Why did the Franco-Prussian war happen and why were the Prussians able to defeat the French?

Why did the Franco-Prussian War happen and why were

the Prussians able to defeat the French?

The Franco-Prussian war began in 1870 and it was the conflict that completed German Unification, after this conflict Germany was a ‘Kleindeutschland’ ruled by Prussia, for Kaiser William I was a King of Prussia. I will identify the causes that led to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 and show why the Prussians were able to defeat the French so efficiently.

The Franco-Prussian war was technically between the French Empire and the North German Confederation along with the Southern German states but in reality it was a war between the great powers of France and Prussia, for Prussia dominated the North German Confederation.

The war was longer than the Seven Weeks war but still shorter than would have been expected for a war with such powerful opponents, Prussia and France were powerful industrial and economical powers with large reserves of Coal, Iron and man power, so one would expect a long drawn out stalemate between two largely equal opponents but it wasn’t though. It was a convincing Prussian victory and a war that was mainly fought on French soil for Napoleon III was captured in France not Germany.

The war was mainly fought in French territory mainly in eastern France particularly around Metz, a bloody siege was fought in this city during the war. It effectively ended when Emperor Napoleon III was captured along with 150000 Frenchmen in the village of Sedan in North Eastern France. Prussian forces headed by Helmut von Molke then surrounded Paris and received a formal surrender from the newly declared republican government. The result of the war was the end of imperialist France with the usurpation of Napoleon III, the Prussian annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and war indemnity of 5 billion Francs made payable to the Prussian government.

So this begs the questions, why did this war even happen? How had rivals become bitter enemies, one of the causes of unification was the hatred of France,? and why was Prussia able to defeat France as easily as she did?

The question of why the war happened is simply not a single event in time that causes the war, it is several causes that gradually turns things sour between France and Prussia. The Ems telegram may have ended with a declaration of war but what before the telegram had made relations so bad that war was inevitable.

One first cause was Napoleon III failure in foreign policy, through this failure Napoleon III was becoming unpopular as a King and may be ousted from power if France suffered another humiliating defeat. Napoleon was becoming unpopular because the French people had saw France being humiliated regularly from 1856 onwards, in 1859 a war with Austria makes little sense at the cost of thousands of French lives and millions of Francs, in 1863 Russia completely ignores the French government over Polish nationalism showing contempt for Napoleon III’s government and in 1867 Napoleon wasted French lives campaigning in Mexico with little outcome for France and the unnecessary death of a French aristocrat. With all these failures leading up to the Spanish Succession Crisis, Napoleon III could not risk another failure this time to the hands of the Prussians, he could be ousted from power if this happened. This causes the Franco-Prussian war because the French government would have done anything in order to avoid embarrassment, or gain a quick victory, so they rush into action too quickly and they miscalculated and end up causing more harm than good, that harm is the Franco-Prussian war. If France had not suffered failure after failure in this period the Franco-Prussian war may never have happened because France would have been more cautious over the Ems telegram and Leopold Hohenzollen rather than being rushed in order to gain a quick diplomatic victory or to avoid another embarrassment.

Another cause of the Franco-Prussian war was Napoleon III’s ambition. From his accession to power in 1853 he had aimed to make France strong again. Evidence toward this assumption is the secret deals over parts of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Rhineland, Napoleon had made these deals with Prussia in order to gain territory in exchange for French neutrality, showing that he wanted to make France larger and therefore stronger. This ambition causes the Franco-Prussian war to happen because France had longed for more territory, territory that Prussia had refused to give (refusing to withdraw the garrison from Luxembourg) therefore relations between France and Prussia had deteriorated and therefore made the Spanish Succession Crisis more of danger because there was no love loss between France and Prussia by 1869.

Bismarck’s aims for southern Germany is also a cause of the Franco-Prussian war because Bismarck aimed to incorporate the Southern German states into the North German Confederation resulting in a 2nd Reich, France would not allow this to happen because a united Germany would be a big threat to France due to its economic and military power. Bismarck would take any opportunity to unite Germany in 1869. This opportunity came in 1869 when the Spanish Succession crisis made war inevitable and he saw the opportunity a war with France would have, hence he manipulated the Ems telegram to cause war. If Bismarck did not have aims of uniting Germany then the Franco-Prussian war may not have happened because there would have been no tactical and political gain in a war with France or no-one there who had the diplomatic intelligence to see any gains but because Bismarck wished to unite Germany he needed either French support, which he would never get with Napoleon III, or a French defeat, he took actions that he knew would cause a war.

In the southern German states (Baden, Wurttemburg and Bavaria), there was no wish for a unified Germany because it would end up with them being part of a Prussian Germany ruled from Berlin not Frankfurt. These southern German states were monarchies but there were large liberal movements, both monarchist and liberals resented uniting with the north evidence is the Progressive Party firmly opposed unification and they did have some positions of influence. If there was a war between France and Prussia then they would side with the North German Confederation, Bismarck knew this and due to his aims of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Since circa 1855, Prussia had grown in importance in Europe it had become the dominant German power by 1869 and a leading economy. Prussia would continue to grow in stature because of the large amounts of coal and iron lying in Prussian territory. With Prussia getting stronger, France would begin to feel threatened. They would have a reasonably warlike neighbour, warlike because Prussia had caused two wars in seven years, that would have been defeated previously but in the late 1860’s could defeat France, and Prussia had a very Machiavellian minister President, Bismarck, that would take risks in order to increase Prussian power. This causes the Franco-Prussian war because due to Bismarck’s opportunist attitude and Prussian power the French would feel threatened and would rush into a pre-empted strike against Prussia, which they eventually do after the Ems telegram.

In 1869, the Queen of Spain, Isabella is usurped, the Spanish government then offers the throne to Leopold Hohenzollen-Sigmarinen ( a catholic cousin of William I). A Prussian on the Spain would enforce the threat posed by Prussia on France. Napoleon III saw this and viewed it as a Prussian attempt to encircle France. After a series of negotiations, Leopold rejects the offer of the crown of Spain on the orders of William I as head of the Hohenzollen family. This may have been a French victory but then Beneditti (French Ambassador to Prussia) asks William I to agree never to renew the candidature of a Prussian on the Spanish throne, William rejects this and believes it threatens his honour. This in my opinion begins to light the fuse of the Franco-Prussian war because before this event French and Prussian relations were becoming more rocky, France prompted by failed diplomacy and Prussia with her aims for Germany make this issue from succession dispute to a major cause of a bloody war. The Spanish Succession Crisis brings together a number of long term causes, French expansionism, French failure, Bismarck’s aims for south Germany, Prussia’s growth in power, to make a short term cause result in war.

After William I met Beneditti he sent a telegram from Ems to Bismarck. Bismarck, prompted by his own political agenda of unification, manipulated the telegram in order to make William sound contentious and to make war unavoidably, after he publishes this the war officially begins on the 19th July 1870. Although the Ems telegram as this is called is the reason for the declaration of the war, it is relatively insignificant because it is the final straw in a long line of failures for France. The Ems telegram itself is a cause of the war, because it demonstrates Bismarck's efforts at engineering a war with France through the manipulation of the telegram. It also shows France’s anxiousness in regard to foreign relations because the French are so quick to declare war over it.

The reason why the Franco-Prussian war happened was because of a chain of events that damaged Franco-Prussian relations until they were finally ruined after the publication of the Ems Telegram. I personally believe that the Spanish Succession Crisis is a reasonably insignificant cause of the Franco-Prussian war because due to the diplomatic climate between Prussia and France at this time, any dispute of this kind would have caused a war. The peace was so fragile in 1869, because of French desperation and Prussian ambition, that the smallest clash would have sparked a war, you can see this through the French reaction to the Ems Telegram. Also Bismarck would have engineered any event to suit his aims, the Spanish Succession Crisis and the Ems Telegram is just one example, he had done it before against Austria and if it suited him he would do it again against France.

Once the war was in motion how was Prussia able to defeat France? Both powers were powerful, both great powers of the 19th and both with formidable armies. What makes this conflict so interesting is the relative speed of the conflict, so how were the Prussians able to defeat the French? and how did they do it so quickly?

One reason for this was the fact that France was isolated diplomatically in the 1860’s, mainly due to Napoleon III’s foreign policy which alienated France from many European powers for example supporting Polish rebels alienated the French from Prussia and Russia because these powers were trying to suppress the rebellion in their territory, and a war with Austria in 1859 managed to alienate Austria. Britain, the most powerful nation in the world at this time, mistrusted France due to Napoleon seeking French expansion, and any French expansion would become a threat to Great Britain like Napoleon I was in the early part of the 19th century. Also France and Britain had always mistrusted each other and this mistrust was still here in 1869 despite the fact that they allied against Russia in the Crimea. Furthermore, Britain was more concerned with her colonies, particularly in Africa and India, than wishing to interfere in a European war, evidence for this comes from the British conservative governments foreign policy.

Austria wouldn’t support France because they saw the risk of invasion from Russia and Prussia (Russia and Prussia agreed to attack Austria if they intervened on the side of France). They knew that if Prussia succeeded in defeating her again, which was highly likely because not much had changed in Austria and in fact some things the Austrian Hungarian Empire was in trouble, this included problems over the multi-culturalism of the Empire, then the Prussian would not be as lenient as they were at Prague in 1867, because Bismarck couldn’t be seen to be weak twice. Austria did negotiate with France but decided not to support France because of the dangerous position she would placed in.

Russia would not support France because France had interfered with Poland, on the side of Polish nationalism, and furthermore if the government of Russia had decided to support France then it would make them seem hypocritical because they were willing to ignore France over Poland but then fight for them against Prussia. Also Russia and Prussia had built up a friendly relationship since the 1850’s this is due to Prussian and Russian co-operation over Poland and Russia keeping out of the Seven Weeks War. Also Russia was aiming to re-fortify the Black Sea therefore overturning the Black Sea clauses so a war with Prussia would not seem prudent because it would not regain the Black Sea for Russia.

Although parts of Italy and France had been allies in a campaign against Austria in 1859, the Kingdom of Italy had allied with Prussia against Austria in 1866. This put Italy in an interesting position which of her former allies would she choose to become an enemy, in fact it was neither. Italy was pre-occupied by a French garrison in Rome which prevented

Italian annexation of Rome. Italy would have supported France if she had removed the garrison but France blatantly refused, this was because it would seem like a further foreign policy failure for Napoleon III.

As you can see France was pretty isolated in 1869, she had no friends or allies to call upon her to help defend her from the Prussians, this did not enable a Prussian victory but prevented a French one. Prussia had guaranteed once again that she would not be attacked by a coalition and therefore could concentrate all her offensive power on one state without the risk of being flanked. This isolation meant Prussia was able to defeat the French because there was no way Prussia would be outflanked by anyone as long as her power was concentrated against France.

The Prussian army was much more experienced than the French army. Prussia had been involved in and won two wars during the 1860’s and therefore had veterans who would have served in the Seven Weeks War and generals who would have defeated the Austrians so effectively, e.g. Helmut von Molke. This was a contrast to the French army, the French had been used to fighting colonial wars particularly in North Africa, France had not fought in a European war since the Crimean War and there would not be many veterans still serving in 1870. The French army as a unit had relatively little experience in fighting a European war whilst the Prussians had regularly participated in European war over the last 10 years. This meant the Prussians were able to defeat the French because the Prussians knew how to fight an effective European war, they knew the conditions and the tactics used, whilst European war for the French army of 1870 was a relatively new concept so they had to adapt and by that time Prussia would have made significant gains.

France had a problem with recruiting officers in 1870, they were struggling to find the men with enough talent and experience to become competent officers without them the French army was nothing more than a “large, undisciplined, enthusiastically patriotic mob” (Stiles p91), officers are key to victory, in my opinion, a mob is no more of an army than a pile of bricks is house. The Prussians on the other hand had formidable generals and well trained officers. Molke is a key example of the talented Prussian general staff, Molke was one of the most talented generals of all time, who knew how to win a European war, because he had led the army which defeated Austria. Prussia had many generals of a decent standard, another is General von Roon. It wouldn’t be prudent to say that the French had unless generals and poor officers because this is not the case, it was just that Prussia was superior in terms of leadership because of experience and Prussian military academies. The superior leadership makes Prussia able to win the Franco-Prussian War because with better leaders than the French the Prussians were able to quickly get the army mobilised and gain quick victories, e.g. the siege of Metz of 1870, with decent officers the Prussians were generally better fighters because they were better led.

Also French arrogance contributes to a Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian war because the French prepare the war to be fought in the Rhineland and so have detailed maps of this region, by believing that the French armies would be strong enough to drive the Prussians back into Germany they created a problem if they were driven back instead of the Prussians. The French neglected to create detailed maps of there own territory and so when they were forced back into France they were disorganised whilst the Prussians had planned well, because of Molke’s stratagem, with detailed maps of France and Germany could push the advantage of French disorganisation and eventually capture Napoleon and attack Paris. If the French had not expected to win the conflict with Prussia and been more prepared to retreat, and have detailed maps of France, then the Prussians may not have won the Franco-Prussian war because they wouldn’t have been able to exploit French disorganisation in terms of navigation and planning.

Another reason why Prussia was able to defeat the French was because of superior artillery. Prussia had developed modern artillery since the war with Denmark in 1864, but against Austria this advantage with artillery was not pushed as far as it could have been so after the Seven Weeks War the artillery regiments of the army were being retrained to use the new Krupp field guns and therefore became more effective at using them. The Prussian artillery was superior to the French equivalent and now the engineers operating them were now superior. The Prussian artillery superiority makes Prussia able to defeat the French because it allowed long range bombardment of French troops and supply lines, the bombardment of troops was important because man for man the ordinary French soldier was superior to the Prussian due the Chassepot rifle being more effective than the Dreyse needle gun. With the artillery bombardment, it overcame French weapon superiority and enabled the Prussians to turn disadvantage into advantage, hence enabling them to defeat the French in the Franco-Prussian war.

Prussia was also becoming richer and more powerful, throughout the 1850’s there is a significant increase in the economic power of Prussia, with the availability of coal and iron especially, Prussia is able to advance to be a truly industrial society an example of this industrial revolution in Germany in general is the amount of coal production, 1846 production is 3.2 million tons but in 1871 it was at 29.4 million tons. This shows that Germany was indeed developing a stronger more industrialised economy because coal and iron were the most important requirements, and Germany was producing more coal every year indicating growth. Although France was a relatively rich and powerful country, it did not enjoy the same economic boom as Prussia did, evidence for this is, “but as far as industrialization was concerned there was no sudden fast expansion during the Second Empire,” (Grenville) and “ but railway development had been slow in France.” (Grenville) Both these quotes show that France was not advancing in growth as fast as Prussia was and Prussia was gaining an economic and military advantage over France in this respect because with a richer economy there were more funds for spending on war and weaponry and through more railways the Prussians could mobilise alot faster and therefore could outflank the French easier. Economic growth is a reason why the Prussians were able to defeat the French because through economic growth the Prussians could afford more men, a longer war and more equipment than the French and could also deploy men quicker using their advanced railway network.

The Franco-Prussian war is relatively important due to the modern use of transport, railways. Molke was known to be a brilliant strategist and during this war he was able to use railways in order to deploy troops quickly and efficiently, an example of this is the speed in which the Prussians pushed the French back into France in late 1870. Railways could not just be used to attack but also to defend and reinforce. The Prussians with their larger railway network could exploit weaknesses in the French tactics but quickly placing men using railways but also the railway could be used to deploy troops quickly to weak spots in the Prussian tactics. So you can see the Railway was a very useful tool if it could be used effectively and assuming you had enough rail links. In this conflict the Prussians were able to defeat the French because Molke and his general staff knew the importance of railways and how they could be used effectively, because they had used them against Austria, and the Prussian rail network was larger than the French, the French saw the importance of the railway but didn’t have enough rails and experience to use them with as much precision as the Prussians, hence Prussia had an advantage and therefore Railways contributed to a Prussian victory.

General von Roon also played a part in the Prussian victory over the French, his army reforms of the late 1850’s helped to make the army more fluid. Although these reforms took place over 10 years before the conflict, they had properly taken root in the Prussian army and as a result of this the army became more fluid and was more cohesive. The army was more fluid because it was split into smaller regiments enabling transport to be easier and so the army would flow easier and hence be a more effective force. This contributed to the Prussian victory over the French because the army could be transported, by railways, alot easier and the general could commit less or more men depending on the circumstances because or the smaller regiment size. This made Prussia win because the deployments would be fast and precise in order to tactically defeat the French.

Von Roon had also improved the logistic side of the army, he had reformed the way armies were supplied. Through his reforms, he was able to increase the capability of an army to be supplied but also to be securely supplied. He formed a separate army corps dedicated to railway logistics, showing that railways were not just important in troop deployment but also in troop logistics. Also as the army were supplying the supplies were relatively safe because they were being accompanied by armed guards. These advances in logistics through mainly using railways to carry supplies enabled the Prussians to defeat the French by having a regular and reliable supply chain to the troops, so they would be fed and equipped easily despite being hundreds of miles away from Prussia. This is not necessary a cause for Prussian victory but a cause why Prussia avoided defeat but it is important because without a reliable supply chain there would be no way that the Prussians could support a large army in hostile terrain with a hostile populace.

You can see that there are a number of reasons how the Prussians were able to defeat the French, it is not just reasons for a Prussian victory but also why the French were defeated and stating why the Prussian weren’t defeated. Although some reasons are more important than others, the thing to consider is whether the Prussians would have won the war without a certain advantage, this will give the most significant cause why the Prussians won the Franco-Prussian war.

To conclude, the most important causes of Franco-Prussian war are; firstly the failure in French foreign policy during the period and secondly the warmongering attitude of Bismarck. These are the main causes why the Franco-Prussian war happens because if the French government hadn’t have had so many setbacks than they wouldn’t have been so quick to act over the Spanish Succession Crisis and would have been cautious over the Ems telegram but the were quick and were blunt, this ended in the war. Without Bismarck's aims for the south German states there wouldn’t have been a war because the Ems telegram would not have been altered and the declaration of war wouldn’t have happened on 19th July 1870, but also if Bismarck’s hadn’t had the will to annex the south German states a war would have been pointless because it would have had no aim.

The main reasons why the Prussians were able to defeat the French are; firstly an experienced and talented General Staff who knew how to use railways to their full advantage and secondly the railways themselves, Prussia had a better rail network and were able to exploit French weaknesses and mistakes quickly and punish them for them. Without the General Staff, Prussia probably wouldn’t have won because they would have had a general staff who did not know how to use railways effectively and had experience doing so and without the railways themselves the war would have dragged on longer and would of probably ended in a French victory because France would have the advantage of being on French soil and being supplied more easily and also the Prussians wouldn’t have been able to deploy as well as they did, this is the real key to why the Prussians won; because they deployed men precisely and effectively.

As consequence to the Franco-Prussian war, the French lost Alsace-Lorraine for just under 50 years (until the Treaty of Versailles 1919) they also had to pay 5 billion Francs in war reparations, which was alot of money in 1871. Also through this war Bismarck was able to incorporate the south German states into the North German confederation and at Versailles the 2nd Reich was proclaimed with William I (Hohenzollen) as Kaiser and Bismarck as Chancellor. Therefore the Franco-Prussian war ended a series of unification wars that had plagued central Europe for 10 years.

David Ireland

Bibliography

Germany 1848-1914 Whitfield

The Unification of Germany 1815-90 Stiles and Farmer

Europe Reshaped 1848-1878 J.A.S Grenville