Franco-Prussian Stalemate?

Simple question really, can the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870s become a stalemate on the battlefields and in terms of any treaty signed?

Effects of this?
 
Look at Malê rising. In it the Franco-Prussian war ends in a stalemate, leaving a Bonapartist France and a pissed off North German Federation.
 
It is possible, but IMHO quite unlikely: Prussia has a better organization, a much better artillery (and artillery doctrine) and can mobilise much faster. The war would be fought on French territory anyway, and a stalemate would be an effective loss for France (after all, it was Nappy to declare war).
It would also result in a status-quo, which again is a loss for France. Maybe the Bonapartist regime would survive, maybe not: bumpy years ahead in either case.
 
It is possible, but IMHO quite unlikely: Prussia has a better organization, a much better artillery (and artillery doctrine) and can mobilise much faster. The war would be fought on French territory anyway, and a stalemate would be an effective loss for France (after all, it was Nappy to declare war).

This is it. I would even expect the German Empire to be founded in that case, after all the German states fought together. Without victory Alsace-Lorraine wouldn't be annexed anyway which would be good for Germany in the long-run.
 
I'd like to imagine where Prussia only annexes Alsace, and a bit of Moselle, to encompase Forbach, but not much more. leaving the majority of Lorraine French.
 
Nappy winning a crushing victory over the Prussians would be easy; break out the barbed wire and entrenching tools and let the Prussians break themselves. They don't have the money to keep an army in the field for a year; they soon fail to feed their soldiers or supply them with bullets, and France casually strolls into Berlin. Of course, this pretty much requires a brain transplant for Napoleon III, as he'd spent 20 years emphasizing offensive doctrines.

A stalemate is, for that reason, very hard. Bismarck was taking an enormous gamble; it would either pay off handsomely or end in disaster for Prussia.

A stalemate almost requires two brain transplants; Napoleon has to stay defensive, then Bismarck has to decide failure in the legislature is preferable to failure on the battlefield, and accept a package that includes war funding, local elections and a bill of rights.
 
I'd like to imagine where Prussia only annexes Alsace, and a bit of Moselle, to encompase Forbach, but not much more. leaving the majority of Lorraine French.

The majority of Lorraine stayed French. What Prussia annexed was only a part of Moselle. These are the departements before the annexation. If the stalemate happen in Northern Alsace.

Also, can we please stop the myth that France lost because their artillery pieces were inferior ? They were, but it is not the reason why they were innefficient. If they were innefficient it was because they were badly used. At St-Privat, the French formed a big artillery battery and instead of wasting it in a useless duel with the Prussian artillery (which they would lose) he used them against the infantry (the prussian guard) to a devastating effect. Same thing with the mitrailleuse which was often used in useless duels against the prussian artillery, while everytime it was used against the prussian infantry losses were terrible.

With some officers being a little bit more competent, France would stop the prussian armies in Northern alsace and Moselle where the prussian couldn't exploit their numerical superiority and their superior mobility due to the somewhat difficult terrain.
 
The majority of Lorraine stayed French. What Prussia annexed was only a part of Moselle. These are the departements before the annexation. If the stalemate happen in Northern Alsace.

Also, can we please stop the myth that France lost because their artillery pieces were inferior ? They were, but it is not the reason why they were innefficient. If they were innefficient it was because they were badly used. At St-Privat, the French formed a big artillery battery and instead of wasting it in a useless duel with the Prussian artillery (which they would lose) he used them against the infantry (the prussian guard) to a devastating effect. Same thing with the mitrailleuse which was often used in useless duels against the prussian artillery, while everytime it was used against the prussian infantry losses were terrible.

With some officers being a little bit more competent, France would stop the prussian armies in Northern alsace and Moselle where the prussian couldn't exploit their numerical superiority and their superior mobility due to the somewhat difficult terrain.
I'm merely saying that, if instead of taking the whole of Alsace-Lorraine (to the Luxembourg Border), and instead opted to simply take the whole of Alsace, plus the higlighted area in the map below, Germany would have ended up with the best of both situations.

Lorraine.png

Lorraine.png
 
I'm merely saying that, if instead of taking the whole of Alsace-Lorraine (to the Luxembourg Border), and instead opted to simply take the whole of Alsace, plus the higlighted area in the map below, Germany would have ended up with the best of both situations.

Not really, without Metz, the whole area is not easily defensible.
 
Nappy winning a crushing victory over the Prussians would be easy; break out the barbed wire and entrenching tools and let the Prussians break themselves. They don't have the money to keep an army in the field for a year; they soon fail to feed their soldiers or supply them with bullets, and France casually strolls into Berlin. Of course, this pretty much requires a brain transplant for Napoleon III, as he'd spent 20 years emphasizing offensive doctrines.
No crushing victory is possible for the French, they can at best get a stalemate. And the doctrine was not offensive but essentially defensive. All the campaigns of France, in Crimea as in Italy, show more improvisation than anything other in offensive actions. During the opening stage of the war, the French didn't more than waiting for a Prussian attack, they didn't even pressed their offensive in Saar. At Metz, it was the obsession of Bazaine, delivering a defensive battle with the support of the fortress' guns which sealed the fate of the Empire. Nonetheless, the French show being good at defensive actions and a war of attrition with armies tied in endless sieges would favor them in the long run; all you then need is to prevent the Army of the Rhine to be trapped in Metz and to have it uniting with the Army of Chalons. The plans established by the Imperial staff were to retreat on Paris and to entrench once this achieved; it's the idea I discussed in this thread with a POD during the battle of Mars-la-Tour.
 
Not really, without Metz, the whole area is not easily defensible.
it doesn't need to be easily defensible. Alsace itself would be more than enough of a territorial gain to satisfy the goals of Bismarck. So as to avoid a situation where the French could spearhead into Germany, they would also recquesition the highlighted area. It would make the defense of Alsace and Lorraine easier on both the Germans, and the French, as there is less territory on the whole to defend. Not to mention the Albe/Saar River that runs right through that portion of Lorraine.

Without Metz becoming German, The French might be more content with simply letting this become the new status-quo.
 
Without Metz becoming German, The French might be more content with simply letting this become the new status-quo.

No. The point of contention was never Moselle, no one cared about Moselle. French propaganda used women dressed in the traditional alsatian dress with the subtitle "elle attend" (she waits). Metz was the cherry on the cake that was Alsace.
 
That's still a french loss usually in a stamelate nobody win or lose territories or that's not a Stalemate. And seriously who really believe the french would give up territories and let it go?
 
Last edited:
No. The point of contention was never Moselle, no one cared about Moselle. French propaganda used women dressed in the traditional alsatian dress with the subtitle "elle attend" (she waits). Metz was the cherry on the cake that was Alsace.
If the French do better in the war, Bismarck would likely be more than willing to take his cake home without the frosting or the cherry.

That's still a french loss usually in a stamelate nobody win or lose territories or that's not a Stalemate. And seriously who really believe the french would give up territories and let it go?
See above.

And look at it like this. You have a cake. I want the cake. I demands the cake. You refuse to give me the cake. I, instead, offer to take only a portion of your cake, You might be more willing to give me that portion, and see it as a compromise, in which case it would be a sort of agreement between two parties. I mean, My cake might have all the chocolate chips and whipped cream. But you still have your cake. You still have your desert and you dont feel as though you were completely robbed.
 
Then that's not a stalemate but a minor prussian victory. If nobody win why would anyone give up territories?
 
Well, the major problems for the French came from their command. While the Prussian artillery was better technically, the great advantage that the Prussians had was from their organization of the artillery, which enabled them to support the attacks of their infantry, as well as prevent the French from effectively using their artillery. French commanders, such as Bazaine were notoriously lethargic in their command, and allowed themselves to be separated and defeated in detail. I think if you want to make the French performance in the war better, you'll have to make the post 1866 reforms more effective.
 
Simple question really, can the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870s become a stalemate on the battlefields and in terms of any treaty signed?

Effects of this?

As stalemate (in the war) will likely result in two losers.

Napoleon will likely be overthrown and france will become a republic again (the war was the last straw to save the dynasty)

Prussia is considered unable to beat the French - even when all of Germany is united behind Prussia. At least the Southern states (Bavaria, Baden Würtemberg) might look for another "protector" - likely Austria, but they will remain independent. the Norddeutsche Bund will be weakend, but Prussia is dominating and by the turn of the century might have reeestablished itslef as uncontested leader of Germany (North). Saxony is somewhat between, but I think it will stay independent with leaning to Austria.

I think the borders will stay : Status quo ante.

Prussia proper will be affected most. We will definitely NOT get a German Empire - and Prussia will be considered to be less of a threat compared to OTL.

In the long run Britain will consider France to be the bigger threath to Britains hegemony (no large German fleet will help ;))

Prussia will likely not get (as many) Colonies too.

I expect that Russia and Austria will develop largely as OTL with conflicting spheres of Interest. Austria and Prussia might get close, but not as strongly allied as OTL.

As Britain is competing with both Russia and France those nations might form one "bloc" While Britain might back A-H and the OE. I am not sure about Prussia and Italy (but I think they will be shifting into the British sphere - Italy because of economic reasons and Prussia because of being sandwiched between France and Russia)

Alternatively A-H might "side" with France during the "stalemate" - This would probably "save" nappy for the moment as it is likely that Luxemburg will become French. While Austria might put pressure on Italy to reverse "some" of the 1866 result.

So we would get probably a French-Russian-Austrian bloc against Prussia-Italy-Britain-OE

Wgich would make for an interesting "Great War"
 
Top