy Strategy imo
French West Africa was not really important at the time. And Napoleon III's continental policy wasn't unjustified. A legitimist Europe was always going to be suspicious of France, so he exploited every occasion to destabilize it. In doing so however, he neglected the internal dissensions between the opposing regimes even though they appeared quite early in his reign, for example when Austria turned against Russia in the Crimean War.
A much under-rated figure. Played a crucial role in the unification of Italy, but was unpopular in Italy later on for putting a French garrison in Rome to defend Rome from the Kingdom of Italy. Made a major blunder in entering the Franco-Prussian War, though the Assembly shares responsibility for the defeat by refusing to vote needed funds for the army. The failure to commandeer the railways like Prussia did slowed down the mobilisation in the war. Also a bungled intervention in Mexico. Rebuilt Paris,
When it comes to biographies I would recomend Éric Anceau, Pierre Milza and Louis Girard ( although Girard's work is very good it is a bit old and as such Éric Anceau's biography is probably the best pick.) When it comes to the second empire itself i would recommend Éric Anceau : La France de 1848 à 1870. Entre ordre et mouvement and if you are to read historical documents in french ( for research or otherwise) ( if you can ), then Jean Tullard's dictionnary of the second empire is very thorough. Unfortunately i can not garantee that all these books were translated in english.
It may be better and honest if you titled your interpretations of history "in my opinion opinion" after all the magna carta is only a load of scribbles on the skin of a calf. Whereas the neopeleonanic code is alive well and operarable. In my opinion. After all History is only the opinion of the Historian. Take the rest of it to the betting office office.
I only watched for 60 mins but its clear that the presenter is biased on his views on Napoleon and instead of presenting a clear and real picture its some speech by a fanboy sad.
I'm not a Bonapartist. if you watched the entire video you would see how scathing I was of Napoleon's foreign policy. Do not denigrate my work if you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing.
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
In a way he could be seen like Charles de Gaulle. Sure, he didn't create a vast empire, but many of his greatest accomplishments laid the groundwork for France to survive as an independent and self-confident nation today. The renovation of Paris alone is a huge factor in making France the most visited country on earth, and the French still have an inordinate degree of soft power because of it.
It is a shame how Napoleon III's reign ended. He, in my opinion, deserved a better ending.
I feel more bad for napoleon I than iii.
It's interesting how similar Napoleon III was to a fellow emperor of the time, Dom Pedro II of Brazil. Both men were rather idealistic and energetic and came to ignominious depositions after they both began to lack the energy to rule as they used to. Napoleon III with his illness and awareness of how bad a situation France was in and Dom Pedro with the loss of his sons and belief the Brazilian Monarchy was a doomed project.
What an excellent summation. Napoleon III's reign could very well have its own series given just how eventful and varied it was. Spanning multiple continents, major wars, etc.
I agree with AM in that he is quite an inconsistent figure. A man with lofty ambitions but one who had a hard time actualizing them. Bismark is quite the juxtaposition.
The return of the king! Napoleon Trois is not a figure from continental history I'm very familiar with, so I'm glad to learn more.
Glad to have you back, AM!
Cheers & God Bless, brother.
The irony is that while he thought he was continuing the first Napoleon's task, in fact he did the opposite of his uncle, for the benefit of France. You read Alan Schon's book you realize what a nasty destructive man the first Napoleon was who continuing bled France of men and resouces, while looting the conquered lands just to pay for his endless wars, while Napoleon III all of he cared was to make France a better, richer, more just country. While Napoleon ran away from losing battles, abandoing the army to its own devices, Napoleon III gave himself up to save the lives of his soldiers. While Napoleon was famous for his ingratitude to those who helped and served him, Napoleon III was grateful. While Napoleon made women powerless, Napoleon III he educated them and opened to them the doors of the Sorbonne. Too bad that Napoleon III could not see throught the Napoleonic legend and be his own man.
Can I ask what book you referring to?
@@jorgepuente7541 Napoleon, a Life by Alan Strauss Schon.
@jorgepuente7541 also consider Napoleon the Great by Andrew Robert's and Napoleon by Adam Zamoyski
Have you read Andrew Robert's book yet? Much newer information provided than Alan's book written two decades ago. The wars Napoleon fought was mostly declared against him and France.
@@HistoryandWhiskey Thanks. I will be reading those twoo.
Welcome back sir, your review of 37 days was excellent, and as always, i'm looking forward to the stream, cheers.
First and I am glad to have caught the stream. His story is sad in that although I would prefer a Monarchy, the Catholic support for him could have been used for some good and instead he failed. That being noted apparently his Mexican adventure was in line with his liberalism. Anyway wonderful stream Your Apostolic Majesty!
Hello, Majesty.
Note about the Mexican adventure: Maximilian tried to protect Indian poblations from having their land taken by "progressive" politicians.
Napoleon III n'est pas un "petit empereur".
C'est lui qui a modernisé la France :
Il a créé les premières banques (CIC, Crédit Foncier, Société générale...).
Le réseau de voies ferrées est passé de 3 000,00 à 23 500,00 km (la moitié du réseau actuel).
Il a agrandi Paris (Belleville, Montmartre) et refait la ville (grands boulevards, parcs) et traité
le problème de l'insalubrité (égoûts).
Création du réseau d'eau potable.
Les premières caisse de retraites françaises datent de son époque.
Développement du commerce extérieur.
La croissance économique s'est envolée.
Les échanges commerciaux internationaux se sont développés.
Il a aussi fait construire les premiers logements sociaux.
Il a fait gagner Nice et la Savoie au pays.
C'est grâce (entre autre) a cette croissance économique que la France a pu payer les 5 milliards de francs or à
la Prusse (Bismark a été bluffé)
Il avait, par contre un côté "aventurier" (Mexique, Crimée, Italie).
Il semblait très limité au niveau diplômatique (pas d' alliances militaires)
Il porte aussi (pas que lui), une responsabilité dans la déclaration de guerre à la Prusse.
Amen, vive l’empereur!
The Mexican emperor you were thinking of was Agustin de Iturbide
In that period, it was referring to Maximilian I of Mexico where he briefly met with Napoleon the Third.
"I fought Napoleon. The REAL one, not this present fellow!" -King Wilhelm I of Prussia from 'The English Princess' episode from "The Fall of Eagles"
Wilhelm was cold lol
Thank you for making and posting this. I came here to get away from the recent BBC documentary about Napoleon I, which is full of revisionist history and fanboy praise for that murderous tyrant. His nephew is a lot more fun.
1:05:44 The Thai bowing thing is a nowadays antiquated Thai custom when in the presence of a ruler, not necessarily one of vassalage to a foreign power.
have you been to St Mary's Church, Chislehurst? the Emperor was buried there as was the Prince Imperial (their bodies since moved by the Empress). they also offer the Traditional Latin Mass at 11am on a Sunday
Incredible work
I think that Napoleon 3 together with the French Elites that supported him saw Napoleons biggest mistake that he fought the British & wanted to be a Junior Partner to the Empire He came into Power when GB was the absolute Nr.1 You said it yourself that he antagonized every other Power in Europe & had a totally incoherent Foreign Policy & let's not forget the decision to impose a Free Trade policy that was highly unpopular in France at the time but was something that was pushed by GB The Suez Canal was also more in GBs interest then that of France I see him as somebody who wanted to please the British so much so that they would make no trouble for his West Africa Empire just like today Europe is destroying it's Economy in the Proxy War with Russia for the US This doesn't mean that there was no friction between France & the UK but all in all this was Napoleon 3 Foreign Policy Strategy imo
French West Africa was not really important at the time. And Napoleon III's continental policy wasn't unjustified.
A legitimist Europe was always going to be suspicious of France, so he exploited every occasion to destabilize it. In doing so however, he neglected the internal dissensions between the opposing regimes even though they appeared quite early in his reign, for example when Austria turned against Russia in the Crimean War.
Welcome back AM.
The subtle disrespect to Napoleon is too much
Just an amazing stream good sir. Thank you
My favourite caesar
Thank you altissimus really excellent. Im looking forward to your analysis of the British 1914 next.
A much under-rated figure. Played a crucial role in the unification of Italy, but was unpopular in Italy later on for putting a French garrison in Rome to defend Rome from the Kingdom of Italy. Made a major blunder in entering the Franco-Prussian War, though the Assembly shares responsibility for the defeat by refusing to vote needed funds for the army. The failure to commandeer the railways like Prussia did slowed down the mobilisation in the war. Also a bungled intervention in Mexico. Rebuilt Paris,
This is fantastic
Do you have any recommendations for further reading on the subject?
When it comes to biographies I would recomend Éric Anceau, Pierre Milza and Louis Girard ( although Girard's work is very good it is a bit old and as such Éric Anceau's biography is probably the best pick.) When it comes to the second empire itself i would recommend Éric Anceau : La France de 1848 à 1870. Entre ordre et mouvement and if you are to read historical documents in french ( for research or otherwise) ( if you can ), then Jean Tullard's dictionnary of the second empire is very thorough. Unfortunately i can not garantee that all these books were translated in english.
He's just like me fr fr
Great presentation. Happy St Paddy's Day! ☘️ Peace ✌🏻
“A man who believes”
Well there’s your problem.
..."a dead man's clothes soon wear thin."...
Very cool, thanks
anyone sporting moustaches like his has Got!! to have something going !!
1:06:00
It may be better and honest if you titled your interpretations of history "in my opinion opinion" after all the magna carta is only a load of scribbles on the skin of a calf. Whereas the neopeleonanic code is alive well and operarable. In my opinion. After all History is only the opinion of the
Historian. Take the rest of it to the betting office office.
+1
Very one-sided.
I only watched for 60 mins but its clear that the presenter is biased on his views on Napoleon and instead of presenting a clear and real picture its some speech by a fanboy sad.
I'm not a Bonapartist. if you watched the entire video you would see how scathing I was of Napoleon's foreign policy. Do not denigrate my work if you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing.
NAPOLEON wannabe version ! LAMO...😂😂😂🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷