No comments about Napoleon and Berlin: The Franco-Prussian War in North Germany, 1813 (Campaigns and Commanders, 1).

5 comments about A Duel of Giants: Bismarck, Napoleon III, and the Origins of the Franco-Prussian War.

1. A nice little read of the diplomacy of Bismarck and Napoleon III prior to the Franco Prussian War. What is so apparrent by this book is how the French and the French government were so arrogant about their power. Most people subscribe to the fact of Bismarck causing the war. However this book shows how the inflamed opinion of the French and their government led to the war. Popular opinion blames the Prussians but it was the French who caused the war.
   Wetzel shows the French interfering in the affairs of the Spain to place their candidate on the throne. The Spanish provisional government was not especially interested in their candidates, and ultimately decided on a Prussian prince. This was even more unacceptable to the French government. They then demanded the Prussian prince to renounce the throne. This the Prussians did. Then they demanded the Prussians apologize for their actions and completely renounce any interest. When this did not happen, they went to war against a German nation angered by the French actions. Subsequent actions paint the French as the victims when the opposite was the case. The French played into the hands of Bismarck.
   A great read for those interested in the diplomacy prior to the war. Michael Howard's Franco-Prussian War is also a great read of the war itself.



2. David Wetzel writes a concise essay on the events which brought about the Franco-Prussian War. The question of succession of the Spanish Throne turned into the events which start a domino effect which would not end until 1945.
   
   Wetzel examines the major players and how their activities brought about the war, specifically Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm and Napoleon III. Wetzel is evenhanded in his analysis of the events of the events, but fails to delve very deep into the factors which caused the conflict. A more in-depth work would provide a better understanding for readers. Despite the brevity, Wetzel produces a well written work which explains why the Franco-Prussian War occurred.



3. This is an extended academic treatise on the detail of diplomatic and political intrigue in the months immediately preceeding the Franco-Prussian war. Most notable were Prince Willam (Wilhelm) for his sanity; Napolean III for his inability to stay ahead of Gramont; Gramont himself for his arrogant assumptions about the nature of reality and the amount of control he could exert on events; and Bismark for his opportunism in turning Gramont's monumental stupidity into political advantage.
   
   This is an interesting look at all that is now known about "behind the scenes," and may change one's views of who did what with what to whom. Whether or not intended, Mr. Wetzel also did an excellent job of demonstrating how easily events can overtake political leaders. A pity American leaders are not required to have truly extensive backgrounds in history. We might have avoided some disasterous wars, including Viet Nam and the current Iraq war, neither of which went "according to plan."



4. Patricia Kollander said: " Much mystery has surrounded the Hohenzollern candidacy for the Spanish throne which initiated the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Although historians have been provided with valuable information on the subject--such as the long-suppressed documents from the German foreign office archives as well as significant documents from the Sigmaringen archives--Bismarck's motivation in the affair remains unclear.
   
   Bismarck's promotion of the Hohenzollern candidacy has provided fuel for debate among prominent scholars in German history. On one hand, historians such as Josef Becker have concluded that Bismarck specifically aimed at achieving German unification by instigating a conflict with France. They assert that the process of German unification was in a Stagnationsphase by 1870; therefore Bismarck needed a war against France lest the whole unification process fall through altogether. On the other hand, another school of thought (notably represented by Jochen Dittrich) has concluded that in promoting the candidacy, Bismarck sought nothing more than to weaken the position of the French Emperor Napoleon III, thus peacefully facilitating the unification process. Dittrich believes that the candidacy was simply a 'diplomatic weapon'; a policy designed to avoid war.Still the question remains as to why Bismarck needed a 'diplomatic weapon' or a war with France in the first place. "
   
   In this book, David Wetzel doesn't really answer this question. Nevertheless, it's a very well written book that makes a good summary of this important war of the 19th century. Wetzel is well nuanced in this interpretation that uses german, french as well as english sources. It's a very valuable book for anyone who really want to get to the point in a jiffy - and for historians, it's good too, for it summarizes the most important elements that explain the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71).



5. Ever since reading Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August 10 years ago, the Franco-Prussian War has intrigued me. A "dress rehearsal" to World War 1, so to speak, the war seemed a prominent display of militancy in the otherwise quiet European century between Waterloo and the Marne. It featured such fascinating personalities as Napoleon the Third and Otto von Bismarck, and seemed like a major step in the emergence of the German Empire, which would lead to such catastrophic results in the twentieth century. From the point of view of Military History, the Franco-Prussian War is remarkable for what didn't happen in it - unlike the contemporary American Civil War and the War of the triple alliance, and especially unlike the Great War, the Franco-Prussian war has been short and relatively bloodless. How had Europe managed to fight a war between two of its major powers with so little loss of life and treasure?
   
   Despite all these remarkable aspects, the Franco Prussian War remains in something of an oblivion. As Author David Wetzel points out, very few books have been published on it in recent decades. As an anecdote, I'm the first person to have checked "A Duel of Giants" out of the Haifa U Library. Why is the war forgotten?
   
   Wetzel does not attempt to answer this, or the other questions I find fascinating about the Franco-Prussian War. What he offers is an account of the crisis diplomacy surrounding the war's outbreak. After the first chapter, which sets the stage and introduces the players, most of the book is a blow by blow account of the diplomatic and political evolution of the crisis surrounding the so-called "Hohenzollern candidacy" - the nomination of Prussian prince Leopold to the open vacancy of the monarch of Spain.
   
   In 1868, the bourbon Queen of Spain, Isabella, was disposed of in a coup d'etat. The revolutionaries, led by General Juan Prim, set out for a substitute monarch. Unfortunately, the politics of king making were complicated: the various royal families in Europe had too close or too distant ties to one another. Each candidate raised the specter of leaning Spain towards a certain power and against the other ones. The various factions in Spain and Portugal, Italy and France and Prussia all had their say. So had the Vatican, which was worried of the pernicious effects of a Liberal King. The result was a stalemate: various names raises, and various offers were made and refused. Finally, the offer went to Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern - a Prussian.
   
   The candidacy sparked a minor upheaval within Prussian, with the King opposing it and the Chancellor, the legendary Otto von Bismarck, supporting. Finally the prince agreed. The plan was to elect the Prince in secret, and present the world with a fait accompli. But through error or sabotage, it was not to be. The French learned about the candidacy and were understandably livid. A Pro-Prussian Spain would pause a great danger to France in any Franco-Prussian confrontation. The French demanded that Leopold withdraw his candidacy.
   
   The incredible thing is that, as in the First World War, the request was acquiesced to, but that was not enough. French hardliners decided that the Prussian king would have to endorse the retraction, and forbid Leopold from taking back his withdrawal. For the Prussians that was out of the question, and they let the world know. Public statements by both sides inflamed public opinion, and French warmongers, eager for a fight, pressed for raising troops. At some point, as in World War 1, the "train timetable" played its role - the French wanted to outrace the Prussians in fielding armies. In July 1870, war was declared.
   
   Wetzel's book is hardly ideal for a general interest reader like me. From the very beginning, it assumes a lot of knowledge about 19th century European politics, knowledge I frankly lack. After a very readable introductory chapter, and a good chapter about the Spanish Revolution of 1868, the book slows down as it offers a minuet account of the diplomacy and intrigues in the various capitals of Europe, an account which I frankly found to be quite dull. The lack of any consideration of the future - the lessons, consequences or memories of the build up to war - is also disappointing. Overall, Wetzel offers an impressive in depth look into the immediate diplomatic origins of the Franco Prussian War, but one that I can recommend only to specialists.

1 comments about FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 1870-71 VOLUME 2, THE: After Sedan. Helmuth Von Moltke And The Defeat Of The Government Of National Defence.

1. The Franco-Prussian War has been ill served by historians.Indeed the stand out work-Michael Howards "The Franco Prussian War" is nearly 50 years old.Barry,s work is unabashedly Prussian in outlook.The volumes are rather dense and it is not an easy read but it is rewarding if you stick with it!
   The major failing is the lack of clear explanatory maps.Barry uses what appears to be 19th century maps that are miniscule and overcrowded.As I have said in other reviews the present crop of military historians would do well to rectify this serious failing.

1 comments about FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 1870-71 VOLUME 1, THE: The Campaign Of Sedan. Helmuth Von Moltke And The Overthrow Of The Second Empire.

1. Even though I'm only about halfway through Vol I, I am REALLY enjoying the book. It is a very enjoyable book and easy to read. The chapters are well organized and describe nicely how the war started, the Prussian and French high command and the battles. It is very clear to read why the war has progressed so well for the Prussians and so poorly for the French. I can't wait to finish it - highly recommended!

4 comments about Paris Babylon: The Story of the Paris Commune.

1. Rupert Christiansen really brings the Commune alive through a combination of research, archived interview, old news clips, and photos. The commune's ascendancy and collapse is related as a compelling chronology. His fine writing brings out the french pompousness that lead to the franco- prussian war; the siege of Paris; the state of denial that held to the last days among the upper class; the state of terror and famine of the lower class; and the ultimate collapse of the commune and eventual slaughter of the communards. As one who has lived in Paris, I highly recommend it even if you don't traditionally read history books.



2. Rupert Christiansen has written an historical account that is also a "great read"; hard to put down and very enlightening. I had just finished reading a novel that was set (partially) in Paris around the time of the Franco-Prussian war and wanted to find out more. Surprisingly, this is the only book I could find that dealt with this utterly fascinating time and place. The title of the book says it's "the story of the Paris Commune". This is incorrect; only a relatively small part of the book deals with the Commune, while the major part describes life in the Second Empire of Louis Napoleon and the Siege of Paris during the war. I couldn't help but draw parallels to current Western culture while reading about Paris in the 1860s: creation of incredible wealth and its ostentatious display, pioneering techniques of entrepreneurship, rapid developments in transportation and communication, rampant cynicism among the intellectuals, popular fascination by the news media with private lives and notorious murders, and a very public decline in sexual morality. The author covers the sociology, the history, and the politics in a very smooth combination of original sources and his own narrative. It never gets bogged down on detail, but still presents a very complete description. This is a book that could be enjoyed by anyone, even those who have little knowlege of the 19th century and little interest in history.



3. Rupert Christiansen has written an historical account that is also a "great read"; hard to put down and very enlightening. I had just finished reading a novel that was set (partially) in Paris around the time of the Franco-Prussian war and wanted to find out more. Surprisingly, this is the only book I could find that dealt with this utterly fascinating time and place. The title of the book says it's "the story of the Paris Commune". This is incorrect; only a relatively small part of the book deals with the Commune, while the major part describes life in the Second Empire of Louis Napoleon and the Siege of Paris during the war. I couldn't help but draw parallels to current Western culture while reading about Paris in the 1860s: creation of incredible wealth and its ostentatious display, pioneering techniques of entrepreneurship, rapid developments in transportation and communication, rampant cynicism among the intellectuals, popular fascination by the news media with private lives and notorious murders, and a very public decline in sexual morality. The author covers the sociology, the history, and the politics in a very smooth combination of original sources and his own narrative. It never gets bogged down on detail, but still presents a very complete description. This is a book that could be enjoyed by anyone, even those who have little knowlege of the 19th century and little interest in history.



4. March 18th every year is the anniversary of the establishment of the Paris Commune in 1871. That event rightly takes its place in an honored position in the revolutionary pantheon and is commemorated, especially in Paris, as such. Why? As the founder of scientific socialism, Karl Marx, noted in his spirited defense of the Commune against the raging reaction of capitalist Europe and the faint-hearted in the international labor movement at the time this was the first, trembling expression of the `dictatorship of the proletariat'-the time of working class rule. That it was crushed quickly by that same capitalist Europe and repressed thoroughly does not take away from the grandeur of the experience. Historians have rightly taken it as a seminal event in late 19th century European history. The book under review takes up the narrative around the establishment of the Commune in an interesting way.
   
   The study of history like other major scholarly disciplines goes through cycles and, frankly, fads concerning the important lessons of any period and about what and who to emphasize or not emphasize. This book belongs in the camp of the social micro-history school where setting up the milieu is decisive for interpreting the sequence of events. The author has done a creditable job of setting the milieu of the Second Empire in France under the dyspeptic Louis Bonaparte and his entourage, including his demanding and, at times, bizarre wife. Moreover he sets the scene by a rather vivid, and perhaps too vivid, detailing of Parisian manners, mores, cuisine, architecture and other cultural phenomena which point menacingly to the disastrous military overconfidence and woeful under preparedness that was about to occur in 1870 when confronted by the Prussians.
   
   Less satisfactory is his analysis of the enigmatic but politically clever Louis Bonaparte and the social base on which his regime rested. Karl Marx did a much more thorough, if more polemical, analysis on that base of mainly rural farmers and their political dependents who stuck by Bonaparte to the end in his classic exposition of historical materialism, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Also the author's narrative of the establishment and crushing of the Paris Commune does not lend itself to drawing any lessons from the experience. While the author is not
   overtly hostile to the Commune he is clearly no friend, and makes no bones about it. Seemingly the Communards got what they deserved, or at least what they should have expected. If you want to get an in-depth analysis of those lessons you must look elsewhere, especially if you are looking for the implications for future revolution strategy for the 20th century Marxist movement. With those shortcomings in mind if you want a good literary Inside Edition-like social travelogue of Paris in the third quarter of the 19th century this is as good a place as any to start.

5 comments about The Debacle: 1870-71 (Penguin Classics).

1. In this novel, as in all of his greatest works (Germinal, La Terre), Zola achieves the wide-ranging scope of a sweeping, romantic epic, without romanticizing the details of his settings or the emotions of his characters. As a result, we get an in-depth examination of the effects of war, on both national and personal levels. Zola thoroughly outlines the movements of troops and supplies, the political intrigue happening within the French government, and the diplomatic relations between nations, yet he never loses sight of the individual.
   The narrative focuses on the friendship between Jean Macquart and Maurice Levasseur, two French soldiers from contrasting backgrounds who are brought together by the war. Jean Macquart, who previously starred in Zola's novel The Earth (La Terre), is an experienced soldier and a sturdy, dependable, salt-of-the-earth kind of guy. Maurice is a novice in the military, was raised in a privileged background, and has an emotional, introspective, and fragile nature. In addition to these two players, Zola presents myriad perspectives on the war. The multitudinous cast includes an emperor and a king; generals, grunts, and officers in between; farmers, shopkeepers, industrialists, doctors, and their wives. The combatants in this war range from highly-skilled military men to peasants with guns thrust into their hands, from the privileged elite to penniless beggars. The chaos of war ensnares them all in a series of events beyond their control or understanding, pushing them to the climactic tragedy of the Battle of Sedan.
   Throughout the book, Zola condemns the futility of war in general, and the ineptitude of the French commanders in particular. The book is not totally pessimistic, however, as he does include some romantic concessions to the glory of patriotism, the strength of friendship, and the heroism that can arise when ordinary men are thrust into extraordinary circumstances. This is one of Zola's greatest works, and I would recommend it to anyone, especially those who enjoy classic literature or historical fiction. It is both intellectually challenging and emotionally moving. I would caution the reader that it does help to have some knowledge of French geography and happenings in French history around the time of the Franco-Prussian War.



2. This was an amazing story about the Franco-Prussian war, but it could have been about any war and the destructive influence it has on men and women, and on all human relationships. Zola tells the story, in vivid, sometimes gruesome but always very compassionate and heartbreaking detail (most of the plot is based on real historical events), of the absolute disaster that was the Franco-Prussian "debacle" of 1870-1.
   
   For anyone interested in French history, it is required reading. This was an absolutely pivotal event in the formation of the Third Republic and the death of the Second Empire, an Empire which Zola had already suggested in his previous novels was rotten to the core. Writing twenty years after the event, Zola was describing a memory still vivid in the minds of most of his readers.
   
   The Franco-Prussian war was truly a debacle. Not only had Napoleon III provoked the French into a doomed war with the Prussians, who with their superior artillery and military tactics ended up invading France and slaughtering and starving thousands upon thousands of men, but he ultimately set the French against each other when, at the end of the war, some Frenchmen and women wanted to surrender the hopeless cause-and some wanted to fight to the death-their deaths-on principle. Many of the French showed amazing bravery and refused to surrender, even after Napoleon III was taken prisoner and a new French government acted to conclude the war.
   
   In a famous and tragic episode, after the war was lost and many French were working to effect a surrender, political radicals staged a hopeless but heroic last stand in Paris, electing an independent municipal government-the famous Paris Commune-and holding the city. Eventually other Frenchmen were finally set against their brothers to force them to wave the white flag. In their determination to not yield one inch of the soil to the Prussian invaders, in one of the most powerful and haunting scenes in the novel (and in history), the Commune sets Paris on fire and Zola describes the entire city of lights roaring with fire, gone up with smoke and having turned the sky red.
   
   If you've ever been in Paris it's a compelling scene and you'll remember all the places he mentions if, like me, you've spent some time there. It's odd to think that the Pere Lachaise cemetery, where so many of us go to see the graves of Oscar Wilde, Sarah Bernhardt, Jim Morrison or Abelard and Heloise (a site featured on an episode of America's Next Top Model no less!) is where thousands of French radicals-and uninvolved Parisian civilians as well- were lined up against the wall and shot point-blank in summary executions-by their own countrymen-something that Zola and others would never forget. I think it's very important that Zola dealt with these crimes in his novel.
   
   Although Zola doesn't pretend that some of the Communards were not, in fact, war profiteers or criminals, he has much sympathy with some of them and their sincere political committments; as a man of the left he cannot help but find common ground with some of their arguments or with their feeling of betrayal by their own government. He is also disgusted, as so many French were, with the brutal way in which they were liquidated.
   
   The hero of the story is Jean Macquart. You definitely don't have to have read any of the other books in the Rougon-Macquart series of twenty novels (!) to appreciate this book, however if you have read La Terre (The Earth) you will already like Jean for his general kindness and sensible nature. He is a sweet man who has an unlikely friendship with Maurice, the young radically-inclined soldier who ultimately joins the Commune. The introduction to my book was a bit heavy handed, (I suggest reading it after you've completed the novel since it gives all major plot points away) claiming that they represent the two "eternal sides of France", but there's a real human relationship here.
   
   By today's standards this friendship would seem over the top and overly sentimental, but taken in the historical context it's quite a beautiful friendship. More than anything we get a sense of the senseless slaughter of a pointless war, the deep fraternal divisions it causes, and these are embodied in two very appealing characters, Jean and Maurice. Zola makes it clear that it makes sense, obviously, that Maurice would be furious and feel betrayed. I'm a pacifist, but if the invaders are at your door-which they literally were in this case-it's hard to know how you would feel.
   
   On the other hand Jean's view is portrayed with sympathy-he's endured tremendous suffering due to this ridiculous war, and like Maurice he's shown tremendous bravery and courage, like so many Frenchmen did at that time (take that everyone who makes fun of the French tendency to surrender-I wish all of you had to read this book!) but he is an ordinary person who would like to get back to ordinary life-which really is a normal emotion to have. He also hates to see Paris burning-it's the epitome of craziness to him, and to us, even while we also see Maurice's view, that no one should care anymore, France is dead and defeated.
   
   At the end, when Jean perseveres and goes on to build a new France, we're hopeful for him. But we can't help feeling the looming shadow of two World Wars to come, and it's also a sad book, reminding us of the vast physical and emotional wounds war leaves behind.
   
   An absolute masterpiece!



3. As a big student of the War of 1870-71, I was a bit skeptic when I saw this was a historical novel, especially one that was a political commentary. Well, my skepticism was destroyed after about 15 minutes of reading this book. Not only is the author a veteran of the war, his style is SO engrossing I didn't stop reading until I finished the entire book!
   
   The amount of details that are in the narritive can only come from someone who participated in the historical events that are narrated. Zola's characters are easy to identify with, and anyone can pick one character and say "yeah, that's me" as they read the story.
   
   I recommend this book to anyone interested in the F/P War or French/European culture/life of the Second Empire. Vivé Napoleon III!



4. Emile Zola's La Debacle, the 19th of his 20 volume Rougon-Macquart series, describes the crushing defeat of the French armies at the hands of the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. During Zola's lifetime, this novel was regarded as his masterpiece. History has decreed that it would be Germinal that would be more enduring, but this is still an outstanding novel. All the stories in this series are linked with recurring characters and interwoven plot lines. Like Germinal, this is a story of destruction and rebirth.
   
   This novel is divided into three sections. In Zola's typical style, each section is focused on a period of several days, with several weeks or months between sections. The main character of the story in Jean Macquart, a character from an earlier novel (La Terre) in the series. Macquart is an enlisted soldier marching to the front with his comrades to face the Prussians. Zola, never a soldier himself, describes well the lot of Jean and his comrades. Lots of marching, fatigue, boredom, and grumbling about the leadership. Hanging over the story, and unbeknowst to the characters, is the coming whirlwind. The Emporer himself (Napoleon III) makes an appearance, but it is rather tragi-comic.
   The second section is focused on the battle of Sedan. There are several story threads designed to explain the action of the battle at different times and from perspectives. The descriptions are quite graphic and detailed. Ultimately, the French Army is totally destroyed, the surviving characters become prisoners of war. In the third section, Jean is reunited with his comrade Maurice in Paris at the height of the Commune. The primary theme of this novel is to describe the `rot' of the Third Empire, and how its destruction gives the survivors hope for a brighter future.
   
   The Oxford World Classics translation is outstanding. It contains detailed endnotes to explain topical or historical references that would be lost on modern English speaking/reading audiences. There are several maps and a detailed list of characters to keep everything straight. This edition also contains a well written introduction to allow the reader to place the novel in historical and literary context.
   
   I have several thoughts about this novel that potential readers may or may not find interesting. First, this is an outstanding novel, whether one likes war novels or not. Zola is one of the greatest novelists ever to put pen to paper, and this is arguable one of his best works. The characters in this story are detailed and realistic, the dialogue outstanding, and the plot complex and compelling, but easy to read. Anyone who is afraid of approaching Zola because of past experience with the 19th century English `greats' should not be concerned. Zola has none of the pretentiousness or Victorian puritanism of his English contemporaries, and his writing, while often gloomy, is not ponderous.
   
   Second, with the exception of a few small tweaks for poetic license, this book is an outstanding example of historical fiction. Beyond an enjoyable novel, this book will also provide the reader a history lesson of the first order. In particular, I would highly recommend this book to American readers who know little or nothing of French history of this era. I think that the events of the Commune would be most surprising to many Americans. Certainly the Franco-Prussian war was one of the defining events for the French (and Germans), much as the Civil War was for Americans. The outcome of this war had long lasting political, economic, cultural, and military implications that affect us today.
   
   Third, if I had one complaint about this book, it would be that the author's knowledge of the outcome of the battle weighs over the entire novel. I would almost argue that this novel is defeatist. This is definitely an antiwar novel, but no real sense of imminent destruction covers the Prussian soldiers as it does the French. That is, this is an antiwar novel from the French perspective, but not really from the Prussian. It strikes me that the message conveyed by Zola (probably inadvertantly) is not antiwar in general, but antiwar only for the losers.
   
   Overall though, this is an outstanding novel, one of the best ever written. Highly recommended.



5. In the late 1860s Prussia, led by Kaiser Wilhelm and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, engaged the French government headed by Napoleon III in heated negotiations over the throne of Spain and the sovereignty of the Low Countries. The dispute grew as France looked for a fight.
   
   France declared war in 1870 but was ill prepared to fight the ensuing Franco-Prussian War. Poorly equipped and incompetently led, the French soldiers were badly used. The result, from the French point of view was a catastrophe. At the battle of Sedan the Prussians captured over 100,000 French troops and Napoleon III himself. France was forced to cede Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans. In the immediate aftermath of the war, a left-wing rebellion erupted in Paris. It was suppressed with brutal rigor.
   
   Like Tolstoy's War and Peace, Zola's The Debacle is a historical novel in which the facts of the war are very accurately described, and then well-drawn fictional characters are inserted. The story is told with verve through the eyes of two soldiers. The events of the Franco-Prussian War are extremely complex, yet Zola never lets the reader get lost. The story is engrossing and compelling. This is one of the great books of French literature.
   
   To the reader who comes to this review by way of my history of the Tour de France, this book is related to the Tour rather obliquely. Tour founder Henri Desgrange wrote extensively in the sports newspaper L'Auto, which also owned the Tour de France. Desgrange tried to model his own writing style on Zola's.
   -Bill McGann, Author of "The Story of the Tour de France"

No comments about 180 Original Short Stories by Guy De Maupassant.

5 comments about The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871.

1. because the author is so obviously biased and so prone to evaluating things with an all-knowing self-satisfaction. Wawro is clearly a very bright man and has done some excellent research and analysis, but the tone is so off, and he exibits so little empathy for the problems of the French or the reality of the fog of war that it hurts what is overall an admirable operational history. Wawro is not as biased and contemptuous here as he is in his history of the 1866 war between Austria, most of the German States, and Prussia, but at times he comes close. And the last anecdote about the chicken is just embarrassing--I guess that sorry bird is supposed to show us that Germany was on the road to the Holocaust or some such nonsense. Good research and excellent writing, but the great book that Wawro may have in him didn't come to fruition here. I'm hoping that age brings the understanding, tolerance, and empathy that should temper his talent.



2. For those of the reading type who have never read anything on the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, Mr. Geoffrey Wawro's 2003 book on the subject is a good place to start. Mr. Wawro brings a 19th-Century European conflict to chaotic and bloody life, illustrating that these pre-World War conflicts were not the chivalric engagements they are often made out to be.
   
   The book is structured as if for a lecture at a military university. Beginning with the reasons for the war, the author then moves step-by-step to the make-up of the opposing French and Prussian armies, to the mobilizations and then into a sequential listing of the battles. The prose is clean and very readable, and with the stripped-down structure of the book makes for a generally easily-understandable narrative. (The confusion--at least to this reviewer--is the same type found in most other operational military histories, that of trying to keep up with this Corps staffed by these Regiments who sent forward those Battalions against this Corps...) The battle scenes are brought to life by first-hand accounts dug up by the author from various archives and previous works, making for an engrossing recounting. Illustrated through Mr. Wawro's book is the effect this conflict had on the development of modern warfare, and the precedent it set for the next major European clash that came forty-three years later. The by-the-numbers explanation is what helps make this a great book for beginner students of this short but intense war.
   
   On the question of a pro-German bias by the author, the verdict is still out. Even if Mr. Wawro were a "Rah-Rah Yay Germans!" type it is hard not to see that the Prussians were indeed the better-prepared nation for the duration of the war. The French put up good fights but had abysmal leadership, both on the political and military level. It is a surprise that Marshal Bazaine wasn't tried for gross and treasonous incompetence after the war. The Prussians planned everything as best they could in the scientific, detailed manner for which they've been endlessly stereotyped. The French leadership did little to prep and seemed to believe they would win based on their past greatness alone. While French troops did put devastating Chassepot rifle fire on the massed-infantry attacks the headstrong Prussians frequently resorted to, the 50-Points-for-Planning award would have to go the Germans on this one.
   
   The main pet peeve that was needled more than once in this book were the editing errors, from incomplete or awkward sentences to the double-typed words that pop up in places. Overall, The Franco-Prussian War was a good read on an event that is frequently mentioned in Franco-German history but of which much may not be known.



3. Not only does Wawro do a very creditable job of covering the color and drama of the war, but he does a brilliant job of explaining the broader issues. I teach foreign relations and, in just a few pages, Wawro does a better job of explaining how Napoleon III and Bismarck upset the European balance of power than any specialist writer in the field. He also does a superb job of explaining the significance of the revolution in weaponry and tactics that would come to fruition (or doom) in WWI. All done in a very readable and accessible style.



4. As an introduction to the Franco-Prussian War, I have little hope that I could have stumbled across a better writer to acclimate me to that history.
   
   After having just read Keegan's "The First World War", itself an excellent and thorough work (which, however, suffered from moving at a pace more compelled by the events than by the author), I wanted to read about one of the origins of conflict, being France's declaration of war on and eventual defeat by the blossoming Prussian Empire, 1870-71. I can say without the slightest hint of gratuity that Wawro's account of that contest is a vibrant literary work.
   
   Let me open by saying that more than just a tale of two armies, Wawro successfully captures the social and political perspectives of the two nations and weaves them seamlessly with the military aspect of the narrative in such a way...well, think of it in musical terms when three notes are used in creating a song, sometimes individually and sometimes as a chord but always within the perfect framework of the song, I guess, would be the way I would like to describe it.
   
   But more than that in making this a great read, and in fact the most compelling factor of all, is simply Wawro's abilities as an storyteller; rather than a dry discourse on an instance in history, I imagine that Wawro must be amongst the great historians for his ability to capture the wonder of the reader. The text has bounce, it finds an interia immediately and sustains it throughout, it is humorous and grave, and he gives it the daring and adventure one normally finds in fiction. He is also impeccable in his choice of quotes further lending to the spirit of the atmosphere he creates of the history.
   
   Marvelous reading! Before I was halfway through the book I also purchased a copy of his history of the Austrio-Prussian War and am enjoying that special circumstance of knowing that when one finishes a fantastic book, there is another waiting on the nightstand.



5. The book gives a comprehensive and very detailed description of the events/battles of this conflict. Good maps. Well written.

5 comments about Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France 1870-1871, Revised Edition.

1. This is a very detailed account of the military and - to a lesser extent - political maneuverings of the Franco-Prussian War. Given the detail and the heavy footnoting, it is a surprisingly brisk read, though I do have one suggestion to assist future readers: photocopy the various pages that have maps on them so you can easily refer to them as you read on. Since I hadn't thought of this idea while reading the book, I found myself holding two or even three such pages open with the fingers of my left hand while reading battle descriptions many, many pages later.

   One disappointment was in the very brief epilogue. The author discusses how the speed of the Prussian victory raised the stakes for all European powers, Germany in particular, but the author does not really discuss the aftermath of the war in France or explain how France formed a post-war government given the fractious way it had fought the war. Every history needs to stop at some point, of course, but a brief explanation of France's recovery seems in order.




2. The Franco-Prussian War is an unusual conflict in that it is in many ways a study in contrasts. Historically, it set the stage for two twentieth century conflagrations even as it settled scores from the early nineteenth century. Politically, it marked the zenith of French national influence, and the ascendancy of a united German power. Finally, militarily, it offered the first widespread use of breech-loading rifles and modern artillery, even as it often languished in the tactics of an earlier age.

   It takes a broad brush to capture all of these elements, and in this book, Michael Howard has succeeded admirably. He has taken an often overlooked conflict and placed it squarely at the crossroads of modern Europe, and a new, more terrible type of war. For while the American Civil War (or even the Crimean War) is often referred to as the first modern war, it is in fact in the Franco-Prussian War that we see all the key elements of modern warfare: national mobilization, citizen soldiers under the guidance of a professional general staff, and the ascendancy of industrialization in both transport and new, more destructive, weapons. At the same time, newer, more insidious developments in the form of guerrilla warfare and the targeting of civilians centers for strategic reasons first make their appearance on a large scale.

   Arising out of French objections to the Prussian selection of the Spanish monarch, this war, like many before and since, arose out of a complete lack of French appreciation for the changes that had overtaken the battlefield. While the French had relied on a small, professional army, the Prussians had adopted a model of mandatory service that allowed them to raise massive, reasonably competent forces with unprecedented speed. Thus, when hostilities broke out the French, who had assumed an easy victory, were caught on their heels and never regained the initiative.

   Thus from the summer of 1870 through the depths of winter and into 1871, the story of the Franco-Prussian War is the story of the courage of the French soldier being failed utterly by inept leadership. It wasn't in the strength of Prussian arms, or in the courage of its soldiers that the war was won; rather, it was in the ability of the centralized Prussian command structure to adapt rapidly to events when their French counterparts were still in the dark that victory was secured.

   Thus, while Howard's writing on the actual combat is vivid, it is in his appreciation of the fundamentally new Prussian way of war that he is most successful. From the king, through the Bismarck and Moltke, and on down through the rest of the senior command, he paints a vivid portrait of Prussian ideals and ambition. Conversely, he is equally successful at capturing the decrepitude and ineptness of a fragmented French government that lost the war in its opening days, and then prolonged it, to the never ending suffering of its soldiers, long after all hope was lost. Likewise along these lines, Howard nicely illustrates the increasing conflict that inevitable comes between politicians and the military in an era of total war.

   That said, I do have a few minor complaints. The first is that Howard almost never translates quotes from the original French or German, and while I was just barely able to muddle through with what I remember from high school and college, any one who hasn't been exposed to these languages would certainly be frustrated. Secondly, as anyone familiar with European politics knows, nothing happens in a vacuum, and yet Howard spends precious little time discussing the implications of the conflict within the international system of the time. Finally, while Howard offers many maps, they offer little to know information about troop positions and lines of march, which leaves the reader flipping back rather than digesting a detailed map at a glance.

   However, these are minor complaints about an otherwise eminently successful work. Howard has packed a tremendous amount of research into a readable and digestible volume. His appreciation of the politics and personalities is matched only by his understanding of the weapons of war and the nature of combat. Not only is this a successful history of the Franco-Prussian war, but also a model of what good history writing should be: balanced, well researched, and above all, readable. Finally, Howard's success elevates the Franco-Prussian War to its rightful significance as one of the root causes of the tensions that led to WWI, and hence, to WWII. Thus the student of history should appreciate this work not just for its success in considering immediate events, but for providing a bridge from the Great Power politics of the nineteenth century to the wars of the twentieth.

   Jake Mohlman




3. Howard does a masterful job in detailing the the military preparations of both sides before the conflict, describing the war itself, and even going into some detail about the increasing importance of technology in "modern" warfare (especially transport). However, there are some shortcommings - the chief among them are the maps. While they are useful in giving the reader an idea of what happened where, they really needed to be more detailed, showing troop movements and positions. I also thought the lack of perspective on the war was disappointing - after all, the Franco-Prussian war was instrumental in the creation of German nationhood, the birth of the Fourth republic, and a foundation stone of the First World War. None of these important after-effects were discussed in any detail whatsoever. As a book of pure military history, though, Howard's book is beyond reproach.



4. I actually have not finished the book yet, so forgive my hypocrisy. From an information and accuracy perspective it is probably the best book on the war. However it is a bit of a tough read, so be prepared. Howard details technology and warfare of the time, along with politics and the like and the book doesn't miss much. However, perhaps that is the reason it seems so long. overall I would say a good book.



5. I don't know enough about the Franco-Prussian War to criticize the research and the facts presented. But this is certainly not an enjoyable book to read. If that is a factor for you, be warned.

4 comments about The Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 (Essential Histories).

1. Despite the fact that the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 had major repercussions for later European history, there has been very works written about in the last forty years except for Michael Howard's excellent The Franco-Prussian War (1871) and Alistair Horne's The Fall of Paris (1967). Thankfully, Sandhurst professor Stephen Badsey has written an excellent summary of the Franco-Prussian War that is not a condensation of those previous works and which constitutes a fresh look at this neglected subject. Foremost in value, is the fact that Badsey's volume looks at the war in its entirety, rather than just the first action-packed month. Overall, Badsey's Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 is an excellent synopsis and reference source for this critical phase in the development of European military thought and weaponry.

   After some brief sections detailing the background to the war, followed by equally brief sections on the opposing sides and the outbreak of war, Stephen Badsey moves into his main 24-page narrative of the war. This narrative is supported by ten maps: Europe in 1870, the main campaigns of the war, the battles on the frontier, the situation at Metz on 14-15 August 1870, the Battle of Mars-la-Tour, two maps on the Battle of Gravelotte-St Privat, the Battle of Sedan, the siege of Paris, and Europe after the war. The illustrations throughout the text are also excellent. Additionally, the concluding sections, such as Portrait of a Soldier, are also quite good. Overall, The Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 probably packs more into the Osprey Essential Histories format than any other volume to date.

   Badsey notes that the French performance in 1870 was so poor that it surprised both sides. Despite possession of superior weaponry (early machine guns, better breech-loading rifles), the French army was handicapped by sloppy staff work and a primitive reserve mobilization system. In essence, the French war machine was brave and well equipped, but totally disorganized. French senior leadership, including the Emperor Napoleon III, was so terrible as to defy rationale explanation. Amazingly, the French declared war on Prussia then had no plans or preparations for an offensive war. Furthermore, the French were diplomatically isolated and had to face an undistracted and increasingly unified German nation-in-being. Badsey notes that, "within a week of the fighting starting, two French armies ...were in full retreat." While the French army performed well at the tactical level - and came close to winning the major Battle of Gravelotte-St. Privat - it was clearly out-performed on the operational level and the two French armies always found themselves outmaneuvered by the Prussians. After a month of war, both French field armies and the Emperor were surrounded and combat ineffective.

   Badsey's approach to this subject differs from the conventional interpretation, which tends to see the war as decided in the first four weeks. In particular, Badsey notes how naval power shaped the rest of the conflict, "but critically for this stage of the war, Prussia had no effective navy. French maritime trade and commerce were largely unaffected by the end of the Second Empire and so was French credit overseas; the French economy did not collapse, and the war continued to be financed, in part by borrowing on foreign money markets. French troops were brought back from garrisons overseas and weapons shipped in from other countries." While the newly raised and poorly trained armies of the Third Republic achieved few successes on the battlefield, Badsey notes that they did succeed in protracting the war far beyond what the Prussians had expected. Furthermore, the specter of revolution that appeared in Paris during the Communard scared the Prussians sufficiently to actually assist in rebuilding the French army in order to suppress that political cancer, lest it spread to other European countries. Thus, in Badsey's approach, the reader is presented with a more comprehensive look at the conflict than just a discussion of the frontier battles.

   The Franco-Prussian War was also important for several changes in the western manner of warfare. The first Geneva Convention agreements had been signed just prior to the war by both Prussia and France, and the conflict was the first where prisoners and enemy wounded were treated much better than had been heretofore the case. Although war correspondents had appeared in the Crimean War and the American Civil War, their role increased in this war and the telegraph allowed them to report on the fighting in near real-time. While Badsey claims that the Prussian "terror" bombardment of Paris was an innovation in that it targeted civilians to achieve the city's surrender, in fairness, the French should get credit for that "innovation" when Louis XIV's army used mortars to devastate the German city of Koblenz in 1688.

   However, Badsey's conclusion is a bit less sure, when he asserts that the result of the war was "the replacement of France by Germany as the dominant power in Europe." France before the war, which lacked any allies, was certainly not the "dominant power in Europe" that Badsey suggests, nor did Prussia's victory and German unification reduce Russian, British or Austrian influence in Europe. While there is no doubt that the war enhanced Germany's military reputation, it did not alter the essentially multipolar balance of power that had been prevalent in Europe before the war. Indeed, in the long run, the victory may have hurt Germany because France realized the need for alliances and assiduously went about coalition building for a future war. Germany on the other hand, which fought and won the war without allies, spent much less effort on cooperative diplomacy and paid for that mistake in 1914-1918.




2. The "Essential Histories" series from Osprey could easily be compared to the Cliff Notes series. They'll give you a nice introduction to a topic you are not familiar with, but no real depth. Most volumns are under 100 pages; therefore, don't expect many "man in the trenches" stories.
   
   This book is a nice introduction to a relatively small war that would have very much to do with the animosities of the two later World Wars. Grab this before you start your studies of the Great War.



3. For a simple look at the Franco-Prussian war, one needs to look no further than Stephen Badsey's "The Franco-Prussian War." His 92 page book covers all the battles and, in particular, the events leading to the war. All other events surrounding the war, such as the revolution in France that it caused, are covered though not explored in depth, as they are topics for other books.
   
   It's apparent Stephen Badsey researched the topic well and writes for understanding, reflecting his lecturing background. The numerous maps are excellent; I have never read a book where every single placename is on an accompanying map; making the text and the battles easy to follow.



4. This is a very well written, easy to read book. There are great illustrations and maps as well. If you don't know anything about the Franco-Prussian war this is THE BOOK you need to get.