UK intervention in Franco-Prussian war of 1870

Hi guys,

I have read AH.com on and off this past year and have decided to finally make a profile, so I could participate.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with the Franco Prussian war of 1870?

To anyone who is I want to ask the following:
From what (limited) research I have done, France's resounding defeat was quite a surprise for the other European powers at the time, as most of them viewed France as the strongest power in continental Europe (as it had historically been so for centuries) and the victory of Prussia (and later unified Germany) led the other powers primarily the UK to view them as the new biggest threat on the continent (replacing France) leading to things like the France-Russia alliance and the Entente Cordiale between France and the UK. What I am wondering is what if the leaders of the UK, with the Franco-Prussian war on the horizon, managed to correctly predict the Prussian victory and moved to militarily support France? Would the Prussian army and its maneuver warfare crush the British as well as the French or would the Anglo-French alliance be victorious? Or would the Prussians back down from war in the first place once it becomes clear the UK would intervene? In any case how do you think this would shape the rest of the 19th and early 20th centuries?
 
Hi guys,

I have read AH.com on and off this past year and have decided to finally make a profile, so I could participate.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with the Franco Prussian war of 1870?

To anyone who is I want to ask the following:
From what (limited) research I have done, France's resounding defeat was quite a surprise for the other European powers at the time, as most of them viewed France as the strongest power in continental Europe (as it had historically been so for centuries) and the victory of Prussia (and later unified Germany) led the other powers primarily the UK to view them as the new biggest threat on the continent (replacing France) leading to things like the France-Russia alliance and the Entente Cordiale between France and the UK. What I am wondering is what if the leaders of the UK, with the Franco-Prussian war on the horizon, managed to correctly predict the Prussian victory and moved to militarily support France? Would the Prussian army and its maneuver warfare crush the British as well as the French or would the Anglo-French alliance be victorious? Or would the Prussians back down from war in the first place once it becomes clear the UK would intervene? In any case how do you think this would shape the rest of the 19th and early 20th centuries?



The Prussians couldn't back down, as it was France that declared war on them, not vice versa.
 
The Prussians couldn't back down, as it was France that declared war on them, not vice versa.

Now, what would be fun is if they actually intervenes on Prussia's side, say if their Napoleonic era alliance survives or something. It counts as intervening.:D:p
 
Now, what would be fun is if they actually intervenes on Prussia's side, say if their Napoleonic era alliance survives or something. It counts as intervening.:D:p

The British would be kicking themselves for decades afterwards for personally destroying the balance of power. France may also be hesitant to ally itself with perfidious Albion which randomly attacked them for no reason, despite the German threat.
 
the victory of Prussia (and later unified Germany) led the other powers primarily the UK to view them as the new biggest threat on the continent (replacing France) leading to things like the France-Russia alliance and the Entente Cordiale between France and the UK.
The thing is that this conflates events that happened much later (1894 Franco-Russian alliance, 1904 Anglo-French entente, 1907 Anglo-Russian entente). In 1870 the future ruler of Germany is the liberal Anglophile Frederick III rather than the authoritarian Anglophile Wilhelm II. Even after Wilhelm comes to the throne, France and Russia remain the biggest threat- look at books like The Great War of 189- (written in 1892) has Britain and Germany fighting the French and Russians. The UK didn't see Germany as a threat until, well, the Germans started threatening them.

Or would the Prussians back down from war in the first place once it becomes clear the UK would intervene?
They did, to an extent: Britain requested and obtained pledges from both parties that they wouldn't violate Belgian neutrality during the war. In early July, in the context of a possible French movement into Belgium, Gladstone asked Cardwell to prepare plans for a British force to be sent to Antwerp. There were two plans: the first for 9 infantry battalions totalling 10,000 men, the second for 22 battalions totalling 20,000 men. In August, 20,000 additional men and £1.4m were voted for the army to support the possible deployment.
 
British intervention would probably lead to Austrian intervention, and it is this latter which might prove disastrous for Prussia. Britain can put an army in the field but only so far as to stabilise one portion of the front. But British money to Austria, funding that end of things could see an immediate invasion of either Silesia or the South German states.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Russians then join the war if that happens.austria gets destroyed .British public would not like joining with the attacker
 
If Austria had intervened on behalf of France, it would have enabled the secret protocol signed by Prussia and Russia, which stipulated that Russia would support Prussia if Austria attacked Prussia in revenge for its defeat in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.

That would cause the Hungarian nationalists certainly take advantage of the situation to completely independent from Austria in view of the imminent military debacle of Austria to Prussia and Russia, not to mention that Victor Emmanuel II of Italy take surely advantage of the situation to obtain the Trentino, Istria and Dalmatia.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
A UK intervention in the F-P war sounds like it would involve the Brits starting to raise an army and promptly discovering the whole thing's pretty much decided, so quietly standing down that plan and instead joining the French naval blockade. (Thus doing no material harm to Prussia whatsoever, really.)
 
The premise behind the OP smacks of presentism to me. In addition to the fact that France had been discredited in the eyes of the British public by the revelation that they wanted to annex Belgium during the Austro-Prussian War, Gladstone would ultimately be declaring war...in support of the obvious aggressor. That doesn't sound like maintaining a balance of power, does it?
 
@TRH

True enough, that is why why the UK did not intervene in real life. I am NOT arguing that UK intervention is actually likely, I am just wondering as to what its effects would be. Nonetheless 1870 marks a seismic shift in the balance of power in Europe the point at which France ceases to be the strngest power in the continent and the Prussians/Germans become it. The British modus opperandi during the 18th and 19th century has essentially been to side against the strongest European power in any continental conflict, and since their lack of intervention was based on faulty assumptions (ie. the French were the strongest power in Europe and hence the greatest threat), I dont think it would be to presentist hypothesize that if they understood Prussia's strength, and France's comparative weakness (and I have no clue f this is even remotely possible for them) they would intervene to knock the Prussians down a peg.

@robcraufurd

Thanks for the info about Begium, I did not know that.



Anyway the Franco-Prussian war seems to be really underutilized in AH (and intervention by 19th century Britain always makes a wonderful monkey wrench to toss into historical events, as their naval strength and isolated geography gives them an excellent potential to meddle in world affairs) so I thought I would toss this one out here for peoples thoughts.
 
@TRH

True enough, that is why why the UK did not intervene in real life. I am NOT arguing that UK intervention is actually likely, I am just wondering as to what its effects would be. Nonetheless 1870 marks a seismic shift in the balance of power in Europe the point at which France ceases to be the strngest power in the continent and the Prussians/Germans become it. The British modus opperandi during the 18th and 19th century has essentially been to side against the strongest European power in any continental conflict, and since their lack of intervention was based on faulty assumptions (ie. the French were the strongest power in Europe and hence the greatest threat), I dont think it would be to presentist hypothesize that if they understood Prussia's strength, and France's comparative weakness (and I have no clue f this is even remotely possible for them) they would intervene to knock the Prussians down a peg.

But even after the Franco-Prussian War, there wasn't a massive shift in London where everyone was like, "OMG, we've gotta stop the Prussians now! Go, go go!" If anything, their eyes were still on Russia for the next thirty years or so, and Germany was seen as a potential ally in that endeavor. You see, this is where the presentism really comes in - it's not just the anachronistic assumption that Prussia would be seen as stronger than France, although that's still a significant cognitive hurdle - it's the belief that because Prussia is stronger than France, therefore Britain must attack it. The British commitment to a balance of power in Europe is overstated in general, and never more so than in the mid to late 19th century. In fact, this is the middle of Britain's "Splendid Isolation" period, where the focus was less on taking down whoever seems too strong, and more on avoiding problems with their neighbors in Europe so as to focus more on their colonies. The only time they got involved on the Continent during this period was for the Crimean War, but even that had more to do with Constantinople than the North European Plain or whatever. Otherwise, they stood aside and did nothing when Napoleon III decided to ape his uncle and take on the Austrians in Italy for no reason. In the meantime, you've also got to contend with William Gladstone over in Whitehall, since he was no warmonger, and his counterpart Disraeli was still fixated on the Russians. My point here is that you won't find the right frame of mind or the right leader to take the fight to the Germans in 1870 - that's just not an attitude that existed in London at the time.
 
I was reading a letter from Ernest I to the Duke of Wellington dated 1849. In it he warned Wellington about the growing menace of Prussia. Now admittedly Ernest has now got a pro-Hanoverian bias, but he'd also spent many years living in Berlin and had a deep fondness towards Prussia, not to mention being the brother-in-law of King Frederick William III.
Defeating Denmark and Austria would have alerted everyone to the growing Prussian power. Regarding France, I suspect its historical power as much as some technical advantages conned themselves and Britain into thinking France were stronger than they actually were.

Even if Britain saw Prussia as being more powerful than France, I am not sure they would have intervened. Maintaining good relations with Prussia / Germany to counter the perceived greater threat from Russia would have been more important.
 
The British commitment to a balance of power in Europe is overstated in general, and never more so than in the mid to late 19th century.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the balance of power doctrine exactly why the British intervened in Crimea less than two decades before? From what I understand they intervened to prop up the "Sick Man of Europe" (ie. the Ottomans) and check Russian power. The fact that the intervention was in South-Eastern Europe rather than Northern Europe seems to be neither here nor there. It was a war meant to stop a stronger European power from gaining hegemony over a weaker one. If they were willing to do this to check Russian power, why would they not be willing to do the same to contain Prussian power?

And I certainly think that the Franco-Prussian war did have a major effect on British (and for that matter the whole of Europe's) strategic thinking, because the outcome was so unexpected and it challenged the preconception of France's dominance on the continent, which had been entrenched for centuries.

My point is that the swift and decisive Prussian victory was completely unexpected for the political class of the UK. Surely if they knew of Prussia's strength vs France prior to Prussia actually crushing France the strategic thinking of the UK Politicians (including Gladstone and his ilk) would have been markedly different.

they stood aside and did nothing when Napoleon III decided to ape his uncle and take on the Austrians in Italy for no reason.

I am not sure you can conflate the UK's reaction to France's conflict in Italy with the Franco-Prussian war. The Second Italian War of Independence was a war between two great powers in a third area of Europe (the various Italian states) where the goal of either side was to extend their influence in the region. Unlike the Franco-Prussian war their was never any risk of one power directly invading the others homeland in overwhelming forve, seizing its capital and demanding large swaths of its home territory from it. Indeed, Austrian territory only had enemy boots on the ground at the very end of the war and only then a few thousand troops on the small islands of lands of Losinj and Cres. I would think that the Second Italian War of Independence was more of a limited war for influence over an isolated region between two great powers rather than a direct conflict ending with the complete defeat of one of the belligerents, like in the Franco-Prussian War
 
Last edited:
In answer to your question what could Great Britain have done the answer is very little. In 1964 the Second Schleswig War became a crisis in Britain. Prime Minister Lord Palmerston saw Denmark as the victim of aggression and tried to rally support for Denmark. In this view he was a minority of one in the cabinet. While the Royal Navy could undoubtedly blockade Prussia and send supplies to Denmark neither action would have had much impact on the Prussians. The Army was less than 250,000 and was spread across the world. The situation was pretty much the same in 1870. While a token force could have been sent to France I doubt it would have had any military impact.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
1864...

In answer to your question what could Great Britain have done the answer is very little.In 1964 the Second Schleswig War became a crisis in Britain. Prime Minister Lord Palmerston saw Denmark as the victim of aggression and tried to rally support for Denmark.In this view he was a minority of one in the cabinet.While the Royal Navy could undoubtedly blockade Prussia and send supplies to Denmark neither action would have had much impact on the Prussians.The Army was less than 250,000 and was spread across the world.The situation was pretty much the same in 1870.While a token force could have been sent to France I doubt it would have had any military impact.

1864...;)

But yes, your point is quite clear; given the difficulties the British had in organzing expeditionary forces of any size in the 1870s and 1880s, the fact that 1870-71 finds them smack in the middle of the Cardwell reforms, and the reality that in a conflict the scale of the Franco-Prussian war, 10,000 or even 20,000 troops in Belgium are going to amount to a enclave guard at best (as witness the experience of the Royal Navy Division in 1914), and the point is that in a continental war, the strength of the RN notwithstanding, the British Army is not really in a position to do much.

Best,
 
So the consensus so far is the Prussia is going to stomp France, even if the UK has the will to intervene as a result of knowing Prussia's true strength relative to France (and that seems to be up for debate) and its intervention will likely result in a defeat.

In that case anyone have an idea how a joint British and French humiliation at the hands of Prussia shape Europe? How would the other Great Powers react to this development? Would there be a series of wars by European coalitions to contain Prussia, or would there be a measure of Prussian hegemony on the continent? Or would history largely follow uninterrupted?
 
The thing is that this conflates events that happened much later

I'd disagree : the War-in-Sight Crisis made clear to Bismarck that a pre-emptive war against France in 1875 would met the opposition of both Russia and United Kingdom; it's not like British policies discovered Germany only in the latter part of the XIXth century.

So the consensus so far is the Prussia is going to stomp France
Giving that a lot of reasons for french defeat is due to poor commanding (if not outright treacherous, look at Bazaine), a British military intervention (that I think is unlikely, personally) would certainly make this poor command and organisation doing better would it be only if Nappie doesn't want to see British army acting on its own to prevent beaking weakened by inept decisions.

That's really not obvious that French army was going to be crushed in 1870, with the right organisation and sane commanding (as in a good defensive organisation).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
...actually, how big was the British home army (as in, the standing force) in 1870? I know it wasn't very big compared to the full mobilized armies of France and the Germans, but the British way was to field a complete expeditionary force as a field army - and a well-trained one, to boot.
(They'd be using Sniders, which are quite able to play on a battlefield with Chassepots and Dreyse, and RBL artillery.)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Maybe 35,000 men initially, with another 35,000

...actually, how big was the British home army (as in, the standing force) in 1870? I know it wasn't very big compared to the full mobilized armies of France and the Germans, but the British way was to field a complete expeditionary force as a field army - and a well-trained one, to boot. (They'd be using Sniders, which are quite able to play on a battlefield with Chassepots and Dreyse, and RBL artillery.)

Maybe 35,000 men initially (M+30 to mobilize and deploy across the Channel, presumably), with another 35,000 at about M+90 days, at least according to this:

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/26th-november-1870/7/the-strength-of-the-british-army


According to this, about 82,000 total in Britain and Ireland and another 10,000 in the Mediterranean (split between the Gibraltar and Malta garrisons, of course), of a total of 159,000 British regulars world-wide.

http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/870DAA.pdf

Source is the Naval and Military Gazette, 1870, which was semi-official; the Army List for 1870 or 1871 would give you the formations, including battalions assigned and commanders. It's probably on Google Books, which is where I found the editions I've used for BROS.

Bottom line, it amounts to - maybe - one corps initially, with a second to follow within three months (probably requiring stripping almost every home service unit) for NW Europe, and the equivalent of a division in the Med, but split between Gibraltar and Malta.

So, a version of the Old Contemptibles in 1914; useful, but only likely to make a significant difference if they stand and die - and then what? The equivalent of Kitchener's Army in 1871? Or even less likely, conscription?

There are reasons the British did not intervene on the continent in this period; not having an army that compared to the Europeans, and the focus on the RN.

Best,
 
Top