The French army missed one or two opportunity to win a battle against the Prussian in the beginning of the war and i don't know how much it could have helped in the long term but i think they would have eventually lost the war because the French army was too unprepared. Even Napoleon III was aware of it and tried to reform the army in 1866 (probably based on the Prussian model who ironically was adopted later by the third republic) but the parlement and the clergy were against it (for varied reasons) and he was too politically weakened (only some minor reforms were done in 1868).
How could they have done that without being blasted?The bulk of engagements in the Franco-Prussian War tended to follow a drearily predictable cycle. It usually began with some manner of meeting engagement, and the French settling into the most defensible terrain available. (Which, as often as not, was some manner of pre-existing prepared fortification.) The Prussians -- being disciples of an operational methodology which stressed aggression in the name of kurz und vives warmaking -- would frontally assault the French and suffer withering casualties from chassepot fire. The Prussians would fall back, regroup, and then continue to attack and suffer murderous counterfire until they either found a flank from which to get some offensive traction or a battery of Krupp steel guns were wheeled up and the French position blasted to hell. In either case, the French passively stayed in place, firing until they ran out of ammunition and/or were dislodged, and usually taking even more casualties than they dished out because of the near inevitability of the Prussians breaking in.
So how do you get a French victory or two, assuming all other things being equal? Get the French to be just a bit more active while under fire and the Prussians would have their hands full. You don't need Plan XIV-levels of aggression, either. Just, you know, doing something to other than remaining stationary when confronted with the enemy.
I'm afraid the problem was that both the earlier Second Italian Independence War and France's promised-but-retracted support for Austria in the Austro-Prussian War were just enough to paint Napoleon III as a treacherous bastard in austrian eyes. Not to mention that, after the Austro-Prussian War, the hungarians ended up opposing any further foreign intervention for a few decades.Why no foreign intervention? The Austrians hated the Prussians, so a POD 3 months or so earlier can easily get the Austrians in if they think Napoleon III isn't a complete failure.
It's to avoid "well, with PoD x or y, US/UK intervenes and stomps Prussia", I'm more interested in what the French could have done differentlyWhy no foreign intervention? The Austrians hated the Prussians, so a POD 3 months or so earlier can easily get the Austrians in if they think Napoleon III isn't a complete failure. And maybe if someone would kindly remove his painful kidney stone (or maybe it was a bladder stone? His uncle had a kidney one) 7 cm big he might think better.
Why no foreign intervention? The Austrians hated the Prussians, so a POD 3 months or so earlier can easily get the Austrians in if they think Napoleon III isn't a complete failure. And maybe if someone would kindly remove his painful kidney stone (or maybe it was a bladder stone? His uncle had a kidney one) 7 cm big he might think better.
I'm afraid the problem was that both the earlier Second Italian Independence War and France's promised-but-retracted support for Austria in the Austro-Prussian War were just enough to paint Napoleon III as a treacherous bastard in austrian eyes. Not to mention that, after the Austro-Prussian War, the hungarians ended up opposing any further foreign intervention for a few decades.