Napoleon The III Defeats the Germans at Sedan

What if the French under Napoleon III and his field marshals defeated the Prussian forces at sedan causing heavy loses and possibly even wounded the kaiser would the Prussians seek peace or continue to attack the french?
 
A victory at Sedan would require a few prior PoD's, such as Bazaine not being a dumbass and pressing his numerical advantage at Mars-La-Tour.
Still, i hear that French defensive doctrine at the time called for a steady retreat to Paris, with scorched earth tactics and harassment, in preparation for a large urban siege (that would surely break some records for its time). The Prussians already had trouble subduing Paris IOTL, so i'd expect their job to be even harder if Napoleon III is at the city to properly prepare its defenses. Who would effectively win that siege is a whole question in itself, but my money is on the French.
If the Prussians and their allies realise that they've caught themselves in a long war of attrition rather than a brief, "Bismarckian" war, then i can see the German alliance weakening. If the Siege of Paris ends up a fiasco and the French push them back to the Rhine, then some of the more independent-minded German states, such as Bavaria, are likely to revolt.
I could see the war ending with the terms being that France and the North German Confederation don't gain any territory from the other side (they'd be both exhausted), while the South German Confederation is either turned into a neutral state or a French allied one.
 
A victory at Sedan would require a few prior PoD's, such as Bazaine not being a dumbass and pressing his numerical advantage at Mars-La-Tour.
Still, i hear that French defensive doctrine at the time called for a steady retreat to Paris, with scorched earth tactics and harassment, in preparation for a large urban siege (that would surely break some records for its time). The Prussians already had trouble subduing Paris IOTL, so i'd expect their job to be even harder if Napoleon III is at the city to properly prepare its defenses. Who would effectively win that siege is a whole question in itself, but my money is on the French.
If the Prussians and their allies realise that they've caught themselves in a long war of attrition rather than a brief, "Bismarckian" war, then i can see the German alliance weakening. If the Siege of Paris ends up a fiasco and the French push them back to the Rhine, then some of the more independent-minded German states, such as Bavaria, are likely to revolt.
I could see the war ending with the terms being that France and the North German Confederation don't gain any territory from the other side (they'd be both exhausted), while the South German Confederation is either turned into a neutral state or a French allied one.
i could see a Neutral South German confederation which could either be a Democracy with a presidency or a monarchy headed by the Bavarians
 
Most likely, a confederation of three conservative monarchies, de facto headed by the King of Bavaria.

You mean a close alliance, not an actual confederation though, unless you're suggesting Baden and Wuttembourg are willing to give up their sovereignty. Barvaria, of course, would dominate such an alliance since their power surpasses the other two, but I severely doubt they'd give up say their foreign policy.

Be that as it may, if the end result is a dragged out war mainly fought on French soil, particulary if Paris is sieged, ending in a status quo peace with French "Honor" statisfied, both Napoleon and Bismark probably come out with more tarnished reputations and with armies, though a little worse for wear, throughly schooled in the realities of modern warfare: an advantage France would benefit far more from that the already esteemed Prussian officer corps. The biggest blow, though, would be to the cause of German solidarity and the notion of further centeralizing the NGF into the German Empire under Prussian suzerainity: I'd put the odds at 70-80% that unification is now beyond Bismark personally, and even in the 30-20% that he can jury-rig a less monumentous formation of the Reich through words and speechs rather than iron and blood its going to result in the minor states retaining even more autonomy than the (relative) freedom that they enjoyed in ITL's structure, and retaining a greater sense of regional identity. Most likely scenario; NGF limps along with its old structure, unable to find a "decisive moment" to light Pan-Germanic patriotic fire needed to form a Conservative empire, until a new Chancellor rises to power. What happens then depends ALOT on his personal goals/politics and political strength.
 
There was some talk of Austria building a revanchist alliance during the period - this may give them enough capital to push that, and also may bring them in league with the South Germans
 
There was some talk of Austria building a revanchist alliance during the period - this may give them enough capital to push that, and also may bring them in league with the South Germans

Austria almost lost Hungary and just had to make HUGE domestic reforms/concessions in order to keep her Empire from crumbling entirely just a few years prior. They're hardly in a position to re-assert their position in Germany without major foreign support, particularly due to the fact that she still has Italy constantly nipping at her heels. Russia's still pretty much out of the picture, diplomatically speaking (Especially if its Austria alone looking for the alliance... unless she wants to be a clearly junior partner in the relationship). I suppose they could line up with France in a Status Quo peace; the idea on France's side being that they need additional support if they want to "win" any future conflict in a decisive enough manner to permanently blunt Prussian ambitions.
 
I'm sure there were revanchist ideas in the German part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but they were limited in the actions they could take. Perhaps they can influence Napoleon III to make a wise peace, by reinstating all the German, which were recently annexed by Prussia, and perhaps Schleswig-Holstein becomes a state as well (probably under the Augustenburg branch). Maybe Napoleon III magnanimously only takes Luxembourg, after he dismantled Prussia.
 

Perkeo

Banned
There was some talk of Austria building a revanchist alliance during the period - this may give them enough capital to push that, and also may bring them in league with the South Germans
Or the South Germans are even more eager to seek unification with the Prussians since they are the ones who will be invaded by France and Austria.

France gets a less humiliating peace and keeps A-L. If either is a game changer, is difficult to say. To actually win the war they likely need to win a lot more battles.

Either way, the age of Kleinstaaterei is over. The very most partitioning that I can imagine is the 3 Germanies of German-Austria, North Germany and South Germany. For last one a POD in 1870 may already be too late.
 
Last edited:
Agree with earlier poster, victory at Sedan would have required a significant POD well before the actual battle. If we just go by the events of OTL leading up to the battle, a German defeat would have required a SIGNIFICANT tactical error on the side of the Germans, out of all character to their conduct of the war to that point. It would be a little like finding a way for the Russians to win the battle of Tannenberg. Any French victory at Sedan would probably not prove decisive in any event considering the overall strategic situation at the time (Bazaine hopelessly encircled at Metz, the disparity in available forces, etc.). It probably prolongs the war, and keeps Napoleon III on the throne, but Alsace and Lorraine would still be lost and Germany united anyway.
 
Agree with earlier poster, victory at Sedan would have required a significant POD well before the actual battle. If we just go by the events of OTL leading up to the battle, a German defeat would have required a SIGNIFICANT tactical error on the side of the Germans, out of all character to their conduct of the war to that point. It would be a little like finding a way for the Russians to win the battle of Tannenberg. Any French victory at Sedan would probably not prove decisive in any event considering the overall strategic situation at the time (Bazaine hopelessly encircled at Metz, the disparity in available forces, etc.). It probably prolongs the war, and keeps Napoleon III on the throne, but Alsace and Lorraine would still be lost and Germany united anyway.


I remember a previous thread saying that the best way to remedy this is have the French army get a bloody nose in a way that made their military shortcomings obvious enough to anyone, in particular Napoleon III before the Franco Prussian war. Maybe they drop the ball in Mexico, become a laughingstock in Europe, and implement a number of military reforms to turn things around.

It probably wouldn't be soon enough to win the war, though maybe a stalemate is possible.
 

Perkeo

Banned
It probably prolongs the war, and keeps Napoleon III on the throne, but Alsace and Lorraine would still be lost and Germany united anyway.
I agree about the Germany united part since from the moment France declares war on Prussia, they have lost this battle: If they loose like IOTL, Germany united in victory disease, of they win and force separation, they trigger a national resistance movement.
But A-L wasn’t the reason why the Franco-Prussian war started. The Germans took it because they could, not because they thought Germany was incomplete without like the French did.
And last but not least: Given how much of a trauma the loss of A-L was, can you imagine Napoleon‘s regime surviving without it?
 
I agree about the Germany united part since from the moment France declares war on Prussia, they have lost this battle: If they loose like IOTL, Germany united in victory disease, of they win and force separation, they trigger a national resistance movement.
But A-L wasn’t the reason why the Franco-Prussian war started. The Germans took it because they could, not because they thought Germany was incomplete without like the French did.
And last but not least: Given how much of a trauma the loss of A-L was, can you imagine Napoleon‘s regime surviving without it?
The "trauma" of the loss of Alsace and Lorraine was just a convenient rallying point for something deeper, the loss of French pride. Even if Germany had given back AL after the war, the humiliating nature of the French defeat would have still festered till the outbreak of WW1, in fact it was the primary reason for WW1.

The French lost more than Alsace Lorraine in the war, they lost their unchallenged hegemony over continental Europe. The French claim to Alsace Lorraine was actually one of the weakest irredentist claims of modern history, almost frivolous in nature (considering what it helped lead to). 90% of the people of that region spoke German. What objections there were to the annexation within AL were primarily focused on autonomy issues (the region was directly ruled from Berlin).

If the French had been able push back the Germans to Alsace Lorraine, defeating the Germans in several battles in the process, they would probably have gladly settled for a peace that included the detachment of AL so long as the glory of French arms was restored, and the Germans respect for France reestablished. In practical terms this would have meant Bismarck would have to account for France as an equal in subsequent European diplomacy, which he clearly did not in OTL. As for Napoleon III, his regime was always based first and foremost on prestige. Fighting the Germans to a stalemate in a war that looked like a lost cause on the eve of Sedan would probably have sufficed.
 
I agree about the Germany united part since from the moment France declares war on Prussia, they have lost this battle: If they loose like IOTL, Germany united in victory disease, of they win and force separation, they trigger a national resistance movement.
But A-L wasn’t the reason why the Franco-Prussian war started. The Germans took it because they could, not because they thought Germany was incomplete without like the French did.
And last but not least: Given how much of a trauma the loss of A-L was, can you imagine Napoleon‘s regime surviving without it?

There were actual valid military and even more so political reasons to take Alsace-Lorraine, reclaiming Germanophone lands from the French sure was a good sell for the nationalists, but that was not everything. It was an extra line of defence, one manned by the entire German Empire. A Rhine border would have meant, that extra Prussian troops would have need to be stationed in other German States, like Bavaria and Baden, so soon after re-unification, that was a very delicate matter, frankly the southern German states may very well have been more enthusiastic about Alsace-Lorraine than Prussia, OTOH they did and probably would be first in the line for any future French aggression. AFAIK just before WWI there were some talks about Alsace-Lorraine (limited) self-rule within the Federal German Empire ofcourse, with the military being the most prominent exception.

@GreggJulian: speaking of pride, for German nationalists the glorious age of France was one dark period for German pride. Truth be told, their own rulers were more interested in their own interests, than the common German one. That 'Ghost' was out the bottle, since the Great Interregnum of the HRE and the 30 Years' War frankly broke said bottle. Besides Napoleon III championed the unification of Italy (except for the Papal States), German unification was a just as valid cause, yet France never was as enthusiastic about it, seems like hypocritical principles. Sure a more Real Politik approach shows, that a unified Germany could actually compete with France as being the dominant power in western Europe.
One could also look at is this way, the ideals of the French Revolution finally instilled the resolve in German and Italian populaces to finally come to a unification. Granted part of it, might have been, they were tired being the plaything and battlefield of the rest of Europe. As for Germany, many monarchs only joined only rather late, many old monarchs grew up with older ideas, whereas some who were sympathetic only joined once it was successful.

IMHO problems only really started after Bismarck was relieved of his duties and none of his successors could fill his role as Imperial Chancellor.
 
Top