Since Maximilian was a descendant of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain when the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs (1519–21) and brought Mexico into the Spanish Empire, until Mexican independence in 1821, Maximilian would seem to be a perfect candidate for the conservatives' plans for monarchy in Mexico, with his royal pedigree. [3] Maximilian was interested in assuming the throne, but with guarantees of French support. Mexican conservatives did not take sufficient account of Maximilian's embrace of liberalism, and Maximilian took insufficient account of being a foreign outsider, no matter how high-minded his plans might be. [4] At the time the idea of Maximilian as emperor of Mexico was first raised, it seemed farfetched, but circumstances changed making it a viable plan. His tenure as emperor was just three years, ending with his execution by firing squad by forces of the Restored Republic on 19 June 1867.

One biographer in 1971, calls Maximilian and Carlotta "tragic figures". He compares the era to that of "grand opera", with "actors on that stage [who] appear as posturing anachronisms rather than great personages ... only in terms of nineteenth-century melodrama ... does the whole affair assume the credibility of something more than a harlequinade. The blood, after all, was real. The tragedy of Maximilian and Carlotta, and that of the thousands who died or were bereft as a result of their venture in the New World, could have been the product only of a period phosphorescent with decay and delusion." [144] This changed with the defeat of the Second Mexican Empire. The association of conservatives with Maximilian and foreign invasion entirely discredited their political project. Now, they were seen as traitors and the term “conservative” became pejorative. To be a conservative was not Mexican. This interpretation was embedded in the liberal historiography of the Porfiriato. So much so that when a writer called Francisco Bulnes published a work questioning Juárez’s role in defeating Maximilian the author received death threats and his publisher was boycotted. The Mexican Revolution, which lasted from 1910 through 1920, also appropriated the legend of Juárez into its own rhetoric of triumphant progress. The tragedy of Maximilian’s life might be that he was simply too liberal for the fundamentally reactionary project he was asked to lead. Strategically, one of Maximilian’s greatest mistakes was deciding that his empire would uphold Juárez’s signature law redistributing church property. This was a noble decision, attesting to Maximilian’s genuine concern for Mexico’s poor. Yet he acted against the express wishes of the Vatican and the conservative Mexican elites on whose support Maximilian relied. Maximilian even toyed with the idea of asking Juárez to be his prime minister in a constitutional monarchy (Juárez, for his part, rejected any notion that he would participate in a government imposed by a foreign force). Harris Chynoweth, W. (1872). "The Fall of Maximilian, Late Emperor of Mexico: With an Historical Introduction, the Events Immediately Preceding His Acceptance of the Crown".

42. His Rival Selected A Harsh Punishment

Chisholm, Hugh (1911). "The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information".

Bancroft, Hubert Howe (1888). History of Mexico Volume VI 1861–1887. The Bancroft Company. pp.206–207. McAllen, M.M (8 January 2014). Maximilian and Carlota: Europe's Last Empire in Mexico. Trinity University Press. p.143. ISBN 9781595341853. In 1864, Emperor Franz Joseph met Maximilian at his idyllic Miramare to sign the so-called “Family Pact.” This was ominous and devastating. In the pact, Maximilian reluctantly renounced all his rights to the Austrian throne should his brother ever pass. It was the final nail in the coffin for any of his hopes of becoming an Austrian monarch, but at least he had the Mexican throne to look forward to…right?

19. His Brother Fired Him

All is told in detail, yet not overwhelmingly so. For example, I find the description of battles, even though they’re often very important, a rather dull reading experience; yet here, I didn’t get bored one second. I also always say that good history-telling demands the same talent as good story-telling, and the author has that talent. He spins his (historical) yarn skilfully and entertainingly. What I could see perfectly well was the ludicrous character the whole Mexico-enterprise had from the start, the wobbly base upon which the empire was built, the unsavoury helpers and builders of that scheme, and the helpless credulity of both Maximilian and his wife, who (and that can maybe only be understood after the facts, of course) were doomed from the start.