Holy Roman Empire

In 1877, Britain, France, and Austria simultaneously launched expansionist wars on the African continent, plunging Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Somali Peninsula into conflict.

Compared to the sweeping victories of France and Austria, the British found themselves in trouble. The renowned “King of Kings” became a nightmare for the British Army.

Due to overconfidence and recklessness, the British forces were ambushed not long after the war began, suffering heavy losses.

Looking at the battle reports in his hands, British commander Ismael was trembling with anger. In less than a month of fighting, over 5,000 troops had been lost. The loss of colonial troops could be excused, but the critical blow was the decimation of an entire British infantry regiment.

“Useless! Every last one of you is useless!”

“You can’t even defeat a bunch of natives! You’ve disgraced the face of Britain! What’s the point of the nation keeping you around?”

A young officer nervously explained, “General, the Ethiopian natives are no ordinary opponents. They have modern weapons and have received formal military training.”

Smack!

Ismael slammed the table and cursed angrily, “It must be those Austrian bumpkins and the French bastards! Nobody else could be this shameless!”

No one dared respond to this accusation. After all, it was the British who had first helped train the Ethiopian army. Only after the last Ethiopian war did France and Austria begin to infiltrate their influence into the region.

The fact that Ethiopia now had a well-trained army was partially due to British involvement. If this truth were exposed, the British government would face immense public backlash.

Shifting the blame to France and Austria was the easiest way out. It wasn’t their lack of effort, but simply that the enemy was “too strong.”

After venting his anger, Ismael calmed down. This war had been planned based on the experience of the last conflict, but clearly, those methods were now outdated.

Times had changed. Menelik II had managed to unify most of Ethiopia through relentless battles. A battle-hardened army like his was no easy opponent.

The Paris Conference had failed to produce any binding agreements, and in the absence of treaties, covert interference by France and Austria was only to be expected.

Ismael strongly suspected that Ethiopia’s military was now being led by French or Austrian officers. How else could the British Army lose to natives?

After assessing his available forces, Ismael reluctantly concluded that victory with the current troops would be difficult, and even if they won, it would be a pyrrhic victory.

If they were fighting against a European power, a “costly victory” might still be acceptable. But against African natives? A result like that would land him in a military tribunal.

There was no other option. To secure victory, Ismael decisively requested reinforcements from home.

…

In Paris, after several years of political struggle and balancing acts, Napoleon IV gradually consolidated his hold on state power.

From this perspective, Napoleon III’s earlier plans were successful. By exploiting the power struggles among various factions, he ensured a smooth transition of imperial authority.

However, this approach came with both advantages and drawbacks. After years of political infighting, those who remained in power were seasoned veterans of intrigue and maneuvering.

Even after securing control, Napoleon IV couldn’t simply replace these entrenched officials. As a result, internal conflicts within the French government became its most significant issue.

Helpless to resolve these bureaucratic struggles, Napoleon IV was forced to continue playing the balancing game.

While internal conflicts among officials could, to some extent, benefit imperial authority by preventing any single faction from becoming too powerful, there were limits.

Once those limits were crossed, chaos would ensue. When everyone is busy undermining each other, how can the country function and develop properly?

This issue became evident in France’s economic performance over recent years. Since the death of Napoleon III, France’s economic growth had slowed dramatically, and the French government had shown little initiative.

Still, doing nothing was preferable to implementing reckless policies. Overall, France remained stable, though its economic growth lagged behind.

For the ambitious Napoleon IV, this stagnation was unacceptable. Once he consolidated his authority, he began prioritizing economic development.

However, the slowdown in France’s economic growth was caused by multiple factors, and no government initiative could instantly reverse the trend.

The biggest issue was the energy crisis. Domestic coal production was severely insufficient, unable to meet the growing demands of the economy.

Not only was there a coal shortage in mainland France but even in its African colonies. With no local coal available, importing became the only option, undoubtedly raising industrial production costs.

As costs rose, market competitiveness naturally declined. In international trade, France’s share of the global market was rapidly shrinking.

At its peak, France accounted for one-fifth of the world’s total import and export trade. That figure has now dropped to 15.7%.

And this decline wasn’t over yet as France’s market share continued to fall. It wouldn’t be long before even its position as the world’s third-largest trading nation might be lost.

Napoleon IV asked, “Are you certain that opening the Panama Canal will boost the export of domestic industrial and commercial products?”

It must be said that French capitalists were truly skilled, even managing to lobby the emperor directly.

Finance Minister Alain replied, “Your Majesty, the situation with the Panama Canal is very similar to that of the Suez Canal. The opening of the Suez Canal sparked a period of economic prosperity.

After the Suez Canal opened, France’s import and export trade experienced annual growth of over 7% for five consecutive years, greatly stimulating domestic economic development.

The Panama Canal will have a similar effect. Once it’s operational, the route from the Atlantic to the Pacific will be shortened by tens of thousands of nautical miles, significantly boosting the growth of export trade.”

Such claims were made without a hint of hesitation, proof of the low ethical standards of politicians. While the opening of the Suez Canal indeed greatly stimulated the French economy, the Panama Canal wouldn’t have nearly the same impact.

A glance at the map reveals that the biggest beneficiary of the Panama Canal would be the United States, followed by Colombia, with other countries only reaping minor benefits.

That said, it wasn’t entirely without value. If the Panama Canal had opened a decade earlier, France might not have had to abandon Mexico.

Time cannot be turned back. Developing the Panama Canal now would, at most, shorten the route to the West Coast of the Americas.

Given the economic conditions of the West Coast during this era, even if exports were stimulated, the growth would be very limited.

Moreover, there’s competition from other European countries. French industrial and commercial products are losing international competitiveness, so the benefits gained would be minimal.

Against this backdrop, investing heavily in the development of the Panama Canal is ultimately a losing proposition for the French.

Napoleon IV shook his head and said, “No, my Finance Minister. You’re only seeing the potential benefits for us but you’re ignoring the consequences. In fact, the greatest beneficiary would not be us.

Looking at the map, it’s clear that the one that stands to gain the most would be the United States. Suppressing the development of American nations is a shared policy of the British, French, and Austrian alliance, with the United States being a primary target for suppression.

The tripartite treaty explicitly stipulates that the three nations must maintain a balance on the American continent and prohibit any unilateral strengthening of a single nation’s power.

Whether or not we support the United States, actions that enhance its power would be seen as a betrayal by Britain and Austria. We cannot sacrifice our long-term development for short-term gains.”

Clearly, Napoleon IV was not easily fooled. This flawed argument failed to deceive him.

Finance Minister Alain, “Your Majesty, these are the apparent benefits, but the potential benefits are actually much greater.

In the short term, the opening of the Panama Canal would benefit the United States the most. However, if the Panama Canal is under our control, as trade increases, the economic lifeline of the United States would fall into our hands.

The true benefit lies behind this and the greatest gain would be for us. In the future, we could use the Panama Canal to open the doors of American countries, allowing the Empire to seize even more benefits.

Developing the Panama Canal doesn’t directly enhance any one country’s power, it can only be considered a gray area. Britain and Austria will not have much of a reaction.”

The potential benefits are indeed tempting. The world has already been largely divided, and it’s difficult to move against the remaining independent nations.

Seizing benefits through economic means has become an inevitable strategy for the future world. Controlling the economic lifeblood of American countries would undoubtedly place France in a favorable position in the new round of competition.

Napoleon IV asked, “How do we ensure control of the Panama Canal? In Colombia, whether it’s the British or the Austrians, we can’t compete with them!”

This is the key issue. France lacks the strength in Colombia to ensure control over the canal.

The British, French, and Austrians are indeed allies, but this is simply a coalition of interests. When the stakes are high enough, allies can turn into enemies.

If Britain and Austria are allowed to join the canal project, control will quickly shift away from them. Napoleon IV would rather not be the one making such a mistake.

Finance Minister Alain, “Your Majesty, actually, there is no need for the government to get directly involved. It would be better for private capitalists to take charge.

If we cooperate with either Britain or Austria, we won’t gain control, but if more countries participate, the situation will change.

As the initiating country, we may not gain control, but obtaining the largest voice in the matter is not difficult. The government only needs to…”

…

After much persuasion, Finance Minister Alain had finally convinced Napoleon IV. Deep down, he had already made up his mind. Whoever wanted to take on such a task could do it; he certainly wasn’t going to continue.

Although the promised benefits from the capitalists were substantial, the risks involved were also considerable. If it weren’t for the fact that Alain knew Napoleon IV was looking to replace him and wanted to make a final profit before retiring, he would never have agreed to cooperate with the capitalists.

It’s important to note that, on the surface, he was considered a representative of the commoner class. It was only through his alliance with Napoleon III to restore the monarchy that he had managed to achieve his rise in life.

A politician’s public image couldn’t be shattered. As a representative of the common people in the government, if he were to cooperate with the capitalists, once the news leaked, Alain would quickly find himself isolated and facing public backlash.

It was precisely because of this identity that Alain had the opportunity to suggest to Napoleon IV that if a minister representing the interests of the capitalists were to be appointed, it would likely not have been so easy to succeed.