Why didn't the Franco-Prussian and Austro-Prussian wars explode into world wars?

This is one of the areas of history that I'm kind of weak on, so I've got a few questions. As the title says, why didn't the Austro-Prussian or Franco-Prussian wars erupt into world wars? It seems like everytime there is a war in Europe, all of the great powers get involved (Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2). Why are these two exceptions? I guess they could all write-off the Austro-Prussian one as an internal German thing. But why not the Frano-Prussian war? Did the great powers not have as many entangling alliances to pull them in or something?

Also, what might have happened if everyone does get pulled into one of these two wars? What might that look like? Who would be on which side and what would the results be?
 
Bismarck was smart enough to know when to push Prussia into war and when not to. He made France and Napoleon III look like an aggressor with Ems and no nation would take France's side on an attack on Prussia and the smaller German states.
You could consider it, that from the end off the Napoleonic Wars till the rise of Prussia and Germany there was little in the way of European alliances and most nations were at peace, so there is unlikely to be anything in that period that could trigger a wider war.
 
Well, Italy OTL declared war on Austria to get Venice back during this war. There was also a lot of outrage towards France in Italy over the fact that they signed a seperate peace behind Sardania's back when Italy was unifying that didn't get them all of Italy(hence the next war). Not to mention they might want Nice and Savoy back.

It's possible you could see an earlier Berlin/Rome Axis against France and Austria. Throw a Hungarian upriing into the mix, maybe directly sponsored by Russia(who'd likely still be PO'ed at Austria for not helping in the Crimean War), that could very well bring the Ottomans in on their side, who consequently would probably have a Balkan crisis on it's hands.

So you'd have France, Austria, Ottomans vs Prussia, Italy and Russia.

I really don't see Britain getting directly involved in this though they'd probably be sympathetic towards France and Austria.
 
Neither of these wars threatened the balance of power in Europe - and especially, neither thretened the control of the esturies of the major N European rivers by a power Friendly or Neutral to GB - hence, no need for GB to get involved, and at this point in time, without a British involvement you can't really have a truly world war
 
This is one of the areas of history that I'm kind of weak on, so I've got a few questions. As the title says, why didn't the Austro-Prussian or Franco-Prussian wars erupt into world wars? It seems like everytime there is a war in Europe, all of the great powers get involved (Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2). Why are these two exceptions? I guess they could all write-off the Austro-Prussian one as an internal German thing. But why not the Frano-Prussian war? Did the great powers not have as many entangling alliances to pull them in or something?

Also, what might have happened if everyone does get pulled into one of these two wars? What might that look like? Who would be on which side and what would the results be?

Actually, you'll note that the First Schleswig War, the Second Schleswig War, the First Italian Unification War, the Second Italian Unification War, the Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, the Hungarian Revolutionary War, The Belgian Revolutionary War, the First Carlist War, the Second Carlist War, and the Third Carlist War all stayed pretty much local (have I forgotten any?)

In the 19th century there were many small wars. They staid local because they were fought through and because of, or in the case of exceptional talents like Bismarck and Cavour around and under, the "balance of power" established in 1815. It took a long time and many factors for this balance to fail, causing WW1. AJP Taylor's Struggle for Mastery in Europe is a fine overview of the 1848-1918 period in European diplomacy.
 
Its tempting to say because the power that lost in each case was swiftly defeated. Had the Austrians or French fought the Prussians to a stand still it is likely someone else, France in the Austro-Prussian, Russia in the Franco-Prussian, would have entered the war to secure some gains. Once some powers enter more are drawn in and from there you have your world war.

I always found the "its the alliances" theory of World War 1 quite weak. People fight because they believe they must and while alliances exist they are there because of that belief rather than the instigators of it.
 
Its tempting to say because the power that lost in each case was swiftly defeated. Had the Austrians or French fought the Prussians to a stand still it is likely someone else, France in the Austro-Prussian, Russia in the Franco-Prussian, would have entered the war to secure some gains. Once some powers enter more are drawn in and from there you have your world war.

Actually, counterintuitively, France was was broadly pro-Prussian in 1866. Russia was also benevolent towards Prussia in 1871. I really to recomend Struggle for Mastery.

I always found the "its the alliances" theory of World War 1 quite weak. People fight because they believe they must and while alliances exist they are there because of that belief rather than the instigators of it.

Sure, everybody believed they had to fight (except, to use a Taylorism, the Italians), but many believed they had to fight t save an ally because leaving it in the lurch would jeopardise them for some reason. Russia, Germany, and Britain, and possibly France, all fit in this category.
 
Actually, counterintuitively, France was was broadly pro-Prussian in 1866. Russia was also benevolent towards Prussia in 1871. I really to recomend Struggle for Mastery.

Ofcourse, because the French believed they would make gains at the expense of the Austrians and that the Austrians were the greater and thus more threatening power. If it became clear that the Austrians were barely holding their own oppinion in Paris would turn relatively quickly against the Prussians. Or it might not, foreign policy under the Third Empire was hardly the finest, but its hardly unprecedented. There would certainly be pressure in the wings to end the fighting. You can see how oppinion turned against Prussia from support at the start of her war with France to reasonable opposition if not overt hostility by the siege of Paris.

Sure, everybody believed they had to fight (except, to use a Taylorism, the Italians), but many believed they had to fight t save an ally because leaving it in the lurch would jeopardise them for some reason. Russia, Germany, and Britain, and possibly France, all fit in this category.

But much of it is governed by geography. Austria and Russia could hardly agree over the Balkans but Austria could not defeat Russia alone. Germany and Russia could hardly agree over Poland but Russia could not defeat Germany alone. France and Germany could hardly agree over Alsace-Lorraine but France could not defeat Germany alone. Britain could hardly agree to the Benelux countries being closed to her exports. The Ottomans could hardly agree to Russian and British encroachments from the north and south respectively.

To put it another way, the idea that they had to fight to save an ally was not an idle belief, nor merely a consequence of signing a peice of paper in secret, but a basic reality. Even if no alliances had been in existence France and Russia could not stand by while Germany defeated the other, nor could Germany and Austria stand by while the other was defeated.
 
Ofcourse, because the French believed they would make gains at the expense of the Austrians and that the Austrians were the greater and thus more threatening power. If it became clear that the Austrians were barely holding their own oppinion in Paris would turn relatively quickly against the Prussians. Or it might not, foreign policy under the Third Empire was hardly the finest, but its hardly unprecedented. There would certainly be pressure in the wings to end the fighting. You can see how oppinion turned against Prussia from support at the start of her war with France to reasonable opposition if not overt hostility by the siege of Paris.

As you say, the Second Empire (why Third?) was hardly the most sensible in foreign affairs. Venetia was a huge problem in 1866, and Nismarck also adroitly bought France off. France actually (short-sightedly) considered the OTL outcome of 1866 favourable to her interests.

But much of it is governed by geography. Austria and Russia could hardly agree over the Balkans but Austria could not defeat Russia alone. Germany and Russia could hardly agree over Poland but Russia could not defeat Germany alone. France and Germany could hardly agree over Alsace-Lorraine but France could not defeat Germany alone. Britain could hardly agree to the Benelux countries being closed to her exports. The Ottomans could hardly agree to Russian and British encroachments from the north and south respectively.

Actually, Poland united firstly Prussia, Russia, and Austri and later Prussia and Russia a lot during the 19th century. A keystone of the Metternich system was that Austro-Russian conflict in the near-east would be offset by the need to co-operate over Poland, and Poland was not a war issue in 1914. The Benelux thing is a red herring: what we couldn't agree to was unrivalled German hegemony on the continent.

To put it another way, the idea that they had to fight to save an ally was not an idle belief, nor merely a consequence of signing a peice of paper in secret, but a basic reality. Even if no alliances had been in existence France and Russia could not stand by while Germany defeated the other, nor could Germany and Austria stand by while the other was defeated.

But surely they signed treaties of alliance because of geopolitics? They're effectively inextricable.
 
Neither of these wars threatened the balance of power in Europe - and especially, neither thretened the control of the esturies of the major N European rivers by a power Friendly or Neutral to GB - hence, no need for GB to get involved, and at this point in time, without a British involvement you can't really have a truly world war


I disagree with the bolded statement. The creation of Germany smashed the balance of power in 1871. The reason other nations, mainly Great Britian, didn't get involved was Bismark. He politically isolated his enemies, and then launched short, limited wars with a clear cut goal set in mind. The wars didn't last long enough, or seem to make an impact enough to warrent intervention, or so it looked up until the creation of the German state.
 
Top