Believe it or not, I have seen the photo you posted before. I don't recall where, but that is not the first time I've seen it. As to a photo of Metternich, I have seen a few paintings, but no photos that I can recall.
Glad to hear you are doing well. Gotta admit that I got a little worried there for a bit about your health. I mean, YOU posting a photo of Napoleon III?
Now THAT had me worried!! Well, glad to see you are back to form and we shall not speak of - ahem - Mr. Napoleon III again. Bad taste - don't ya know.
Of course I know about Napoleon III. He had a good sense of style and Paris would not be the city it is without him. Unfortunately he was quite shit at war and Prussians drubbed him badly despite the French having better rifles.
To a degree the Franco Prussian War set up WWI because the French were eager to 'correct' the outcome
Yes he did some good stuff but like Napoleon I seized power as emperor. I seem to remember he led his troops in the Italian war of independence and made a hash of it but I could be misremembering. Certainly didn't have the military expertise of his uncle.
I'm interested in France in 1800's as part of my family was involved in the Liberation Wars (as Germany called the Napoleonic Wars) and I think one of them was part of the occupation army after Waterloo though I have no proof of that other than a silver spoon inscribed Paris 1815.
In fact Napoleon III was for the right of the people to dispose of themselves and yes he helped to the unification of Italy, in reward he took the city of Nice. Napoleon III from the point of view of the internal politics was an excellent sovereign but on the geopolitical level he had very good ideas but in his excecutions it was a catastrophe.
Oh it is very interesting what you tell me about your ancestors, I would like to learn more
I suppose that you are German?
Well first of all I am a history lover and I am French so that's where my passion comes from lol
Well my family is of Prussian descent. Not German because my forebear had to leave very quickly after the 1848 revolutions and the Kaiser's apology to the dead in Berlin. He was off digging for gold in Australia before the Franco Prussian war and hence before there was a German state.
I don't know much family history in the early 1800's except for the tease of a silver spoon dated Paris 1815. That ancestor was an aide de camp to Blucher so I think it is probable he was part of the occupation army of Paris but that is simply a guess. There is finally a book on the occupation so I am hoping to get a hold of a copy and find out something there.
If you are French and a lover of history you should have great affection for Napoleon III! Should never have let himself be suckered in by Bismark though.
The late 1800's - 1850 on - is in my view where our modern world comes from. So the prime politicians Napoleon III, Bismark etc need to be studied.
I hate Blücher 🤣, for the anecdotes there were at the beginning of the power of Napoleon German states that had asked themselves to be attached to France.
To be honest Bismarck was a genius, but the war of 1870 had terrible consequences, not only for France but also for the whole of Europe
You are perfectly entitled to hate Blucher but what were the anecdotes? He was a great one for making bar maids sit his lap but I think you more serious stuff in mind.
I think it is important to remember Germany wasn't a state till after 1870. The Holy Roman Empire had pretty weak authority so German statelets could act independently. As I remember it the rhineland was quite pro Napoleon and Saxony fought on the French side at Leipzig.
I am very interested in what you see as the consequences of Franco-Prussian war. The first with breech loading rifles on both sides and breech loading cannons on the Prussian side. Sort of the begining of industrial war to a degree. The Prussian needle gun was already obsolete after it had won the Austro Prussian in 1866. The french chassepot gun much better. So already a technical arms race.
Sometimes I ponder what might have happened if the German people had unified earlier or the Holy Roman Empire had been stronger. It was sort of a bad time to unify in 1871 as Germany was industrializing and was feeling left out in the colonial race etc.
Do you know Voltaire's joke about the Holy Roman Empire? "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".
International relations are complicated and cannot be summed up in a simple division as simple as saying that on one side there is a bad guy and on the other side a good guy, because each state defends its own interests and acts accordingly. However I tend to think that during the Napoleonic wars, the countries of Europe had the wrong enemy, the real enemy was the United Kingdom lol. Of course Napoleon's France was only defending its interests too.
For the war of 1870 I speak especially about its geopolitical consequences, with the unification of Germany and the loss of Alsace Lorraine for France it happened two things, a desire of revenge important in the French, and especially by unifying, Germany became very powerful and that encouraged it to have geopolitical ambitions especially at the maritime level, the United Kingdom could not accept that, and it was on that was going to finish by a war, of or the first world war and consequently the second.
I had forgotten Voltaire's crack - thanks for reminding me, it is very funny and beautifully sarcastic.
I'd agree with your summation of the consequences of 1870 leading to WW1 and WW2. I have read though Germany had lost the naval competition to the UK long before WW1. The Dreadnought was something of an own goal by the British as it was so revolutionary it made the rest of it's fleet obsolete and gave other countries (such as Germany) a window of opportunity to level up.
But yes there were a lot of British fears re Germany. After the fall of USSR, Margret Thatcher was very opposed to German reunification and allegedly carried a map in her handbag to prove her points. So that fear continued for a while.
I am firmly in the Anglosphere so I am not going to agree that the UK was Europe's real enemy but I am interested in that view.
Well I think the mistake of Europe was to believe that the threatening power was France, while for me it was the United Kingdom. Here is what Napoleon said
"It is indeed, says the Emperor to me, for the most dear interests of Europe that I fight now and that I ask so many sacrifices from France. I have the foresight of a wise politician, while the other sovereigns have only the blindness of fear, and a fear without foundation. They seem to fear only the power of France, whereas this France alone can defend the commercial liberties of Europe. Europe does not see its real dangers: she is attentive only to the embarrassmen imposed on her by maritime warfare; one would say that all the politics of this poor Europe, that all its interests are in the price of a barrel of sugar. It's pity.
However, that's where we are. We cry only against France, we only want to see her armies, as if England were not everywhere equally and much more threatening. Are not Heligoland, Gibraltar, Tarifa, Malta, English citadels which threaten the commerce of all the powers more than Danzig threatens Russia? However, if I let Europe have its way, it would give itself up to England. Tomorrow she would give him Corfu, Madeira, as she already has the Cape. However, from the rocks of Malta, England already dominates Turkey, hence the Black Sea and Russia. In Gibraltar, it holds the door to the Mediterranean. If she managed to seize Corfu, she would have one foot in the Greece and would be mistress of the gulf. This position is obvious, and yet Austria does not want, any more than Russia, to see the dangers which threaten it.
The jealousy of France is stronger than reason; we don't want to have any foresight. Without me, the cabinets of Europe would, tomorrow, recognize in England the supremacy she would like. When all the guarantees of trade will be submitted to the good pleasure of the cabinet of London, when we will be reduced to eating only the sugar of its merchants, to wearing only the stockings, which the fabrics of its factories, Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin will see the English mon opoly. Until then we will close our eyes, so as not to agree that it is the interests of all that I defend. This is obvious to people in good faith, but who is in good faith? The politics, the blindness of Europe are pitiful."
Interesting viewpoint and defend-able. Empires were/are trade blocks. Thanks for posting that. I had never seen before.
Of course Europe then was a collection of assorted aristocrats that were possibly more concerned for their privileges and status than the trade despotism of Britain. Plus the French Revolution scared the hell out of them.
I do have reservations on Napoleon being entirely benign in wanting to liberate Europe. The point of an Empire is to have an empire after all. But I have never considered it from this view of Napoleon before. Interesting.
Napoleon's view obviously lead to the continental system and eventually re-emerged as the common market.
I would love to visit Australia, but you have the most dangerous animals on this planet and that scares me 🤣
Well yes you are right, Napoleon is lying when he says he was fighting for the defense of all of Europe, however the rest of the argument is valid. The other European countries only focus on the imperialism of France while the UK was doing exactly the same and in some ways even more imperialistic than France , because as Napoleon says , just look at all the English possessions overseas. Add to this a dependence of Europe on English products, which looked like a kind of subjection of the European economy.
Of course the English were only defending their interests and in this sense there is nothing to blame them for. However history tends to consider France as the villain of history and England as the liberator of the continent, while the reality was largely different
Well you have convinced me that I need to read more on the Napoleonic period from the French and other views. English is my only language so everything I have read/listened to has been in English. I can see now from our discussions there are inherent biases in what I have read.
I am also interested in the Carolingian and Capet periods but I find it a little hard to get a good sense of it. In part because it is so long ago but also in terms of geography and culture. It is a lot easier for me to relate to Alfred the Great for example. I quite like historical fiction because if done well it brings to life the times it is set in.
If you can suggest any readings I'd appreciate.
It is true that Britain was in the early phases of the industrial revolution and beginning to dump products with disastrous consequences for some sections. (Not that Britain wasn't doing that to it's own people). For example making scissors was a skilled artisan job until Britain started pumping out not very good but vastly cheaper scissors.
As you have said people and countries can only be expected to act in their own interests. That is not inherently evil though the consequences can be i. e. people starving to death because of the collapse of their economic sector as Silesian flax workers did a little later in time.
Anyway, whilst Australian has some dangerous animals and insects it is pretty safe in reality so long as you don't do something silly like taking a swim in an area where there are crocodiles. I wouldn't go swimming at isolated beaches north of Rockhampton because there are crocodiles, box jellyfish and sea snakes. Best to be part of a tour in the tropical north.
Yes haha anyway, Australia is a country I would love to visit, I'm sure it's a beautiful country.
Well it's normal that you have biased readings, in fact again I'm not criticizing the English on this subject, they were defending their interests and they were right to do so, just like France did. Only representing Napoleon's France as the bad guy is simply not true, and the UK was in some ways much more imperialist than France.
Well I would have a book to recommend to you, but unfortunately I don't think they are available in English and I don't really know of an English book that would deal with this subject.
In short, the Napoleonic period must be understood as the continuation and the last part of what historians call "the second Hundred Years War".
Hadn't heard the term second hundred years war before though I was quite aware of the wars after the Glorious Revolution 1688. Was the English rejection of Stuart absolutism any influence on France? Oliver Cromwell's complete hack of governing the Commonwealth at least led to theoretical politics such as by Locke which was of some use to the Americans and Oliver was a useful bad example to them.
Sort of funny Oliver Cromwell's head was only relatively recently secretly interred 300 years after being posthumously beheaded by Charles II.
England and France fought several wars in the period from Louis XIV to Napoleon, this period is often called by historians the "Second Hundred Years War".
During this very long period the two countries fought for commercial, maritime and colonial domination, in short for "world domination".
This struggle ended in 1815 with the definitive victory of the United Kingdom, from that date on the domination of the world became English and it kept this domination throughout the 19th century and even a little more until the beginning of the 20th century.
Never heard of him. Like most people when I hear the name Napoleon I think of the famous one. Given it hadn't been that long since the napoleonic wars I wonder what the British thought of the Queen posing with his namesake.
Believe it or not, but Napoleon III tried to establish very good relations with the United Kingdom, and Queen Victoria appreciated it. You can consider this period as a cordial agreement before time
Love that picture, and other pictures/first person accounts like that.
I have heard of Napolean lll and he is incredibly interesting. France was having a crazy time in the 1800's and it's crazy how many regime changes they went through in that stretch of time.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
