Opinion of Louis Napoleon III ?

[Insula Dei]

And I don't make this a poll, because I want to hear your thoughts. (That and I pushed the wrong button and don't know how to fix it)

[The Mikado]

I recently wrote 20 pages on the guy...thoughts coming later.  Mostly, he was a scoundrel, though a dramatically effective one.  He presented a new model for the French right that would not tie it to dead-end monarchical dynasticism.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think that the Second Empire provides as fine an example of a liberal autocracy as any.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Napoleon III was very effective in domestic policy, but a disaster in foreign affairs.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I think that the Second Empire provides as fine an example of a liberal autocracy as any.

So, opebo's wet dream?

[RogueBeaver]

I think that the Second Empire provides as fine an example of a liberal autocracy as any.

This, and what Kalwejt said.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mixed, I guess. He oversaw a significant modernization of the country's economy, for sure. He was also an arrogant buffoon who came to power only thanks to his last name, despite his utter lack of political skills, that he betrayed most of his political promises, established an authoritarian regime which clearly wasn't fit for the time (which is why he failed miserably), and led France to its most useless and/or disastrous military campaigns.

As an Italian, I also ought to thank him for his essential contribution to unification (even though his protection of the Pope and his stealing us Savoy and Nice makes his record mixed too).

[Hash]

Definitely underrated, though still a very flawed person.

[Insula Dei]

I do think you can't really blame him for getting you Lombardia/Venice in return for Savoie/Nice, seems like a fair bargain. 

[ingemann]

Napoleon would have been a master of diplomacy, if he had ever discovered that the world had changed since 1814. His entire foreign policy was build on weakening Austria, and as result he united Germany and Italy.

[Insula Dei]

Napoleon would have been a master of diplomacy, if he had ever discovered that the world had changed since 1814. His entire foreign policy was build on weakening Austria, and as result he united Germany and Italy.

I'm not too sure there was any unifying concept behind the guy's diplomacy outside of the desire to score the occasional homerun.

[ingemann]

Napoleon would have been a master of diplomacy, if he had ever discovered that the world had changed since 1814. His entire foreign policy was build on weakening Austria, and as result he united Germany and Italy.

I'm not too sure there was any unifying concept behind the guy's diplomacy outside of the desire to score the occasional homerun.

In fact he did, make France strong, Austria weak and keep UK and Austria from unite against France. Napoleon III had a rather realistic view of why France was defeated in 1814, UK paid and Austria and Russia delivered the manpower. That he failed to see was that Prussia had transformed from small militarised East European state to a big militarised Central European state. As such he supported Sardinia and Prussia against a weakening Austrian Empire resulting in him trading a unstable potential enemy wikth several buffer states between them and France for a very strong and stable enemy and a medium strong potential enemy just across the border.

[Хahar 🤔]

Napoleon would have been a master of diplomacy, if he had ever discovered that the world had changed since 1814. His entire foreign policy was build on weakening Austria, and as result he united Germany and Italy.

I'm not too sure there was any unifying concept behind the guy's diplomacy outside of the desire to score the occasional homerun.

Silly foreigner! You don't score home runs; you hit them.