Franco-Prussian War a draw

Apologies if this has been asked before. I tried the search function, but with my luck it didn't work, of course.:eek:

I think everyone agrees that it was pretty difficult if not impossible for the 2nd Empire to defeat Prussia and her allies in the war, certainly not without a sufficiently early POD.

However, would it have been possible for the two sides to fight to a standstill? I would define a draw like this, for starters:

1) Germany still becomes unified under the leadership of Prussia,

2) France doesn't suffer major territorial losses,

3) No siege of Paris.

Naturally, crowning King Wilhelm as German Emperor in Versailles wouldn't happen here. Is this possible, or would this also be hard? For starters, I think it would help the French if Napoleon III stayed in Paris instead of going to the front in an attempt to imitate his uncle.
 
You still assume that France is alone, right?

Well, the German armies were superior to their French counterparts in military technology and tactics.

So I can see only one clear way to impair German chances:

A series of bad decisions, bad coordination, perhaps intrigues, based on a pathological level of presumptuousness.

If Bavaria (or some Bavarian general) tries to win prestige by not submitting to Prussian command, or only superficially, we might go to that direction. However, Prussian overweight is so large that they could have easily won the war alone - so you would really need a massive obstruction from fellow-Germans.
 

GundamZero

Banned
You still assume that France is alone, right?

Well, the German armies were superior to their French counterparts in military technology and tactics.

So I can see only one clear way to impair German chances:

A series of bad decisions, bad coordination, perhaps intrigues, based on a pathological level of presumptuousness.

If Bavaria (or some Bavarian general) tries to win prestige by not submitting to Prussian command, or only superficially, we might go to that direction. However, Prussian overweight is so large that they could have easily won the war alone - so you would really need a massive obstruction from fellow-Germans.

Tactics and technolgy is questionable. Those advantages are minor. Weak leadership and lack of civilan morale was the reason France lost.
 

Anderman

Donor
The french army was an all volunteer force and the armies of the various german states were conscript armies. So the germans could field more men then the french after mobilization.
 
The french army was an all volunteer force and the armies of the various german states were conscript armies. So the germans could field more men then the french after mobilization.

Which ultimately showed that Prussia had it all planned, even though they didn't start the war. Then again, Napoleon III was an easily duped person...
 
Tactics and technolgy is questionable. Those advantages are minor. Weak leadership and lack of civilan morale was the reason France lost.

Civilian morale wasn't in question in 1870-1871.

France was able to field severals armies with only volunteers after the main imperial armies were defeated or encircled in borders fortresses (Metz).

When the imperial armies counted around 500k men, within a few weeks, the "republican" government recruited 500k more.

And Paris sustained a long and heavy siege lasting from the 19th September 1870 to the 28 January 1871, so 4 months and half... Paris was forced to surrender after Bismarck ordered the city to be bombarded with heavy siege guns who killed severals thousands civilians. Around 50 000 civilians were killed during all the siege.
 

Anderman

Donor
Which ultimately showed that Prussia had it all planned, even though they didn't start the war. Then again, Napoleon III was an easily duped person...

Eh universal conscription came was first introduced in france after the revolution and came to prussia afterwards :p
 
I am not an expert on the Franco-Prussian war, unfortunately. But could the French have improved their possibilities if they had

a) pulled out of Metz in time, enlarging their army in the field?
b) not allowed themselves to be pushed into the pocket of Sedan with the back to the Belgium border

However, you can construct a United Germany post-1866 even without the war against France, it just might take longer, but so many developments were in place politically, that it is hard to avoid it. It would have taken more compromises with Bavaria.

OTOH, the Unification might vice versa provoke French aggression.
 
Eh universal conscription came was first introduced in france after the revolution and came to prussia afterwards :p

Conscription (not universal) was introduced during the Revolution, but various french governments reformed the legislation.

Prussia is well known to be a very militarized country since at least the father of Frederick II and established in 1813 various military reforms who give the country a very large standing army and very trained reserves (Landwehr and Landsturm)...

In 1870, France had parts of its armies in colonies (North Africa) or in Rome, and the "Garde Mobile" (National Guard) was not sufficiently trained and equipped. Napoleon III feared the existence of a National Guard who was during the Revolution a weapon in the hands of various factions.

You have differents POD to explain a better result for France during the war :
- a reform of the army by General Niel some years before the war,
- better tactics on the field of battle,
- some generals was bad, or had a nearly treacherous action (Marechal Bazeine),
- better uses of the machines-guns the French have,
- build a better artillery before the war, the artillery of the Gribeauval system was very good at the end of the XVIIIth century and explained a part of the French successes of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. So the tradition of a good french artillery was lost somewhere during the XIXth century
 
Which ultimately showed that Prussia had it all planned, even though they didn't start the war. Then again, Napoleon III was an easily duped person...

And that would be good planning. Sure they had plans ... just like any intelligent office or general staff would have in those cases. Hence why the model was adopted by most nations after the war. Unification was desired by millions and though for different reasons Bismarck had plans and ideas to do so. Taking advantage of a bungling neighboring emperor makes good sense. No one forced France to take their ignorant and misguided hop into war. Great power diplomacy was full of traps, dupes, plans, opportunities, motives, pitfalls, and all manner or trickery ... all with the intent of empowering yourself or your goals. Bismarck was the master at the game, don't fault the man for the lack of a competent opponent.

...

When the imperial armies counted around 500k men, within a few weeks, the "republican" government recruited 500k more.

And Paris sustained a long and heavy siege lasting from the 19th September 1870 to the 28 January 1871, so 4 months and half... Paris was forced to surrender after Bismarck ordered the city to be bombarded with heavy siege guns who killed severals thousands civilians. Around 50 000 civilians were killed during all the siege.

The siege itself was killing civilians ... they were eating cats and dogs! Anything for ending the siege and most likely with it the war (standing) was a benefit to the peoples, soldiers, and governments on both sides. The siege and thus the war was straining the economy of a Prussian government not equipped for a lengthy war. Also, the blunder of Nap'3 had diplomatic sympathy with Prussia at the start but that was turning as the overwhelming victories of Prussia rolled in one after the other. Risking intervention or some kind of French recovery would have been out of the question. Trains of food were rushed into the city upon capitulation as well.

But back to the OP question. When you say a draw to you mean on the field of battle? As in victories for both sides? Most people, most nations, and of course the emperor himself felt that France would roll over the Germans. Taking the step to declare war meant that a draw would have been a large loss of prestige so I'm not sure that with French victories on the field such an outcome would have been likely without some kind of drawn out affair. And if the war isn't over quickly then Prussia and the German states resolve and economy become much more apt to break down. Austria might not be able to resist the chance at some kind of compensation at such an opportunity presented itself either. If the war turns to something that grows any kind of South German opposition, it would fuel the appetites of the Austrian government to launch some kind of grab. I suppose Russia might have kept her in check though. The longer the war goes on, the better it would be for the French and if they have armies in the field fighting and better yet actually resisting and beating the Germans ... then a draw actually becomes less and less likely. Furthermore I'm not sure a draw would result in complete unification. As mentioned for example Bavaria. Could the same OTL financial offers to her government be offered in the event of a draw?
 
You have differents POD to explain a better result for France during the war :
- a reform of the army by General Niel some years before the war,
- better tactics on the field of battle,
- some generals was bad, or had a nearly treacherous action (Marechal Bazeine),
- better uses of the machines-guns the French have,
- build a better artillery before the war, the artillery of the Gribeauval system was very good at the end of the XVIIIth century and explained a part of the French successes of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. So the tradition of a good french artillery was lost somewhere during the XIXth century


Agreed. Especially the French artillery ... negating the advantage of or even matching the Prussian Krupp guns could have changed a lot.
 
lonewulf44 said:
Agreed. Especially the French artillery ... negating the advantage of or even matching the Prussian Krupp guns could have changed a lot.

If memory serves me right, the French had Gatlings while the Germans didn't at the time. However, the French didn't know how to use them properly.

But it's true that the French was quite inferior to that of the Germans. If I'm mistaken about the machine gun, their only advantages was the fusil Lebel, the best infantery gun of the time.
Starting 1815, the French also had a tendency of being "one war behind" in terms of technology. At least, that's how I tend to see it.
 
If memory serves me right, the French had Gatlings while the Germans didn't at the time. However, the French didn't know how to use them properly.

But it's true that the French was quite inferior to that of the Germans. If I'm mistaken about the machine gun, their only advantages was the fusil Lebel, the best infantery gun of the time.
Starting 1815, the French also had a tendency of being "one war behind" in terms of technology. At least, that's how I tend to see it.


The French infantry arms were a decidedly advantage on the field. I'm pretty sure that most Prussian casualties were always inflicted when any kind of Prussian advance came over open ground. The French were able to direct fire at a much longer range and caused a lot of damage to the German ranks. This was only compensated by the Krupp guns that many times had to disperse and destroy French forces that otherwise might have been in a position to repel the German infantry. A French counter to this would have been very very instrumental in avoiding the encirclement at Sedan. Look at the casualty differential ... the gap is directly due to the Krupp pieces IMHO. Just better French artillery alone would have allowed for a better defense and performance of the French. In addition to the advantage offered by Chassepot ... I think we would have seen much higher causalities on the Germany side and thus difference strategies and outcomes during the war. Thus potentially (tying this to the OP) presenting some kind of draw.
 
If memory serves me right, the French had Gatlings while the Germans didn't at the time. However, the French didn't know how to use them properly.

But it's true that the French was quite inferior to that of the Germans. If I'm mistaken about the machine gun, their only advantages was the fusil Lebel, the best infantery gun of the time.
Starting 1815, the French also had a tendency of being "one war behind" in terms of technology. At least, that's how I tend to see it.

I disagree with your "one war behind". Earlier reforms of the Marechal Niel and a better use of the available equipment and men could change everything...

It was the Chassepot rifle. A better rifle than the prussian Dreyse. The Chassepot was copied in 1871 by Mauser...

The french have a better infantry rifle, machines-gun and a rather defensive tactic. If the French had a better artillery, the German couldn't be able to crush the French with this artillery as it was the case in every battles of this war.

Another good POD :

The battle of Gravelotte - Saint Privat could be a real french victory if Marechal Bazaine send reinforcements in time. This battle could also be a good POD to change the outcome of this war. At this battle, the Germans lost more men killed and wounded than the french... It was a real Phyrrus victory and the King of Prussia was personnaly very shocked by the losses of his royal guard...
 

Anderman

Donor
It was the Chassepot rifle. A better rifle than the prussian Dreyse. The Chassepot was copied in 1871 by Mauser...

.


Are you sure? The Mauser model 71 used a metallic cartridge the Chassepot still a paper cartridge etc..


Another problem the french army had afaik is that a lot material for the army was centrally stored in Paris or wasn´t there at all because of corruption.
And the army was not organized into coprs in peace time.
So with a better organisation of the army Nappy III marched into the Rhineland before the german states can mobilize all of their armies. After some victories in the beginning the french get kick out of germany and when the german armies march into france Nappy III get kicked out of office, The new government makes peace with the germans pays some money but does not lose AL.
After the rescue of the fatherlands the german empire is founded to prevent further french aggressions etc....
 
But back to the OP question. When you say a draw to you mean on the field of battle? As in victories for both sides?

Yeah. If there is to be a negotiated settlement that is more favourable for the French than OTL, it stands to reason that the French have to win at least some battles on the field, keep their armies intact, and at the very least keep the Germans out of Paris. Otherwise the Germans get to dictate pretty much everything, as in OTL.
 
Are you sure? The Mauser model 71 used a metallic cartridge the Chassepot still a paper cartridge etc..

Chassepote was far superior to the Needle rifle. If only for the insane range advantage.



... So with a better organisation of the army Nappy III marched into the Rhineland before the german states can mobilize all of their armies. After some victories in the beginning the french get kick out of germany and when the german armies march into france Nappy III get kicked out of office, The new government makes peace with the germans pays some money but does not lose AL.
After the rescue of the fatherlands the german empire is founded to prevent further french aggressions etc....

One problem, that was the major advantage the Prussians had developed ... far ahead of the rest of Europe. Its that planning, logistics, and organization that gave them the upper hand. Something that would have to be changed years earlier and practiced. I suppose that would be a draw which both sides could eventually agree too. Repulsing a French invasion, protecting and fighting along side the South German states from the 'renewed Napoleonic' menace might be enough to conjure up unification talks. I'm not sure how Nappy'3 gets out of the war with such a draw though ... such an outcome would be viewed as the defeat it was.
 

Anderman

Donor
Chassepote was far superior to the Needle rifle. If only for the insane range advantage.


No doubt about that the Dreyse was in production since 1839 so it was 25 years plus older then the Chassepot. But the Dreyse is not the Mauser 71. The Chassepot used a rubber ring for the sealing the breech gas proof. The Mauser is gas proof because it used a metallic cartridge.



One problem, that was the major advantage the Prussians had developed ... far ahead of the rest of Europe. Its that planning, logistics, and organization that gave them the upper hand. Something that would have to be changed years earlier and practiced. I suppose that would be a draw which both sides could eventually agree too. Repulsing a French invasion, protecting and fighting along side the South German states from the 'renewed Napoleonic' menace might be enough to conjure up unification talks. I'm not sure how Nappy'3 gets out of the war with such a draw though ... such an outcome would be viewed as the defeat it was.

Good points remember that the prussian peace time army was only 1/3 of the mobilized war time army it takes some time to get all the reserve into place.The AVF army is the army which will go to war the only soldiers missing are the one on vacation. Well at least on paper :rolleyes:
 
Top