← Back to home

Franco-Prussian War

The Franco-Prussian War, sometimes bluntly referred to as the Franco-German War (though one might wonder which of the many Franco-German conflicts this refers to, given the historical propensity for such things – for a specific earlier skirmish, see the Franco-German war of 978–980), or in France, with a weary sigh, simply the War of 1870, was a rather predictable conflagration that swept across Western Europe from 19 July 1870 to 28 January 1871. This particular bout of continental unpleasantness pitted the Second French Empire against the nascent North German Confederation, a collective entity effectively steered by the ever-ambitious Kingdom of Prussia.

The conflict, which lasted a concise six months, one week, and two days – a remarkably efficient period for such widespread destruction, if one appreciates a certain brutal efficiency – was primarily ignited by France's rather desperate and increasingly fragile determination to cling to its dominant position in continental Europe. That dominance, a fleeting illusion perhaps, had been visibly undermined by the decisive Prussian victory over Austria in 1866, which rearranged the European furniture rather dramatically and not in France's favor.

(A visual retrospective of humanity's finest moments, clockwise from top right):

The war unfolded across the familiar battlegrounds of France and the Rhine Province in Prussia. The outcome, for anyone paying attention, was a resounding German victory. This triumph, as these things often do, triggered a cascade of significant geopolitical shifts: the inglorious end of the Second French Empire, the long-anticipated Unification of Germany, and the subsequent establishment of the formidable German Empire. In a predictable display of victor's spoils, Germany also annexed Alsace-Lorraine, a territorial change that would fester like an unhealed wound for generations.

Belligerents

Before 4 September 1870, France was represented by the Second French Empire. After that date, following a rather swift change of government, it was the French Third Republic that continued the fight, along with some rather enthusiastic, if not always strategically vital, Redshirts.

On the German side, before 18 January 1871, the primary force was the North German Confederation, dominated by Prussia. They were ably supported by Saxony, Hesse (specifically, the northern parts and the Army of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, which had become part of the North German Confederation), and a collection of 19 smaller states. Crucially, the southern German states of Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden, initially hesitant, were drawn into the conflict on Prussia's side. After 18 January 1871, this disparate collection coalesced into the unified might of the German Empire.

Commanders and Leaders

On the French side, the unfortunate figures included:

For the Germans, the architects of victory were:

Strength

The French, in their grand total deployment, mustered some 2,000,740 personnel, although their initial strength was closer to 909,951. This included 492,585 active soldiers, a third of whom were reservists, and a rather optimistic 417,366 from the Garde Mobile – a militia whose training and readiness proved, shall we say, aspirational. Their peak field army strength reached 710,000.

The German coalition, with its more efficient mobilization, saw a total deployment of 1,494,412. Their initial strength was 938,424, comprising 730,274 regulars and reservists, and 208,150 from the Landwehr (a more seasoned reserve force than France's Garde Mobile). Their peak field army strength was an impressive 949,337.

Casualties and Losses

The human cost was, as always, substantial. France suffered a staggering 756,285 casualties. This included 138,871 dead (41,000 killed in action, 36,000 succumbed to wounds, and a horrifying 45,000 claimed by disease – a testament to the era's medical standards, or lack thereof). Another 143,000 were wounded, and a truly immense 474,414 were captured or interned.

The German forces, while victorious, did not emerge unscathed, reporting 144,642 casualties. Of these, 44,700 were dead (17,585 killed in action, 10,721 died of wounds, and 12,147 from disease – still a grim tally, but proportionally less than the French). 89,732 were wounded, and 10,129 were listed as missing or captured.

Beyond the combatants, the civilian population bore a heavy burden. Approximately 250,000 German civilians perished, including 162,000 in a smallpox epidemic, reportedly spread by French POWs – a rather grim, unintended biological warfare. French civilians fared even worse, with an estimated 450,000 dead from war-related famine and disease. A stark reminder that war's reach extends far beyond the battlefield.

Franco-Prussian War Engagements

A litany of battles, each a grim chapter in the larger narrative:

Related events that further complicated an already messy situation:

  • Belgian reaction (mostly a frantic attempt to remain neutral).
  • The Paris Commune (a revolutionary uprising that added a civil war to France's external woes, because why not complicate things further?).

The Franco-Prussian War, or the Franco-German War as some insist on calling it with less historical precision, often referred to in France as the War of 1870, was a rather swift and brutal conflict. It unfolded between the Second French Empire and the rapidly consolidating North German Confederation, which, under the shrewd and often ruthless guidance of the Kingdom of Prussia, was on a clear trajectory toward imperial status. This six-month and change period of intense fighting, from 19 July 1870 to 28 January 1871, found its root cause primarily in France's rather desperate, and ultimately futile, attempt to reassert its supposedly dominant position in continental Europe. That particular illusion had been thoroughly shattered by the decisive Prussian victory over Austria in 1866, which had left France looking rather less significant on the European stage.

The immediate spark, a triviality in the grand scheme of things, involved a prince from the Roman Catholic branch of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family. This unfortunate royal was offered the vacant Spanish throne in 1870, and after a brief, ill-advised acceptance, prudently withdrew his candidacy under French diplomatic pressure. One might think this would be the end of it. However, the French ambassador, a certain Count Benedetti, then approached Prussian King Wilhelm I at his vacation retreat in Ems. Benedetti, presumably under orders to be as irritating as possible, demanded that Prussia make a permanent, ironclad renunciation of any future Hohenzollern claims to the Spanish throne. Wilhelm, with admirable restraint, rejected this rather absurd demand.

The subsequent internal Ems dispatch, reporting this exchange, was sent to Berlin on July 13. Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian chancellor and a man who understood the theatrical potential of a well-placed lie, promptly made it public, but not before altering the wording. His edits transformed a polite refusal into something that sounded like a calculated insult to the French envoy. Naturally, the French newspapers on July 14, their national holiday, were awash with translations of Bismarck's inflammatory press release, conspicuously lacking any nuanced report from their own ambassador. Predictably, a frenzied crowd in the streets of Paris, ever eager for drama, demanded war. French mobilization was ordered soon after. One can almost hear Emma sighing, "And so it begins, again."

Some historians, perhaps those with a penchant for grand master plans, argue that Bismarck deliberately engineered this provocation. His alleged goal: to goad the French into declaring war on Prussia, thereby compelling the four independent southern German states—Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria, and Hesse-Darmstadt—to cast their lot with the North German Confederation. Other historians, perhaps more grounded in the messy reality of unfolding events, suggest Bismarck merely exploited the circumstances as they presented themselves. What all agree upon, however, is that Bismarck, a man with an uncanny knack for leveraging chaos, recognized the immense potential for new German alliances within this volatile situation.

France, with a characteristic flourish of self-sabotage, mobilized its army on 15 July 1870. The North German Confederation, far more organized and less prone to theatrical outbursts, responded with its own mobilization later that very same day. On 16 July 1870, the French parliament, in a fit of patriotic fervor, voted to declare war on Prussia. French forces then, with somewhat less efficiency, invaded German territory on 2 August. The German coalition, however, mobilized its troops with a brutal effectiveness that left the French scrambling. They swiftly invaded northeastern France on 4 August. German forces enjoyed clear superiority in numbers, training, and leadership, and demonstrated a far more adept use of modern technology, particularly their railways for rapid deployment and their formidable artillery. A war of the future against a war of the past, if you will.

A relentless series of hard-fought Prussian and German victories unfolded across eastern France, culminating in the protracted Siege of Metz and the decisive, humiliating Battle of Sedan. These twin blows resulted in the capture of the French Emperor Napoleon III himself and the utter collapse of the army of the Second Empire. In Paris, ever the stage for dramatic political shifts, a Government of National Defense was hastily formed on 4 September, attempting to salvage what remained and prolong the inevitable for another five months. German forces, with methodical precision, engaged and defeated new French armies in northern France, then proceeded to besiege Paris for over four grueling months. The city finally fell on 28 January 1871, effectively bringing the curtain down on the conflict.

In the final, triumphant days of the war, with German victory no longer a question but a foregone conclusion, the German states, under the shrewd guidance of Chancellor Bismarck, proclaimed their union as the German Empire under the Prussian king Wilhelm I. With the notable, though perhaps understandable, exceptions of Austria and German Switzerland, the vast majority of German-speakers were, for the first time in history, united under a single nation-state. Following a necessary armistice with France, the Treaty of Frankfurt was signed on 10 May 1871. This treaty, predictably harsh, mandated that Germany receive billions of francs in war indemnity and, more importantly, the majority of Alsace and significant portions of Lorraine, which were then consolidated into the Imperial Territory of Alsace-Lorraine (Reichsland Elsaß-Lothringen).

The war, a relatively brief but immensely impactful affair, left a lasting, indelible mark on the political landscape of Europe. By dramatically accelerating German unification, it fundamentally reshaped the balance of power on the continent, with the formidable new German state decisively supplanting France as the dominant European land power. Bismarck, ever the pragmatist, maintained considerable authority in international affairs for two decades, cultivating a reputation for ruthless Realpolitik that significantly elevated Germany's global stature and influence. In France, the war brought a definitive end to the brief, tumultuous period of imperial rule and, perhaps ironically, inaugurated the first truly lasting republican government. However, the raw resentment over the French government's perceived mishandling of the war and its bitter aftermath quickly triggered the Paris Commune, a revolutionary uprising that seized and held power for two chaotic months before being brutally suppressed. This violent episode would, in turn, profoundly influence the politics and policies of the subsequent Third Republic.

Causes

One might assume the causes of such a conflict are complex, and indeed they are, but mostly in the way that human vanity and ambition always are. The Causes of the Franco-Prussian War are inextricably linked to the intricate events that paved the way for the unification of the German states under the masterful, if Machiavellian, hand of Otto von Bismarck. France, clinging to its self-perception as the reigning power of continental Europe after the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, found its pre-eminence increasingly challenged.

During the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, a conflict that swiftly and brutally demonstrated Prussia's rising military prowess, certain influential figures within the French court expressed considerable apprehension. Empress Eugénie, Foreign Minister Drouyn de Lhuys, and War Minister Jacques Louis Randon were acutely aware that Prussia's burgeoning power threatened to eclipse that of France. With a prescience that would prove tragically ignored, they unsuccessfully urged Napoleon III to mass troops along France's eastern borders. This, they argued, would serve as a clear warning that no territorial changes in Germany could be enacted without French consultation, especially while the bulk of the Prussian armies were still engaged in Bohemia. A reasonable suggestion, one might think, but ignored.

The rapid and decisive Prussian victory, followed by its annexation of several German states that had unwisely sided with Austria, and the subsequent formation of the North German Confederation under Prussia's dominant influence, sent shockwaves through French public opinion. Suddenly, the French populace demanded a more resolute stance and, naturally, territorial compensations for this perceived shift in the balance of power. Consequently, Napoleon III, ever susceptible to public pressure, demanded from Prussia a return to the French borders of 1814, which would have meant the annexation of Luxembourg, most of the Saarland, and the Bavarian Palatinate. Bismarck, with a dismissive wave, flatly refused these demands, contemptuously labeling them France's politique des pourboires ("tipping policy").

Not content with merely refusing, Bismarck then shrewdly communicated Napoleon III's audacious territorial demands to Bavaria and the other southern German states of Württemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt. This calculated move, as intended, swiftly cemented defensive military alliances between these states and Prussia, effectively drawing them into the Prussian orbit. France, for its part, had consistently and vehemently opposed any further alliance of German states, recognizing, correctly, that such a consolidation would pose a direct threat to its continental dominance.

The only tangible outcome of this rather clumsy French diplomatic maneuvering was Prussia's grudging consent to a nominal independence for Saxony, Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, and Hessia-Darmstadt. This was, at best, a hollow victory, offering little solace to a French public clamoring for territory and a French army yearning for revenge after 1866. The situation was clearly untenable for both powers. France found itself, unexpectedly, bordering the militarily potent Prussian-led North German Confederation, while Prussia's primary objective—the complete unification of the German states—remained tantalizingly out of reach. Thus, a war between these two powers, simmering since 1866, became not a question of if, but when.

In Prussia, a faction of officials, recognizing the inevitable, viewed a war against France as both unavoidable and necessary. They believed it would ignite the fervent German nationalism required to draw the remaining independent states into a unified German empire. This strategic imperative was eloquently, if chillingly, summarized by Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's later declaration: "I did not doubt that a Franco-German war must take place before the construction of a United Germany could be realised." Bismarck, ever the master manipulator, also understood that France had to be the aggressor in this impending conflict. This would ensure that the four southern German states, bound by defensive treaties, would unequivocally side with Prussia, thereby granting the German forces a crucial numerical superiority. He was utterly convinced that France would find no allies in its war against Germany, for the simple, cynical reason that "France, the victor, would be a danger to everybody—Prussia to nobody." He added, with a characteristic smirk, "That is our strong point." Many Germans, weary of what they perceived as France's historical role as the perennial destabilizer of Europe, also sought to decisively weaken France to prevent any further breaches of the peace.

The immediate catalyst for this predictable clash was, as mentioned, the candidacy of Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen for the throne of Spain, following the ignominious fall of Isabella II in 1868. France, ever paranoid about encirclement, feared a potential alliance between Prussia and Spain. While the Hohenzollern prince's candidacy was eventually withdrawn under intense French diplomatic pressure, Otto von Bismarck, sensing his moment, expertly goaded the French into declaring war. He achieved this by releasing an infamously altered summary of the Ems Dispatch, a telegram from Wilhelm I that merely rejected further French demands for Prussia to never again support a Hohenzollern candidacy. Bismarck's summary, deliberately crafted and then conveniently mistranslated by the French press agency Havas, made it appear as though the King had treated the French envoy with deliberate disdain. This, as intended, ignited public opinion in France, pushing it irrevocably towards war.

French historians François Roth and Pierre Milza offer a rather less flattering portrayal of Napoleon III, arguing that he was less a cunning strategist and more a desperate emperor, pressured by a bellicose press and public opinion. He sought war, they suggest, as a desperate gamble to compensate for France's string of diplomatic failures to secure any territorial gains after the Austro-Prussian War. Napoleon III, in a display of monumental overconfidence, genuinely believed he would swiftly win a conflict with Prussia. Many within his inner circle, particularly Empress Eugénie, echoed this sentiment, eagerly desiring a victorious war to quell growing domestic political unrest, re-establish France as the undisputed leading power in Europe, and, crucially, ensure the long-term survival of the House of Bonaparte. A national plebiscite held on 8 May 1870, which, conveniently, returned results overwhelmingly in favor of the Emperor's domestic agenda, further fostered the dangerous illusion that the regime was politically robust enough to confront Prussia. Within days of this plebiscite, France's supposedly pacifist Foreign Minister, Napoléon, comte Daru, was replaced by Agenor, duc de Gramont, a fierce and vocal opponent of Prussia who, as French Ambassador to Austria in 1866, had actively advocated for an Austro-French military alliance against Prussia. Napoleon III's increasingly debilitating health problems rendered him less and less capable of reining in Empress Eugénie, Gramont, and the other hawkish members of the "mameluks" (a rather fitting, if derogatory, term for his inner circle). For Bismarck, the appointment of Gramont was, quite simply, "a highly bellicose symptom."

The Ems telegram of 13 July 1870 achieved its intended effect on French public opinion with chilling precision. "This text produced the effect of a red flag on the Gallic bull," Bismarck later wrote, perhaps with a self-satisfied smirk. Gramont, the French foreign minister, declared that he felt "he had just received a slap." Even the leader of the monarchists in Parliament, Adolphe Thiers, who argued for moderation and pointed out that France had, in fact, won the diplomatic battle and had no logical reason for war, was drowned out by furious cries branding him a traitor and a "Prussian." Napoleon's new prime minister, Emile Ollivier, with a remarkable display of political blindness, declared that France had done all it "could humanly and honorably do to prevent the war," and that he accepted the responsibility "with a light heart." A crowd of 15,000–20,000 people, waving flags and patriotic banners, surged through the streets of Paris, baying for war. French mobilization was ordered early on 15 July. Upon receiving news of the French mobilization, the North German Confederation mobilized with swift efficiency on the night of 15–16 July, with Bavaria and Baden following suit on 16 July, and Württemberg on 17 July. On 19 July 1870, France, having thoroughly painted itself into a corner, sent a formal declaration of war to the Prussian government. The southern German states, as Bismarck had so carefully orchestrated, immediately sided with Prussia.

Napoleonic France, despite its grand aspirations, found itself entering the war virtually without allies, a testament to its own diplomatic isolation and Bismarck's skillful maneuvering. The French calculation was based on the fantasy of a swift, victorious offensive, which, as Foreign Minister Gramont confidently stated, was "the only way for France to lure the wary Austrians, Italians and Danes into the French alliance." The involvement of Russia on the side of France was, quite frankly, not even considered. Russia, ever pragmatic, had made the lifting of restrictions on its naval construction on the Black Sea—restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Paris following the Crimean War—a precondition for any alliance. Imperial France, clinging to the vestiges of its past glory, was unwilling to concede this. As one historian dryly noted, "Bonaparte did not dare to encroach on the Paris Treaty: the worse things turned out in the present, the more precious the heritage of the past became." A rather sentimental approach to geopolitics, one might observe.

Opposing forces

For a comprehensive, if somewhat dry, overview of the military structures at the conflict's outset, one might consult the Franco-Prussian War order of battle.

French

French soldiers, seen here drilling at the IIe Chambrière camp near Metz in 1870, represented an army in flux. In peacetime, the French Army numbered approximately 426,000 soldiers. This force comprised both seasoned regulars and conscripts, who, until March 1869, were selected by ballot and served for a comparatively lengthy seven-year term. Many of these soldiers were veterans, having seen action in previous French campaigns in the Crimean War, Algeria, the Franco-Austrian War in Italy, and even the ill-fated Mexican campaign. However, a crucial assessment following the "Seven Weeks War" between Prussia and Austria just four years prior revealed a stark reality: with ongoing commitments in Algeria and other colonial outposts, the French Army could realistically field only 288,000 men to confront the Prussian Army. This was a woefully inadequate number, especially when projections indicated that 1,000,000 soldiers would be required to match Prussian strength.

Under the leadership of Marshal Adolphe Niel, urgent reforms were initiated. The ambitious plan included universal conscription and a shorter period of service, designed to rapidly increase the number of reservists and swell the army to a planned strength of 800,000 upon mobilization. Those who, for various reasons, were not directly conscripted were to be enrolled in the Garde Mobile, a militia with a nominal strength of 400,000. Regrettably, the Franco-Prussian War erupted before these critical reforms could be fully implemented. The mobilization of reservists proved to be a chaotic affair, resulting in large numbers of stragglers and significant delays. The Garde Mobile, largely untrained and often prone to mutiny, proved to be more of a theoretical force than a practical asset.

French infantry were armed with the breech-loading Chassepot rifle, a weapon that was, at the time, one of the most advanced mass-produced firearms globally. With a rubber ring seal for improved gas efficiency and a smaller, more aerodynamic bullet, the Chassepot boasted an impressive maximum effective range of some 1,500 meters (4,900 ft) and a relatively short reloading time. French tactics, perhaps overly reliant on this superior rifle, emphasized its defensive use in trench-warfare style engagements—a doctrine known as feu de bataillon. Their artillery, however, was less cutting-edge, consisting of rifled, muzzle-loaded La Hitte guns. The French army also possessed a precursor to the machine-gun: the mitrailleuse. While capable of unleashing significant, concentrated firepower, it suffered from a lack of range and was comparatively immobile, rendering it vulnerable to being easily overrun. The mitrailleuse was mounted on an artillery gun carriage and deployed in batteries in a manner similar to traditional cannon, a tactical misapplication that severely limited its effectiveness.

The army was nominally led by Napoleon III, with Marshals François Achille Bazaine and Patrice de MacMahon commanding the field armies. However, a glaring deficiency was the complete absence of any pre-arranged, comprehensive campaign plan. The only plan developed between 1866 and 1870 was a purely defensive one. A rather optimistic approach when facing an opponent whose entire doctrine revolved around aggressive, decisive offensives.

Prussians/Germans

A Prussian field artillery column at Torcy in September 1870, moving with the kind of methodical efficiency that would define their campaign. The German army was a formidable, integrated force, comprising the military might of the North German Confederation, led by the dominant Kingdom of Prussia, and the southern German states. These southern states, initially independent, were drawn into the conflict under the secret clause of the preliminary peace of Nikolsburg on 26 July 1866, and later formalized in the Treaty of Prague on 23 August 1866. A tidy bit of diplomatic coercion, one might say.

Recruitment and organization across these various German armies were remarkably uniform, built upon the bedrock principle of conscripting annual classes of men. These conscripts served a fixed term in regular regiments before transitioning into the reserves. This highly efficient system yielded a theoretical peacetime strength of 382,000 and a staggering wartime strength of approximately 1,189,000.

German tactics were characterized by a relentless emphasis on encirclement battles—a modern iteration of ancient maneuvers like Cannae—and the offensive deployment of artillery whenever feasible. In stark contrast to the more rigid French formations, Prussian infantry units moved in small, dispersed groups, making them significantly harder targets for artillery or concentrated French defensive fire. The sheer numerical superiority the Germans could bring to bear, combined with these flexible tactics, made the mass encirclement and destruction of French formations a relatively straightforward, if brutal, affair.

The standard infantry weapon was the Dreyse needle gun, a weapon renowned for its effectiveness at the Battle of Königgrätz. However, by 1870, this 25-year-old design was undeniably showing its age. The needle gun possessed a comparatively short effective range of only 600 meters (2,000 ft) and lacked the rubber breech seal that allowed for truly aimed shots, a significant disadvantage compared to the French Chassepot. Yet, these deficiencies in infantry small arms were more than compensated for by the formidable Krupp 6-pounder steel breech-loading cannons, which were systematically being issued to Prussian artillery batteries. Firing a contact-detonated shell, the Krupp gun boasted a superior range and a significantly higher rate of fire than the French bronze muzzle-loading cannons, which, with their reliance on less reliable time fuses, were rapidly rendered obsolete.

The Prussian army's overarching command and control structure was managed by the highly sophisticated General Staff, under the brilliant leadership of General Helmuth von Moltke. The Prussian General Staff was unique in Europe, the only organization of its kind dedicated in peacetime to meticulously preparing overall war strategy, and in wartime to precisely directing operational movement and orchestrating logistics and communications. Officers for this elite body were hand-picked from the prestigious Prussian Kriegsakademie (War Academy). Moltke, a true visionary, readily embraced new technologies, particularly the railroad and telegraph, to coordinate and accelerate the mobilization and deployment of vast forces with unprecedented speed and precision. A far cry from the French scramble.

French Army incursion

Preparations for the offensive

The map of German and French armies near the common border on 31 July 1870 already hinted at the imbalance. On 28 July 1870, Napoleon III departed Paris for Metz, assuming personal command of the newly designated Army of the Rhine. This force, numbering some 202,448 strong, was optimistically expected to grow as the French mobilization, already lagging, progressed. Marshal MacMahon took command of I Corps (four infantry divisions) near Wissembourg, while Marshal François Canrobert positioned VI Corps (four infantry divisions) at Châlons-sur-Marne in northern France, intended as a strategic reserve and a bulwark against a potential Prussian advance through Belgium.

A pre-war plan, laid out by the late Marshal Niel, had called for a bold French offensive from Thionville towards Trier and deep into the Prussian Rhineland. However, this rather sensible, aggressive plan was, with characteristic French indecision, discarded. In its place, a purely defensive plan, concocted by Generals Charles Frossard and Bartélemy Lebrun, was adopted. This revised strategy dictated that the Army of the Rhine maintain a defensive posture near the German border, passively awaiting and repelling any Prussian offensive. The hope, a rather flimsy one, was that Austria, along with Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden, would eventually join France in a revenge war against Prussia. In this scenario, I Corps would then invade the Bavarian Palatinate and proceed to "free" the four South German states in concert with Austro-Hungarian forces, while VI Corps would reinforce either army as needed. It was, to put it mildly, a plan built on wishful thinking.

Unfortunately for Frossard's optimistic projections, the Prussian army mobilized with far greater speed and efficiency than anyone in the French high command had anticipated. The Austro-Hungarians, still smarting from their comprehensive defeat by Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War, were treading with extreme caution, stating unequivocally that they would only side with France if the South Germans demonstrated a positive view of French intentions. This, predictably, did not materialize, as the four South German states, spurred by Bismarck's machinations, had already come to Prussia's aid and were actively mobilizing their armies against France. The illusion of allies evaporated, leaving France isolated.

Occupation of Saarbrücken

The early course of the first phase of the war, leading up to the fateful Battle of Sedan on 1 September 1870, was a series of missteps and missed opportunities for France. Napoleon III, under immense domestic pressure to demonstrate some form of offensive action before the full, overwhelming might of Moltke's forces could be mobilized and deployed, felt compelled to act. Reconnaissance by Frossard's forces had identified only the Prussian 16th Infantry Division guarding the border town of Saarbrücken, conveniently situated right before the entire Army of the Rhine. Accordingly, on 31 July, the Army marched forward towards the Saar River with the rather modest objective of seizing Saarbrücken.

General Frossard's II Corps and Marshal Bazaine's III Corps crossed the German border on 2 August, commencing a series of direct attacks to dislodge the Prussian 40th Regiment of the 16th Infantry Division from Saarbrücken. The French Chassepot rifle proved its worth in these early engagements, consistently outperforming the Dreyse rifle of their Prussian counterparts in the skirmishing around Saarbrücken. Despite this individual weapon superiority, the Prussians offered stiff resistance. The French suffered 86 casualties to the Prussian 83—a rather minor exchange, hardly a decisive victory. Saarbrücken itself, once captured, proved to be a logistical bottleneck rather than a strategic gateway. Only a single railway line led into the German hinterland, easily defensible by a modest force, and the region's river systems inconveniently ran along the border instead of inland, offering no easy avenues for deep penetration. While the French press, in its usual hyperbolic fashion, hailed this minor invasion as the glorious first step towards the Rhineland and, ultimately, Berlin, General Edmond Le Bœuf and Napoleon III were, behind the scenes, receiving increasingly alarming reports from foreign news sources. These reports indicated massive Prussian and Bavarian armies were massing to the southeast, in addition to the already known forces to the north and northeast. The Germans, it seemed, were not waiting politely.

Moltke, with his characteristic strategic foresight, had indeed massed three formidable armies in the area: the Prussian First Army, numbering 50,000 men under General Karl von Steinmetz, positioned opposite Saarlouis; the Prussian Second Army, a colossal force of 134,000 men commanded by Prince Friedrich Karl, arrayed opposite the line Forbach-Spicheren; and the Prussian Third Army, comprising 120,000 men under the command of Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, poised to breach the border at Wissembourg. The French had, quite simply, walked into a trap.

Prussian Army advance

Battle of Wissembourg

Bavarian infantry at the Battle of Wissembourg, 1870, representing a coordinated German effort. Upon receiving confirmation from captured Prussian soldiers and a local police chief that the Prussian Crown Prince's Third Army was a mere 30 miles (48 km) north of Saarbrücken, near the Rhine river town of Wissembourg, General Le Bœuf and Napoleon III made the rather belated decision to retreat to defensive positions. General Frossard, operating without explicit instructions, hastily withdrew his elements of the Army of the Rhine from Saarbrücken, pulling them back across the river to Spicheren and Forbach. A retreat, not an advance.

Marshal MacMahon, whose forces were now closest to Wissembourg, had, in a display of tactical disarray, spread his four divisions over a vast 20-mile (32 km) front. This dispersed deployment was a direct consequence of severe logistical deficiencies, forcing each division to forage for food and supplies from the countryside, rather than relying on the utterly inadequate army supply arm that was theoretically meant to provision them. Compounding this already dire situation was the astonishing conduct of General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot, commander of the 1st Division. On 1 August, he confidently, and disastrously, informed General Abel Douay, commander of the 2nd Division, that "The information I have received makes me suppose that the enemy has no considerable forces very near his advance posts, and has no desire to take the offensive." Two days later, he doubled down on his delusion, telling MacMahon that he had found "not a single enemy post... it looks to me as if the menace of the Bavarians is simply bluff." Despite Ducrot's blithe dismissal of any German threat, MacMahon's attempts to warn his other three division commanders were, tragically, unsuccessful.

The first significant engagement of the Franco-Prussian War, a harbinger of things to come, took place on 4 August 1870. This Battle of Wissembourg saw the isolated and unsupported division of General Douay of I Corps, with some attached cavalry, tasked with watching the border, assaulted in an overwhelming but initially uncoordinated fashion by the German 3rd Army. Throughout the day, elements of a Bavarian and two Prussian corps joined the fray, supported by Prussian artillery which systematically blasted holes in the city's defenses. Douay's position, initially strong due to the accurate, long-range rapid fire of the French Chassepot rifles, was simply too thinly stretched to hold against the converging German forces. Douay himself was killed in the late morning when a caisson of the divisional mitrailleuse battery exploded near him, a grim irony given its limited impact on the overall battle. The encirclement of the town by the Prussians then gravely threatened the French avenue of retreat.

The fighting within Wissembourg itself degenerated into an intensely brutal, door-to-door struggle for survival. Despite the unceasing onslaught from Prussian infantry, the soldiers of the 2nd Division clung tenaciously to their positions. Ultimately, the exhausted inhabitants of Wissembourg surrendered to the Germans. The French troops who did not surrender managed to retreat westward, leaving behind a devastating tally of 1,000 dead and wounded, another 1,000 prisoners, and all of their remaining ammunition. The final, costly assault by the Prussian troops also resulted in approximately 1,000 casualties. In a rare misstep for the Prussians, their cavalry then failed to pursue the retreating French, losing contact with them. While the attackers enjoyed an initial numerical superiority and a broad deployment that made envelopment highly likely, the effectiveness of French Chassepot-rifle fire inflicted costly repulses on early infantry attacks, a testament to the weapon's individual prowess, until the French infantry positions were extensively, and decisively, bombarded by the superior Prussian artillery.

Battle of Spicheren

A lithograph, after Jules Férat, depicting the Battle of Spicheren (also known as the Battle of Forbach), captures the brutal close-quarters fighting. The map of the Prussian and German offensives from 5–6 August 1870 clearly illustrates the relentless German advance. The Battle of Spicheren on 5 August marked the second of three critical French defeats, a compounding of earlier errors. Moltke, with his usual strategic clarity, had initially planned to pin Bazaine's army on the Saar River, intending to attack it frontally with the 2nd Army while the 1st Army flanked it from the left, and the 3rd Army closed in from the rear. However, General von Steinmetz, the aging and rather overzealous commander of the 1st Army, made an unplanned, impetuous move. He led his forces south from his position on the Moselle, driving directly towards Spicheren and, in doing so, inadvertently cut off Prince Frederick Charles from his forward cavalry units. A minor inconvenience for the Germans, a catastrophic oversight for the French.

On the French side, planning after the disaster at Wissembourg had become, one might charitably say, 'essential'. General Le Bœuf, seething with anger and wounded pride, was intent on launching a counter-offensive across the Saar. However, any subsequent planning was, for once, based more on the stark reality of unfolding events rather than raw emotion or hubris. Intendant General Wolff bluntly informed Le Bœuf and his staff that logistical support beyond the Saar would be impossible. Consequently, the French armies were forced to adopt a defensive posture. While this theoretically protected against every possible attack point, it also, fatally, rendered the various French armies incapable of effectively supporting each other. A defensive sprawl, rather than a cohesive front.

While the French army under General MacMahon was engaged with the German 3rd Army at the brutal Battle of Wörth, the German 1st Army under Steinmetz completed its advance west from Saarbrücken. A patrol from the German 2nd Army, commanded by Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia, spotted decoy fires nearby and, more significantly, Frossard's army further off on a distant plateau south of Spicheren. Misinterpreting this as a sign of Frossard's retreat, and once again ignoring Moltke's meticulously crafted plan, both German armies launched an attack on Frossard's French 2nd Corps, which was fortified between Spicheren and Forbach.

The French, in a recurring theme of the early war, remained blissfully unaware of the true German numerical superiority at the outset of the battle, largely because the German 2nd Army did not attack all at once. Treating the initial onslaughts as mere skirmishes, Frossard, with remarkable complacency, failed to request additional support from other units. By the time he grasped the true scale of the force he was opposing, it was, predictably, too late. Seriously flawed communications between Frossard and the reserves under Bazaine caused agonizing delays. By the time orders to move to Spicheren finally reached the reserves, German soldiers from the 1st and 2nd armies had already stormed the heights. With the critical reserves failing to arrive, Frossard erroneously believed he was in grave danger of being outflanked, especially after German soldiers under General von Glume were sighted in Forbach. Instead of maintaining his defensive position on the heights, he ordered a retreat to the south at dusk. The German casualties were, admittedly, relatively high, a consequence of their uphill advance and the continued effectiveness of the Chassepot rifle. They were, however, quite surprised and not a little relieved in the morning to discover that their costly efforts had not been in vain—Frossard had, indeed, abandoned his strategically vital position on the heights.

Battle of Wörth

The Battle of Wörth commenced as the two armies clashed yet again on 6 August, this time near Wörth in the town of Frœschwiller, approximately 10 miles (16 km) from Wissembourg. The Crown Prince of Prussia's 3rd Army, thanks to the swift and decisive actions of his Chief of Staff, General von Blumenthal, had rapidly drawn in reinforcements, swelling its strength to a formidable 140,000 troops. The French, by contrast, had been only slowly reinforced, their force numbering a mere 35,000. Despite being severely outnumbered, the French, with a commendable but ultimately futile bravery, defended their position just outside Frœschwiller. By afternoon, the Germans had suffered approximately 10,500 killed or wounded. The French, however, had sustained a similar number of casualties, with an additional 9,200 men taken prisoner—a devastating loss of about 50% of their effective strength. The Germans captured Fröschwiller, a key hilltop position in the center of the French line. Having lost any realistic hope for victory and facing an impending massacre, the shattered French army disengaged and retreated in a westerly direction towards Bitche and Saverne, desperately hoping to link up with other French forces on the other side of the Vosges mountains. The German 3rd Army, instead of pursuing the broken French forces, remained in Alsace, moving slowly south, systematically attacking and destroying the remaining French garrisons in the vicinity. A methodical cleanup operation.

Battle of Mars-La-Tour

Heinrich XVII, Prince Reuss, depicted on the side of the 5th Squadron I Guards Dragoon Regiment at Mars-la-Tour, 16 August 1870, in a painting by Emil Hünten from 1902, captures a moment of desperate cavalry action. Approximately 160,000 French soldiers found themselves besieged within the formidable fortress of Metz, a direct consequence of the crushing defeats suffered on the frontier. A strategic withdrawal from Metz, intended to link up with other French forces at Châlons, was ordered on 15 August. This movement was, however, unfortunately for the French, spotted by a keen Prussian cavalry patrol under Major Oskar von Blumenthal. The very next day, a grossly outnumbered Prussian force of 30,000 men from III Corps (part of the 2nd Army), under General Constantin von Alvensleben, unexpectedly encountered the main French Army near Vionville, just east of Mars-la-Tour.

Despite facing odds of four to one, the III Corps, with a daring audacity bordering on recklessness, launched a risky, pre-emptive attack. The French, taken by surprise, were initially routed, and the III Corps managed to capture Vionville, effectively blocking any further escape attempts to the west. Once their retreat was thus cut off, the French forces trapped in the fortress of Metz had no choice but to engage in what would become the last major cavalry engagement in Western Europe. The battle swiftly erupted into a maelstrom of steel and gunpowder, with the III Corps being severely battered by incessant cavalry charges, ultimately losing over half its soldiers. The German Official History, with its meticulous record-keeping, reported 15,780 casualties for their side, while French casualties stood at 13,761 men.

On 16 August, the French, despite their numerical advantage, squandered a golden opportunity. They had a genuine chance to sweep away the critical Prussian defense that blocked their path and achieve a decisive escape. Two Prussian corps had attacked the French advance guard, mistakenly believing it to be the rearguard of the retreating French Army of the Meuse. Despite this crucial misjudgment on the Prussian side, these two corps, against overwhelming odds, managed to hold the entire French army at bay for the entire day. Outnumbered five to one, the extraordinary élan and sheer determination of the Prussians prevailed over the gross indecision and lack of coordinated leadership displayed by the French. In hindsight, the French had lost the opportunity to win a truly decisive victory, a chance they would not receive again.

Battle of Gravelotte

This particular section, one might note, lacks the usual meticulous citations that lend credibility to historical accounts. A minor oversight, perhaps, but one that always raises a brow. One hopes the facts presented are, indeed, verifiable. (A gentle nudge to improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources, lest unsourced material be removed. This message, for the record, is a standard and quite necessary one for maintaining academic rigor, even if it feels a tad pedantic.)

The "Rifle Battalion 9 from Lauenburg" at Gravelotte, a snapshot of the grim reality. The Battle of Gravelotte, also known as Gravelotte–St. Privat, fought on 18 August, was not merely a battle; it was the largest and arguably most brutal engagement of the entire Franco-Prussian War. It unfolded approximately 6 miles (9.7 km) west of Metz, where, on the preceding day, the Prussians had successfully intercepted the French army's retreat to the west at the Battle of Mars-La-Tour. Now, with methodical German precision, they were closing in to complete the utter destruction of the French forces. The combined German forces, under the brilliant strategic command of Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, comprised the Prussian First and Second Armies of the North German Confederation. This formidable host numbered some 210 infantry battalions, 133 cavalry squadrons, and 732 artillery pieces, totaling an impressive 188,332 officers and men.

Facing them was the French Army of the Rhine, commanded by the increasingly beleaguered Marshal François-Achille Bazaine. This force, consisting of approximately 183 infantry battalions, 104 cavalry squadrons, and supported by 520 artillery pieces, totaled 112,800 officers and men. They had dug in along high ground, their southern left flank anchored at the town of Rozérieulles, and their northern right flank extending to St. Privat.

On 18 August, the battle commenced at 08:00 when Moltke, with characteristic directness, ordered the First and Second Armies to advance against the French positions. The French, having learned some lessons from earlier engagements, were well dug in, utilizing trenches and rifle pits, with their artillery and mitrailleuses cunningly concealed. Backed by a relentless artillery barrage, Steinmetz's VII and VIII Corps launched repeated attacks across the Mance ravine, only to be met by a hail of devastating French rifle and mitrailleuse firepower. These assaults were repulsed with heavy losses, forcing the two German corps to withdraw to Rezonville. The Prussian 1st Guards Infantry Division then assaulted the French-held village of St. Privat, and was immediately pinned down by intense French fire from both rifle pits and trenches. The Second Army, under Prince Frederick Charles, then brought its superior artillery to bear, pulverizing the French position at St. Privat. His XII Corps eventually managed to take the town of Roncourt and, in concert with the Guards, finally conquered St. Privat, while Eduard von Fransecky's II Corps advanced across the Mance ravine. The brutal fighting finally subsided at 22:00.

The next morning, the shattered French Army of the Rhine had no choice but to retreat to Metz, where they were promptly besieged and, two agonizing months later, forced to surrender. The grand total of German troops killed, wounded, or missing in action during the 18 August battle amounted to 20,163. French losses, while numerically smaller, were proportionally devastating: 7,855 killed and wounded, along with 4,420 prisoners of war (half of whom were wounded), for a total of 12,275 casualties. A bloody day, indeed.

Siege of Metz

The Surrender of Metz, a monumental moment in the war. With the decisive defeat of Marshal Bazaine's Army of the Rhine at Gravelotte, the French forces retreated, or perhaps more accurately, were herded into Metz. There, they found themselves besieged by an overwhelming force of over 150,000 Prussian troops from the First and Second Armies. Subsequent military operations, or rather, the lack thereof, on the part of the army under Bazaine's command have drawn numerous, and entirely justified, criticisms from historians regarding its commander's leadership. It was later stated, with a derogatory irony, that his primary occupation during this period was writing rather mundane orders on hygiene and discipline, interspersed with games of dominoes. Bazaine's astonishing inactivity was, understandably, a great relief to Moltke, who now had the luxury of time to systematically improve his siege lines around Metz and intensify the hunt for MacMahon's remaining forces.

At this critical juncture, Napoleon III and MacMahon, in a desperate gamble, formed the new French Army of Châlons with the explicit objective of marching on Metz to relieve Bazaine. Napoleon III himself, a shadow of his former imperial self, personally led this army, with Marshal MacMahon in attendance. The Army of Châlons embarked on a circuitous march northeast towards the Belgian border, hoping to evade the Prussians before striking south to link up with Bazaine. The Prussians, however, were not to be outmaneuvered. Moltke, with his characteristic strategic acumen, seized upon this maneuver, leaving the Prussian First and Second Armies to continue their siege of Metz, but detaching three corps to form the Army of the Meuse under the Crown Prince of Saxony. With this new army and the formidable Prussian Third Army, Moltke marched northward, catching up with the French at Beaumont on 30 August. After a sharp, brutal fight in which they lost 5,000 men and 40 cannons, the French were forced to withdraw, battered and demoralized, towards Sedan. Having reformed in the town, the Army of Châlons was immediately isolated by the converging Prussian armies. Napoleon III, facing utter catastrophe, ordered the army to break out of the encirclement immediately. With MacMahon wounded on the previous day, General Auguste Ducrot reluctantly assumed command of the French troops in the field.

Battle of Sedan

The iconic image of Napoleon III and Bismarck conversing after Napoleon's capture at the Battle of Sedan, painted by Wilhelm Camphausen, perfectly encapsulates the moment of French humiliation and German triumph. On 1 September 1870, the battle commenced with the Army of Châlons, comprising 202 infantry battalions, 80 cavalry squadrons, and 564 guns, launching a desperate attack against the encircling Prussian Third and Meuse Armies. The German forces, with their typical numerical superiority, totaled 222 infantry battalions, 186 cavalry squadrons, and 774 guns. General Emmanuel Félix de Wimpffen, commanding the French V Corps in reserve, harbored a faint hope of launching a combined infantry and cavalry attack against the Prussian XI Corps. But by 11:00, the relentless Prussian artillery had already begun to take a devastating toll on the French, while more Prussian troops steadily arrived on the battlefield, tightening the noose. The struggle, under conditions of complete encirclement, proved utterly impossible for the French; their entire front was relentlessly raked by artillery fire from three sides.

The French cavalry, under the valiant but ultimately doomed command of General Margueritte, launched three desperate, suicidal attacks on the nearby village of Floing, where the Prussian XI Corps was heavily concentrated. Margueritte himself was mortally wounded while leading the very first charge, succumbing to his injuries four days later. The two subsequent charges, equally brave but strategically futile, resulted in nothing but heavy, irreplaceable losses. By the end of the day, with no glimmer of hope for a breakthrough, Napoleon III himself, recognizing the utter hopelessness of the situation, ordered the attacks to cease. The French suffered over 17,000 men killed or wounded, with an additional 21,000 captured. The Prussians, by contrast, reported their losses at 2,320 killed, 5,980 wounded, and 700 captured or missing. By the very next day, 2 September, Napoleon III formally surrendered and was taken prisoner along with 104,000 of his soldiers. It was an overwhelming, total victory for the Prussians, who had not only captured an entire French army but also the very leader of France. They then, with a touch of psychological warfare, paraded the defeated French army in full view of the besieged army in Metz, a calculated move that undeniably crushed the morale of the defenders. The defeat of the French at Sedan had, beyond any doubt, decided the war in Prussia's favor. One French army was now immobilized and besieged in Metz, and absolutely nothing stood in the way of a full-scale Prussian invasion of the heart of France. This crushing defeat was profoundly humiliating for the already morally shattered French army and inexorably paved the way for the grim Siege of Paris.

Surrender of Metz

Bazaine, a well-known Bonapartist with a penchant for self-preservation, at this critical juncture allowed himself to be utterly consumed by illusory plans for a grand political role in France. Unconventional military plans, bordering on the fantastical, were proposed. These schemes involved the Germans supposedly allowing the army under Bazaine's command to withdraw from the fortress of Metz to retreat to the south of France. There, it would remain, conveniently, until the German armies captured Paris, after which it would supposedly eliminate the "political usurpers" (the new republican government) and reinstate the "legitimate imperial authorities" with the full support of Bazaine's army. Even setting aside the profound moral issues and the inevitable public outcry such a betrayal would provoke, this plan appears, to anyone with a modicum of military or political sense, utterly unrealistic. Bismarck and Moltke, predictably, met Bazaine's offer of "cooperation" against the "republican menace" with an indifferent shrug, recognizing it for the desperate, self-serving fantasy it was. The German press, undoubtedly at Bismarck's subtle instigation, extensively covered this topic, gleefully reporting the details of Bazaine's ludicrous negotiations. The French press, meanwhile, could only maintain a mortified silence on the issue. With whom Bazaine truly negotiated remains a point of contention among historians. As one dryly observed, "For a decade, the French were considered him (M. Edmond Regnier) a sinister figure, almost certainly an agent of Bismarck. They would have been more justified in thinking him a buffoon." Undoubtedly, the politically motivated actions, or rather inactions, of Commander Bazaine led directly to the fatal passivity of the encircled army at Metz and contributed significantly to the defeat of not only this massive force but the country as a whole. Bazaine's army, stripped of morale and leadership, finally surrendered on 26 October. A staggering 173,000 people capitulated, with the Prussians seizing an immense quantity of military equipment located within Metz. After the war, Marshal Bazaine was, with entirely predictable and justifiable outrage, convicted by a French military court for his actions.

War of the Government of National Defence

The course of the second phase of the war, split into two parts (part 1: 1 September to 30 November; part 2: 1 December until the end of the war), demonstrates a desperate, if ultimately futile, attempt to prolong the inevitable. When the devastating news of Napoleon III's surrender at Sedan reached Paris, the Second Empire, already a rather shaky construct, was summarily overthrown by a swift popular uprising. On 4 September, Jules Favre, the indefatigable Léon Gambetta, and General Louis-Jules Trochu rather optimistically proclaimed a provisional government, grandly naming it the Government of National Defence, and declared the birth of a Third Republic.

After the crushing German victory at Sedan, the bulk of the French standing army was either already besieged in Metz or languishing as prisoners of war in German hands. The Germans, somewhat naively, hoped for a swift armistice and an end to the conflict. Bismarck, ever the pragmatist, desired an early peace but encountered a rather inconvenient hurdle: finding a legitimate French authority with whom to negotiate. The Emperor was a captive, the Empress in exile, and crucially, there had been no formal abdication de jure. The army, bound by a now rather inconvenient oath of allegiance to the defunct imperial regime, found itself in a constitutional limbo. The newly proclaimed Government of National Defence, for its part, possessed no electoral mandate, rendering its legitimacy questionable in the eyes of international diplomacy.

Prussia's shrewd intention was to further weaken France's political standing abroad. The defensive position adopted by the new French authorities, who, in a display of misplaced optimism, offered Germany an honorable peace and reimbursement of war costs, was cynically spun by Prussia as aggressive. They summarily rejected these conditions, instead demanding the annexation of the French provinces of Alsace and a significant portion of Lorraine. Bismarck, ever the master of political theater, deliberately dangled the Emperor over the republic's head, referring to Napoleon III as "the legitimate ruler of France" and dismissing Gambetta's new republic as no more than "un coup de parti" ("a partisan coup"). This calculated policy was, to some extent, successful; the European press debated the legitimacy of the French authorities, and Prussia's aggressive stance was, perhaps surprisingly, somewhat understood. Only the United States and Spain, with their own revolutionary histories, recognized the Government of National Defence immediately after its announcement; other countries, with a more cautious eye on the shifting sands of power, refused to do so for some time.

The question of legitimacy, one might observe, is rather a curious one for France, especially after the coup d'état of 1851, given that Louis-Napoleon himself had seized power and ascended to the imperial throne by means of a coup d'état against the Second Republic. A certain historical irony, wouldn't you agree?

The Germans, for all their desire for a quick peace, were forced to continue the war, as the republican government, in a defiant display of national pride, proved unwilling to accept their harsh terms. While amenable to war reparations or even ceding colonial territories in Africa or Southeast Asia, the new government would go no further. On behalf of the Government of National Defense, Favre declared on 6 September that France would not "yield an inch of its territory nor a stone of its fortresses." The republic then, with a dramatic flourish, renewed the declaration of war, issued a desperate call for recruits across the entire country, and pledged to drive the German troops out of France through a guerre à outrance ('overwhelming attack').

The Germans, finding no proper military opposition to pin down in their immediate vicinity, continued their relentless advance. As the bulk of the remaining French armies entrenched themselves near Paris, the German leaders decided to exert maximum pressure by directly attacking the capital. By 15 September, German troops had reached the outskirts, and Moltke issued orders to surround the city. On 19 September, the Germans began their encirclement, establishing a blockade much like the one at Metz, and completed the full encirclement on 20 September. Bismarck, ever the master negotiator, met Favre on 18 September at the Château de Ferrières and presented his demands for a frontier immune to a future French war of revenge. These included Strasbourg, all of Alsace, and most of the Moselle department in Lorraine, of which Metz was the capital. In exchange for an armistice that would allow the French to elect a National Assembly, Bismarck demanded the immediate surrender of Strasbourg and the fortress city of Toul. To permit supplies into Paris, one of the perimeter forts had to be handed over. Favre, perhaps naively, was unaware that Bismarck's true aim in making such seemingly extortionate demands was not merely to inflict pain, but to establish a durable peace on Germany's new western frontier, preferably with a friendly government, on terms that French public opinion could eventually accept. An impregnable military frontier was, for Bismarck, merely a fallback, an inferior alternative favored only by the more militant nationalists on the German side. The subtleties of Realpolitik were, it seems, lost on the French.

When the war initially began, European public opinion, perhaps surprisingly, heavily favored the Germans. Many Italians, for instance, attempted to sign up as volunteers at the Prussian embassy in Florence, and a Prussian diplomat even paid a visit to the revolutionary icon Giuseppe Garibaldi in Caprera. However, Bismarck's uncompromising demand that France surrender sovereignty over Alsace, a clear territorial grab, caused a dramatic shift in this sentiment, particularly in Italy. This change was best exemplified by Garibaldi himself, who, soon after the revolution in Paris, declared to the Movimento of Genoa on 7 September 1870: "Yesterday I said to you: war to the death to Bonaparte. Today I say to you: rescue the French Republic by every means." True to his word, Garibaldi journeyed to France and, with characteristic flair, assumed command of the Army of the Vosges, operating around Dijon until the bitter end of the war.

The energetic and often frantic actions of a segment of the government (the delegation) operating out of Tours, under Gambetta's dynamic leadership, led to remarkable, if ultimately insufficient, success in the formation of new armies. In less than four months, amidst persistent battles at the front, eleven new corps (Nos. XVI–XXVI) were formed. The sheer scale of this achievement was astounding, averaging six thousand infantrymen and two batteries per day. This success was all the more impressive given that France's military industry and existing warehouses were concentrated primarily in besieged Paris. All supplies for the provincial forces—from uniforms and weapons to camps and ammunition—had to be improvised anew. Numerous branches of the military industry were hastily re-established in the provinces. Crucially, freedom of communication with foreign markets proved a significant boon, allowing for large-scale purchases from abroad, primarily from English, Belgian, and American suppliers. The artillery force created by Gambetta in just four months—238 batteries—was, remarkably, one and a half times larger than the entire artillery of imperial France. In the end, eight of these newly formed corps participated in battles, with three more only ready by late January, just as a truce was being concluded.

While the Germans had enjoyed a decisive 2:1 numerical advantage before Napoleon III's surrender, this frantic French recruitment drive dramatically shifted the balance, giving them a theoretical 2:1 or even 3:1 advantage in raw manpower. The French more than tripled their forces during the war, while the Germans did not increase theirs to the same extent; the 888,000 mobilized by the North German Union in August increased by only 2% after three and a half months, and by the war's end, six months later, only by 15%, a figure that barely balanced the losses incurred. Prussia, in its overconfidence, was completely unaware of the feverish activity of this permanent French mobilization. This disparity in forces, a genuine moment of crisis for the Germans, manifested at the front in November 1870, a precarious situation that was only overcome by the timely release of the large forces previously besieging the fortress of Metz.

Siege of Paris

Troops quartered in Paris, a painting by Anton von Werner (1894), captures the grim atmosphere of occupation. The siege of Paris commenced with methodical Prussian precision on 19 September 1870. Faced with the iron ring of the blockade, the new French government, in a desperate gamble, called for the establishment of several large armies in the French provinces. These newly raised bodies of troops were tasked with the seemingly impossible mission of marching towards Paris and attacking the Germans from various directions simultaneously, hoping to break the encirclement. Additionally, armed French civilians were encouraged to form irregular guerrilla forces—the so-called Francs-tireurs—with the explicit purpose of harassing and attacking German supply lines.

Bismarck, ever the pragmatist and utterly devoid of sentimentality, was an active and vocal proponent of the bombardment of the city. He sought to end the war as swiftly as possible, harboring a deep-seated fear of an unfavorable shift in the international situation for Prussia, what he himself termed "the intervention of neutrals." Therefore, Bismarck consistently and actively insisted on the early commencement of the bombardment, despite all the objections from the military command. Von Blumenthal, who commanded the siege, was, rather surprisingly, opposed to the bombardment on moral grounds, a stance supported by other senior military figures such as the Crown Prince and Moltke. Nevertheless, in January, the Germans eventually unleashed some 12,000 shells (an average of 300–400 daily) into the beleaguered city.

The protracted siege of Paris inflicted immense hardships on the civilian population, particularly on the poor, who suffered terribly from cold and hunger. It was a grim testament to the brutal realities of modern warfare.

Loire campaign

The Battle of Bapaume, which raged from 2–3 January 1871, was just one of the desperate engagements. Dispatched from Paris as the republican government's emissary, Léon Gambetta, with a dramatic flair, flew over the German lines in a balloon inflated with coal gas from the city's gasworks. Once safely beyond the siege, he immediately set about organizing the recruitment of the Armée de la Loire. Rumors, perhaps deliberately cultivated, about an alleged German "extermination" plan further inflamed French nationalist sentiment and solidified public support for the new regime. Within a mere few weeks, Gambetta managed to recruit five new armies, totaling more than 500,000 troops—a truly astonishing feat of mobilization under duress.

The Germans, initially caught off guard by the scale of this new French resistance, dispatched some of their troops to the French provinces. Their mission: to detect, attack, and disperse these nascent French armies before they could coalesce into a truly formidable menace. The Germans, it must be noted, were simply not prepared for a full-scale occupation of the entirety of France.

On 10 October, hostilities flared between German and French republican forces near Orléans. Initially, the Germans achieved victory, but the French, bolstered by reinforcements, managed to defeat a Bavarian force at the Battle of Coulmiers on 9 November—a rare, if fleeting, French success. However, following the surrender of Metz, more than 100,000 well-trained and experienced German troops were freed up and promptly joined the German 'Southern Army'. This influx of seasoned veterans quickly turned the tide. The French were forced to abandon Orléans on 4 December and were ultimately decisively defeated at the Battle of Le Mans (10–12 January). A second French army operating north of Paris also met with similar misfortune, being turned back at the Battle of Amiens (27 November), the Battle of Bapaume (3 January 1871), and the Battle of St. Quentin (13 January). The German war machine, once unleashed, proved inexorable.

Northern campaign

Following the disheartening defeats of the Army of the Loire, Gambetta, ever resourceful, turned his attention to General Faidherbe's Army of the North. This army had managed to achieve a few minor victories in towns like Ham, La Hallue, and Amiens. Crucially, it benefited from the protective belt of fortresses in northern France, which allowed Faidherbe's men to launch swift, harassing attacks against isolated Prussian units before retreating to safety behind the fortified lines. However, despite having access to the armaments factories of Lille, the Army of the North suffered from severe and persistent supply difficulties, a chronic problem that severely depressed morale. In January 1871, Gambetta, in a desperate push, compelled Faidherbe to march his army beyond the fortresses and engage the Prussians in open battle. The army, already severely weakened by abysmal morale, chronic supply problems, the terrible winter weather, and generally low troop quality, was further hampered by General Faidherbe's own deteriorating health, a result of decades of grueling campaigning in West Africa. At the Battle of St. Quentin, the Army of the North suffered a crushing defeat and was utterly scattered, a strategic disaster that freed up thousands of Prussian soldiers to be swiftly relocated to the eastern front.

Eastern campaign

The poignant image of the French Army of the East being disarmed at the Swiss border, captured in the monumental 1881 depiction, serves as a stark reminder of utter defeat. Following the destruction of the French Army of the Loire, the remnants of that force, a motley collection of demoralized troops, gathered in eastern France to form the Army of the East, now under the command of General Charles-Denis Bourbaki. In a final, desperate attempt to sever the German supply lines in northeast France, Bourbaki's army marched north with the audacious objective of attacking the Prussian siege of Belfort and relieving its beleaguered defenders.

The French troops, at least on paper, enjoyed a significant numerical advantage, boasting 110,000 soldiers against a mere 40,000 Germans. This French offensive, surprisingly, caught the Germans off guard, and by mid-January 1871, the French forces had managed to reach the Lisaine River, just a few kilometers from the besieged fortress of Belfort.

However, in the ensuing Battle of the Lisaine, Bourbaki's men, despite their numerical superiority, failed to break through the well-organized German lines commanded by General August von Werder. Bringing in the German 'Southern Army', General von Manteuffel then expertly maneuvered, driving Bourbaki's army inexorably into the unforgiving mountains near the Swiss border. Faced with utter annihilation, Bourbaki, in a moment of profound despair, attempted to commit suicide, though he survived his wound. The last intact French army, numbering some 87,000 men (now under the command of General Justin Clinchant), had no choice but to cross the border and was subsequently disarmed and interned by the neutral Swiss near Pontarlier on 1 February.

Despite this catastrophic campaign, the besieged fortress of Belfort, with remarkable resilience, continued to resist until the very signing of the armistice, even repelling a final German attempt to capture the fortress on 27 January. This stubborn defense offered a small, symbolic consolation for the French in an otherwise utterly disastrous and unhappy campaign.

Armistice

This section, one might notice, is in need of additional citations for verification. One always appreciates a solid factual foundation, even when discussing the messy business of war. Perhaps a helpful soul could improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material, as we all know, can and should be removed. (A necessary administrative note, not a personal slight, of course.)

In this painting by Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, a woman holds up an oak twig, a rather fragile symbol of hope for the nation's recovery from the brutal war and deprivation. The Walters Art Museum.

On 26 January 1871, the Government of National Defence, desperately clinging to power in Paris, entered into negotiations for an armistice with the Prussians. With Paris literally starving, and Gambetta's provincial armies reeling from one disaster after another, French foreign minister Favre journeyed to Versailles on 24 January to discuss peace terms with Bismarck. Bismarck, ever the shrewd negotiator, agreed to lift the siege and permit food convoys to immediately enter Paris (a rather magnanimous gesture that included trains laden with millions of German army rations). The condition, however, was predictably harsh: the Government of National Defence had to surrender several key fortresses strategically positioned outside Paris to the Prussians. Without these vital forts, the French Army would be utterly incapable of defending Paris.

Although public opinion within Paris was vehemently against any form of surrender or concession to the Prussians—a predictable display of pride over pragmatism—the Government grudgingly recognized that it simply could not hold the city for much longer. Furthermore, the grim reality was that Gambetta's provincial armies, for all their valiant efforts, would likely never break through to relieve Paris. President Trochu, unable to bear the weight of responsibility, resigned on 25 January and was replaced by Favre, who, with a heavy heart, signed the surrender two days later at Versailles. The armistice officially came into effect at midnight.

On 28 January, a truce was formally concluded for 21 days. After the utter exhaustion of food and fuel supplies, the Paris garrison finally capitulated. The National Guard, a rather politicized and unreliable force by this point, was permitted to retain its weapons, while German troops, as a precautionary measure, occupied a portion of the forts surrounding Paris to prevent any possibility of resuming hostilities. However, military operations, in a curious anomaly, continued in the eastern part of the country, specifically in the area of operation of the Bourbaki army. The French side, lacking reliable information about the outcome of that particular struggle, insisted on excluding this area from the truce, clinging to a faint hope of a successful outcome there. The Germans, with a knowing wink, did not disabuse the French of this delusion.

Several sources recount that in his carriage on the way back to Paris, Favre, overwhelmed by the magnitude of his task, broke into tears and collapsed into his daughter's arms as the guns around Paris finally fell silent at midnight. In Bordeaux, Gambetta received word from Paris on 29 January that the Government had surrendered. Furious and defiant, he initially refused to accept the surrender. Jules Simon, a member of the Government, arrived from Paris by train on 1 February to negotiate with the stubborn Gambetta. Another delegation of three ministers arrived in Bordeaux on 5 February, and the following day, Gambetta, facing the inevitable, finally stepped down and surrendered control of the provincial armies to the Government of National Defence, which promptly issued a nationwide cease-fire across France. The war, for all intents and purposes, was over.

War at sea

French warships at sea in 1870, a sight that proved largely ineffectual. A painting of Meteor in battle with Bouvet, by Robert Parlow, depicts a rare naval engagement.

Blockade

When the war commenced, the French government, with a rather predictable naval strategy, ordered a blockade of the North German coasts. The rather modest North German Federal Navy, possessing only five ironclads and a scattering of minor vessels, could do little to effectively oppose such a measure. For the majority of the war, a rather inconvenient fact for the Germans, their three largest ironclads were out of commission due to persistent engine troubles; only the turret ship SMS Arminius was available for operational duties. By the time these engine repairs were finally completed, the French fleet had, with a certain irony, already departed.

The blockade itself proved only partially successful, largely due to crucial oversights by the grand planners in Paris. Reservists who were supposed to be at the ready in case of war were, rather inconveniently, scattered across the globe, working in the Newfoundland fisheries or in Scotland. Consequently, only a fraction of the 470-ship French Navy actually put to sea on 24 July. Before long, the French navy encountered a critical, yet entirely foreseeable, problem: a severe shortage of coal. Their ships required 200 short tons (180 t) per day, yet the collective bunker capacity of the fleet was a mere 250 short tons (230 t). A blockade of Wilhelmshaven failed to materialize effectively, and conflicting orders regarding operations in the Baltic Sea or a return to France rendered the French naval efforts largely futile. Spotting a blockade-runner, a moment that should have been a triumph, became an unwelcome event due to the question du charbon; any pursuit of Prussian ships quickly depleted the precious coal reserves of the French vessels. But the primary reason for the only partial success of this ambitious naval operation was the French command's palpable fear of risking political complications with Great Britain. This apprehension, a testament to the delicate diplomatic balance of the era, deterred the French command from attempting to interrupt German trade under the British flag. Despite these limited measures, the blockade still created noticeable difficulties for German trade. "The actual captures of German ships were eighty in number," a modest but impactful figure.

To alleviate pressure from the anticipated German attack into Alsace-Lorraine, Napoleon III and the French high command had, with characteristic imperial ambition, planned a seaborne invasion of northern Germany to coincide with the outbreak of war. The French optimistically expected this invasion to divert German troops from the main front and, perhaps more crucially, to encourage Denmark to join the war, bringing its 50,000-strong army and the Royal Danish Navy into the French alliance. However, they soon discovered that Prussia had, with foresight, recently constructed formidable defenses around its major North German ports. These defenses included powerful coastal artillery batteries armed with heavy Krupp artillery, which boasted an impressive range of 4,000 yards (3,700 m)—double the range of the French naval guns. The French Navy, critically, lacked the heavy guns necessary to effectively engage these coastal defenses, and the challenging topography of the Prussian coast rendered a large-scale seaborne invasion of northern Germany practically impossible.

The French Marines specifically earmarked for the invasion of northern Germany were, in another display of French strategic improvisation, hastily dispatched to reinforce the French Army of Châlons. Predictably, they fell into captivity at Sedan along with Napoleon III. A severe shortage of experienced officers, following the capture of most of the professional French army at the siege of Metz and at the Battle of Sedan, led to naval officers being reassigned from their ships to command hastily assembled reservists of the Garde Mobile. As the autumn storms of the North Sea forced the return of more French ships, the efficacy of the blockade of the north German ports dwindled, and in September 1870, the French navy reluctantly abandoned the blockade for the winter. The remainder of the navy retired to ports along the English Channel and remained largely inactive for the duration of the war.

Pacific and Caribbean

Even outside the immediate European theater, the war managed to ripple across the globe. In the Pacific, the French corvette Dupleix successfully blockaded the German corvette SMS Hertha in Nagasaki. Further afield, a minor but noteworthy naval skirmish, the Battle of Havana, unfolded between the Prussian gunboat SMS Meteor and the French aviso Bouvet off Havana, Cuba, in November 1870. The global reach of European conflicts, it seems, is nothing new.

War crimes

The ruins of Bazeilles, a grim testament to the brutality of the conflict. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, like most conflicts, was not without its darker chapters, resulting in numerous documented instances of war crimes committed, particularly by the Prussian army. One notable and deeply disturbing aspect was the execution of prisoners of war. Reports from the period indicate that several hundred French prisoners were summarily executed by Prussian soldiers, a blatant violation of accepted norms of warfare. This included the particularly egregious execution of a group of over 200 French soldiers at the village of Dornach, an event that became infamously known as the "Dornach atrocities."

In the small town of Bazeilles, near Sedan, French marines and local partisans put up a fierce, if ultimately doomed, resistance against a superior force of Bavarian soldiers. After the initial French resistance was overcome, the Bavarian troops, in a display of overwhelming force, shelled the village with artillery before sending in infantry to continue the assault. During the intense fighting, some surrendering soldiers were reportedly shot on the spot, and over 400 buildings in the village were systematically destroyed. The Bavarian troops also detained around one hundred civilians, under the suspicion that they had illegally participated in the battle, though these individuals were, somewhat surprisingly, released unharmed the following day. Post-war investigations, with the benefit of hindsight and inquiry, established that 39 civilians were killed or wounded during the battle itself.

Beyond these specific incidents, Prussian soldiers were also broadly accused of committing various acts of violence against civilians, including murder, rape, and the widespread destruction of property. Such actions underscore the brutal and often indiscriminate nature of warfare, particularly when regular armies clash with irregular resistance, blurring the lines of combatant and non-combatant.

Aftermath

Analysis

German uhlans and an infantryman escorting captured French soldiers, a common sight during the war. "Europe at This Moment (1872) – A Political-Geographic Fantasy" is an elaborate satirical map reflecting the European situation following the Franco-Prussian war, with France suffering a crushing defeat: the loss of Alsace and parts of Lorraine. The map contains satirical comments on 14 countries, highlighting the dramatic shift in the continent's power dynamics.

The swift and decisive German victory over the French utterly stunned neutral observers across Europe, many of whom had, with characteristic overconfidence, anticipated a French triumph and a protracted, drawn-out conflict. The profound strategic advantages that the Germans possessed were, quite simply, not appreciated or understood outside of Germany until after hostilities had definitively ceased. Other nations, however, were quick to discern the clear benefits afforded to the Germans by their superior military system. Consequently, many European powers rapidly adopted numerous German innovations, most notably the highly effective general staff system, the concept of universal conscription, and the meticulously detailed mobilization systems that had proven so devastatingly effective.

The Prussian General Staff, meticulously developed and refined by Moltke, proved to be an organizational marvel, operating with extreme effectiveness in stark contrast to the rather traditional and often complacent French military establishment. This superiority was largely attributable to the Prussian General Staff's core mission: to systematically study previous Prussian operations, meticulously analyze successes and failures, and learn to avoid past mistakes. This innovative structure also significantly enhanced Moltke's ability to seamlessly control vast military formations spread out over considerable distances, a logistical and command challenge that had historically plagued armies. The Chief of the General Staff, effectively the commander-in-chief of the Prussian army, operated with a remarkable degree of independence from the minister of war, answering solely to the monarch himself. The French General Staff, along with those of virtually every other European military at the time, was little more than a collection of administrative assistants for the line commanders, a system that fundamentally hampered French commanders' ability to effectively exercise control over their dispersed forces.

Furthermore, the Prussian military education system stood head and shoulders above the French model. Prussian staff officers were rigorously trained to exhibit initiative and independent thinking, a doctrine that Moltke actively fostered and expected. The French, meanwhile, suffered under an education and promotion system that, rather tragically, stifled intellectual development and rewarded conformity over innovation. According to the military historian Dallas Irvine, this system: "was almost completely effective in excluding the army's brain power from the staff and high command. To the resulting lack of intelligence at the top can be ascribed all the inexcusable defects of French military policy." A rather scathing, but arguably accurate, assessment.

Albrecht von Roon, the visionary Prussian Minister of War from 1859 to 1873, was instrumental in implementing a series of far-reaching reforms to the Prussian military system throughout the 1860s. Among these were two pivotal reforms that substantially augmented Germany's military power. The first was a comprehensive reorganization of the army that seamlessly integrated the regular army with the Landwehr reserves, creating a cohesive and deeply experienced fighting force. The second, and perhaps most impactful, was the provision for the conscription of every male Prussian of military age in the event of mobilization. Thus, despite the fact that the population of France was numerically greater than the combined population of all the Northern German states that participated in the war, the Germans, through their superior system, managed to mobilize significantly more soldiers for battle.

Population and soldiers mobilized at the start of the war
Population in 1870
Second French Empire
North German Confederation

At the very outset of the Franco-Prussian War, a staggering 462,000 German soldiers concentrated on the French frontier, while a mere 270,000 French soldiers could be mustered to face them. The French army, a victim of its own poor planning and administrative chaos, had already lost 100,000 stragglers before a single shot was even fired. This immense disparity was partly due to the fundamental differences in the peacetime organizations of the respective armies. Each Prussian Corps was strategically based within a Kreis (literally "circle") around the chief city in a specific area. Reservists, therefore, rarely lived more than a day's journey from their regiment's depot, ensuring rapid and efficient mobilization. By stark contrast, French regiments generally served far from their depots, which, in turn, were often not located in the regions of France from which their soldiers were drawn. French reservists frequently faced several days of arduous travel just to report to their depots, and then another lengthy journey to finally join their regiments. The result was predictable chaos: large numbers of reservists clogged railway stations, fruitlessly seeking rations and orders that rarely materialized.

The profound impact of these organizational differences was further exacerbated by the meticulousness of peacetime preparations. The Prussian General Staff had painstakingly drawn up minutely detailed mobilization plans, making expert use of their highly developed railway system, which itself had been partly designed in response to recommendations from a specialized Railway Section within the General Staff. The French railway system, in contrast, fragmented among competing private companies, had developed purely from commercial pressures. Consequently, many journeys to the front in Alsace and Lorraine involved long, illogical diversions and frequent, frustrating changes between trains. There was no coherent system of military control over the railways; officers simply commandeered trains as they saw fit, leading to utter bedlam. Rail sidings and marshalling yards became hopelessly choked with loaded wagons, with no one appointed or responsible for efficiently unloading them or directing them to their intended destinations. A logistical nightmare, entirely of their own making.

France also suffered from an antiquated tactical system. Although often referred to as "Napoleonic tactics," this system was, in fact, largely developed by Antoine-Henri Jomini during his tenure in Russia. Surrounded by a rigid aristocracy steeped in a "Sacred Social Order" mentality, Jomini's system was, perhaps predictably, equally rigid and inflexible. His system simplified several complex formations intended for an entire army, using battalions as the fundamental building blocks. While simple, it was only truly effective for attacking in a single, predetermined direction. This system was enthusiastically adopted by the Bourbons to prevent a repeat of Napoleon I's dramatic return to France, and Napoleon III, in a display of historical irony, retained the system upon his ascension to power, hence its association with his family name. The Prussians, by contrast, did not use battalions as their basic tactical unit; their system was far more flexible and adaptive. Companies were formed into columns and attacked in parallel, rather than as a monolithic, homogeneous battalion-sized block. Attacking in parallel allowed each company the autonomy to choose its own axis of advance and make the most of local cover. It also permitted the Prussians to fire at oblique angles, effectively raking the French lines with devastating rifle fire. Thus, even though the Prussians were equipped with individually inferior rifles, they still managed to inflict significantly more casualties with rifle fire than the French. A staggering 53,900 French soldiers were killed by the Dreyse (accounting for 70% of their war casualties), versus 25,475 Germans killed by the Chassepot (96% of their war casualties). A harsh lesson in the supremacy of tactics and organization over individual weapon superiority.

Although Austria-Hungary and Denmark had both harbored a strong desire to avenge their recent military defeats against Prussia, they ultimately chose not to intervene in the Franco-Prussian War. This decision was primarily driven by a distinct lack of confidence in France's military capabilities and its diplomatic reliability. These countries simply did not possess a documented alliance with France, and by the time the conflict escalated, it was far too late for them to realistically initiate a war. After Prussia's rapid and stunning victories, any lingering plans to intervene evaporated entirely. Napoleon III also conspicuously failed to cultivate alliances with the Russian Empire and the United Kingdom, a diplomatic isolation largely attributable to the cunning efforts of Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck had skillfully bought Tsar Alexander II's complicity by promising to help restore Russia's naval access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean—access that had been severely restricted by the treaties concluding the Crimean War. Other powers, it seemed, were less amenable to such inducements. Indeed, "Seizing upon the distraction of the Franco-Prussian War, Russia in November 1870 had begun rebuilding its naval bases in the Black Sea, a clear violation of the treaty that had ended the Crimean War fourteen years earlier." This pragmatic, self-serving move by Russia was a direct consequence of Bismarck's diplomatic maneuvering. After the peace of Frankfurt in 1871, a curious rapprochement between France and Russia began to blossom. "Instead of forging ties with Russia in the east and further crippling France in the west, Bismarck's miscalculation had opened the door to future relations between Paris and St. Petersburg. The culmination of this new relationship will finally be the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894; an alliance that explicitly refers to the perceived threat of Germany and its military response." A long game, indeed.

The United Kingdom, with its characteristic focus on its own imperial interests, initially saw nothing inherently problematic in the strengthening of Prussia on the European continent. It viewed France as its traditional rival in international affairs, and a weakened France was, in their estimation, no bad thing. Lord Palmerston, who headed the British cabinet in 1865, famously wrote: "The current Prussia is too weak to be honest and independent in its actions. And, taking into account the interests of the future, it is highly desirable for Germany as a whole became strong, so she was able to keep the ambitious and warlike nation, France, and Russia, which compress it from the West and the East." English historians, with the benefit of hindsight, often criticize the then-British policy, pointing out that Palmerston profoundly misunderstood Bismarck's long-term objectives due to his adherence to outdated geopolitical ideas. Over time, Britain slowly began to grasp the profound implications of France's military defeat, recognizing that it signaled a radical and irreversible change in the European balance of power. In the decades that followed, the development of historical events was characterized by a gradual but inexorable increase in Anglo-German contradictions. "The colonial quarrels, naval rivalry and disagreement over the European balance of power which drove Britain and Germany apart, were in effect the strategical and geopolitical manifestations of the relative shift in the economic power of these two countries between 1860 and 1914."

After the Peace of Prague in 1866, the nominally independent German states of Saxony, Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt (specifically the southern part not included in the North German Union) remained outside the direct Prussian sphere. Despite the fact that there was strong opposition to Prussia within their ruling circles—and indeed, in the war of 1866, they had sided with Austria against Prussia—they were ultimately forced to reckon with a broad popular movement in favor of German unity. They also harbored a very healthy fear of angering their increasingly powerful neighbor, Prussia. After Bismarck's diplomatic provocation in Bad Ems, these states found themselves with no room for maneuver. The war was expertly framed by Bismarck as a war for national independence against an external enemy, leaving them no choice but to join the Prussian war effort from the very beginning of hostilities. In January 1871, these states, having played their part, became integral components of the newly forged German Empire.

The French breech-loading rifle, the Chassepot, undeniably possessed a superior range compared to the German needle gun: 1,400 meters (1,500 yd) versus a mere 550 meters (600 yd). The French also fielded an early machine-gun type weapon, the mitrailleuse, capable of firing its thirty-seven barrels with considerable concentrated power at a range of around 1,100 meters (1,200 yd). However, this weapon was developed in such profound secrecy that little practical training with it had occurred, leaving French gunners with minimal experience. Worse still, the mitrailleuse was tactically misapplied, treated like artillery, a role in which it proved largely ineffective. To compound the problem, once the small number of soldiers who had been trained to use the new weapon became casualties, there were simply no replacements who understood how to operate the complex mitrailleuse. A technological advantage squandered by poor doctrine and training.

French artillery was further hampered by its reliance on bronze, rifled muzzle-loading cannons, a technology rapidly being rendered obsolete. The Prussians, by contrast, utilized new steel breech-loading guns, which boasted a far longer range, superior accuracy, and a significantly faster rate of fire. Prussian gunners, trained for aggression, strove for a high rate of fire, a practice actively discouraged in the French army under the mistaken belief that it wasted ammunition. Furthermore, Prussian artillery batteries typically had 30% more guns than their French counterparts (eight guns per Prussian battery compared to six French guns). The Prussian guns characteristically opened fire at a range of 2–3 kilometers (1.2–1.9 mi), well beyond the effective range of French artillery or even the formidable Chassepot rifle. This allowed the Prussian batteries to systematically destroy French artillery with impunity, before advancing to directly support infantry attacks, a devastating tactical sequence. In total, the Germans expended 30,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition and 362,662 field artillery rounds, a testament to their overwhelming firepower.

Effects on military thought

The events of the Franco-Prussian War, a brutal and efficient display of military prowess, profoundly influenced military thinking for the next four decades. Lessons meticulously drawn from the conflict included the undeniable necessity for a robust and adaptive general staff system, a clearer understanding of the potential scale and duration of future wars, and a re-evaluation of the tactical deployment of both artillery and cavalry. The bold, aggressive use of artillery by the Prussians, first to silence French guns at long range and then to directly support infantry attacks at close quarters, proved decisively superior to the more defensive and passive doctrine employed by French gunners. Likewise, the war unequivocally demonstrated that breech-loading cannons were vastly superior to their muzzle-loaded counterparts, just as the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 had clearly shown for rifles. The Prussian tactics and gun designs were rapidly adopted by virtually all European armies by 1914, famously exemplified in the French 75, an artillery piece specifically optimized to provide direct fire support to advancing infantry. However, many European armies, with a predictable blindness, largely ignored the stark evidence emerging from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, which clearly suggested that infantry armed with new smokeless-powder rifles could effectively engage gun crews in the open. This forced gunners to adapt, firing at longer ranges using indirect fire, typically from concealed positions. The heavy reliance on fortifications and dugouts in the Russo-Japanese War also significantly undermined the effectiveness of field artillery that was not designed for indirect fire, a lesson that would be brutally relearned in the trenches of World War I.

At the Battle of Mars-La-Tour, the Prussian 12th Cavalry Brigade, commanded by General Adalbert von Bredow, executed a desperate charge against a French artillery battery. The attack, a costly success, became famously known as "von Bredow's Death Ride," and was, perhaps misleadingly, held up as proof that traditional cavalry charges could still prevail on the battlefield. This interpretation, however, proved disastrously wrong. The use of traditional cavalry on the battlefields of 1914 resulted in catastrophic losses, rendered obsolete by the accurate, long-range fire of modern rifles, the devastating power of machine-guns, and the omnipresent threat of artillery. Bredow's attack had succeeded only due to a confluence of highly unusual factors: an uncharacteristically effective artillery bombardment immediately preceding the charge, coupled with exceptionally favorable terrain that masked his approach. A specific triumph, not a general rule.

A third significant influence of the Franco-Prussian War was its impact on prevailing notions of entrenchment and its perceived limitations. While the American Civil War had famously seen extensive use of entrenchment in its final, brutal years, the highly mobile Prussian system had seemingly overwhelmed French attempts to employ similar defensive tactics. Consequently, the experience of the American Civil War was often dismissed as a "musket war," distinct from the "rifle war" that the Franco-Prussian conflict represented. This led many European armies, with a predictable and fatal optimism, to become convinced of the viability of the "cult of the offensive." They focused their attention on aggressive bayonet charges over sustained infantry fire, a doctrine that would needlessly expose countless men to devastating artillery and machine-gun fire in 1914, leading to the brutal and bloody return of entrenchment with a vengeance.

Casualties

The Germans, in their relentless campaign, deployed a total of 33,101 officers and 1,113,254 enlisted men into France. Of this formidable force, they lost 1,046 officers and 16,539 enlisted men killed in action. Another 671 officers and 10,050 men tragically succumbed to their wounds, bringing the total battle deaths to 28,306. Disease, an ever-present killer in 19th-century warfare, claimed 207 officers and 11,940 men, with typhoid alone accounting for a staggering 6,965 deaths. A further 4,009 were missing and presumed dead; 290 died in accidents, and 29, in a grim testament to the psychological toll of war, committed suicide. Among the missing and captured were 103 officers and 10,026 men. The wounded, a testament to the brutal efficacy of the era's weaponry, amounted to 3,725 officers and 86,007 men.

French battle deaths, a far more devastating tally, reached 77,000, of which 41,000 were killed in action and 36,000 died of wounds. More than 45,000 French soldiers succumbed to sickness, bringing their total deaths to a heartbreaking 138,871. Of these, 136,540 were suffered by the army and 2,331 by the navy. The wounded totaled 137,626 (131,000 for the army and 6,526 for the navy). The number of French prisoners of war was immense, reaching 383,860. Additionally, 90,192 French soldiers were interned in neutral Switzerland, and another 6,300 in Belgium, effectively removing them from the conflict.

During the war, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) established an international tracing agency in Basel specifically for prisoners of this conflict. The invaluable holdings of this "Basel Agency" were subsequently transferred to the ICRC headquarters in Geneva and integrated into the ICRC archives, where they remain accessible today, a poignant record of individual lives caught in the maelstrom of war.

Subsequent events

Prussian reaction and withdrawal

A Prussian parade in Paris in 1871, a rather pointed display of victory. The satirical map "Europe after the Franco-Prussian War and the unification of Germany" vividly illustrates the dramatic shift in power. The Prussian Army, adhering to the terms of the armistice, conducted a brief, symbolic victory parade through Paris on 1 March. The city, in a defiant display of mourning, remained silent and draped in black, and the Germans, having made their point, swiftly withdrew. Bismarck, ever the pragmatist, honored the armistice by permitting trainloads of desperately needed food to enter Paris and by withdrawing Prussian forces to the east of the city. This was a precursor to a full withdrawal, contingent upon France agreeing to pay a massive five billion franc war indemnity. This indemnity was meticulously proportioned, according to population, to be the exact equivalent of the punitive indemnity imposed by Napoleon on Prussia in 1807, a rather neat historical symmetry. Simultaneously, Prussian forces were strategically concentrated in the newly acquired provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. A significant exodus occurred from Paris, with some 200,000 people, predominantly from the middle class, fleeing the defeated capital for the relative safety of the countryside.

Paris Commune

See also: Paris Commune

During the war, the Paris National Guard, particularly in the working-class neighborhoods of Paris, underwent a profound and rapid politicization. Units began electing their own officers, and many openly refused to wear uniforms or obey commands from the national government. These increasingly radicalized National Guard units attempted to seize power in Paris on 31 October 1870 and again on 22 January 1871. On 18 March 1871, when the regular army attempted to remove cannons from an artillery park on Montmartre, National Guard units resisted, leading to a violent confrontation in which two army generals were killed. The national government and regular army forces, facing open rebellion, retreated to Versailles, and a revolutionary government, the Paris Commune, was proclaimed in Paris. A commune was elected, dominated by an eclectic mix of socialists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries. The iconic red flag defiantly replaced the French tricolor, signaling the start of a bitter civil war between the Commune and the regular army, which ultimately attacked and recaptured Paris from 21–28 May in the brutal Semaine Sanglante ("bloody week").

During the intense fighting, the Communards killed approximately 500 people, including Georges Darboy, the Archbishop of Paris, and deliberately burned down many significant government buildings, including the historic Tuileries Palace and the Hôtel de Ville. Communards captured with weapons were routinely shot by the army, and Government troops, in a horrifying display of retributive violence, killed between 7,000 and 30,000 Communards, both during the fighting and in subsequent massacres of men, women, and children during and after the Commune. More recent historical analyses, based on meticulous studies of the numbers buried in Paris cemeteries and in mass graves after the fall of the Commune, place the number killed at a still grim 6,000 to 10,000. Twenty-six courts were established to try the more than 40,000 people who had been arrested, a judicial process that dragged on until 1875 and resulted in 95 death sentences (of which 23 were actually carried out). Forced labor for life was imposed on 251 individuals, 1,160 people were transported to "a fortified place," and 3,417 people were transported to various other locations. Approximately 20,000 Communards were held in prison hulks until their release in 1872, and a great many Communards fled abroad to the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium, or the United States. The survivors were eventually amnestied by a bill introduced by Gambetta in 1880 and permitted to return.

1871 Kabyle revolt

In 1830, the French army, with its colonial ambitions, invaded and conquered the Beylik of Algiers. Subsequently, France colonized the country, establishing its own administrative control over Algeria. The exigencies of the Franco-Prussian War necessitated the withdrawal of a large proportion of the army stationed in French Algeria to serve on the European front. This significantly weakened France's control of the territory, while reports of French defeats on the continent further undermined French prestige among the indigenous population. The most serious native insurrection since the time of Emir Abdelkader was the 1871 Mokrani Revolt in the Kabylia region, which rapidly spread through much of Algeria. By April 1871, a staggering 250 tribes had risen in rebellion, representing nearly a third of Algeria's entire population. A testament to the fragility of colonial rule when the metropole is distracted.

German unification and power

Further information: Unification of Germany

The Proclamation of the German Empire, immortalized in a painting by Anton von Werner, marked a watershed moment. The creation of a unified German Empire (a formidable entity that pointedly excluded Austria) dramatically disturbed the delicate balance of power that had been so carefully constructed with the Congress of Vienna after the tumultuous end of the Napoleonic Wars. Germany had, with stunning speed and efficiency, established itself as the preeminent power in continental Europe, boasting one of the most powerful and professional armies in the world. Although the United Kingdom remained the dominant global power overall, British involvement in intricate European affairs during the late 19th century was noticeably limited, largely owing to its intense focus on colonial empire-building. This strategic withdrawal allowed Germany to exercise immense influence over the European mainland, reshaping the continent's destiny. Anglo-German tensions, though growing, were somewhat mitigated by several prominent familial relationships between the two powers, such as the Crown Prince's marriage to the daughter of Queen Victoria.

The German unification, a triumph of Einheit (unity), was, however, achieved at the considerable expense of Freiheit (freedom). According to Karl Marx, the newly forged German Empire became "a military despotism cloaked in parliamentary forms with a feudal ingredient, influenced by the bourgeoisie, festooned with bureaucrats and guarded by police." Likewise, many historians would later view Germany's "escape into war" in 1914 as a desperate flight from the profound internal political contradictions that Bismarck had so artfully, and perhaps dangerously, forged at Versailles in the autumn of 1870.

French reaction and Revanchism

French students being taught about the provinces taken by Germany, a poignant painting by Albert Bettannier, captures the enduring bitterness. The crushing defeat in the Franco-Prussian War inevitably led to the birth of Revanchism (literally, "revenge-ism") in France. This potent ideology was characterized by a deep, pervasive sense of bitterness, visceral hatred, and an unyielding demand for revenge against Germany. This sentiment manifested particularly in aggressive rhetoric and the persistent, if often unrealistic, talk of another war with Germany specifically aimed at reclaiming the lost territories of Alsace and Lorraine. It also fueled the development of fervent nationalist ideologies, emphasizing "the ideal of the guarded, self-referential nation schooled in the imperative of war," an ideology powerfully epitomized by figures such as General Georges Ernest Boulanger in the 1880s. Paintings that starkly emphasized the humiliation of the defeat, such as those by Alphonse de Neuville, became immensely popular and in high demand, serving as constant visual reminders of the national trauma.

However, Revanchism, for all its initial fervor, was not a major cause of the outbreak of World War I in 1914, primarily because its intensity had largely faded after 1880. As J.F.V. Keiger notes, "By the 1880s Franco-German relations were relatively good." The French public, for its part, exhibited very little genuine interest in foreign affairs, and elite French opinion was strongly opposed to the idea of another war with its more powerful neighbor. The elites, having processed the defeat, were now calmer and considered the Alsace-Lorraine issue a minor concern. Indeed, the Alsace-Lorraine question remained a minor theme after 1880, with Republicans and Socialists systematically downplaying its significance. The return of these lost territories did not, in fact, become a central French war aim until after World War I had already begun. A testament to how quickly even the most profound national grievances can recede from the forefront of political consciousness, only to be resurrected when convenient.

See also

Notes

  • ^ Under the Government of National Defense.
  • ^ 33,101 officers and 1,113,254 men were deployed into France. A further 348,057 officers and men were mobilized and stayed in Germany.
  • ^ of which 41,000 killed in action, 36,000 died of wounds and 45,000 died from disease
  • ^ At least 370,000 captured
  • ^ of which 17,585 killed in action, 10,721 died of wounds, 12,147 died from disease, 290 died in accidents, 29 committed suicide and 4,009 were missing and presumed dead
  • ^ French: Guerre franco-allemande de 1870 ; German: Deutsch-Französischer Krieg , pronounced [dɔʏtʃ fʁanˌtsøːzɪʃɐ ˈkʁiːk] (ⓘ)
  • ^ French: Guerre de 1870
  • ^ Ramm highlights three difficulties with the argument that Bismarck planned or provoked a French attack.