Would Mexico have been better off with Maxamillian? There would have been a strong Constitution and he set up a Mexican blooded heir to the throne. If you think of it, have the Western European monarchs had any "bad" rulers in the last 200 years?
shareThere have been plenty of pretty bad rulers--Wilhelm II wasn't great, for (world war) one. Remember, 19th century and 20th century European monarchs had less power than their previous manifestations, so some of the horrible-ness might have also been concealed by political impotence.
Had Maximilian established a strong parliamentary tradition in Mexico, it's hard to see why the position of a hereditary monarch would be of any importance in the first place. If, on the other hand, the "emperors" of Mexico exercised effective power, it would have been tantamount to a chain of dictatorships. In other words, I find it hard to believe that Maximilian offered realistic hopes for a strong Mexican government--he was an outsider propped up to suit a failed French colonial venture.
[deleted]
At least the Austrians brought some good beer recipes with them and set up some good breweries. (Dos X's)
share