France holds Metz

What if during the Franco-Prussian War the Germans had been unable to capture Metz and France after the war retained Metz and the surrounding area (Gravelotte, Noisseville, etc)?
 
I am guessing that holding Metz means a better performance by the French military in general? If its just that the place still has a French garrison at the end of the war, & nothing else changes, then I don't think it remains with France. To retain more territory in a peace settlement France must do better during the war.
 
I am guessing that holding Metz means a better performance by the French military in general? If its just that the place still has a French garrison at the end of the war, & nothing else changes, then I don't think it remains with France. To retain more territory in a peace settlement France must do better during the war.

It would mean France loses far less francophone territory. There was also a good amount of Iron in the general area IIRC.
 
This was pretty important. Gambetta was raising new troops, Paris hadn't fallen, and many men were needed to keep Metz encircled.
 
Given that the Germans nearly did not demand Alsace and Lorraine, might the French holding out in Metz but still losing the war salvage the border on the Rhine roughly as it now exists?
 
The only way to hold Metz would be to evacuate the Armee du Nord to Chalons, as per the orders issued by Napoleon, leaving only a garrison to hold the fortress. This would have been feasible before or immediately after the battle of Mars la Tour. Obviously such a POD changes the strategic outlook of the war, making it very risky for the Prussians to invest Paris and preserving the imperial regime. It doesn't mean that France would win the war, but makes an armistice and a non punitive peace treaty very likely.
As it happened IOTL, the AdN had no positive bottled up in the fortress and lacked the provision to resist a long siege.
 
The only way to hold Metz would be to evacuate the Armee du Nord to Chalons, as per the orders issued by Napoleon, leaving only a garrison to hold the fortress. This would have been feasible before or immediately after the battle of Mars la Tour. Obviously such a POD changes the strategic outlook of the war, making it very risky for the Prussians to invest Paris and preserving the imperial regime. It doesn't mean that France would win the war, but makes an armistice and a non punitive peace treaty very likely.
As it happened IOTL, the AdN had no positive bottled up in the fortress and lacked the provision to resist a long siege.
There's some huge potential from such prospects. A band of states called empires running continuously (assuming Germany still forms one) from the Pyrenees to the Pacific, and from Murmansk to Mecca.
 
The only way to hold Metz would be to evacuate the Armee du Nord to Chalons, as per the orders issued by Napoleon, leaving only a garrison to hold the fortress. This would have been feasible before or immediately after the battle of Mars la Tour. Obviously such a POD changes the strategic outlook of the war, making it very risky for the Prussians to invest Paris and preserving the imperial regime. It doesn't mean that France would win the war, but makes an armistice and a non punitive peace treaty very likely.
As it happened IOTL, the AdN had no positive bottled up in the fortress and lacked the provision to resist a long siege.
Could France hold on to northern Lorraine (the Metz region) ITTL? Could it reoccupy all of Alsace, in a best case scenario?
 
Could France hold on to northern Lorraine (the Metz region) ITTL? Could it reoccupy all of Alsace, in a best case scenario?
I don’t believe France can afford to take the initiative, at least for the time being the goal is to keep an army in being at the Camps de Chalons in order to protect Paris.
There are a few problems here, namely Louis Napoleon himself (who may not be the right man for such a Fabian strategy), the empress in Paris (who is pressing for a quick victory) and Bazaine (who has a huge chip on his shoulder for having been denied the supreme command and OTL may have wilfully delayed his retreat from Metz to keep an independent command).
In a better world, Louis Napoleon would go back to Paris to defuse the political situation and leave MacMahon in charge at Chalons, but I’m not sure Bazaine would accept a second fiddle role.
This said, if the French army stays concentrated in Chalons there are not a lot of options available for the Prussians other than invest Metz: moving against Paris would be too dangerous (the city was protected by a belt of modern forts and Chalons is quite close), and moving against Chalons itself would mean risking everything on the throw of a dice.
The most likely outcome would be a cease fire after a few weeks of posturing, and a status-quo-ante peace treaty (possibly with a moderate reparation and the demolition of the fortresses of Metz and Strasbourg).
Bismarck is not looking for territorial gains nor is he interested in toppling the second empire (it would likely bring a revanchist republican regime in France, and this is the last thing he’d want).
 
Top