Sometimes you get unlucky, you get into a battle against Alexander the great or Napoleon Bonaparte. Sometimes you get into a business war against Rockerfeller, sometimes you have to enter a debate against Churchill. And sometimes, you get forced into 19th century politics, against Bismark
@Otto Von Bismarck If any leader attempts to declare themselves emperor of this country, they'd better have made peace with their god. Death will follow not long after.
'Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Napoleon the third? I thought not. It's not a story the Prussians would tell you. It's a French legend. Napoleon was an emperor of the French, so powerful and so wise he could use military force to influence the ottomans to win in Crimea... He had such a knowledge of war that he could even keep the ones he cared about from losing. The influence over Europe is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught the Prussians everything he knew, then the Prussians destroyed his empire in his sleep. It's ironic he could save others from losing, but not himself.'
If Napoleon III focused on being mostly a peaceful domestic ruler, I’m sure he’d be more fondly remembered, as he was indeed very good at handling domestic issues during peacetime.
Well, at least two of his military campaigns were very successful and benefitted France long run, the Italian War of Unification (France received the city of Nice and other surrounding territories) and the Second Opium War (influence and trade with Far East Asia). The reason France joined with Britain in the latter conflict was because China executed a French Christian missionary. The government under Napoleon III was FURIOUS and promptly got involved (in the eventual peace treaty, the French demanded a provision that allowed peaceful foreigners to evangelize and other work without persecution).
Thunderbird 1 That is very true. If you ask me, I think Nap III could’ve been a brilliant leader in foreign policy if he allied with Austria against Italy in 1859 and also against Prussia in 1866.
@@morsecode980 Interesting point. Isn't it a little ironic that the French leader that established some of the first good relations (and alliances) with Britain in centuries was a Bonaparte?
@Lajd Hdhd Actually, the reason the French government was so livid with the Chinese is because the brutal execution violated protocol between the two nations: the agreement was that violators in most cases would be expelled and handed over to French diplomats (the violation in this case was that the missionary had preached in an area the Chinese government didn't approve of). Now, China had gone against this and when the French diplomat demanded to know if the protocol was no longer agreed to, the Chinese official refused to answer. This caused tremendous anger in France as well as real fears about the safety of other religious workers (which became a factor in war being declared). And remember back then Napoleon III couldn't just call Emperor Xian Feng and get a clear explanation. It was an unfortunate situation that got extremely ugly.
Napoleon III tried to reform the army to be like the Prussian one but was hamstrung by the Parliament. He should have pulled a page out of his uncle’s book and appealed directly to the army to get what he wanted. Napoleon III was an excellent peacetime ruler and France would have probably my fared better had the army been able to reform like Napoleon III wanted.
While it is debatable whether or not helping unify Italy against Austria was the right decision, we have to remember that several other major factors hurt the Second French Empire possibly far more. First, his botched handling of the Polish issue resulted in no chance of an alliance with Russia under the new Czar Alexander II (who had up to that time been open to possibly restoring a relationship with France). Second, the botched invasion of Mexico damaged relations with the United States and also squandered resources (which may have angered the French legislature into limiting the army). Third, Queen Victoria's daughter fell in love with and married the crown prince of Prussia, meaning there was no chance of Britain joining an alliance against them. Napoleon III got reckless unfortunately from late 1861 on.
@@thunderbird1921 from 1861 his power was rapidly declining as the empire became less and less reliant on his rule but rather a parliament. By 1869 his power had been reduced so much he was essentially a figurehead like the British monarchs
Saddest thing is Maximilian was actually a really cool guy beloved by the people who had the chance to flee but choose not to because he knew that if he stayed he could bargain for the lives of some of the men who followed him.
3:17 For some reason, Austria getting slapped in the face is satisfyingly humorous. Must be the knowledge of how their empire ended up falling in the first World War.
They were already like that for almost a century and a half before its fall Everybody talk about the Ottomans as being the sick man of Europe, but this isn't because the guy next door has the plague that the one with smallpox is healthy. They were almost constantly defeated in war during this time and they were constantly on the verge of collapse, it is lucky for them that Russia and Germany switched their turns to baby care it and have it not collapse under its own weight
Also Austria did really good against the Italians, winning the first War against them and doing competently in the 2nd and 3rd, only losing because of Italies Allies.
Napoleon III is very underrated. He was a great leader. His downfall against Prussia was because he was betrayed by the Republicans who took advantage of the emperors poor health to drag him into a losing war and thus delegitimize his dynasty and turn back France into a Republic. They purposely weakened the french army, apparently it was so bad that the men marching at the front couldn't find their own leader. What the Republicans did not expect, though, was the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, they expected the Prussians to take some of the African colonies instead. This led to the French hatred towards the Germans and the bloody WW1.
true. In many ways i like napoleon 3rd better than the 1st because of his industrialization efforts and dominating french politics. Not to mention he was the one who began expanding a new overseas empire
Napoleon III didnt declare war on Prussia, he knew the telegram was a trap by bismarck and attempted to calm everyone down. It was the empress and the parliament that wanted and declared war
He was very reluctant and he knew France wasn’t ready. He said it was going to be “very long and difficult” and still went to the battlefield even though he was suffering from many illnesses. His bravery in his final months as emperor is unfortunately overshadowed by the defeat
You know in French petit could mean both small or young, all though calling someone petit for being young is usually for children but since Napoleon was in fact average hight it's probably the latter.
That's because of Victor Hugo who made a lot of anti-Napoleon III propaganda after the coup because Napoleon didn't gave him the ministry of instruction when he became president, Hugo was indeed a strong supporter of Napoleon III in 1848. Moreover he was jealous of Napoleon III destiny.
I'm currently on a binge of all your videos, Blue sent me here. Honestly this channel is such high quality like jesus christ! You should have 100k subs. Someoneelse to collab with that would fit perfectly to your style is Potential History. You are basically him but for people instead of tanks.
1:59 shot of napoleon and that 2:43 moment ""...take that as you will," were glorious. Great video in so many ways, always love your voice & delivery. Edit - "YOU GET A WEAPON! -YOU GET A WEAPON!"
Napoleon III was something Napoleon I had and didn't have. Napoleon I was a brilliant strategist, a capable law maker and political designer, but not so good at making a long term aim. Napoleon III was a terrible military commander, but a smart leader who transformed France into a superpower and rebuilt Paris.
Yeah you completely undercut Mexico in the whole France invading Mexico by saying how the US had made France leave when in reality Mexico fought the French and managed to stop them from taking over the country. The US was in the middle of the Civil War at the time so it is unlikely they would declare war on France. Sure the US did have a part with helping in funding Mexico to fight the French. However, Mexico did most of the work!
Young Archivest your underestimating the politics of the time. France was helping the confederates, and May have actually sent troops but they where scared because Russia was about to join the north, France would only send troops if England also joined the south, politically it was very important globally, and would have sparked the First World War.
@@crunch9876 I mean kinda? World wars arent just dependent on where there fought, it also depends on the scale. The first set of Napoleonic wars were fought on every habited continent but are not considered world wars.
Ok so a little clarificarion from a mexican. The whole reason Maximilian was even able to step unto Mexico and declare himself king was because Mexico was pretty divided at this point politicaly with some wanting a new monarchy. Maximilian was chosen by those mexicans, not Napoleon if I remember correctly, however, Napoleon once he heard of this decided to support Maximilian. Maximilian, some conservatives and french forces then started basically a civil war against the liberal government. Sadly for the conservatives Maximilian was quite liberal and as such he started losing support fast in Mexico, and things weren't better with france. Napoleon was preparing for his own wars in Europe and as such made his armies stationed in Mexico to abandon Maximilian. After fighting with everything they got, and a bit of monetary aid from the U.S., the legitimate Mexican government pushed back the conservatives took back the capital, and despite pleads from many people which thought that Maximilian could be turned into an ally of the government the president Benito Juarez sent for Maximilian to be killed by firing squad.
It was more the threat of a United States that made a difference. Mexico whooped the French and Napoleon didn't send even mpre because he knew a reunified U.S. would intervene
It was not so simple. After Napoleon III was exiled, the crown of France was offered to Charles V of Bourbon. But Charles V famously refused to accept the throne if the French flag remained what it was (the Tricolore), stating: "I will not let the standard of Henri IV, of François I, of Jeanne d’Arc, be torn from my hands" "Later a Legitimist general said, ‘If only we had known!’ But the King had left France for ever on that night of 19 November 1873, to return to his dreaming in Upper Austria. In June 1874 the Duc de La Rochefoucauld, as a last desperate step, proposed to the Assembly that the monarchy be restored; his motion was defeated by 272 notes to 79. On 30 January 1875, France became a Republic-by one vote". This puzzled many of his contemporaries, with the pope stating: "Whoever heard of a man giving up a throne for a napkin?" On the other hand some historians admired the decision of Charles V: As the late Sir Denis Brogan (hardly an admirer) writes, Henri V ‘had made, not by cowardice but by pride and dignity, the great refusal’. Professor Cobban even goes so far as to say of Henri that ‘trained as he said himself to expect nothing from God and nothing from man, free from worldly ambition or knowledge, lame, isolated, living in and for the past’, he was ‘perhaps the noblest of his line’.
While in England he was for a short time a London policeman , joining the Special Constabulary to deal with the Chartists. A group that presented a huge Petition to Parliament advocating universal male suffrage.
Actually the record shows that his job was actually patrolling the area to deal with incivility and similar offences. The inhabitants of Westminster signed a petition in 1855, recalling his service in the area, to welcome him as Emperor of the French during his state visit. It's also worth pointing out that, while the Chartist demands were perfectly reasonable in themselves, armed insurrection in southern Wales and the northern English region of Yorkshire was a factor in making Chartism seem less so. For further reading, you can look up Carlyle's criticism of those who rejoiced in the (perceived) defeat of the Chartist movement here : en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chartism
Kind of unfortunate, considering his MASSIVE role in making a more stable peace with Britain (while it is true Louis Philippe did start the efforts on the French side, Napoleon III managed to create the first full military alliances with them and managed to build France back into a power while maintaining that relationship, a remarkable achievement). Not to mention his unbelievable domestic reforms.
fun fact, this guy might not have actually been related to Napoleon by blood. His mom was Napoleon's step-daughter (Josephine's daughter from her first marriage) and though she was married to Napoleon's brother, she hated him and had several lovers, even her husband doubted the paternity of their sons, though he'd claim them all as hi publicly.
The war of 1859 was quite pointless for Napoleon III, he gained nothing other than Nizza and Savoy, created an unreliable ally in Italy and destroyed relations with Austria, which would've been a valuable ally.
The reason why Italy was unreliable was because of an unforeseen circumstance by both parties since they ended up annexing parts of the northern Papal States (the stuff is complicated, it involves a confederation of cities forming and willingly joining Piedmont but some of these cities were nominally Papal territory) which angers Napoleon who named himself the defender of christendom and of the Papal States and demanded that the cities be handed back. There was actually some debate in Piedmont but before much could happen, Garibaldi decided on his own to conquer Naples and the Papal States (which completely severed the possibility of an alliance) and was only prevented to take Rome because of the French garrison there. And be sure that Garibaldi wasn't at all supported by everyone in the government, there is a reason why he did it on his own. Maybe the different could have been settled if Garibaldi hadn't done his cavalier move. It is unlikely that Italy would have forfeited these territories entirely but a compromise could have been reached, so even if in hindsight we can say that it wasn't a good move, with everything he knew at the time, this looked like a great move and still could have turned well if everything didn't take the worst possible turn (for everyone, because in hindsight Garibaldi's campaign probably wasn't a good thing first because Italy lost it's best potential ally and also because it now incorporated the southern provinces which needed heavy investments to become productive which ultimately also slowed down the development of the North and created a big problem in creating the State because they overextended, especially considering that they wanted to do a unitary State like France and not a federal one like Germany would)
Yeah, he should’ve allied with Austria against Italy like how literally *EVERYONE* told him to in 1859. Although at the same time I love Italy as a country and their food so I don’t mind their existence at all 😂
@@morsecode980 I think secretly he was hoping that Austria and Prussia would just beat the crap out of each other and France by remaining neutral would stay far more powerful (and have to face the weakened victor). Unfortunately, Austria performed horrendously in the 1866 war and Prussia won in just two months. The Battle of Koniggratz was literally the sloppiest, most poorly coordinated battle imaginable on the Austrian side.
funny fact: french empress marie louise was a habsburg. her son , was half habsburg, named napoleon duke of reichstadt. when he was 21 he got "pneumonia" and died ;) ;)
"All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." - Karl Marx, 1852. (he was alluding to Napoleon III as the farce)
Almost amusing, when you compare the damage caused by Marxism with the prosperity and progress that both Napoleon the Great (whom Marx admired) and his nephew achieved for the workers and peasants. Was Marx the farce and Marxism the tragedy, or was Marx the tragedy, and Marxism the farce?
I would say the latter. Karl Marx and his pal Engels weren't evil people of hell. They were just mad lunatics that tought "Hey, maybe we can blame the bourgeois for everything even though we ARE them also workers unite blah blah blah" Then 1918 came with Lenin, 1939 came Mao and OH GOD THE DEATH TOLL
Interesting indeed. From what I've read, there's actually a sizable number of French who want a restored constitutional monarchy. The problem is now there are TWO royal families technically, with conflicting claims. Which one really deserves the throne?
@@thunderbird1921 Three royal families even. The main branch of kings going back pre-revolution, the branch family that was overthrown by the second republic which Napoleon III overthrew, and the Bonapartes.
France being France the emperor would probably have gotten overthrown some other time, though maybe they'd get a chance to re-overthrow that government and start a third empire.
@@thunderbird1921 I don't think than the bourbon can come back into power. The guy isn't even french, he is spanish. Orleanist or Bonapartist make more sense.
You ever just be watching a 6 year old Video from a History TH-camr Catch a sight of a Blue Man Slow the video down And pause the video on YOUR HOME TOWNS (so small its considered a Village, its barely 2,000 people) FRIGGIN MASCOT OVER THE NAVAL FLAG OF AUSTRIA HUNGARY Cus i just did And it's pretty trippy
Napoleon III was who Marx was talking about when he said “history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce” because the idea that Napoleon III could live up to Napoleon was laughable.
@@Heisenberg882 Also, France didn't beat Germany in 1918. The Allies did. It was a team effort. The only reason France won was because the US was involved. And the only reason the US was involved was because Britain was involved. And the only reason Britain was involved was because Germany was outmaneuvering France TOO HARD.
@@dextercochran4916 Classic anglo propaganda, in fact France had the best allied army and did by far most of the fighting, France also took the lead in the Balkan front to defeat Bulgaria. In reality American troops were all supplied and trained with French equipment and generals. The only reason Germany became more powerful than France is because the French birth rate declined in the 19th century, if the French population didn’t decline they would’ve dominated Europe still and crushed Prussia in 1870.
@@NapoleonCalland and it was great he did that. He’s honestly one of my favorite historical characters and he doesn’t deserve the bad reputation at all
+John23gr John23gr Haven't done any of those yet! In general I shy away from the 20th century and U.S. presidents, though I have made a video about President Polk so I'm less averse to U.S. history nowadays
I like the "cut through the pomp" humorous way you presented the video (although I could just barely follow your auctioneer-quick narrative). It occurred to me that by focusing on modern (US or other) indignitaries more people would be knowledgeable enough to laugh along with you. It's interesting to read what Mark Twain said about Napoleon III, in his visit to Paris, only 2 years before the Franco-Prussian War / debacle. Regardless, it's obvious that a lot of research, and a great deal of creativity (and many hours) went into your video. Very well done, Bravo!
+John23gr John23gr I hadn't thought of it like that before, but when you put it that way, it could be a lot of fun. I want to lean more towards education than satire, but there are always things about people like Roosevelt that people don't know already to provide a good mix with jokes they'll really appreciate, so who knows, maybe I'll experiment with an episode sometime in the future. Cheers!
Sometimes you get unlucky, you get into a battle against Alexander the great or Napoleon Bonaparte. Sometimes you get into a business war against Rockerfeller, sometimes you have to enter a debate against Churchill.
And sometimes, you get forced into 19th century politics, against Bismark
Good one
Sorry to be that guy,
BUT Churchill was actually famous for being an awful debator
I sometimes wish I was that guy. *looks at feet with hands in pockets.*
Conmemoramos a VICTOR HUGO con respeto
fn.tc/NCXo
But sometimes, you get lucky, and you get into a debate with a Donald Trump, and somehow manage to bungle your way into victory.
Yes, Napoleon the Third. Fight against the guy that had -25% land units maintenance. It will totally work out
He possibly didn't have enough brigades *(victoria 2 refference)*
Having -5.00 diplomatic reputation due to his last name made it hard for him too
@@kemmolarte6204 um, like Trump? His dad sucked too.
(Hopefully Trump doesn't declare himself emperor...)
@@evaharvey840 tf are you talking about? Go home, you’re drunk.
@Otto Von Bismarck If any leader attempts to declare themselves emperor of this country, they'd better have made peace with their god. Death will follow not long after.
'Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Napoleon the third? I thought not. It's not a story the Prussians would tell you. It's a French legend. Napoleon was an emperor of the French, so powerful and so wise he could use military force to influence the ottomans to win in Crimea... He had such a knowledge of war that he could even keep the ones he cared about from losing. The influence over Europe is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught the Prussians everything he knew, then the Prussians destroyed his empire in his sleep. It's ironic he could save others from losing, but not himself.'
Is it possible to learn this power?
mechaman13
Not if you’re a Prussian
@@NewtypeCommander Not, from a Prussian
If Napoleon III focused on being mostly a peaceful domestic ruler, I’m sure he’d be more fondly remembered, as he was indeed very good at handling domestic issues during peacetime.
Well, at least two of his military campaigns were very successful and benefitted France long run, the Italian War of Unification (France received the city of Nice and other surrounding territories) and the Second Opium War (influence and trade with Far East Asia). The reason France joined with Britain in the latter conflict was because China executed a French Christian missionary. The government under Napoleon III was FURIOUS and promptly got involved (in the eventual peace treaty, the French demanded a provision that allowed peaceful foreigners to evangelize and other work without persecution).
Thunderbird 1 That is very true. If you ask me, I think Nap III could’ve been a brilliant leader in foreign policy if he allied with Austria against Italy in 1859 and also against Prussia in 1866.
@@morsecode980 Interesting point. Isn't it a little ironic that the French leader that established some of the first good relations (and alliances) with Britain in centuries was a Bonaparte?
He had really high stewardship stats but terrible martial and diplomacy
@Lajd Hdhd Actually, the reason the French government was so livid with the Chinese is because the brutal execution violated protocol between the two nations: the agreement was that violators in most cases would be expelled and handed over to French diplomats (the violation in this case was that the missionary had preached in an area the Chinese government didn't approve of). Now, China had gone against this and when the French diplomat demanded to know if the protocol was no longer agreed to, the Chinese official refused to answer. This caused tremendous anger in France as well as real fears about the safety of other religious workers (which became a factor in war being declared). And remember back then Napoleon III couldn't just call Emperor Xian Feng and get a clear explanation. It was an unfortunate situation that got extremely ugly.
Napoleon is like Cinderella
The first one's great
The second we don't talk about
And the third is ok. Not great but passable
@Venraef the 2nd one was kicked out of his on empire at age 3
@Venraef Greatness isn't always goodness.
@Venraef don't talk about what you don't know, idiots.
@Venraef Napoleon, shit? But how can you say such bullshit
@Venraef what’s great may not be moral and what’s moral may not be great
Napoleon: I want a second term.
Government: We can't do that.
Napoleon: *Pulls out rifle* I'm sorry repeat that please?
You can't have a second term. How about a really Long one instead?
Napoleon III tried to reform the army to be like the Prussian one but was hamstrung by the Parliament. He should have pulled a page out of his uncle’s book and appealed directly to the army to get what he wanted. Napoleon III was an excellent peacetime ruler and France would have probably my fared better had the army been able to reform like Napoleon III wanted.
Tbf he was dying at that point
@@lettuceman9439
True. He was incapacitated by cancer at the time anyway.
While it is debatable whether or not helping unify Italy against Austria was the right decision, we have to remember that several other major factors hurt the Second French Empire possibly far more. First, his botched handling of the Polish issue resulted in no chance of an alliance with Russia under the new Czar Alexander II (who had up to that time been open to possibly restoring a relationship with France). Second, the botched invasion of Mexico damaged relations with the United States and also squandered resources (which may have angered the French legislature into limiting the army). Third, Queen Victoria's daughter fell in love with and married the crown prince of Prussia, meaning there was no chance of Britain joining an alliance against them. Napoleon III got reckless unfortunately from late 1861 on.
@@thunderbird1921 from 1861 his power was rapidly declining as the empire became less and less reliant on his rule but rather a parliament. By 1869 his power had been reduced so much he was essentially a figurehead like the British monarchs
Bismarck had a plan and he was going to get what he wanted
Saddest thing is Maximilian was actually a really cool guy beloved by the people who had the chance to flee but choose not to because he knew that if he stayed he could bargain for the lives of some of the men who followed him.
3:17 For some reason, Austria getting slapped in the face is satisfyingly humorous. Must be the knowledge of how their empire ended up falling in the first World War.
They were already like that for almost a century and a half before its fall
Everybody talk about the Ottomans as being the sick man of Europe, but this isn't because the guy next door has the plague that the one with smallpox is healthy.
They were almost constantly defeated in war during this time and they were constantly on the verge of collapse, it is lucky for them that Russia and Germany switched their turns to baby care it and have it not collapse under its own weight
It is still a shame though, since A/U was still better for e.g. the Balkans than what came afterwards.
Also Austria did really good against the Italians, winning the first War against them and doing competently in the 2nd and 3rd, only losing because of Italies Allies.
They lost almost all their war lol
That letter from Bismarck has me in literal tears!!! 😫😂😂😂
Na na na boo boo
Napoleon III is very underrated. He was a great leader. His downfall against Prussia was because he was betrayed by the Republicans who took advantage of the emperors poor health to drag him into a losing war and thus delegitimize his dynasty and turn back France into a Republic. They purposely weakened the french army, apparently it was so bad that the men marching at the front couldn't find their own leader.
What the Republicans did not expect, though, was the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, they expected the Prussians to take some of the African colonies instead. This led to the French hatred towards the Germans and the bloody WW1.
Good comment.
true. In many ways i like napoleon 3rd better than the 1st because of his industrialization efforts and dominating french politics. Not to mention he was the one who began expanding a new overseas empire
Wow, something I agree with!
hatred for what? For losing Elsaß-Lothringen, which is rightful GERMAN land anyway?
@Dhaniel Ramadhan just like how Americans took the land of the Mexicans?
By your logic, its not America's land, it's Mexico's land.
Napoleon III didnt declare war on Prussia, he knew the telegram was a trap by bismarck and attempted to calm everyone down. It was the empress and the parliament that wanted and declared war
He was very reluctant and he knew France wasn’t ready. He said it was going to be “very long and difficult” and still went to the battlefield even though he was suffering from many illnesses. His bravery in his final months as emperor is unfortunately overshadowed by the defeat
Thank you, French Revolution, for bringing us the best Coldplay album of them all.
Napoleon 3 was referred to as” le petit”?
How the hell Small was that guy?
You know in French petit could mean both small or young, all though calling someone petit for being young is usually for children but since Napoleon was in fact average hight it's probably the latter.
It's not meant to be literal. It's more Napoleon "the less important, the minor, the lesser, the no-the-other-one" than "the small".
That's because of Victor Hugo who made a lot of anti-Napoleon III propaganda after the coup because Napoleon didn't gave him the ministry of instruction when he became president, Hugo was indeed a strong supporter of Napoleon III in 1848.
Moreover he was jealous of Napoleon III destiny.
It's like Not Napoléon le Grand, Napoléon le petit. To distinguish him from napoléon napoléon, Napoléon I the Great.
its a joke. Napoleon is remembered as being short, so le petit makes it kinda funny
Napoleon the Third's reign reminds me of something my high school gf once told me "it doesn't matter if you last a long time, if you're bad."
Austria's face stays turned after each slap. Top-quality editing.
Never heard of this guy until now, glad I finally got recommended this video
I love these videos mate. Keep 'em comin
ikr
Napoleon III: what happens when you order the original Napoleon on wish.
The only youtuber I have to watch at 0.75 speed instead of 2x speed
facts. lol my crappy adhd listening abilities shine out super on this one. super interesting though. rewatching.
2:03 that was a huge leap to the future after 1849 and a huge leap to the past after 18450.
One of the few famous people who lived in Southport.
I'm currently on a binge of all your videos, Blue sent me here. Honestly this channel is such high quality like jesus christ! You should have 100k subs. Someoneelse to collab with that would fit perfectly to your style is Potential History. You are basically him but for people instead of tanks.
1:59 shot of napoleon and that 2:43 moment ""...take that as you will," were glorious. Great video in so many ways, always love your voice & delivery.
Edit - "YOU GET A WEAPON! -YOU GET A WEAPON!"
Napoleon III was something Napoleon I had and didn't have.
Napoleon I was a brilliant strategist, a capable law maker and political designer, but not so good at making a long term aim.
Napoleon III was a terrible military commander, but a smart leader who transformed France into a superpower and rebuilt Paris.
A criminal and did not pay the debt of Algeria, the thief of grain
Yeah you completely undercut Mexico in the whole France invading Mexico by saying how the US had made France leave when in reality Mexico fought the French and managed to stop them from taking over the country. The US was in the middle of the Civil War at the time so it is unlikely they would declare war on France. Sure the US did have a part with helping in funding Mexico to fight the French. However, Mexico did most of the work!
Young Archivest your underestimating the politics of the time.
France was helping the confederates, and May have actually sent troops but they where scared because Russia was about to join the north, France would only send troops if England also joined the south, politically it was very important globally, and would have sparked the First World War.
@@crunch9876 I mean kinda? World wars arent just dependent on where there fought, it also depends on the scale. The first set of Napoleonic wars were fought on every habited continent but are not considered world wars.
Ok so a little clarificarion from a mexican. The whole reason Maximilian was even able to step unto Mexico and declare himself king was because Mexico was pretty divided at this point politicaly with some wanting a new monarchy. Maximilian was chosen by those mexicans, not Napoleon if I remember correctly, however, Napoleon once he heard of this decided to support Maximilian. Maximilian, some conservatives and french forces then started basically a civil war against the liberal government. Sadly for the conservatives Maximilian was quite liberal and as such he started losing support fast in Mexico, and things weren't better with france. Napoleon was preparing for his own wars in Europe and as such made his armies stationed in Mexico to abandon Maximilian. After fighting with everything they got, and a bit of monetary aid from the U.S., the legitimate Mexican government pushed back the conservatives took back the capital, and despite pleads from many people which thought that Maximilian could be turned into an ally of the government the president Benito Juarez sent for Maximilian to be killed by firing squad.
It was more the threat of a United States that made a difference.
Mexico whooped the French and Napoleon didn't send even mpre because he knew a reunified U.S. would intervene
I refuse to believe Mexico could ever do anything right
Not that I'm mad, but I'm getting suggested your stuff from 4 years ago.. You're audio got way better!
Every time I rewatch this video I can't help but imagine Napoleon III living in exile for decades and dying in the 1940s at 130-something years old
What is the throne? A bit of wood gilded and covered with velvet.
Revolution is definitely worth 5 stars 1:13
You have come a long way!
Napoleon III aka the fastest ctrl+z in the west
You just earned a sub.
Absolutely amazing work, loved every second of it.
I spend my time on the throne watching your videos.
Napoleon III also backed up San Marino independence when the Pope tried (again) to take over in the 1850s
It was not so simple. After Napoleon III was exiled, the crown of France was offered to Charles V of Bourbon. But Charles V famously refused to accept the throne if the French flag remained what it was (the Tricolore), stating:
"I will not let the standard of Henri IV, of François I, of Jeanne d’Arc, be torn from my hands"
"Later a Legitimist general said, ‘If only we had known!’ But the King had left France for ever on that night of 19 November 1873, to return to his dreaming in Upper Austria. In June 1874 the Duc de La Rochefoucauld, as a last desperate step, proposed to the Assembly that the monarchy be restored; his motion was defeated by 272 notes to 79. On 30 January 1875, France became a Republic-by one vote".
This puzzled many of his contemporaries, with the pope stating: "Whoever heard of a man giving up a throne for a napkin?"
On the other hand some historians admired the decision of Charles V:
As the late Sir Denis Brogan (hardly an admirer) writes, Henri V ‘had made, not by cowardice but by pride and dignity, the great refusal’. Professor Cobban even goes so far as to say of Henri that ‘trained as he said himself to expect nothing from God and nothing from man, free from worldly ambition or knowledge, lame, isolated, living in and for the past’, he was ‘perhaps the noblest of his line’.
While in England he was for a short time a London policeman , joining the Special Constabulary to deal with the Chartists. A group that presented a huge Petition to Parliament advocating universal male suffrage.
+binaway Neat, I had no idea!
Actually the record shows that his job was actually patrolling the area to deal with incivility and similar offences. The inhabitants of Westminster signed a petition in 1855, recalling his service in the area, to welcome him as Emperor of the French during his state visit. It's also worth pointing out that, while the Chartist demands were perfectly reasonable in themselves, armed insurrection in southern Wales and the northern English region of Yorkshire was a factor in making Chartism seem less so.
For further reading, you can look up Carlyle's criticism of those who rejoiced in the (perceived) defeat of the Chartist movement here : en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chartism
3:22 Napoleon started the Vietnam War
The thumbnail is a perfect summary of Napoleon III's life
Kind of unfortunate, considering his MASSIVE role in making a more stable peace with Britain (while it is true Louis Philippe did start the efforts on the French side, Napoleon III managed to create the first full military alliances with them and managed to build France back into a power while maintaining that relationship, a remarkable achievement). Not to mention his unbelievable domestic reforms.
I liked the hand smack across baby-face Franz Joseph that was funny.
fun fact, this guy might not have actually been related to Napoleon by blood. His mom was Napoleon's step-daughter (Josephine's daughter from her first marriage) and though she was married to Napoleon's brother, she hated him and had several lovers, even her husband doubted the paternity of their sons, though he'd claim them all as hi publicly.
Bonaparte for Life biatch!
The war of 1859 was quite pointless for Napoleon III, he gained nothing other than Nizza and Savoy, created an unreliable ally in Italy and destroyed relations with Austria, which would've been a valuable ally.
Yes, but the point of non-return was after the war of 1866 where he didn't intervene.
The reason why Italy was unreliable was because of an unforeseen circumstance by both parties since they ended up annexing parts of the northern Papal States (the stuff is complicated, it involves a confederation of cities forming and willingly joining Piedmont but some of these cities were nominally Papal territory) which angers Napoleon who named himself the defender of christendom and of the Papal States and demanded that the cities be handed back. There was actually some debate in Piedmont but before much could happen, Garibaldi decided on his own to conquer Naples and the Papal States (which completely severed the possibility of an alliance) and was only prevented to take Rome because of the French garrison there. And be sure that Garibaldi wasn't at all supported by everyone in the government, there is a reason why he did it on his own.
Maybe the different could have been settled if Garibaldi hadn't done his cavalier move. It is unlikely that Italy would have forfeited these territories entirely but a compromise could have been reached, so even if in hindsight we can say that it wasn't a good move, with everything he knew at the time, this looked like a great move and still could have turned well if everything didn't take the worst possible turn (for everyone, because in hindsight Garibaldi's campaign probably wasn't a good thing first because Italy lost it's best potential ally and also because it now incorporated the southern provinces which needed heavy investments to become productive which ultimately also slowed down the development of the North and created a big problem in creating the State because they overextended, especially considering that they wanted to do a unitary State like France and not a federal one like Germany would)
I feel like Italy is kind of an unreliable ally most of the Time 😂 (WW1/WWII/Napoléon III...)
Yeah, he should’ve allied with Austria against Italy like how literally *EVERYONE* told him to in 1859.
Although at the same time I love Italy as a country and their food so I don’t mind their existence at all 😂
@@morsecode980 I think secretly he was hoping that Austria and Prussia would just beat the crap out of each other and France by remaining neutral would stay far more powerful (and have to face the weakened victor). Unfortunately, Austria performed horrendously in the 1866 war and Prussia won in just two months. The Battle of Koniggratz was literally the sloppiest, most poorly coordinated battle imaginable on the Austrian side.
funny fact: french empress marie louise was a habsburg. her son , was half habsburg, named napoleon duke of reichstadt. when he was 21 he got "pneumonia" and died ;) ;)
von Metternicht absolutely did nothing wrong.
Napoleon 'Le Petit'
Hahahahahahahaha
So many videos, im loving it!
"All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." - Karl Marx, 1852. (he was alluding to Napoleon III as the farce)
Almost amusing, when you compare the damage caused by Marxism with the prosperity and progress that both Napoleon the Great (whom Marx admired) and his nephew achieved for the workers and peasants. Was Marx the farce and Marxism the tragedy, or was Marx the tragedy, and Marxism the farce?
I would say the latter.
Karl Marx and his pal Engels weren't evil people of hell. They were just mad lunatics that tought "Hey, maybe we can blame the bourgeois for everything even though we ARE them also workers unite blah blah blah"
Then 1918 came with Lenin, 1939 came Mao and OH GOD THE DEATH TOLL
2:34
Because Dowager Empress Cixi decided they were too loud.
That was a good one.
Where's the usual Jack? That didn't sound like the Jack I know....
This was amazing! Really helped me with my paper!
This was so incredibly entertaining
Thank you so much! It means a lot to me that people are enjoying these. More on the way!
Rip Napoleon II
3:38
3:38
3:38
3:38
That guy on the thumbnail is REALLY good at doing shadowpuppets.
The 19th century showed how the Austrian empire was resilient.
My AP euro class just used this way after I originally watched it, nice
man if he HADN'T been up against our boy Otto france may in fact still have an emperor. by now a constitutional one but damn.
Interesting indeed. From what I've read, there's actually a sizable number of French who want a restored constitutional monarchy. The problem is now there are TWO royal families technically, with conflicting claims. Which one really deserves the throne?
@@thunderbird1921 Three royal families even. The main branch of kings going back pre-revolution, the branch family that was overthrown by the second republic which Napoleon III overthrew, and the Bonapartes.
France being France the emperor would probably have gotten overthrown some other time, though maybe they'd get a chance to re-overthrow that government and start a third empire.
@@thunderbird1921 I don't think than the bourbon can come back into power. The guy isn't even french, he is spanish. Orleanist or Bonapartist make more sense.
3:17 I felt that.
who are you ?
Got to love the slapping
man those slaps in the face..... lmao
Wait that's where magenta comes from? That's kind of a strange origin for the name of a color
Anyone find it funny he helped create margarine. A cheap knockoff of the original. Lol
Another winner!!
I am in love with this video. Subbed.
LOL! "Lots os ships hit the fan...."
Why is the image at 2:56 showing Crimea as a part of the Ottoman Empire? Cause... it wasn't? It had been Russian since the 18th century?
Your guess is as good as mine
Stable video👍
2:52 The bottom text hits different now...
wtf? I made that meme at 3:49, but it's not exactly the same one.
Do one on King Leopold II of Belgium! @.@
What happened to Jack's voice lol
At least he build great buildings !
You ever just be watching a 6 year old Video from a History TH-camr
Catch a sight of a Blue Man
Slow the video down
And pause the video on YOUR HOME TOWNS (so small its considered a Village, its barely 2,000 people) FRIGGIN MASCOT OVER THE NAVAL FLAG OF AUSTRIA HUNGARY
Cus i just did
And it's pretty trippy
Who the hell are you not jack
Those slaps to Austria!!! hahahaha
Bros voice has changed a ton but his humor he hasnt
1:05 ce n'est pas un signe,
c'est un panneau...
great channel. hope it becomes big
Napoleon III was who Marx was talking about when he said “history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce” because the idea that Napoleon III could live up to Napoleon was laughable.
2:53 sounds familiar
1:06 The cultured gentleman is a fan of René Magritte?
is it just me that napoleon iii looks like grand duke from Disney cinderella
Love all of these civ refs
Germany. Outmaneuvering France since the 1890s.
Like in 1918?
And it’s funny you mention the 1890’s because that’s when France outplayed Germany and made an alliance with Russia
@@Heisenberg882 France made an alliance with Russia in the 1890s? They must've beat Germany a whole bunch after that... 😏
@@Heisenberg882 Also, France didn't beat Germany in 1918. The Allies did. It was a team effort. The only reason France won was because the US was involved. And the only reason the US was involved was because Britain was involved. And the only reason Britain was involved was because Germany was outmaneuvering France TOO HARD.
@@dextercochran4916 Classic anglo propaganda, in fact France had the best allied army and did by far most of the fighting, France also took the lead in the Balkan front to defeat Bulgaria. In reality American troops were all supplied and trained with French equipment and generals.
The only reason Germany became more powerful than France is because the French birth rate declined in the 19th century, if the French population didn’t decline they would’ve dominated Europe still and crushed Prussia in 1870.
Napoléon the smol
That went soooooo fast
In other words Frane got Bismarcked hard
Napoleon was killed by green wallpaper
HOLY SHIT THIS IS GOOD
Genius pop culture references!!
Your voice used to be really cute back then haha
Your voice is SO different here
Palmerston’s Zoo
You made a mistake, he made a « coup d’état » in décembre 1851, but the second empire began in novembre 1852
And he didn't declare himself emperor, the referendum did that.
@@NapoleonCalland and it was great he did that. He’s honestly one of my favorite historical characters and he doesn’t deserve the bad reputation at all
Omg younger Jack younger Jack
A little too silly but fun.
Now do one on Napoleon IV
There will be one and only one napoleon
Have you done one about Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Or Teddy Roosevelt? or Richard Nixon? (Might be fun to watch.)
+John23gr John23gr Haven't done any of those yet! In general I shy away from the 20th century and U.S. presidents, though I have made a video about President Polk so I'm less averse to U.S. history nowadays
I like the "cut through the pomp" humorous way you presented the video (although I could just barely follow your auctioneer-quick narrative). It occurred to me that by focusing on modern (US or other) indignitaries more people would be knowledgeable enough to laugh along with you. It's interesting to read what Mark Twain said about Napoleon III, in his visit to Paris, only 2 years before the Franco-Prussian War / debacle. Regardless, it's obvious that a lot of research, and a great deal of creativity (and many hours) went into your video. Very well done, Bravo!
+John23gr John23gr I hadn't thought of it like that before, but when you put it that way, it could be a lot of fun. I want to lean more towards education than satire, but there are always things about people like Roosevelt that people don't know already to provide a good mix with jokes they'll really appreciate, so who knows, maybe I'll experiment with an episode sometime in the future. Cheers!
"Na, na, na, boo, boo."