Talk:Second French Empire

initial thread

I'm not an expert in english, but the french name is « fr:Second Empire » so I think the name French Second Empire is better than "Second French Empire".

Second Empire (France) seem be good too.

English speakers can confirm or disagree with this proposition ? Yug 10:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker, and "Second French Empire" sounds much more natural to me.Adso de Fimnu 01:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok ~~ Yug 08:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

French Second Empire sounds better to me as a native English speaker. --61.88.82.133 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Second Empire (France) sounds a lot better to me. "Second French Empire" just sounds...artificial. I think the phrase "Second Empire" only exists as a direct calque of the French Second empire, so to whack a 'French' in the middle...hmmm. Who wants to update it? Stevage 11:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the title should be "French Second Empire". For instance we have French Fourth Republic, and not "Fourth French Republic". There are also 22,200 hits on Google for "French Second Empire" (-Wikipedia) vs. only 920 hits for "Second French Empire" (-Wikipedia). Hardouin 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ugly, but you're right, that seems to be the most common translation, so I say we go for it. Strangely, "Fourth French Republic" actually sounds better to me than the reverse, but consistency is obviously more important. There should probably be redirects for all the other possibilities. Stevage 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the phrase "Second Empire" is extremely ugly. The phrase "Second Empire" is the unequivocal and unambiguous common name for this regime, so I'd be bold and go for Second Empire. The article currently sitting at Second Empire is a derived meaning principally used adjectivally and should be moved to one of the following:

• Second Empire architecture
• Second Empire (architecture)
• Second Empire style (to match Queen Anne style)

Then the disambiguation blurb can go on the top of this article and point the architects and the people looking for the Kaiserreich away. A435(m) 14:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the idea of swapping the articles? Seemed like a good idea.--Gheuf 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Gheuf's concern. As it stands, the page title is inaccurate. The page "Second Empire" should become the disambiguation page for all articles related to the Second Empire, the "Second Empire" article should be moved to "Second Empire (style)" and this article should be moved to "French Second Empire" or "Second Empire (France)". I prefer the latter. 71.204.204.249 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent discussion. So many good points building on one another and excellent concrete options to move forwards.

I think the main things stopping it from going ahead are:

• a page move will mean existing architecture links pointing to this article, which would be somewhat irritating, unless there was some kind of discussion of it somewhere; and
• admin assistance is needed to move an article like the current one into an existing namespace.

The way forward seems to be:

• leave a note at WP:WikiProject Architecture to raise the issue and hopefully build support; and
• contact admin (if they are not already part of the discussion) if consensus for the change is achieved.

I think the case for a move is very strong, it's just a matter of putting it in the right place and waiting.

Someone please hit that WP link and set the ball rolling. Vive l'empereur! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Britannica bias

I am placing a NPOV tag here because many passages inherited from Britannica retain an anti-French POV. Expressions like "Napoleonic virus" are not exactly encyclopedic, and the whole article has an implicit assumption about the Second Empire and Napoleon III being evil. Too bad, entries from the Britannica about sensitive topics in 1911 can be badly biased. I leave it hoping someone can write it in a more neutral style. --Orzetto 10:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is still true almost 20 years later! BCorr|Брайен 00:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I like "Second Empire of France." I am a native English speaker.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.112.69 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 January 2006

You're in the wrong section, and sign your posts. I was looking to do the same thing, there is a lot here that seems biased and wouldn't pass the test for POV or original research today. It's nearly two years later; what happened to the NPOV template? I'm going to place one for additional sources, with individual {{fact}} flags where such elements occur. 71.204.204.249 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A few problems with the article

The Wikipedia article "The Second French Empire", although technically flawed, is well-written and informative overall in that it provides a detailed account of the politics and events of that period. In addition to providing in-depth information, however, the author tries to persuade the reader to see the events of the Second Empire as he sees them — and he does this convincingly. The author also makes several implicit assumptions in the article, but he backs them only with a single source and his own knowledge of the period. Additionally, the structure of the article is odd, with subjects and sub-topics presented throughout in no obvious order. Moreover, important information about the origins and the end of the Second Empire also is omitted.

Of the several persuasive messages in the article, the most obvious is that Emperor Napoleon III's reign served to make a mockery of the very ideals it was supposed to represent. The author believes all the symbols of French democracy — parliament, universal suffrage, and the Constitution of 1852 — had no real impact in the Second Republic. The author is also convinced that Napoleon III sought to govern as an absolute monarch under the guise of an at least somewhat democratic and representative ruler. The author also makes the argument that foreign policy blunders of Napoleon III were the predominant reason for the loss of popular support for the Second Empire. This last argument, however, seems rather shallow considering the abundance of religious, social, or economic problems during this period.

The author also makes several assumptions about the Second Empire. The most obvious ones involve reasons for the mass support of the early Empire. The article implies that it was the fear of instability that led the populous to bring Napoleon III to power. It fails to surface and discuss other major reasons that played an equally important role in the creation of the Empire. The article also fails by omission to discuss the religious, social, and economic reasons underlying the early support for Napoleon III. The author states that a "Napoleonic Virus" led to the overwhelming decision in the form of a plebiscite to give Napoleon III supreme power to rule. What this so-called "Napoleonic Virus" was is never really explained, and the contention that it was somehow a factor in Napoleon III’s ascension to power is not backed by evidence.

The author's most compelling argument concerns Napoleon III’s ineptness in foreign affairs. The author provides several examples of severe foreign policy blunders made by the Emperor. One is France's controversial role in Italy's unification; another is the major misstep of trying to establish a colonial empire in Mexico. Most important of all, however, is France's disastrous dealings with Prussia, which would cumulate in the Franco-Prussian War.

In addition to making strong arguments, however, the author also proffers a few relatively weak ones. One that stands out is the author's description of the progression of the Second Empire during its 18-year life span. The author initially describes the Empire as a shell democracy with a powerless legislature and tight censorship of the press. Later in the article though, the author describes an Empire in which public opinion was vitally important and where opposition openly existed. This transformation was a huge one and had significant underlying causes. However, the article provides only a weak and unconvincing reason: the Italian foreign policies of Napoleon III. The Italian expedition did, indeed, create opposition among some French Catholics, but it certainly could not have been the sole reason underlying the shift from an absolute Empire to a liberal Empire. The article does not explore at all what the internal economic, social, and religious factors that might also underlie this transformation.

The author fails to use multiple, diverse sources as the evidence supporting all of his claims and assumptions. He simply provides as his sole source the 1911 edition of "Encyclopedia Britannica". Citing other broad books and other materials would significantly help to verify the academic integrity of the article. Additionally, including focused and specialized academic works and at least some modern sources would also have bolstered the article’s credibility. Since 1911, for example, more in-depth studies of the Second Empire have no doubt been undertaken. It is entirely possible that new facts or ideas about the Second Empire have been unearthed that would not have been available to the editors of the 1911 edition of "Encyclopedia Britannica".

A final flaw in the article is the seeming lack of order in which topics are presented. A chronological order of the events is not used as the organizational system. Instead, events seem to be listed in a haphazard order rather than with any structured purpose or intent. There is no reason provided or apparent, for example, for mentioning the "Rise of Prussia" prior to the "Mobilization of the Working Classes".

Despite the above problems, the article is very informative. The information is presented in a very clear and concise matter. However, the article does leave out important elements of the inception and demise of the Empire. For example, the author does not elaborate how Napoleon III was able to come to power and thus create the Second Empire. It also fails to mention details of Napoleon III's direct election to the office of president by the French people or the one term limit of the presidency that forced Napoleon III to launch a palace coup to stay in power. Additionally, the author fails to mention the disastrous Franco-Prussian War that led to the capture of Napoleon III and the downfall of the Second Empire. The article would be much more complete with even a brief mention of the origins of the Second Empire and its final demise. Notwithstanding these few shortcomings, the Wikipedia article is very informative and presents the information in a clear and precise manner. -Donnie Holzinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.221.188 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 March 2006

Would contributors please sign their comments with four (4) tildes ( ~ )? Thank you very much! — Diamantina 06:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit other's comments. I've replaced yours, which was apparently deleted when 128.239.221.188 added a name in lieu of a proper wiki signature (four tildes, people, that means ~~~~, it's not that difficult), but it's equally as bad to tinker with other people's talk page contributions. That goes for you too, 128.239.221.188, don't delete other people's talk page contibutions. 71.204.204.249 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The coat of arms shown in the article is presented as being the arms of the Second Empire. However, the accompanying text to the picture clearly shows (in French and English) that this is the coat of arms of the First Empire.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir48 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 September 2006

ECONOMICS

The article is very light on the economics of France during the Second Empire. Really, the main success of the Second Empire was the industrialization of France. There is little mention of the transformation of Paris directed by Napoleon III.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.197.116 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 October 2006

"Mobilization of the working classes"

The article strongly implies that left-wing working class political thought was dominated by the ideas of Marx and Bakunin. However, Marxism was still a small fringe of 'the left' even at the Empire's end, and only saw real influence amongst the working classes from the 1880s and onwards. During the Second Empire, the most influential working-class political ideologies were those of the Proudhonists (forerunners of the anarcho-syndicalists) and the Balnquists (who focused on siezing power rather than theorising; they had gained much support following the radical workers' continued defeats after 1848). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.97.125 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED.

IT IS VERY BIASED AGAINST NAPOLEON III, PAINTING THE ENTIRE SECOND EMPIRE PERIOD AS GENERALLY NEGATIVE WHICH I DO NOT BUY.

While Napoleon III's foreign policies were his downfall, very little is mentioned about the fact that this regime was probably the most economically enlightened prior to the 20th Century. The Second Empire was a period of tremendous and sustained industrial expansion - the development of the major commercial French banks and modern railway system occurred in this period. The Second Empire is also important for another reason: they provided the State Capitalism model which is now being followed by today's China and Putin's Russia are following. Essentially, an authoritarian government managing a capitalist system with popular support from most socioeconomic classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.221.48 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

This article is a good read and intriguing. However I wonder if some of the points are biased in one way or another. I can't tell for sure though since there are no inline references. I have added the reference tag for that reason. Feel free to remove it if you disagree. Cool10191 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map show Algeria?

I believe that Algeria had been administrated by France since 1830, and other territories may have also been under French juristiction or as a protectorate (Tahiti for example). Shouldn't this show on the map? This article is about an empire, after all.Jarby (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be on the map -- but, for future reference, Algeria was merely a colony until the constitution of 1848, whereby it was divided into three départments. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Industrialization?

It seems to me that this article should, at some point, mention that Napoleon III brought France from an agrarian economy to an industrialized one. And what about Baron Haussman redesigning Paris? These both happened not simply under his reign, but at his explicit direction. Should be noted, at least. Tyrannischgott (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

error in "decline" section

This sentence I believe is in error:

"He then led France to war with Austria over Italy. France was victorious, and gained Savoy and Nice, but the unification of Italy outraged French Catholics, who had been the leading supporters of the Empire."

This is my proposed correction:

He then led France to war with Austria over Italy. France was victorious, and gained Savoy and Nice, but the unification of Italy outraged French Catholics, who had been the leading supporters of maintaining but the unification of Italy outraged French Catholics, who had been the leading supporters of the Empire lands controlled by the Papacy."

Thoughts?

RMB

I think both sentences are right. The French Catholics were supporters of the French Empire but also wanted to maintain the territorial integrity of the Papal States. I would scind therefore this sentence in two :

He then led France to war with Austria over Italy. France was victorious, and gained Savoy and Nice. But the unification of Italy outraged the French Catholics, who had been the leading supporters of the emperor, because they wanted to maintain the territorial integrity of the Papal States. JoJan (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

Why is Algeria not colored in on the map in the infobox? Algeria was part of France by this time. 24.11.127.26 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

Why do they call this the Second French Empire? Its boundaries are no different from modern France.Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact; they were. Algeria was an integral part of France -- not a colony like the rest of its African poseesions; the Treaty of Turin, 1860, ceded Savoy and Nice to France, hitherto part of the Kingdom of Sardinia. As for the name, the traditional, Bonapartist monarchical title was that of Emperor; and the domain of an emperor is an empire. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anachronicity of the map

The map is showing modern borders. Unless my knowledge of history is completely wrong, Austria for example was at the time of the French Empire part of the Habsburg polity, not its own little Republic with modern borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.187.236 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the map to one with more accurate 19th century borders. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Map again

I believe the map is missing some French outposts in Africa. For instance, portions of the Ivory Coast had become a French protectorate in 1844, and Libreville had been founded in 1849. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

erasing dozens of sourced edits

We have the unhappy case of an editor who erased 30+ sourced edits on a wide range of topics on this topic with no discussion here on the talk page and instead an insulting edit summary: (Revert to last good version (if that). The editor Rjensen is apparently balling up his fists and attempting to wish away imperialism as a fact of history). the complaints is 99% vague and cannot support the deletion of multiple topics on domestic policy unrelated to imperialism. I would be happy to discuss any and all edits here. "Imperialism" has two senses: a) Imperialism refers to emperors and empires--that is not at issue. 2) imperialism refers to the foreign policy of seizure of territories the way France, UK and other countries did across the world especially when the French Second Empire was active, 1851-1870. I very much consider #2 an important major event and at no point have I denied it--instead I have added RS cites. Nor do I approve (I wrote "Historians have generally given the Empire negative evaluations on its foreign-policy, and somewhat more positive evaluations of domestic policies, especially after Napoleon liberalized his rule after 1858.") Rjensen (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

The section "Foreign Policy" needs its english overhauled. But worse still is "The visit of Czar Alexander II to Paris for John disaster". Masonmilan (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Intro/Foreign Policy

The intro states that in the realm of foreign policy Napoleon III wished to “emulate his Uncle”-I know this statement is at least somewhat subjective and may just be coloring in the intro but considering the lengths he went too early on to convey and his actual foreign policy throughout-Napoleon III pursued an imperialistic foreign policy but specifically not one that followed his Uncle’s legacy of invading and conquering major portions of Europe, if anything he went against that example, seeking to more or less maintain (not expand significantly) France’s position as the dominant land power of Europe while pursuing a fairly ambitious approach abroad. OgamD218 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Partant Pour La Syrie.ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Partant pour la Syrie.mid

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete map

Shouldn’t the map of the empire include all the North African territories? Or am I being ignorant and in fact, their southern border was indeed a straight line? 2A02:C7C:5690:A000:A0EB:A167:F991:D75E (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Fascism

So, I've been doing some research on Napoleon I (a page I cannot edit because I hate him too much) and I've found several places saying they've heard Napoleon I and III were precursors to fascism. But, I haven't actually read any serious historical source that actually says this. Almost every instance I can find, whether on social media websites (such as reddit), in articles, or here, is always "People have said it was a precursor to fascism, but" followed by usually saying it wasn't. Does anyone know of good secondary sources (i.e. historians from the 30s and 40s) who actually make this argument? Delukiel (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)