"Did the French ever have any chance?" Topic

Did the French ever have any chance?
Are there any battles the French could have or should have won?

For sure – the French has battle tested troops and better infantry small arms than the Prussians – but they had a catastrophic leadership failure

The French leadership was pretty sclerotic; and their mobilisation was appalling. That said, they were significantly outnumbered and the Prussians leveraged their advantages – particularly in artillery, command and flexibility – to great effect. The French would probably have lost (Bismarck after all wouldn't have engineered a war he didn't expect to win) but needn't have lost the early campaign so quickly.

I can't recall the details of many of the battles, but a more active French general should have won at Mars-La-Tour, which would have led to a different strategic situation.

I wrote an essay about 45 years ago at Uni about Prussian use of railways in the Franco-Prussian War. They built their railways so that they could funnel troops to the frontier fast. I guess they got there the fastest with the mostest, as the man said.

Frederick has some good points, and I believe a correct assessment. There are some other factors to consider based on later events in the conflict. The closer the German forces got to Paris the further their supply and communication lines were stretched. This caused them many problems in the later stages of the conflict. Despite this fact the French leadership of the 2nd Empire chose the idiotic option of trying to break Bazaine's trapped Army out of Metz instead of falling back on Paris. If they had fallen back on Paris time would have definitely been on France's side. Their best military commanders were out of the country, and when they returned they faced an almost impossible situation because of the loss of most NCO's and qualified combat officers. Could the French have won the war? Certainly. They had many opportunities, but they made almost all the wrong choices.
The answer to the second question is even easier to answer. They should certainly have won Mars-la-Tour, and they should have won at Gravelotte-St. Privat and Spicheren too. A victory at any of these battles could have certainly changed the outcome of the war.

they had a catastrophic leadership failure

Especially since the French army and corps commanders wouldn't "march to the sound of the guns" like the Germans did.

And their artillery and Mitralleuse were so badly deployed as to be very ineffective in many battles.

Jim

For sure – the French has battle tested troops and better infantry small arms than the Prussians – but they had a catastrophic leadership failure

Napoleon III was no Napoleon.

Did the French ever have any chance?
Are there any battles the French could have or should have won?

I recommend playing a lot of wargames to find out. If you're on the West Coast of the USA, I might be able to help with that.

- Ix

I second the Yellow Admiral!

Play more scenarios and post the results!

If you are in the Mountain-West let me know!

The French problems were not just in leadership. The entire institutional framework was problematical (note the mobilization problems).

As far as battle tested troops, the Germans probably had the edge there (1866 v. 1859) and the supposed superiority of infantry firearms was less important than the inferior training of the French infantry.

Don't forget that German losses were much higher than expected and their forces were still a mixed bag of different kingdom's forces of varying quality. France need not have lost, but German generalship was definitely superior.

Good stuff – and thank you! I am going to be using Big Bloody Battles rules, and I have Wegerle's 1870. Both have what look to be comprehensive scenarios. I am starting with 2mm,affordable and easy to paint massed armies. I may change to 6mm once I become more familiar with the game and the period.

I am doing some reading but likely years behind all of you. I am new to the period. Thanks again…

An interesting analysis on a war about which I know very little.

thank you

martin

"That said, they were significantly outnumbered and the Prussians leveraged their advantages – particularly in artillery, command and flexibility – to great effect"

They were only outnumbered because their mobilisation "system" was so awful. Unit for unit the Imperial Army was rather better than the Prussians, particularly the Prussians who had forgotten everything they learned about fire tactics in 1866.

But yes, the only way to find out is to play lots of Wargames.

My feeling is that a strategic win required different French leadership at the highest levels--and the first thing a competent French CinC would have done was try to postpone the war while he made a few changes in equipment, mobilizaton and diplomacy.

Battles are another matter. A lot might depend on just how much differently the French are permitted to be have, from "marching to the sound of the guns" to doctrinal deployment of the mitrailleuse. Do keep us informed, please.

Would the French showing in Mexico have been an indicator that all was not well with the French military? Granted, a very different war.

Also, I live on the east coast, too far to meet up for some games, but thank you for the thoughts. I suspect there are not a lot of people playing this period, but I think it has much to offer.

I may have talked a friend into trying it, a rookie outsider.
It was this that started me thinking whether I should go ahead and play the French as my pre-conceived notion was that they were incompetent at leadership levels and could not mobilize fast enough to have a chance, while the Prussians were clever and organized. But I may have had an inflated view of my abilities..duh. I have played games for years, but that doesn't mean I won a lot of battles!

It looks like each side can win a battle using various rules. Commander ratings aside, maybe.

Mexico – another period to look into!

Mexico is not a war between France and Mexico, the only took place in 1838 with a DOW, but a tripartite intervention into internal mexican affairs and mexican civil war where only the French remained to support a mexican side against another in 1862 and began to withdraw already in 1864 and where there were twice as much Mexican Imperialist soldiers than French against Mexican Juaristas, an expedition and military intervention with others, Italy before and after the war of 1859, Syria, Cochinchina, China and not perceived as a defeat of French Army
nothing to do with 1870…

Real Time Wargames has a couple nice campaign systems for the period, one for the imperial period and one for the republican, that are worth checking out if you want to refight the war. I have used BBB and 1871 (1870 streamlined) for rules and both work well.

Bad mobilisation but the peacetime system could not work like the German one.
bad command and coordination.
overall 2 vs3 when it mattered. Combined with the preceding, duh.

For what if players, within the possible:
Maréchal Niel smoked less and died later: earlier, more or less efficient mobiles.
No saving on artillery fuses
A couple or more of cavalry regiments++.
If your rules do not give too many shortcomings to the French leaders ( e.g. Age of Valor?), then you might play the campaign. I will If I find volunteers.

I regarded the Prussians as veterans considering that they had just had wars in 1864 and 1866. They had time for the planning staffs to correct some flaws.
The French experience was older though some veterans still were in the ranks. As mentioned by others their staff planning was poor.

The Prussians made some blunders of their own that against most other nation's armies would have been catastrophic. But the French failed to take advantage of them.

As the saying goes the French were "outnumbered, outgunned and out generalled."

After the initial battles the plan was to fall back to Verdun. But Bazaine had this weird obsession with holding Metz. Which as we all know led to disaster.

But the seeds of this defeat were sown before the war began. The list is long but I would begin with France going to war against the Germans without allies. They tried to entice Austria as an ally. Austria wanted no part of it and who could blame them? So France went to war against Prussia and all her allies without a single ally of her own. The French were simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

To compound that problem was the French military system. The French army relied heavily on a standing professional army, which was relatively small compared to the vast conscription-based systems being developed in Prussia. Conscription terms were unevenly enforced. Wealthier individuals could avoid service by paying for substitutes, leading to disparities in recruitment and training quality. Disastrous French mobilization. Not mobilizing the entire nations manpower until after Sedan.

Many reservists received little or no actual training, leaving a significant portion of the French army ill-prepared. The required service length was cut and then cut again and again. Most politicians distrusted a large standing army.

The poor use of reserves. Not utilizing the entire army. I don't know if the Guard Corps fired a single shot. Where as the Prussians had no qualms with their guards beng in the front lines.

The misuse of French Cavalry. Not adequately trained to conduct reconnaissance which led to the French being surprised again and again. Dividing up the cavalry and assigning them to infantry brigades. They were getting slaughtered Covering retreating infantry. Lack of modern artillery.

Promoting officers based on patronage and politics resulted in incompetent officers in command of Corps and Armies while excellent officers were relegated to backwater commands like North Africa. That did change with the Third Republic.

Would the French showing in Mexico have been an indicator that all was not well with the French military? Granted, a very different war.

But the Second Empire had victories in the Crimean War, Second Opium War, Siege of Medina Fort, Cochinchina Campaign, Second Italian War of Independence over Austria, Franco-Sardina War.

The Mexican thing was an aberration. We only lost because the Americans and British threw a hissy fit. We are feeling pretty good about ourselves. So don't you mess with us.

Mexico concerned only very few metropolitan regiments of the French Army (e.g. only 6 regimentsx2 battalions of 100/103x3 battalions of Line Infantry regiments) more the Armée d'Afrique and was not considered at all as a military defeat in France, even in a theater like Algeria there were more units in campaign throughout the Second Empire,
I have the feeling that is something like a problem of perspectives by the prismus of the mental vision limited by the english-speaking culture of wargamers and miniaturits of XXth-XXIst who still think and like to imagine that "5th may" is a mexican fiesta and that the real name given of such campaign in France is "The Mexican Adventure" (sic?) among others things I read on TMP etc, Mexico is not Napoleon III's Vietnam (by the way a victorious campaign), and Overseas campaigns from New France under Louis XV to Indochina are traditionally perceived as very very very secondary by the French military and society to not say without interest nor support, even a conflict such as the American Civil War not sure it received at this time the level of attention that US imagine they have in the other side of Atlantic
one thing is that the members would like to see today and another how that took place and was interpreted in the historical reality

This military episode, ultimately secondary in the political and military history of the two countries – it did not change the course of Mexican history and even proved incapable of lastingly calling into question the French presence in Mexico and harming Franco-Mexican (privileged) relationships… – did not prove to be an important event for contemporaries. This is proven by the recovery of the episode carried out by Mexican literature. The sad escapade of the Habsburg supported by the French armies then became the basis of an abundant literary production
Beyond the transition from history to novel, the Mexican imperial episode plays another, even more important role. For Mexican liberals, it becomes the true founding event of the Mexican "national consciousness", serving as its cement. Even if it means torturing history somewhat and worshipping the "national uprising" that in reality did not exist. As for France, the Mexican adventure appears as a good indicator of the spirit of the Second Empire. It indeed associates the dreams of imperial grandeur based on military victory: those of the defense of Catholicity and Latinity, and finally those of Progress guiding the world in the purest positivist tradition. It is thus a surprising mixture that the history of relations between Napoleon III and Mexico offers us, where the most outdated archaism competes with a clearly affirmed spirit of progress. In this respect, it is not without interest to emphasize that it was precisely on the occasion of this Mexican expedition that the first steps of what was to become French Americanism took place. In some ways, defeat is good. . .

Michel BERTRAND

As indicated by Old Contempible, the Germans made plenty of mistakes, but, of course, the victors get to write the history. If the French had won at Mars-la-Tour (and it is hard to devise a wargames scenario that gives the Germans any chance) and then head d for Verdun to unite their forces, things would certainly have been interesting.

I have GOT to do some more reading….currently on The Franco-Prussian War by Geoffrey Wawro.

Tortorella: Just started Wawro's The Austro – Prussian War. Just finished Helion's "Too Little, Too Late" – the 1866 A-P war in Germany, by Michael Embree. If you like Wawro, you will find Embree "ATTACKS" the subject very similarly and with extensive footnotes and references.

For the F-P war of 1870-71, IMHO, France lost before the war even started when goaded into attacking the Prussians first. They just were not in a position to fight a war at that time. Their billeting of units far away from their equipment upon mobilization and no priority for the trains over the civilian traffic were major internal self inflicted wounds. The French units that did see combat were brave a mostly disciplined units but were not sustained nor deployed/handled by their higher echelon. (Also better told above). Still, if the rules allow for the gamer NOT to follow the historical mistakes, IMHO the game should be a really fun one.

Here is my reading list for the FPW and yes I have been studying this for a while. The list is from my Flickr page which I will provide a link for. I think most of you are aware of it.

"The Battle of Spicheren August 6th 1870" by G. F. R. Henderson

"The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871" by Geoffrey Wawro

"The Franco-Prussian War" by Michael Eliot Howard

"Gravelotte-St-Privat 1870: End of the Second Empire" by Philipp Elliot-Wright

"The Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871" by Stephen Badsey

"Sedan 1870: The Eclipse of France" by Douglas Fermer

"La Débâcle" by Émile Zola

"Bismarck's War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe" by Rachel Chrastil

"Iron and Blood" by Peter H. Wilson

"A DAY OF BATTLE: Mars-La-Tour" by David Ascoli

"Campaign Booklet #12, The Franco-Prussian War, Part One, The French Army" by Nigel J. Smith

"The Uniforms and Organizations of The Franco-Prussian War" by Mark G. Strachan

"Regimental colors of the German armies in the war of 1870-71" by Davis, Gherardi

link

I think you are all to obsessed with tactical abilities and generalship. Germany had all that counts in the modern times: bigger population, better economy, better cause (building a nation state with democratic institutions). How could France check these requirements? (BTW is was the german mistake in the 20th century to beleave, that tactical abilities and generalship are all that counts.)

The population of Prussia in 1870 was approximately 24.69 million. When you include Prussia's allies the number goes to 41 million. The population of France in 1870 was approximately 36.9 million. Allies matter.

France actually out ranked Prussia alone in industrial capacity but when you add the rest of the German states then Prussia and her allies far out produced France in 1870. Allies matter.

France wasn't some third world country. The French armament industry could produce a considerable amount of arms. The problem the French military had was getting the legislature to release the funds. (Yes, even the Emperor had to answer to them.) France had a large empire to draw from, Prussia didn't.

Another problem for the French was that the Germans overran much of France's industry. For example, the company that produced the excellent Chassepot rifle had to relocate and set up a new factory.

What better cause for the French than the survival of your country? The average German soldier or officer had no clue this war would result in the formation of an empire. I suspect the only one that knew was Bismark.

Thanks OC…if you could pick one book to recommend, which one?

I just finished reading one that you might want to add to your list (thanks, Santa):

"Bismarck's War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe" by Rachel Chrastil.

"The Franco-Prussian War" by Michael Eliot Howard or "A DAY OF BATTLE: Mars-La-Tour" by David Ascoli. I think the Osprey campaign books are really good if you want quick read.

Interesting! I have very little knowledge of this war, apart from the generalities -- that France lost big-time after courting it, and despite some better armaments. (Plus those red trousers!) So I always ascribed the French collapse to poor generals/leadership. France certainly was able to beat up opponents before and after when her armies were competently led.

Interesting also in the influence upon military fashion in Europe and No. America. Before 1870, everyone thought the French army unbeatable and copied its dress; after 1871, everyone outside of France started copying Prussian uniforms instead! The world loves a winner.

I have been in the same boat Piper, but making progress. Thanks OC and Chris… BBB helped start me on this path.

Cheers, Tortorella!

An under-gamed war, for sure, given that it must be at least 50% of the size of ACW in terms of armies fielded and major battles fought. I suppose a lot of people see it as one-sided and a foregone conclusion. Maybe so (for the reasons people have listed above), but still lots of rich possibilities for wargaming – the asymmetry of weapons and doctrine makes for fascinating tactical challenges – and plenty of scope for the French to win in game terms.