Minor Critique of the French Focus Tree in la Resistance
- Thread starter Canadagamer9
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm pretty sure the point of this is to include several different ways to expand, and they are supposed to be mutually exclusive. If you want to go imperialist as monarchist France, either go The Legitimate Heir or Proclaim the Third Empire. Orleanist is the route for those who doesn't want to go full imperialist and instead get more internal focuses.
I'm referring particularly to the branch listed under diplomatic freedom. I see no reason why it should be mutually exclusive with the monarchist branches.
imo this would cause an imbalance where it would almost always be beneficial to pick the council as opposed to regeneration
Imagine proclaiming the third empire and doing the Latin Entente, conquering Europe with all these allies.
Actually there were a lot of economic, industrial and diplomatic achievements during the 2nd empire. Paris was modernized (Haussmann) , the colonial empire greatly expanded, Savoie and Nice were annexed.The empire they'd prefer to forget. No wonder it doesn't get a lot of press.
But the ignominious end kind of overshadows it all.
And the fact that the second French Empire was ended in a way that birthed the German Empire, setting into motion events that would have an impact over a century later, probably stings a little, too.
Not really. The historiography has somewhat rehabilitated napoléon III, it was not the most glorious, but neither the most ignominious part of french history Victor Hugo tried to paint.
While the original suggestion does seem imbalanced, there could be thematic space for a focus relating to Mexico under the Bonapartists.
The 2nd Empire was established after a time of instabilty, economic and industrial backwardness and diplomatic weakness (1815-1848). The 2nd Empire lasted for 22 years and gave France stability, economic growth and the country did catch up in industrial and scientific development. Also, France became an autonomous great power again : the crimean campaign and above all the Italian campaign (1859) were important successes, leading to the annexation of Savoie and Nice. Napoleon III was vigilant to establish a long friendship with Britain that lasted after the end of the regime. Of course there was the bizarre mexican adventure and the defeat against Prussia, but the German unification was already underway. The defeat of 1871 was less disastrous than 1815 : loss of Alsace lorraine and regime change, but France did not fall under foreign puppeteering.
Napoleon III suffers from the comparison with the First Empire, because it was portrayed as a sad reenactement : but it wasn't.
Napoleon III suffers from the comparison with the First Empire, because it was portrayed as a sad reenactement : but it wasn't.
I'm French. There is that, and in addition, most of today's core French principles were created by the Third Republic who succeeded him: democratic elections, freedom of the press, separation of Church and State. The comparison doesn't do him any favor.
From what we learn at school, he is the guy who overthrew a Republic and was in charge during the industrial revolution. He added Nice and Savoie to France by referendum (a very popular move, even today). Then he ignominously lost Alsace-Lorraine to the German and was replaced by the people who built our free, modern Republic.
Last edited:
I think I've only ever had him take power in one game of Vic2, despite many hours played as France. I tend to keep the July Monarchy in power the entire game.
And the Third Republic lost much more horribly in 1940. not really a good comparison
also, the party most actively willing to go to war in 1870 (yes, there were elections during the late 2nd empire, and the press was liberalized) were the ... republicans (le parti belliqueux), while Napoleon III was more careful.
it's a little bit more subtle than "empire baad... republic goood" (dare I mention the atrocious repression during the 1789-93 revolution ? )
I will add that the establishment of the Third Republic was not very popular, and the most likely outcome in the early 1870's was a return to the bourbon monarchy under what would have been Henry V, and not the sacro-saint republic. Henry refused because he refused the tricolor flag.
Last edited:
Besides the fact that Napoléon III wasn't from this period, 19th century Republican and constitutional monarchists alike admired 1789 and despised 1792. By the time of the Terror, it was obvious the ideals of 1789 had been discarded.
The emblem of the Revolution, I might add. So what? Third Republic it was, and the comparison turned out to be unfavorable to Napoléon III.
On what metric ? the defeat of 1940, under the Third Republic, was way worse than 1871. Also, if you use metric like the universal human rights and so on, the Third republic was no different than the second empire : both were colonialists and nationalistic, and the Third Republic expanded the colonial empire much more. Famous republicans like Jules Ferry believed in racial hierarchy. Interestingly, the monarchists were more often opposed to colonial expansion.
I might add that the late 2nd empire (l'empire libéral) was resembling more and more a constitutional monarchy. That's why Napoleon III and Emile Ollivier failed to avoid the war of 1870, under pressure from the War Party, a lot them being ... Republicans.
Last edited: