"What is the attraction of the Franco-Prussian War?" Topic

I'm an American, so I'm not real up on the FPW. The flags and uniforms look exotic, but the whole thing seems like ACW armies fighting in Europe, and one of them keeps getting run over. Perhaps I'm biased, but the ACW battles seem more interesting. So, what is the attraction of the FPW?

Pickelhaubes.

I suspect it's the history around the conflict and the "what ifs". Napoleon III and Bismark were two of the most prominent characters in an era full of fascinating people, and everybody outside Prussia expected much better performance from the French.

I've only barely scratched the surface on the era and I find it has a huge "can't look away" type of attraction.

- Ix

The uniforms

It has an interesting tactical asymmetry: the Imperial phase of the war has French with superior infantry firepower against Germans with better artillery. During the Republican phase, the quality of the French infantry declines, but the Germans are usually seriously outnumbered.

And it's part of a set. Given you're not overly fussy, those French can be used against Austrians in 1859, and the Prussians get to fight those same Austrians and the Bavarians in 1866. Build three armies, fight three wars, and in no case are the two sides as close to identical in tactics and equipment as ACW armies. (Yes, of course I have ACW armies too: but 1859-1871 has a charm of its own.)

Despite the imbalance of technologies (Chassepot VS Krupp)I find playing the Franco-Prussian war has always been a really challenging game, no matter which side I'm on.

I don't find there is one…

I was interested in this war once…and young. Luckily I got over it w/o buying a bunch of figures that would still be in the attic unpainted.

Uniforms.
It's WWI with all the neat Napoleonic units.
Tactics adjusting to weapons technology.
I am also into ACW.
I play battalion level 15mm FPW and I have a huge collection We play it a lot.

I play both ACW and FPW. They are not the same. Prussian infantry are all armed with the equivalent to breech loading carbines. These are way outclassed by French rifles, which are almost modern rifles. French artillery is all rifled guns, which are way outclassed by breech loading Krupp guns. Cavalry on both sides only fights mounted with cold steel, making them nearly useless on the battlefield.

French in the first Imperial phase of the war have well trained troops led by inept generals. In the second Republican phase they have large, poorly trained forces led by some really decent commanders. ACW is still my main squeeze but this period fascinates me.

And when I finish my current FPW campaign, the 1866 Austrians are up next.

I'm using Bloody Big Battles, a grand tactical set that covers complete battles.

The Deaths Head Hussars.

What ifs

Tactics, equipment, like no other wars with loads of troops, still looking great. To game something different.

decision game boardgame allows for an easy campaingn.

It has nothing in common with AcW at all, except possibly some French caps shapes.

"seems like ACW armies fighting in Europe" – it really isn't, because of the asymmetry of weapons, and also tactics, and also armies. The later battles in particular tend to be quality vs quantity, which is always an interesting match-up. Asymmetry means more interesting tactical choices to make on the wargames table.

"one of them keeps getting run over" – not entirely. The French did a fair amount of attacking too. They didn't win many battles, but it wouldn't have taken much to change a few of the Germans' costly victories into bloody defeats. (Witness Vincent's triumph last week at Gravelotte: TMP link )

And for me as a player who likes big battles: there are as many big battles in 6 months of FPW as in the whole of the ACW; you can fit them on a 6'x4' table; and they offer a real variety of interesting situations. The attempts to break out at Mars-la-Tour and Sedan; fighting withdrawals at Borny and Beaumont; both sides frantically rushing up reinforcements at Loigny / Poupry, etc etc etc.

Oh and you get mitrailleuses, and an armoured train …

I love FPW.

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

Breechloading rifled Krupps versus rifled muzzleloading cannon.
The Chassepot bolt action rifle versus the Dreyse breechloading needle rifle.
And if you take it back a few years to the Austro-Prussian conflict you get,
the Dreyse versus muzzle loading rifled muskets.
The disparity in technologies offers a very different tabletop challenge.
And, of course, you still have the potential of launching a charge of cuirassier in back and breast plates.

What Ligniere said +10.

I've been fascinated with this period since the first time (in 1974) that I saw Dad field a Prussian army against George Carr Sr's French on Dad's 6' x 10' table. The possibilities with these armies and leaders are endless.

agreeing with Ligniere and Lori, but the uniforms are awesome.
My fascination started with reading the Classics Illustrated Comic book version of Zola's The Downfall. And then along came Larry Brom! ;-). Rallynow also brought up some good points!

It's Napoleonics on steroids. What's not to like?

Two armies trying to tackle fast tactical and technological changes.

The Uniforms

The Republican phase with its passion and fury

The what ifs

The Commune

The personalities.

The variation between the two phases (really two different wars)

Yes the Germans had the upper hand most of the time, and strategically, but so did the Union (as Luttwak says, fixing mistakes at the Grand Strategic level are almost impossible absent miracles, no matter the number of victories you wrack up at the tactical and operational level, and the Confederacy and both French governments mucked it up big time at that level)

The potential for escalation and diffusion (not that crazy concerning Austria, a bit more crazy with Dennmark though not impossible).

I am an ACW devotee but the appeal of the FPW is also strong. Sadly all the local guys use 10mm and can't go lower than 15s.

Your question stems from lack of familiarity or knowledge on the subject. Do yourself a favor. Find and read:
Day of Battle: Mars la Tour by David Ascoli As a wargamer this should capture your interest.

link

BTW many People have the exact same opinion of acw

I will completely concede that I have no more than passing knowledge of the subject, hence the question.

At $56 USD for the paperback, I'm not going to learn much more.

@mwindsorfw
Try here
link

Or try the library. It's free, and when you're done the book clogs somebody else's shelves.

wow, that price difference is quite marked!

Phase 1:Airfix French Foreign Legion and WW1 Germans -never looked back.
Phase 2 The Foundry range.

The uniforms & mustaches.

The Deaths Head Hussars.

Yes, but you can get those with your tricornes, too.

"the whole thing seems like ACW armies fighting in Europe"

No, ACW is FPW with more simple uniforms, smaller armies and more wood.

ACW ended with the USA as it was before, becoming a world power 50 years later. That would have been happended even without ACW.

FPW ended with a totally changed middle europe, with a power that would dominate european politics for the next 70 years.

I seems that the French ruled the battlefield with their Chassepot, but the Prussians could blow them away with their superior artillery and not even have to get their troops within Chassepot range. However, this is not how the real battles were fought. So, most wargame scenarios give the Prussians offensive minded objectives to reach and a turn limit to get it done in, so that the Prussians don't have the time to sit back and bombard the French to pieces.
Another issue is that if you're the French player, do you just raise one of the French armies, or do you raise both of them, or do you raise one army & proxy those minis for the other French army when you have to?

If you enjoy wargaming in the Napoleonic era and the American Civil War, then you are going to naturally move into the Franco-Prussian War. There are, of course, the differences mentioned above due to advances in firepower and accuracy of weapons.

"the ACW battles seem more interesting" – you would be hard-pressed to find an ACW battle that exceeds the army-sized wagon train chase at St Quentin for fun and interest:
TMP link

Not every FPW battle is a frontal assault by the Germans with massed superior firepower. Far from it.

mwindsorfw, I do encourage you to dip your toe in the FPW water. You'll find it a very different game from ACW, and it's a lot of fun.

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

I think it is inaccurate to say the main difference between the FPW and ACW is the uniforms and more cavalry.

The French army at the beginning of the war was one of long service professionals armed with a weapon far superior to what was available in the ACW. Despite this, through a plan of more or less unrelenting aggression and driving home attacks the Prussians fought battles of annihilation and rolled the French Imperial Armies over in a few short months.

In the ACW, the armies (on the whole) were so unable to co-ordinate competent attacks it came to be an assumption that they were not possible and that defense was all powerful. The only plan the Union was able to come up with to win was one of attrition over several years. This is probably due to the difference between the professional Prussian general staff and the largely amateur officer corp of the ACW armies.

What the Prussian generals were doing seems to be very different to what generals in the ACW were doing and in many respects far more worthy of study (and gaming).

I believe the lack of battles of annihilation in the ACW has more to do with terrain and distances as opposed to competency of command. Barry's books shows nicely how problematic even for the Prussian Staff it was to coordinate movements and operations in the Republican phase of the war when the theater of operation expanded compared to the Imperial phase. Consider that the theater of war was much smaller than the ACW one.

The two wars offer different challenges. At the level of gaming I prefer (grand tactical) its not a either-or choice for me. Now to be frank at the Strategic level I do find the ACW a more interesting game (you need to open up the what ifs for the FPW to get the same interest for me).

Overall the distances in the ACW were bigger. But looking at the key theater of war in the east Richmond is only what 100 miles? from Washington. Lack of decision in this area was not due to there being so much space it was impossible to force a decision.

It just seems like there was an inability to mount effective offensives – apart from a few notable exceptions like Chancellorsville, which shows what could be achieved with planning and audacity. But even then, after receiving a right good kicking the army of the Potomac was allowed to get away and reform. This was not due to large distances, they only had 60 miles to retreat before they were past Washington. Can't really blame the terrain either, as difficult terrain would have made it harder to disengage, not easier.

It seems that the professionalism of the Prussian officer class meant that most officers could figure out what to do as needed (on the whole). In the ACW, there were some excellent officers, and if you got lucky the right man was in the right place. There were a lot more placemen and hacks though, who if were not instructed what was needed to be done had a hard time figuring it out.

I love war gaming the ACW and Antietam may be my favorite ever battle to refight. This is not though because it was a well planned and executed attack on an inferior force, but rather because it was such a clusterlove of a plan and battle.

My Great-great Grandfather was a Trooper in the 2eme Chasseur a Cheval. He survived the war and emigrated to Australia in 1875. My mother still has the booklet he was issued when he enlisted.

Love this period. I play both ACW and FPW, they are very different conflicts. Some of that has to do with the fact that despite all the observers sent to report on the ACW, the Europeans largely ignored any lessons from the ACW.

I think there was a narrative that said the Americans are akin to mobs of militia and you can't learn anything from them. The conditions were different enough in America as to not be applicable to Europe.

So you end up with WWI fought with Napoleonic tactics. Weapons were much more deadly than in the ACW.

There are few battles better to look at than a huge FPW battle. If done right, the spectacle can take your breath away. The uniforms are magnificent. That is one of the reasons I don't do this in 6mm.

The uniforms need to be seen in a larger scale to be appreciated. I do it in 15mm which looks great. 25/28mm looks fantastic. I just prefer larger battles.

I am new to historical wargaming and the FPW is my first theatre of choice.

The Unification of Germany was a world changing event, understanding how it came to pass is exciting and valuable.

Photography had just arrived, so it was one of the first wars where we are actually able to see for real the people, arms, and equipment of the time.

The technology of war was on the cusp, with the chassepot rifle being a huge advance over conventional musketry, the superior Prussian artillery, the decline of cavalry, the importance of transport and logistics, use of railway etc.

Also, it's quite a small war, so I am able to enjoy it as a newcomer and find my feet with researching, collecting and painting a historical project before tackling something more complex. I can even hope to re-fight the campaign myself with a solo effort.

In short, I think there's lots to like!

Also, Pickelhaubs! :)

'Some of that has to do with the fact that despite all the observers sent to report on the ACW, the Europeans largely ignored any lessons from the ACW.'

Have heard this said often – so much so for some people that it seems a bit of a truism.

What lessons were not learnt? OK, the French Imperial command had obvious problems, generals lacked initiative and they stayed in what were identified as strong defensive positions far to much – what lesson should they have drawn from the ACW to improve their performance?

As for the Prussians, they rolled over a trained and excellently equipped enemy in a matter of months with a well planned and flexibly delivered attack aimed at annihilating their enemy. What lesson from the ACW would have delivered an even quicker military victory?

To me the main interest is the possibilities. Superficially, the German victory seemed as pre-ordained. Far from it. Before Sedan most of the French army was formed by professional soldiers, well armed and determined (see the actions of the 2eme Tiralleur Algeriens at Froeschwiller, for instance). Certainly, the French had inferior artillery, when compared with the Prussians. However the real issue was the French High Command. French generals were more interested in fighting against each other, than in defeating the Prussians. It is understandable, given his dismal performance, that Bazaine was accused of treason and put on trial, after the war.

That makes the battles very close run affairs. Froeschwiller-Worth, Mars la Tour or even Gravelotte-St Privat could have been won by the French. Even if they were defeated in the end, the victories were hard won for the German allies.