Challenge: French Victory in Franco Prussian War, POD after Sedan

[CitizenCardenas]

First thread! I've searched a bit on here for alternate Franco Prussian timelines, but none of them involve a POD after the Battle of Sedan on September 2, 1870. Can you make the French Republic win this one? Victory is defined as any peace that does not involve loss of land, payment of indemnity, change of government, or withdrawal of overseas troops by France. Prussia can still form the German Empire, just preferably not in Versailles Palace

 

[Arnold d.c]

First thread! I've searched a bit on here for alternate Franco Prussian timelines, but none of them involve a POD after the Battle of Sedan on September 2, 1870. Can you make the French Republic win this one? Victory is defined as any peace that does not involve loss of land, payment of indemnity, change of government, or withdrawal of overseas troops by France. Prussia can still form the German Empire, just preferably not in Versailles Palace

Honestly, in theory yes, in practice quite difficult and unlikely. After the surrender of the Army of Chalons in Sedan, Moltke's advance on Paris appears to be full of risks. First, the French Army of the Rhine was still holding out in Metz, comprised of 140,000 professional troops with 600 guns, with 200,000 Germans tied down in the encirclement. I'd argue that a pre-condition for the French Republic to survive is the escape of the Army of the Rhine from its encirclement. Unfortunately, Marshal Bazaine just wasn't the man to do it. The guy postponed or rather canceled three breakout attempts until the garrison was too weak to do anything according to an account from October 10: "What cavalry is left to us is incapable of service. Our artillery has no more horses. The men are starved, and would not be able to march eight hours." Without the Army of the Rhine, France has only two of the 100 regiments of the regular army, both of which were returning from deployment in Rome.

Second, Moltke's advance to Paris actually saw Moltke outnumbered. Moltke had 240,000 men at the long end of a vulnerable supply line. The Paris Garrison, though ill-disciplined, had 400,000 men and more than enough guns to deny a frontal attack on the city's forts. In the meantime, France's slow mobilization meant now that the Garde Mobile units called up in August were formed up and fortunately too late to join the French regulars in the encirclements of Sedan and Metz. On paper, France had three independent armies on both flanks of the Prussian army. Moltke had also underestimated the gathering French forces. Tann's "Army Section" - a force of 50,000 Bavarians and Prussians, were beaten back by the French Army of Loire, threatening Moltke's southern flank before the surrender of the Army of the Rhine in Metz freed up the 200,000 besieging German troops to guard Moltke's flank.

So I could see a combination of a Metz breakout and a more successful Army of Loire forcing the Germans to give up the Siege of Paris, but I am very reluctant to assign a decent probability of success for the French Republic to win the war. The problem is simple: I don't think there are any French generals and soldiers are up to it. Bazaine is bizarrely passive and weak willed and Aurelle, commander of the Army of Loire, is doing his best McClellan impression after he retakes Orleans from Tann's Bavarians and Prussians. Furthermore, the French volunteer army is in a similar situation to the volunteer armies of the American Civil War in 1861, motivated sure but unused to harsh military discipline, undertrained and underequiped. The Battle of Beaune-la-Rolande shows that the spirit of massed, unskilled infantry attacks as in 1793 wasn’t going to work - 3 brigades beat back an entire corps.

The best bet for the French, IMO, is for an anti-German coalition to save them. Apparently, Italy flirted with the idea.

Side-note: Paris could’ve held out for longer if the government had ejected the 2 million citizens that lived there… but I don’t know the practicality of the move. Frankly, kicking out such a large population will probably doom quite a few and enforcing it would be difficult. I can’t really think of any contemporary examples of a garrison kicking out the civilian population.

 

[Nuraghe]

give Garibaldi command of the army entire (since he was the only one to win a Prussian flag in battle) to slow down the march of the Germans, thus giving France time to regroup.
he was famous for his guerrilla tactics, and he was very charismatic, he very easily attracted volunteers from the people to fight the invaders with him (and we know that the Germans hated volunteers civil snipers)

 

[CitizenCardenas]

Honestly, in theory yes, in practice quite difficult and unlikely. After the surrender of the Army of Chalons in Sedan, Moltke's advance on Paris appears to be full of risks. First, the French Army of the Rhine was still holding out in Metz, comprised of 140,000 professional troops with 600 guns, with 200,000 Germans tied down in the encirclement. I'd argue that a pre-condition for the French Republic to survive is the escape of the Army of the Rhine from its encirclement. Unfortunately, Marshal Bazaine just wasn't the man to do it. The guy postponed or rather canceled three breakout attempts until the garrison was too weak to do anything according to an account from October 10: "What cavalry is left to us is incapable of service. Our artillery has no more horses. The men are starved, and would not be able to march eight hours." Without the Army of the Rhine, France has only two of the 100 regiments of the regular army, both of which were returning from deployment in Rome.

Second, Moltke's advance to Paris actually saw Moltke outnumbered. Moltke had 240,000 men at the long end of a vulnerable supply line. The Paris Garrison, though ill-disciplined, had 400,000 men and more than enough guns to deny a frontal attack on the city's forts. In the meantime, France's slow mobilization meant now that the Garde Mobile units called up in August were formed up and fortunately too late to join the French regulars in the encirclements of Sedan and Metz. On paper, France had three independent armies on both flanks of the Prussian army. Moltke had also underestimated the gathering French forces. Tann's "Army Section" - a force of 50,000 Bavarians and Prussians, were beaten back by the French Army of Loire, threatening Moltke's southern flank before the surrender of the Army of the Rhine in Metz freed up the 200,000 besieging German troops to guard Moltke's flank.

So I could see a combination of a Metz breakout and a more successful Army of Loire forcing the Germans to give up the Siege of Paris, but I am very reluctant to assign a decent probability of success for the French Republic to win the war. The problem is simple: I don't think there are any French generals and soldiers are up to it. Bazaine is bizarrely passive and weak willed and Aurelle, commander of the Army of Loire, is doing his best McClellan impression after he retakes Orleans from Tann's Bavarians and Prussians. Furthermore, the French volunteer army is in a similar situation to the volunteer armies of the American Civil War in 1861, motivated sure but unused to harsh military discipline, undertrained and underequiped. The Battle of Beaune-la-Rolande shows that the spirit of massed, unskilled infantry attacks as in 1793 wasn’t going to work - 3 brigades beat back an entire corps.

The best bet for the French, IMO, is for an anti-German coalition to save them. Apparently, Italy flirted with the idea.

Side-note: Paris could’ve held out for longer if the government had ejected the 2 million citizens that lived there… but I don’t know the practicality of the move. Frankly, kicking out such a large population will probably doom quite a few and enforcing it would be difficult. I can’t really think of any contemporary examples of a garrison kicking out the civilian population.

Thank you for this Arnold. The Metz surrender is very frustrating. I can't imagine Paris ejecting its population - the national guard were *from* Paris and I wouldn't think they'd want their families to be refugees. Can Gambetta get the government to sack Aurelle, and have his replacement coordinate with Paris better (as hard as that was with pigeons/balloons)?

 

[Arnold d.c]

Thank you for this Arnold. The Metz surrender is very frustrating. I can't imagine Paris ejecting its population - the national guard were *from* Paris and I wouldn't think they'd want their families to be refugees. Can Gambetta get the government to sack Aurelle, and have his replacement coordinate with Paris better (as hard as that was with pigeons/balloons)?

That's a touch difficult. Aurelle deserves full credit for getting the Army of Loire to actually act like an army after the defeats at Orleans and just won the first French victories. While Gambetta was a fiery man, it would seem rash to fire an experienced veteran and the only successful general of the war thus far. And if they do fire him, who will replace him? Other generals were also complaining about how underequipped their soldiers were, with one reporting that an entire corps had no uniforms or camping equipment. Just like the regular army officers of the American Civil War, handling the lax discipline of volunteer soldiers took a LOT of getting used to. Also I should note that French forces in Paris and outside Paris did communicate with each other via birds and balloons, with one infamous case of a balloon being blown off course to Norway!

 

[Evil Crusader]

give Garibaldi command of the army entire (since he was the only one to win a Prussian flag in battle) to slow down the march of the Germans, thus giving France time to regroup.
he was famous for his guerrilla tactics, and he was very charismatic, he very easily attracted volunteers from the people to fight the invaders with him (and we know that the Germans hated volunteers civil snipers)

Seconding this, with the reservation that Garibaldi isn't a good Commander in Chief or a good regulars Commander - but to a degree, literally just competent and very spirited could suffice.

 

[Nuraghe]

Seconding this, with the reservation that Garibaldi isn't a good Commander in Chief or a good regulars Commander - but to a degree, literally just competent and very spirited could suffice.

just competent I wouldn't say, but it has to be said that most of the battles he did were with armies organized in bulk, not to mention barrel scraping. but if someone is needed to stop the advance of the Germans his guerrilla tactics are for you

it must be added that when he had a good army under his command he behaved well, only that his superiors did not trust him (see Vittorio Emmanuele II) or he argued with colleagues on the strategy to use, but he was one of the few to defeat the Austrian army without the help of the French

 

[Mikestone8]

The best bet for the French, IMO, is for an anti-German coalition to save them. Apparently, Italy flirted with the idea.

Trouble is, if Italy comes in Austria may well take the opportunity to regain some of the territory she recently lost. After all, Franz Josef knows from past form that he can defeat Italy, which is far less certain re Prussia.

 

[Arnold d.c]

Trouble is, if Italy comes in Austria may well take the opportunity to regain some of the territory she recently lost. After all, Franz Josef knows from past form that he can defeat Italy, which is far less certain re Prussia.

That's a good point - though I should also note that the Austrians felt ready for a second round with the Prussians in unofficial discussions with France - with an ability to mobilize 600,000 in six weeks. Apparently, King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy was tempted by French offers of Papal Rome – withheld from Italy by a French garrison – as well as Nice and Corsica in return for military assistance against Prussia. The Italians could mobilize 200,000 men, which would be helpful for the French, though the Austrian issue is a substantial threat looming over Italian intervention. That said, weren't the Hungarians pretty opposed to adventurism by Austria?

 

[Mikestone8]

That said, weren't the Hungarians pretty opposed to adventurism by Austria?

Indeed they were. That's another reason why imho FJ might go for the quick and relatively easy win over Italy rather than the much more chancy war against Prussia.

 

[RedSword12]

First thread! I've searched a bit on here for alternate Franco Prussian timelines, but none of them involve a POD after the Battle of Sedan on September 2, 1870. Can you make the French Republic win this one? Victory is defined as any peace that does not involve loss of land, payment of indemnity, change of government, or withdrawal of overseas troops by France. Prussia can still form the German Empire, just preferably not in Versailles Palace

Well, even if victory was technically possible, it was clear enough that spending further blood on the matter in such a risky venture was not a good proposition. The French were in no position to turn the war around without paying for it with a calamitous amount of casualties, and it's frankly doubtful that the will would exist to bear that kind of cost out. Sometimes it's best to just cut your losses.

 

[John Farson]

French turn out to have been developing Übers, but as they're French they're not called Übers but something else appropriate in French. Because they were still in development they couldn't intervene in battles like Sedan and others, but they show up at Paris on January 25th, 1871, whence they proceed to rip the besieging Prussians and allied Germans to shreds, in many cases quite literally. Tens of thousands are killed and over a hundred thousand surrender en masse, with the rest of the German forces falling back to tertiary defensive lines. Things spin off from there.

 

[raharris1973]

I would imagine that *if* the Italians came on behalf of the French provisional government, in exchange for a free shot at Rome and maybe more (Nizza, maybe Corsica), and *if* the Austrians mobilized in a hostile manner against the Prussians, Bismarck and Wilhelm would have to reluctantly admit ‘checkmate’ and sign a no annexations, no indemnities peace, simply involving demolition of French fortresses and a non aggression pledge as Prusso-German forces withdrew.

However, if Austria-Hungary instead turned against Italy, that seems like a recipe for a longer “racial” war of Teuton vs Latin, and does not seem to improve French odds any further, unless yet another belligerent comes in on the Franco-Italian side.

with the war expanded and prolonged to a two on two match, a game of doubles, Franco-Italian vs Prusso-Austrian, it seems hard to contain further expansion, in principle.

But in practice, what individual country would want to come in on the Franco-Italian side? Russia? Too fiscally exhausted and without skin in the game I would think. If they chose a war at all at this time (not likely) it would be a private one with the Ottomans in the Balkans.

Would Britain join the Franco-Italian side? Not sure why.

Denmark had an ant German grudge but is too small and weak. Romania has an anti Magyar grudge but is too small, new and weak.

The Ottomans by this point don’t have any anti Austrian grudges and aren’t in shape to take on new enemies.

Your thoughts?

 

[CitizenCardenas]

I would imagine that *if* the Italians came on behalf of the French provisional government, in exchange for a free shot at Rome and maybe more (Nizza, maybe Corsica), and *if* the Austrians mobilized in a hostile manner against the Prussians, Bismarck and Wilhelm would have to reluctantly admit ‘checkmate’ and sign a no annexations, no indemnities peace, simply involving demolition of French fortresses and a non aggression pledge as Prusso-German forces withdrew.

However, if Austria-Hungary instead turned against Italy, that seems like a recipe for a longer “racial” war of Teuton vs Latin, and does not seem to improve French odds any further, unless yet another belligerent comes in on the Franco-Italian side.

with the war expanded and prolonged to a two on two match, a game of doubles, Franco-Italian vs Prusso-Austrian, it seems hard to contain further expansion, in principle.

But in practice, what individual country would want to come in on the Franco-Italian side? Russia? Too fiscally exhausted and without skin in the game I would think. If they chose a war at all at this time (not likely) it would be a private one with the Ottomans in the Balkans.

Would Britain join the Franco-Italian side? Not sure why.

Denmark had an ant German grudge but is too small and weak. Romania has an anti Magyar grudge but is too small, new and weak.

The Ottomans by this point don’t have any anti Austrian grudges and aren’t in shape to take on new enemies.

Your thoughts?

I'm not an expert on the diplomacy of the era! So in my uneducated big-picture understanding Austria had the most to gain by helping France - this war is probably its last chance to reverse Prussian dominance in Central Europe. In OTL Austria was very much Germany's junior partner (maybe even "client") by WWI.

Re: Italy: hadn't Napoleon III already withdrawn the Rome garrison at the beginning of the war? Between that and the switch of government to a Republic I can't imagine Italy feeling much fear of French retaliation if they gobbled up Rome, which means that France doesn't have much leverage over them.

 

[Nivek]

A Communist revolution happens in germany and all of Europe join to put it down? after sedan france is fucked..that or godzilla just wreck things

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

First thread! I've searched a bit on here for alternate Franco Prussian timelines, but none of them involve a POD after the Battle of Sedan on September 2, 1870. Can you make the French Republic win this one? Victory is defined as any peace that does not involve loss of land, payment of indemnity, change of government, or withdrawal of overseas troops by France. Prussia can still form the German Empire, just preferably not in Versailles Palace

So do you mean to keep Sedan as a French loss?
If not, then you'd still have the Second Empire.

 

[CitizenCardenas]

So do you mean to keep Sedan as a French loss?
If not, then you'd still have the Second Empire.

Yes, French lose at Sedan, Napoleon III captured, Government of National Defense formed...

 

[Arnold d.c]

I'm not an expert on the diplomacy of the era! So in my uneducated big-picture understanding Austria had the most to gain by helping France - this war is probably its last chance to reverse Prussian dominance in Central Europe. In OTL Austria was very much Germany's junior partner (maybe even "client") by WWI.

There were two problems to Austrian intervention: 1) reluctance on the part of civilian leadership and 2) the preparedness (or lack thereof) of the Austro-Hungarian Army.

It should be remembered that Franz Joseph had been hustled into two disastrous wars - the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 and the Austro Prussian War in 1866. Experience made him cautious; another catastrophic loss could mean the end of the empire. Thusly, he was pre-disposed to peace instead of war. Civilian leaders were also inclined to agree, being more economic-minded and worried about the damage to their economy. Moreover, the Hungarians were hostile to any idea of going to war with Prussia, fearing an invasion by Russia and rather displeased with the idea of spending part of their budget on a German adventure.

On the Austro-Hungarian Army, they were rather eager to intervene for revenge. So much so that Archduke Albrecht - Inspector-General of the Imperial and Royal army - paid a much publicized visit to Paris, where he unfolded a grand strategic plan to the French minister of war. However, the actual combat readiness of the Austro-Hungarian army was low. There was actually very little pre-war planning on how they would mobilize the troops. Furthermore, Franz Joseph noticed that the War Ministry could not keep a consistent message. The Archduke rattled his sabre, while the Imperial and Royal Minister of War Kuhn insisted that the army needed more time. When Kuhn changed his position, Albrecht circulated a critical pamphlet declaring the army ill-equipped for any mobile campaign in the field!

Ultimately, Colonel Friedrich von Beck, a close adviser to Franz Joseph, agreed with Albrecht rather than Kuhn - the army was not ready. But until then the Austrians conducted a partial mobilization and Kuhn... proved to be rather incompetent. Even though he had boasted of the army's readiness in 1869, the Austrians struggled to conduct a partial mobilization. It didn't have enough horses and uniforms, there was insufficient transportation infrastructure to rapidly shuffle troops to the border and sustain an offensive on short notice and its weapons procurement was a disaster, with the Austrian army stuck with two rifles with different calibers. Even so, Kuhn advocated for war with Prussia and a preemptive invasion of Russia! Moreover, Kuhn's lack of diplomacy made civilian leadership unwilling to stomach the fiscal cost of partial mobilization. When the disaster at Sedan reached Vienna and Budapest, the civilian leadership was inclined to give up any idea of mobilization and intervention.

For the Austrians to intervene, they must have some hope that the war isn't over and that France can actually win - they also need a better civilian-military relationship but that might require a pre-war POD.

Re: Italy: hadn't Napoleon III already withdrawn the Rome garrison at the beginning of the war? Between that and the switch of government to a Republic I can't imagine Italy feeling much fear of French retaliation if they gobbled up Rome, which means that France doesn't have much leverage over them.

It was not Rome that's the leverage - it's Nice and Corisca that France could offer (and apparently did according to Wawro) to return to Italy.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

First thread! I've searched a bit on here for alternate Franco Prussian timelines, but none of them involve a POD after the Battle of Sedan on September 2, 1870. Can you make the French Republic win this one? Victory is defined as any peace that does not involve loss of land, payment of indemnity, change of government, or withdrawal of overseas troops by France. Prussia can still form the German Empire, just preferably not in Versailles Palace

In an alternate timeline, just about anything is possible, but with certain butterflies that would have to be set into motion.
In reality, there was no way the French could defeat the Prussians, especially once the south German states joined in. The only plausble way this could be changed is if Napoleon III saw the trap Bismarck was laying for him with the Ems Telegram, and managed to persuade the majority of the French people that Bismarck was goading them into a war, and that they could be the better men by not giving Bismarck what he wanted.

Assuming for the moment that Napoleon III was successful, however, would not prevent Bismarck from forging ahead with his plans. He would be forced to improvise, possibly using the Zollverein as the basis for achieving his political goal. Meantime, Napoleon III could convince the Austrians, Baden, Wurttemburg and possibly Russia and Britain to forge an anti-Prussian alliance based on the Vienna Settlement of 1815. with the proviso that should Bismarck initiate hostilities, France would be given the Rhineland in the event of a successful outcome as this was the dream of many Frenchmen, Napoleon III included. Even if Russia and Britain do not join, Austria would want to seek revenge for 1866, the south German states would see an easy exit from their predicament, and perhaps even Denmark would be willing to have another shot at Prussia for Schleswig-Holstein.

Napoleon III could also use Bismarck's own trap against him, and goad him into a war. The whole reason Bismarck was successful in isolating France was that in rewriting the Ems Telegram, not only did he manage to persuade the south German states of French aggression, but he removed any chance France could gain allies. Russia was in good stead with Prussia, Austria was militarily beaten, economically in distress and facing a resurgent Hungarian nationalism, Italy wouldn't lift a finger due to the presence of French troops in Rome, protecting the Pope, and Britain still saw France, not Prussia as a military and naval threat. France was made to appear the aggressor and there were many Europeans in 1870 who had lived through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and were all too familiar with French aggression. HOWEVER, had Napoleon III not only seen through Bismarck's ruse but even found a way to turn it against the Prussian statesman, France could gain, if not actual allies, at least sympathy. After all, Napoleon III had cultivated good relations with Britain and even joined them in the Crimean War against Russia, and in addition, gave assistance to the Italian Unification movement. Napoleon III had no clear goals beyond gaining the 'natural frontiers' of France.

It goes without saying that unless Napoleon III had modernized his military, managed to keep the south German states from joining Prussia, and gained an ally or three, the Battle of Sedan COULD still be lost. But again assuming the war happens almost like OTL-with the conditions already listed being met-France could march to Berlin. Perhaps its here that the French are defeated, but because of superiority in numbers or better military hardware, they're not driven back across the Rhine. A possible peace agreement resulting from this would award Silesia to Austria, Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark, the ancestral duchy of the Hohenzollerns could be gifted to Baden, and Framce would gain Luxembourg and the Rhineland

I say this again, however, these circumstances are both the most plausible and at the same time, most unlikely.

 

[funnyhat]

Meantime, Napoleon III could convince the Austrians, Baden, Wurttemburg and possibly Russia and Britain to forge an anti-Prussian alliance based on the Vienna Settlement of 1815. with the proviso that should Bismarck initiate hostilities, France would be given the Rhineland in the event of a successful outcome as this was the dream of many Frenchmen, Napoleon III included. Even if Russia and Britain do not join, Austria would want to seek revenge for 1866, the south German states would see an easy exit from their predicament, and perhaps even Denmark would be willing to have another shot at Prussia for Schleswig-Holstein.

This would be a very difficult sell. France here has to portray itself as the defender of the small German states, or otherwise it is a war of Prussian expansion vs. French expansion, and they've had centuries of experience of the latter.

I think a more realistic proposal would be for France to get Luxembourg, and the handful of towns that were lost in 1815. The Rhineland would be controlled by neither France nor Prussia, but instead restored to the states that once existed there, pre-1789.