Did you ever hear the tragedy of Louis Napoleon III? I thought not, it's not a tale the Germans would tell you. It's a French legend. Louis Napoleon was the emperor of the Second French Empire. He was so wise and powerful that he could influence the French workers to create infrastructure. He had such knowledge of public works programs, he even restructured the entire city of Paris.
He actually reorganized the entire city of Paris?
Being an authoritarian emperor is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.
What happened to him?
The Second French Empire became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was German unification, which eventually, of course, happened. He got himself into war with Prussian Statesman Otto von Bismarck, and went into exile after his defeat. Ironic. Despite being related to one of the greatest military commanders in history, he himself was tacitly abysmal.
Samuel Taylor
Well meme'd op
Christopher Cooper
hannibal would have beat OTTO VON FAGGOT
Dylan Cook
>German unification happened >Austria still existing >Switzerland still existing
Aiden Nguyen
...
Jason Perez
...
Kayden Stewart
Was he really the bumbling idiot he's portrayed as? I feel kinda bad for him
Owen Thompson
This is seriously pathetic man, go away.
Ayden White
In terms of domestic policy he was pretty great. As mention in the original post his infastruxture plans for France were pretty fantastic. Under his rule, railroads were built, Paris was renovated, and famines were eliminated through Modern Agriculture Reform, not he mention the fact that he strongly promoted the building of the Suez Canal.
Foreign Policy is a different story though. While he did have some success in the Crimean War, Italian Unification Wars, and Indochina, he had some pretty costly defeats. His attempt to establish the Mexican empire was a total fuck up and the Franco-Prussian War was a shit show. The mobilization was fucking disasterous and his troops were slaugtered by the prussians.
Overall I think he was pretty great guy, but most historians will remember him for his fuck ups.
Blake Wood
shut up
Austin Anderson
>46,000 Classical era soldiers with swords and spears and some fucking elephants vs a max mobilization of 700,000 men with rifles and artillery >sure user
Joshua Lopez
im not talking about army vs army
im talking about strategy, tactics, etc
like if hannibal and otto have the same army and i say that hannibal would beat him
it was just a bait reply to get some (You) s
Zachary Powell
That's the thing though, certain tactics and strategies become obsolete with advent of new technology. Like having a shield wall isn't very effective if the enemy has a machine gun, or something to that degree. Hannibal was a phenominal Classical general, but I don't know if I'd want him to lead a modern army.
Cooper Wood
>Despite being related to one of the greatest military commanders in history He wasn't related.
Aaron Baker
He was his Napoleons Nephew
Jack Brown
He wasn't.
>Professor Lucotte tested the Y-DNA of Napoleon I, Napoleon III and their descendants, and was able to confirm that Napoleon III was not the biological nephew of the first Emperor of the French. While Napoleon I belonged to haplogroup E-M34, Napoleon III, the presumed son of Louis Bonaparte and Hortense de Beauharnais, belonged to haplogroup I2a2a-CTS6433 based on the Y-DNA test of a descendant. It has been hypothetised that Napoleon III was the son of Count Charles de Flahaut, who was Hortense's lover and had an illegitimate son (the Duke of Morny) with her three years after Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's birth. In that case, Napoleon III would be the grandson of Prince Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord. Another possibility is that Napoleon III was fathered by Carel Hendrik Verhuell
Ryan Sanders
Oh
Lincoln Johnson
>Talleyrand
This son of a bitch...
Nathaniel Edwards
because letting germany unify is unironically about the biggest disaster in French foreign policy since 1815 although, to be fair, the French have had a lot of disasters in foreign policy.... Its hard to paint a positive portrait of him with that sort of shadow hanging over him
Wyatt Myers
You tards are comparing a classical era general with a victorian era statesman. Bismarck may be associated with prussian military might, and the most famous pictures of him have him wearing a uniform, but he never commanded any armies in battle. The closest he came to military matters was instigating the wars.
Robert Morris
>Nappy the Revengeance >wise
Juan Hernandez
Would have been a different deal if the legislative branch didn't block or eviscerate each of his attempts to enlarge and modernize the French army. He is not to blame for losing the Franco-Prussian war.
Justin Bennett
Hannibal in the 19th century: >what are "railroads" >what is a "general staff"
...and so forth. Hannibal spent a lifetime learning how to fight a certain way: you can't expect someone to pick up on these things in a short while.
Sebastian Flores
That's bs, you can't really keep them from unifying. Especially after the buttrape of 1806
Robert Morgan
A) Not true, the South German states were opposed to being united with Prussia up until the French declaration of war, and Prussia could have been contained in the previous decade. German nationalism was developing in force, but regionalism still existed (and did much to provide for the problems of the IInd Reich), and the survival of a disunited Germany in some way wasn't impossible. Especially since many places were already unhappy about their inclusion in Prussia, such as the Rhineland, and there was intense opposition to Prussia in Frankfurt when they took it. B) Even if it was inevitable, whatever French government saw that happen under their watch is inevitably going to be blamed for it. Unification of Germany can come in many different ways : as it stood historically, Germany uniting as an anti-French European hegemony which had taken some of France's most important and vital territory is about the worst resolution that can be foreseen for France. Napoleon III is rightfully to blame for that.
Jaxon Bennett
>Overall I think he was pretty great guy, but most historians will remember him for his fuck ups.
Not really, most serious Historians have always seen him for the capable administrator and statesman he was and recognize that his accomplishments outweigh his shortcomings. Only proto-memelord politicians of the third Republic tarnished his memory to serve their interests, so did popular "historians", the kind of which would have been running youtube channels if that existed at the time. Have a 1970s biography of the emperor drawing on several older historical sources, which as far as I can tell were not critical of the Emperor. However, I also have some schoolbooks and childrens books from the 1880s and 1890s who shit on him because of "MUH SEDAN" and paint him as a dodo. And finally you have contemporary books like Eugène Rougon by Zola, whose friends were actually often invited by the Emperor, so you could consider he delivers a second hand account, and for all the criticism of the system as a whole you can find in his other works, this book portrays the Emperor for what he is, aka a master class politician capable of playing the career politicians against each other to stay in power and keep order and peace while pushing his own social and economic agenda.
Jayden Jones
None of your post proves Napoleon III was anything but a walking military blunder but you sure do love to use memes while arguing.
Andrew Campbell
That was my first post in this thread.
Austin Wilson
Since you have clarified what you meant to compare, don't you mean to compare Hannibal and Moltke? Bismark was indeed Chancellor and forced France to declare war through political maneuvering, but he was not the Chief of General Staff. If you want to compare strategy and tactics, Moltke is the man you should be comparing.
Bentley Collins
NAPOLEONISTS BTFO
Austin Cooper
Austria didn't exist when Germany formed. it was Austria-Hungary at that point
