Author: Grop (---.gaoland.net)
Date: 02-09-2005 06:23
Hello,
I can't resist making a few remarks on the Second Empire (as we call it in France).
First, Napoleon III is not the character we mention the most often, because of some unfair prejudices. They are due to the fact that our education system was founded during the Third Republic. As I mentionned in an earlier post, they introduced many biases in our education. You know how historians like to judge dead people, right ?
Napoleon is the man who lost Alsace and Lorraine when the Third Republic was founded : this would be enough, if republicans didn't find it natural to be hostile to the idea of empire. Plus, Victor Hugo was hostile to him, which did not help.
Today, some modern historians tend to show that the leaders who were most depized at this time (Louis XV or Henri III for instance) were not that bad, and they can give us a much better opinion of them.
You didn't mention Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte was elected President of the Republic by universal suffrage (excluding women, actually) in 1848 : He is our first president. When he made his coup d'état in 1851, he consulted the people by referendum (a yes or no vote) before proclaiming the constitution that made him a dictator.
Therefore he was a dictator, but a very popular dictator who had this little justification of a referendum.
His uncle Napoleon organised a vote too, which was much more questionnable, actually.
He is not famous for the riots he had to calm down; Les Misérables occurs around 1830, during the Resauration (of Monarchy). He certainly followed some goofy policies, and sent many soldiers to pointless wars, causing many useless deaths, in Crimea and Mexico, for instance. But that's how all these leaders were at this time. They had to make a few wars to stay popular and feel imperial, or royal, or whatever. I think the Second Empire was not a bad period, anyway. The people of Prussia and Brandenburg had good reasons to be jealous :)
Concerning the question : why Napoleon III after Napoleon I ? You gave a good answer. There was an important precedent as we have a Louis XVI and a Louis XVIII : Louis XVI had a son named Louis who was murdered *after* the execution of Louis XVI in 1792. According to the monarchists, this unknown character was Louis XVII until his death.
Well, I will add a few things on Prussian-French relations :
- The refusal of a strong alliance between Spain and Germany had strong precedents too : from the time of Carolus Quint when Austria and Spain had possessions all around France (including Belgium, Milan and the right to send troops through Germany) it took decades of a determined policy of several kings of France to get rid of this threat. Refusing this was so important as the traditionnal refusal by the UK of a hostile force in Belgium.
- Alsace and Lorraine represented the wealthiest and most crowded area in France after Paris. They were the place where most coal and steel were produced : after 1870 France had to import its steel, from where except Germany ? Apart from moral/historical justifications, taking it back was vital.
- The emperor was captured after only six weeks of fighting. The Republic fought for the rest of the war. This did not help to improve his reputation, especially with the uncle he had.
- Except for your fancy technological setting, I doubt the Prussian victories are due to better guns or such innovations. They defeated Austria and France because they had way more soldiers, better prepared, with more competent officers. Having shotguns instead of Muskets only helped a little. In my opinion their victories are due to superiority of organisation rather than technology. I understand this has little to do with steampunk spirit.
Oh, and concerning the idea of couragous french soldiers dying in 1914, I guess the regulars who killed every fleeing conscript helped a lot :)
Grop
|
|
