"Phase of the Franco-Prussian war you like?" Topic

Do you like the

1) Imperial (up to and including Sedan)

or

2) Republican (from Sedan to the end)

phase of the Franco-Prussian War more?

1. I like the difference in equipment and tactics between the two sides. Though strategically it can seem very one-sided.

2. More interesting OBs, with lots of colourful French volunteer units (and Garibaldi), the French are on the attack, they have better artillery, and the Prussians (and Bavarians) are depleted in strength and fighting capacity.

1

1. Imperial – I just like the French regular army amidst the final fading of Napoleonic hubris and glory.

2. The Republican era was politically, socially, and historically far more interesting and had a greater impact on the era that followed. It lacked the really big battles of the Imperial era, but arguably made the case that the Prussians could not militarily secure the peace, and the French could not militarily reverse the outcome of the war.

This period supplies the basis for a lot of smaller actions, skirmish sized battles, and some pretty interesting scenarios revolving around the Commune.

These scenarios can be a lot more balanced than the early Imperial period, where the French are badly overmatched by the Krupps and percussion shell, and the French command is hopeless. Imperial scenarios almost inevitably require "grading on the curve" for the French to make them playable and interesting, or simply ignoring the intrinsic mismatch of command and technology and playing FPW fantasy.
PS, it wasn't a fade, more like somebody turned off the lights!

I suggest reading Zola's "La Debacle" for an insight into the war in both periods. A novel, but very accurate.

1

1

My games tend to be for the Imperial period as it is better documented, but as noted above, the Republican period is probably 'fairer'.

Just waded through Von Moltkes history of the campaign and there are zillions of interesting battles, yet not one single map of any….

I tend to do both. My Prussian force is structured for the "Imperial" phase while my French force is structured for the "Republican" phase.

Jim

1

1. a bit more pagentry

1 big battles!

Tally Ho!

I like both. Republican phase has some big battles too, usually with the French having the numbers. I've got naval infantry on the painting queue for the French, right after I finish up their artillery.

2

I find it really hard to choose. I think it would come down to what mood I'm in! Right now, with the sun shining outside, I'll go for Imperial battles with pretty uniforms in summery green fields. Ask me on a bad day and I'll go for the Republican phase, with masses of miserable levies freezing in the January snow and ice.

Both have exotic units, and both offer asymmetries which make for interesting games. In 1 you have good French troops, poorly commanded; in 2, poor French troops but better commanded; and the better French rifles vs better German artillery in both phases.

And yes, both have big battles. I reckon the top six FPW battles are all Imperial, but the next five, all with 100,000-150,000 combatants involved, are all Republican. I've fought 'em all except Noisseville, and again it's a struggle to pick a favourite. If I could play any one of them tomorrow, I might go for Sedan.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

Both
Imperial are steadier, nicer in many ways but plagued by poor artillery. +command.

Republicans, numerous, equally poor command, less cavalry but nice guns and loads of them. Different beast.

Both challenging and eye catching.

I prefer the early war scenarios. Lots of open countryside and maneuvering, with the possibility of the French turning back the German invaders if well-led and properly deployed.

As I intend to wargame this period in 28mm on a lower scale both

I'm chipping away at a 6mm FPW project for the imperial period. The republican period strikes me as anti-climatic.
Bob

1) Imperial. The French have a chance to defeat the Prussians.

The Republican phase of the war is just a mopping up operation to me with the Siege of Paris and the fiascos in the provinces. Besides, I like the pretty Napoleonic uniforms and early war armies.

1) I can imagine a "what if" in the imperial phase…not so much in the republican period.

There's no shortage of open country and maneuver in the Republican phase. A couple of my favourites are two very mobile Republican actions, Loigny / Poupry, and the "wagon train chase" to St Quentin.
TMP link

Chris

2)
My own personal preference is the Republican. I like the feeling of desperation, the political context, and levee en masse.

1, but after finishing a book about the republican phase, i am also interested in 2.

The only french victories in the actual war were during the Republican phase.

Louis Faideherbe, to some degree, saved the honor of France. He alone makes the Republican command a whole level better than the Imperial period.

As I said, above one must either play "what if?" fantasy, or set up victory conditions or objectives that are heavily slanted to the French to make the Imperial period playable. They were TERRIBLE! Good uniforms, bad command makes for pretty corpses.

After Louis Napoleon was gone, along with many of the worst commanders, the Republic fought fairly well. They hadn't the resources to drive the Germans from France, but they made life Hell for them. They couldn't relieve the siege of Paris, but the Prussians were unable to break a stalemate and it was costing them a fortune! The Bavarians were particularly disaffected during the winter siege.

In the end, The Prussians were as eager for a negotiated peace as the French! They got reparations, the show "Victory March" in Paris, and Alsace Lorraine, which only guaranteed WWI would occur.

The Imperial period was a disasterous end to a theatrical tragedy with great costumes, the Republic was a bloody beginning to the wars of the 20th century and the beginning of an effective French army that would win WWI.

1. As was mentioned earlier, so many "what if?" situations.

Both.

Decebalus, what book?

For me, General Chanzy is the dude. He turns a rabble of garde mobile into a functioning army. He plays a part in the success at Coulmiers. After Loigny, he then conducts an impressive series of defensive actions and fighting withdrawals in the face of an aggressive enemy, and still holds together his battered, raw, frozen, sick, underfed 2nd Army of the Loire, which under a lesser leader would have rapidly disintegrated.

I was actually at Le Mans last week. Didn't get a chance to do a battlefield tour or even see the statue of Chanzy, unfortunately. Next time maybe. Would you believe someone has thoughtlessly built a racetrack on the ground where the Breton garde nationale panicked and fled? (And a very fine motor racing museum as well. Complete with Citroen-Kegresse halftrack.)

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

�

I like both stages of the war.

But if I have to choose which one I prefer, it will have to be the Imperial period.

Full disclosure: I play Prussians. ;-)

Martin

1.) has the large battles which appeal to me.

But if the French are going to have a chance to win I like playing battles from 2. You play the battles from 1 and unless you modify something the French will lose just like in history.