The French lose at Valmy

The battle of Valmy is considered one of the decisive battles of the revolutionary wars, being the first French victory and an important boost to the republican cause, leading indirectly to the execution of the king and the declaration of the republic two days later on 22 Sept 1792. So, what if the French lost the battle? Would Valmy be replaced by some later battle as the "first French victory" and history continue along much the same path, or was Valmy a real turning point in the period?

fasquardon
 
The battle of Valmy is considered one of the decisive battles of the revolutionary wars, being the first French victory and an important boost to the republican cause, leading indirectly to the execution of the king and the declaration of the republic two days later on 22 Sept 1792. So, what if the French lost the battle? Would Valmy be replaced by some later battle as the "first French victory" and history continue along much the same path, or was Valmy a real turning point in the period?

fasquardon

We've had this at least 3 times in the last 6 months. If the Prussians win then the Republicans will panic because now the Prussians are heading for Paris.
 
And generally the discussion in previous threads has gotten side-tracked into whether the War of 1812 would happen without the French winning at Valmy, or the future career of Napoleon. Also, I didn't want to necropost.

I've always gotten the impression that Valmy was more of a creation of the propagandists than a true decisive battle - it was more of an indecisive clash where the French came out ahead than any real battle. But then, I'm not any great shakes on the military history of the period, so perhaps I am wrong.

But if the Duke of Brunswick causes Kellermann to give up the field, it hardly gives him a free hand to take Paris - Dumouriez still has an army across the marsh and Kellermann may well succeed in rallying his troops again. If Kellermann is routed of course, then it is a different story, but considering that the Duke of Brunswick did not think Valmy was the right place for the Germans to fight, I have difficulty seeing him having the desire to push his army into crushing Kellermann.

In any case, neither the Prussians nor the Austrians had any great hunger for war, so it may be that a loss at Valmy persuades the French generals that they have to offer the political assurances that the Austrians and Prussians wanted (I think at this stage they still just wanted the French to respect their King as their King, and not do anything silly like behead him or his wife or dethrone them - I do not get the impression that a constitutional monarchy would have been at all unacceptable - Leopold II was the antithesis of an absolutist monarch and was actually rather supportive of the moderates in the revolution). That would mean that the battle results in the war ending before the Germans even reach Paris.

But then, it may be that the radical republicans, fearing that the forces of monarchy are on the cusp of victory, execute their king anyway, and try to force both their countrymen and the Germans to keep on fighting.

And if they do that, could the Germans really take Paris before they are defeated somewhere else on the journey?

fasquardon
 
The Flight to Vanessa screwed the monarchy and after that its chances of survival were small. And also did Valmy really affect the Republic. The Republic was proclaimed the very next day in Paris and news wouldn't travel that fast.
 
The Flight to Vanessa screwed the monarchy and after that its chances of survival were small. And also did Valmy really affect the Republic. The Republic was proclaimed the very next day in Paris and news wouldn't travel that fast.

Good point about the flight. Certainly my own personal opinion is that at this point the monarch could be retained, on a constitutional pattern, but Louis LXVI could not, at that point, give France a stable monarchy. At the very least he would have to deal with a revolution like 1830 at some point. Do you know if the Austrians would have opposed a regency at this point? I would have thought they would have been quite friendly to the idea for as long as Leopold II is on the throne.

With regards to the proclamation of the republic, my understanding (based on wikipedia, see here) is that the news of the victory arrived in Paris on the same day - giving the Convention's députés the confidence that abolishing the monarchy would not be resulting in a siege of Paris. Do you know of any sources that give when the news arrived?

fasquardon
 
Good point about the flight. Certainly my own personal opinion is that at this point the monarch could be retained, on a constitutional pattern, but Louis LXVI could not, at that point, give France a stable monarchy. At the very least he would have to deal with a revolution like 1830 at some point. Do you know if the Austrians would have opposed a regency at this point? I would have thought they would have been quite friendly to the idea for as long as Leopold II is on the throne.

With regards to the proclamation of the republic, my understanding (based on wikipedia, see here) is that the news of the victory arrived in Paris on the same day - giving the Convention's députés the confidence that abolishing the monarchy would not be resulting in a siege of Paris. Do you know of any sources that give when the news arrived?

fasquardon

If you can have Lafayette the man who has been making sure Louis shit doesn't make the Kingdom collapse hold it all together longer then maybe. Lafayette gave rousing public speeches and was able to save the royal family multiple times. The problem is the radicals.

It sort of sounds like in retrospect they were right because of Valmy, but maybe the news just traveled all those miles really fast. Considering it was a major victory in French eyes the army might have wanted the news fast, so I see where you would be right.
 
If you can have Lafayette the man who has been making sure Louis shit doesn't make the Kingdom collapse hold it all together longer then maybe. Lafayette gave rousing public speeches and was able to save the royal family multiple times. The problem is the radicals.

My reading of the political situation is that the moderates, such as Lafayette, were more numerous and more powerful than the radicals, but that the radicals were better at the political maneuvering. Well, that and the Royal family were good at giving the radicals more fodder... That makes me doubtful that there is any way to plausibly put Lafayette in the position you suggest - he'd probably end up falling with the monarchy.

But then, the above is mostly my opinions and instincts, not sure how firm a base they all sit on.

It sort of sounds like in retrospect they were right because of Valmy, but maybe the news just traveled all those miles really fast. Considering it was a major victory in French eyes the army might have wanted the news fast, so I see where you would be right.

Yeah, well, I suspect that the republic was more likely than not to come into existance at this point. Personally I think that if Valmy had been a defeat, it would have been held up as proof for the need to embrace republicanism and shake off the last remnants of the old order, just as the victory was held up as proof for the ability of France to embrace republicanism and survive.

In my cursory readings, alot of French motivations in this period were to defy what they saw as foreigners telling them what to do - it is how the war started - and with the Duke of Brunswick having threatened all of Paris with reprisals if they harmed the king only a few days before, I think that, rather than Valmy, was what persuaded the French to go against the Germans and harm their king in defiance of the threats.

fasquardon
 
My reading of the political situation is that the moderates, such as Lafayette, were more numerous and more powerful than the radicals, but that the radicals were better at the political maneuvering. Well, that and the Royal family were good at giving the radicals more fodder... That makes me doubtful that there is any way to plausibly put Lafayette in the position you suggest - he'd probably end up falling with the monarchy.

But then, the above is mostly my opinions and instincts, not sure how firm a base they all sit on.



Yeah, well, I suspect that the republic was more likely than not to come into existance at this point. Personally I think that if Valmy had been a defeat, it would have been held up as proof for the need to embrace republicanism and shake off the last remnants of the old order, just as the victory was held up as proof for the ability of France to embrace republicanism and survive.

In my cursory readings, alot of French motivations in this period were to defy what they saw as foreigners telling them what to do - it is how the war started - and with the Duke of Brunswick having threatened all of Paris with reprisals if they harmed the king only a few days before, I think that, rather than Valmy, was what persuaded the French to go against the Germans and harm their king in defiance of the threats.

fasquardon

Maybe if Lafayette was better as politics. I mean he was patriot and he was great with mobs he just got out maneuvered

True about Brunswick
 
Well, let's say that the Germans win Valmy, and Kellermann has to withdraw, not taking many losses, but taking a big hit to the morale of his troops. Can Brunswick maneuver to get to the better position that he desired? Kellermann won't be far (and for the Germans, the state of his army will be unknown), and Dumouriez will be just across the marsh (see map here). Can Dumouriez delay the Germans long enough to link up with Kellermann again? Would Dumouriez be willing to fight the Germans if he thinks he is the only thing that can stop them getting to Paris, and bad odds of victory are better than letting them just march right to the city? Or would Dumouriez be of a mind to preserve his army, even if it meant the Germans being allowed to siege Paris?

I must say, if I were the Duke of Brunswick, I'd want to decisively defeat both Dumouriez and Kellermann before I tried to lay siege to Paris... Getting stuck in the siege of Paris with an enemy still at my back sounds like a bad position to be in.

fasquardon
 
Well, let's say that the Germans win Valmy, and Kellermann has to withdraw, not taking many losses, but taking a big hit to the morale of his troops. Can Brunswick maneuver to get to the better position that he desired? Kellermann won't be far (and for the Germans, the state of his army will be unknown), and Dumouriez will be just across the marsh (see map here). Can Dumouriez delay the Germans long enough to link up with Kellermann again? Would Dumouriez be willing to fight the Germans if he thinks he is the only thing that can stop them getting to Paris, and bad odds of victory are better than letting them just march right to the city? Or would Dumouriez be of a mind to preserve his army, even if it meant the Germans being allowed to siege Paris?

I must say, if I were the Duke of Brunswick, I'd want to decisively defeat both Dumouriez and Kellermann before I tried to lay siege to Paris... Getting stuck in the siege of Paris with an enemy still at my back sounds like a bad position to be in.

fasquardon

Brunsick would go Dumouriez and Dumouriez would meet him in battle
 
Some answers :

1. Even if the French lose Valmy, the Prussian army won't continue, as they were needed in the east (the invasion of Poland just started). Some people could interpret the lack of willingness in the Prussian army to fight as a way to preserve their troops for a more important campaign.

2. The people who wanted the war (the french moderate) were out of power at this point IIRC and they could come to an understanding with the Austro-Prussians.

3. The proclamation of the republic was unanimous without a debate (ie it wasn't close). I don't see how the news of a defeat would change anything. Given that the Duke of Brunswick claimed the conquered Verdun in the name of the King of France, i can't see where the king will find support.

4. Lafayette was already out of the game. He was declared a traitor by the National Assembly and no one in the Army wanted to follow him.

5. The news from the battle came quickly due to the Semaphore lines.
 
Interesting slydesertfox, I hadn't been aware of his weak political position. So no Dumouriez going over to the Austrians after Valmy... I wonder if the defeat of Kellermann at Valmy (assuming he isn't himself defeated soon after) would be enough to do in his career anyway...

And thankyou for the enlightening answers Imladrik.

And it may be that the Prussians were trying to preserve their strength - but would they (really "they" is the Duke of Brunswick) really turn down the opportunity to decisively defeat the French if it appears that it can be done at low cost?

fasquardon
 
Something else to take into account: we assume that Prussian won but we have to take into account their losses. As they were facing the new Gribeaucal artillery you can expect them to suffer crippling losses. It has to be take into account for their overall strategy as they can't accept punishing losses at that time.
 
Something else to take into account: we assume that Prussian won but we have to take into account their losses. As they were facing the new Gribeaucal artillery you can expect them to suffer crippling losses. It has to be take into account for their overall strategy as they can't accept punishing losses at that time.


Why exactly? The new artillery system was just new to France, Prussia had already met and defeated the enemy using the system the French copied during the 7 years war. The other component of the German army, the Austrians, were the ones who invented the system.


So it isn't like this unbeatable black magic, or unfamiliar technology to the Germans, nor was it a technology that would guarantee that in all conditions the enemy would be unable to win except at high cost.


So what conditions do you see in Valmy that means that any German victory can only come at high cost?


fasquardon
 
The other component of the German army, the Austrians, were the ones who invented the system.

Save that French artillery was much more effective (it was mainly related to effective training)

So what conditions do you see in Valmy that means that any German victory can only come at high cost?

Randomly: units having to climb uphill in front of massed artillery (close to a 40 guns battery).
 
Save that French artillery was much more effective (it was mainly related to effective training)

[snip]

Randomly: units having to climb uphill in front of massed artillery (close to a 40 guns battery).

Yup, I agree with both of the things you say here. The artillery French personnel were better trained at this point, and attacking into the teeth of the battery would be costly. Do you know how costly though? As I've said before, Napoleonic military technique isn't my forte.

Actually the reason why I wanted to explore the alternatives for Valmy going a different way is that I am working on a TL where Joseph II dies in 1780. Reading about the evolution of Austrian military forces, I realized that without Joseph II, the Austrian army (and particularly artillery) would be much better than they were OTL in the Revolutionary War. But I am not sure if a better army would really help that much (assuming a vaguely similar situation, which is far from a given with a POD 12 years before). Since Valmy was such a close run thing and essentially decided by the artillery duel I thought it was a good test case to use to explore what a better Austrian artillery would do to the revolutionary war.

What do you think better Austrian artillery would do to the outcome of the battle?

fasquardon
 
Actually the reason why I wanted to explore the alternatives for Valmy going a different way is that I am working on a TL where Joseph II dies in 1780. Reading about the evolution of Austrian military forces, I realized that without Joseph II, the Austrian army (and particularly artillery) would be much better than they were OTL in the Revolutionary War. But I am not sure if a better army would really help that much (assuming a vaguely similar situation, which is far from a given with a POD 12 years before).

Interesting, I'm wondering what it could have given.

Since Valmy was such a close run thing and essentially decided by the artillery duel I thought it was a good test case to use to explore what a better Austrian artillery would do to the revolutionary war.

Well, Valmy was a "not a close nor anything else thing". It wasn't really a battle: Prussians came, expected French forces not to appear or to run and to their dismay they remained in the field, secured good positions and their artillery was ready.

What puzzled everybody in Europe is that Prussian didn't even try to overcome that. They tried half heartedly and then left. People have been trying to understand why for the last 200 years. There we many good explanations:

- Prussian logistic failure (true)
- massive disease in their army (true)
- invasion in Poland (maybe)
- surprised to see an effective French army (maybe)
- franc-maçon ties between general (maybe)

The Austrian army was not engaged at all during the battle and was not even on the field.

Austrian artillery? They first have to be there. Then they need room to deploy. Then they need something to shoot at (french artillery batteries were at the front uphill). After that, to be honest, I don't really know what they could have done with their artillery. Their major problem is going to be ressuply (they are deep inside the country and are not used to live on the land like French forces).
 
Top