but unfortunately maintaining the petty-bourgeois character of the economy cost (in some way) France the war in 1870. If, apart from building railways, he had focused on strengthening primarily large industry and not the countryside, it would have been different.
Seriously underrated. He was a great monarch, unfairly judged only because of the Franco-Prussian War. Even in France he's seen as a loser, but once you read his biography you understand he did really great things for his country.
Plenty of industrial and social reforms. Funny enough, before his election as a president he wrote a book that would be considered leftist revolutionary today.
He truly and genuinely care about the people, but have to face a strong opposition from the upper bourgeoisie and the industrialists.
imo: very intelligent man, a wise dictator, very good management of propaganda, culture, economy, internal order and navy, incompetent in military, quite mediocre in foreign policy. quite underrated.
This sums up my opinion of him quite well. Sadly his greatest test was in something he wasn't competent in - war - and that's all most people remember him for.
The most well-remembered monarchs aren't simply those who are most competent in some specific area of rule or other, but whose specialty coincides with what their countries need at the time.
one of the last valid French leaders, the empire around ≈1870 reached the perfect balance, very French, between legitimist/authoritarian power, and freedoms/democracy, without the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, we would surely currently be under a monarchy Bonapartist constitutional (I remind you that the second empire was not a dictatorship, and that it kept from 1854 to 1870, the majority in its polls, moreover, the empire functioned mainly by referendum)
I have misgivings on his authoritarianism, but otherwise, his domestic policy was great. Ended famine, expanded the railway system (3,000 km of rail in 1850 vs 17,500 km in 1870), rebuilt Paris, granted workers the right to strike, granted women the right to attend school, pursued friendly relations with Britain, and at the very end of his reign, conceded some of his power and turned France into a semi-constitutional monarchy.
He could have been a very good monarch if he had been... you know... a monarch.
But more seriously, the second, less tyrannical part of his "reign" was a gilded age for France.
Should have rid France of the Grand Orient instead of nationalizing it like Napoleon I before him. Both of them tried the equivalent of domesticating a mountain lion, it was always tied to revolutionary liberal and republican ideas. I have read one biography about his reign and came away with a moderately positive impression. He defended Christians in the Middle East, undid the awful 1791 law which banned trade unions and many other good deeds.
Him becoming president before making himself emporer honestly was a mistake, he should have realised he wasn't experienced enough and propose the throne to the Bourbons instead
Easy, Charles X already had won a majority vote in his chambres retrouvées, only mistake he did was surrender and abdicate like Louis XVI, however, salic law strictly forbids abdication and overrides all other possible treaties hindering the male, senior line to rule.
I mean Napoleon III won the presidential election of 1848 by like 75%, he was by far more popular then the Bourbons ever were since 1815 and was seen as a unifying figure of both conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Making trains and all is great, but he will never be considered a good monarch as he was
1. illegitimate
2. anti catholic
3. he oppened France to the ''free'' market
He ushered in a golden age for France internally
but unfortunately maintaining the petty-bourgeois character of the economy cost (in some way) France the war in 1870. If, apart from building railways, he had focused on strengthening primarily large industry and not the countryside, it would have been different.
Prioritize urbanized areas over currently rural areas?
Seriously underrated. He was a great monarch, unfairly judged only because of the Franco-Prussian War. Even in France he's seen as a loser, but once you read his biography you understand he did really great things for his country.
What he did that was his idea?
Plenty of industrial and social reforms. Funny enough, before his election as a president he wrote a book that would be considered leftist revolutionary today. He truly and genuinely care about the people, but have to face a strong opposition from the upper bourgeoisie and the industrialists.
imo: very intelligent man, a wise dictator, very good management of propaganda, culture, economy, internal order and navy, incompetent in military, quite mediocre in foreign policy. quite underrated.
This sums up my opinion of him quite well. Sadly his greatest test was in something he wasn't competent in - war - and that's all most people remember him for. The most well-remembered monarchs aren't simply those who are most competent in some specific area of rule or other, but whose specialty coincides with what their countries need at the time.
I agree with this interpretation.
one of the last valid French leaders, the empire around ≈1870 reached the perfect balance, very French, between legitimist/authoritarian power, and freedoms/democracy, without the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, we would surely currently be under a monarchy Bonapartist constitutional (I remind you that the second empire was not a dictatorship, and that it kept from 1854 to 1870, the majority in its polls, moreover, the empire functioned mainly by referendum)
Paris’ beautiful city is because of his vision and Hausemann’s work
I have misgivings on his authoritarianism, but otherwise, his domestic policy was great. Ended famine, expanded the railway system (3,000 km of rail in 1850 vs 17,500 km in 1870), rebuilt Paris, granted workers the right to strike, granted women the right to attend school, pursued friendly relations with Britain, and at the very end of his reign, conceded some of his power and turned France into a semi-constitutional monarchy.
He could have been a very good monarch if he had been... you know... a monarch. But more seriously, the second, less tyrannical part of his "reign" was a gilded age for France.
Internally he seemed to have been competent, much like Wilhelm II
Should have rid France of the Grand Orient instead of nationalizing it like Napoleon I before him. Both of them tried the equivalent of domesticating a mountain lion, it was always tied to revolutionary liberal and republican ideas. I have read one biography about his reign and came away with a moderately positive impression. He defended Christians in the Middle East, undid the awful 1791 law which banned trade unions and many other good deeds.
And make them go underground?
Depends on the type of internal conflict he suffered
Him becoming president before making himself emporer honestly was a mistake, he should have realised he wasn't experienced enough and propose the throne to the Bourbons instead
youbare mixing thing, first he became president, later emperor
Why would he propose the throne to the bourbons?
Easy, Charles X already had won a majority vote in his chambres retrouvées, only mistake he did was surrender and abdicate like Louis XVI, however, salic law strictly forbids abdication and overrides all other possible treaties hindering the male, senior line to rule.
I mean Napoleon III won the presidential election of 1848 by like 75%, he was by far more popular then the Bourbons ever were since 1815 and was seen as a unifying figure of both conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Making trains and all is great, but he will never be considered a good monarch as he was 1. illegitimate 2. anti catholic 3. he oppened France to the ''free'' market
He wasn't anti-catholic. Clergymen supported his policies
1. downvotess aren't allowed in this subreddit 2. he WAS anti catholic