Bismarck's War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe

by Rachel Chrastil

'Compassionate and thought-provoking history' Daily Telegraph'Superb on the human consequences of war, ravishing in its evocations of wartime life' The Times'Fresh and compelling ... a tour-de-force' David A. BellLess than a month after it marched into France in summer 1870, the Prussian army had devastated its opponents, captured Napoleon III and wrecked all assumptions about Europe's pecking order. Other countries looked on in helpless amazement. Pushing aside further French resistance, a new German Empire was proclaimed (as a deliberate humiliation) in the Palace of Versailles, leaving the French to face civil war in Paris, reparations and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine.Bismarck's War tells the story of one of the most shocking reversals of fortune in modern European history. The culmination of a globally violent decade, the Franco-Prussian War was deliberately engineered by Bismarck, both to destroy French power and to unite Germany. It could not have worked better, but it also had lurking inside it the poisonous seeds of all the disasters that would ravage the twentieth century.Drawing on a remarkable variety of sources, Chrastil's book explores the military, technological, political and social events of the war, its human cost and the way that the sheer ferocity of war, however successful, has profound consequences for both victors and victims.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Germany, European History, France, Military History, Military Fiction

485 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2023

About the author

Rachel Chrastil is Associate Professor of History at Xavier University. Chrastil received her Ph.D. in History from Yale University and her B.A. in History and French from Indiana University. She was a Fulbright Scholar in 2009, studied at the Université de Provence, and has researched extensively across France.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“[T]he Franco-Prussian War plays a foundational role in the world wars of the twentieth century. The war of 1870, with its large-scale, mechanized warfare that swept civilians up in a nationalistic conflict, anticipated the motivations, the assumptions and the emotional underpinnings of later conflicts. The line from Sedan to the Western Front was never a predetermined path, and still less complete are the linkages between 1870 and Vichy and National Socialism, yet the Franco-Prussian War provided a bridge from the Napoleonic Wars to the two world wars. It established the daunting challenge of how to face superior defensive weaponry, including long-range rifles, cannon and the early machine gun. It was both an era of global communication through telegraph and one in which orders were shouted on horseback. Armies moved by train yet could be lost to enemy reconnaissance simply by traveling beyond the horizon. The Franco-Prussian War contained novel practices as well. It was the first European conflict in which a nation housed thousands of prisoners of war and in which both parties had signed the Geneva Convention…The war also featured the incorporation of colonial forces fighting on European soil…Furthermore, it demonstrated the challenges of mobilizing a large population of citizen-soldiers over a broad sweep of territory for months at a time…”
- Rachel Chrastil, Bismarck’s War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe

European history is filled with wars that started for ridiculous reasons; that were prosecuted with incredible violence; and that – instead of settling anything – set the stage for further conflict in years to come.

The Franco-Prussian War is a great example of this.

It began – among other things – when France became upset with the Germans that a Hohenzollern prince might become King of Spain. Because of course it did. With regard to its cost, in only six months, tens of thousands of soldiers were killed, along with many more civilians who perished for various reasons, including the diseases that marched along with nineteenth century soldiers. Finally, the war resulted in the fall of France’s Second Empire, the rise of the Third Republic, and the unification of Germany. All this, of course, represented a first, necessary step to the Great War that broke out in 1914.

As even this brief summary suggests, there’s a lot going on here.

In Bismarck’s War, Rachel Chrastil tries to address the many disparate threads woven through the 1870 war, which pitted an ambitious Prussia – as well as Saxony, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Hesse – against a nervous France, worried about its traditional position as the continental power of Europe. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given all that she is going for, some sections of Bismarck’s War work better than others. Overall, it is a good book, yet it can also be frustratingly inconsistent.

***

Leaving aside Chrastil’s somewhat idiosyncratic choices concerning areas of focus – which I’ll touch on below – Bismarck’s War generally follows a chronology, beginning with the declaration of war, and ending with the Treaty of Frankfurt. Between those two signposts, Chrastil covers – or at least touches upon – the Franco-Prussian War’s signature moments, such as the Battle of Sedan, the Siege of Metz, the Siege of Paris, the subsequent Paris Commune, and the proclamation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors. Nevertheless, Chrastil doesn’t really seem interested in politics, or battles, or the personalities of the “great men” involved, such as General Helmuth von Moltke, Emperor Napoleon III, or Bismarck himself, who is mentioned in the title, but appears only intermittently in the text. Instead, her concerns lie more with the reverberation of events – especially among ordinary people – than in the events themselves.

To take one example, Chrastil eschews any deep background of the clash, which revolved around efforts to unify the German states into a single empire. Rather than explore the winding road that led to the war’s outbreak, she employs a concision bordering on brevity. Furthermore, while Chrastil does summarize military strategy, there is very little tactical discussion of the battles. If you want details about how the fighting unfolded – to get a true sense of the woeful slaughter that resulted from good rifles, better artillery, and stale maneuvers – you will have to look elsewhere.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather a matter of taste. Indeed, history is too often told through the narrow viewpoints of those at the top, looking down, instead of from those at the bottom, looking up at what is coming their way. However, it does mean that Bismarck’s War is not a great introductory volume. That is, if you’ve lived your whole life in ignorance of the Battle of Spicheren, but you have suddenly woken up with a driving need to fill this absence in your life, this book will leave you unfulfilled.

***

So, where do Chrastil’s eyes fall? On a lot of different things. Bismarck’s War touches on the difficulties of mobilization; advances in weaponry, especially the French Chassepot and the artillery of Krupp; the role of colonial troops, and the racial responses of white Europeans; the participation of the Red Cross; and the experiences of prisoners-of-war.

More than anything else, Chrastil is fascinated by the collision between the front lines and the home front, and about how civilians struggled, suffered, and subsisted when armies came to their front doors. To take one illustrative example, Chrastil describes the torture and murder of a man named Alain de Moneys in the town of Hautefaye, his only “crime” being the allegation that he expressed Republican principles. Though this sequence is well done – Chrastil being a good writer – it is telling that she spends more time in Hautefaye than she does on any of the war’s battles.

***

Bismarck’s War is not of trifling size. It is almost 440 pages long, before the endnotes, and draws on a wide variety of sources. Given its subject matter – which is not exactly mainstream – it can probably be classified as more an academic history, though it is no chore to read. Interestingly, despite its pedigree, it tends to avoid the complexities of the tale – such as the underlying context of the Franco-Prussian War, which I noted above – in favor of cataloging the human responses. This left me with a somewhat split response, as I was emotionally engaged, but would’ve appreciated a bit more emphasis on those aspects that were elided.

***

Quibbles aside, I was generally satisfied. My curiosity regarding the Franco-Prussian War is chiefly connected to its place as a milestone on the way to the First World War. To her credit, Chrastil does not overplay the significance of 1870 on the catastrophes of 1914, there being 44 years and many intervening incidents separating the two. Still, she nicely shows how it prepared the ground for disasters to come. I felt rather doleful thinking about a youngster in France witnessing the Germans marching across their front yard, and then seeing them return in middle age, the second time for far longer. Heck, I suppose an individual blessed with a long life and bad luck might have gotten to see three German occupations in one lifespan.

***

The Franco-Prussian War feels really, really particular, the end result of Bismarck’s grand designs. It led to one of those incredibly incongruous moments, which saw Germany born in the Palace of Versailles, as French a place as one can imagine. Even though it occurred for very specific reasons, Chrastil finds the universal themes attendant to all wars. Unexpectedly – but understandably – she leaves the realm of powerful men making decisions in their opulent rooms, to record the end-results of their decisions on normal people just trying to survive.

[Geevee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rachel Chrastil's book offers many insights into and much interest for the general history student (that's me) on the Franco-Prussian war. Taking a pretty much chronological approach, she marshals a lot of detail and source material to give a wide-ranging account of this important war and its outcomes.

Firstly, I should note, as some other GR reviewers have, that this is not principally a book about strategy, tactics, and battles, although key aspects of each are covered.

As such, the book is, to some large extent, the impact and experience of those who took part, with a heavier emphasis on the French, who found themselves under fire, besieged, and under occupation.

The first 4 chapters move from the Declaration of War through Mobilisation to Concentration [of troops] and Command, and Combat and Retreat. These give good information on how the two countries went about these steps and how various aspects and traits leant to or hindered troop numbers, troop deployment, strategy, and tactics. We see the impact on communications and decision-making at both command and field level as well as, much like WWI, the part railways and artillery played in bringing war to the towns and cities of France.

The bulk of the book is very much concentrated on the soldier and civilian experience and this narrative provides for a very descriptive trail of the consequences that affect humans in war: notably, covering siege, abuse, food shortages, absence of shelter and heat during [a very] cold winter. The final chapters discuss government plans, political direction, and economics and war reparations, as well as the impact on German unification; also Professor Chrastil covers post-war remembrance, memorialisation, and even citizenship in areas that changed ownership through this war.

Bismarck, Helmuth von Moltke, The Kaiser, Wilhelm I, and notably the Crown Prince, Friedrich Wilhem [later Friedrich III), all feature, as do Napoleon III, Jules Favre, Leon Gambetta and, very interestingly, Empress Eugenie (wife of Napoleon III). For me, the two most insightful sources used are from Dietrich von Lassberg, a thoughtful German soldier from Munich in Bavaria, and George Sand (the pen name for Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin de Francueil), the romantic novelist who witnessed the impact of the war on her village and family and friends.

In summary, this is a very helpful book on a war that saw the creation of the German nation at Versailles, and how the experiences of Bismarck's War shaped both France and Germany far into the nineteenth century.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Giving Birth to the 20th Century.

Germany was forged in three successive wars between 1864 and 1870, masterminded by the political genius Otto von Bismarck. Perhaps a different Germany would have formed eventually, but without him the Germany we know would not exist. Undoubtedly the most important of the three, was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Prussia and its Germany allies swept away the tired and ill equipped Second French Empire and formed the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles. Where 58 years later it too would be dismantled. Rachel Chrastil in this well written book shows how this war had a huge influence on events that followed. But not always in the ways usually thought.

Her arguments are solid and hard to disagree with. She explains why the Prussians won so easily. It was battle ready, having fought two successful and dynamic wars in quick succession, against Denmark and then Austria. The Prussian’s realised overwhelming a force quickly on a concentrated area worked. Their superior cannon power tore the French apart perhaps most important, was that Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke had a plan to invade France. Napoleon III and his generals had nothing in place to counter the Prussians. Unable to mobilise properly, lack of horses and battle hardened or trained men, incompetent generals and a sick emperor the French were outmanoeuvred and within two months were soundly defeated at the Battle of Sedan where Napoleon III himself was captured. Did he surrender the army or all of France? What is sure, victory was coming to the Prussians. Bismarck instrumental in orchestrating the war, provoking the French who believed they could defeat the Prussians. He rejected calls for peace without annexation which caused the French to declare a republic and fight on, leading to the siege of Paris and the Commune.

Chrastil also argues that the terms of the peace were restrained. Although France had to pay five billion Francs to the Prussians and lost Alsace and Lorraine, it was still less severe than what Napoleon imposed on Prussia at the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807. She also states that the coldness between France and Germans warmed between 1871 and 1914, that the bad blood and mission for revenge, that is so often told wasn’t really there in the French minds. Even if the loss of the territories was fought in schools. Interestingly, Chastil shows that the annexation was against many industrialists in Germany who believed the new lands would force competition on their factories. One thing that Chastil makes clear, is that the war was a disaster for Germany and the world in the long run. It made Germany go down its militaristic path, where it believed its army would solve all of its issues. This and without the buffer states of Bavaria (who’s King Ludwig II had to be convinced with a strong arm to join), Hesse, Baden and Württemberg and the premature death of Emperor Frederick III, Germany would meet catastrophe.

The other interesting pickups I got from this book, was that the destruction of human life during this war caused the formation of the Red Cross, there were African troops deployed for the first time in Europe, civilians were targeted and atrocities were committed against them and King William I of Prussia did not want the title of ‘Emperor’ or formation of an empire, which was a byword for oppression of Prussia during the years of the Holy Roman Empire. Bismarck was truly a genius, who outmanoeuvred the other important man in Germanys victory, von Moltke, insuring only peace could be discussed through him. France’s National Assembly after the war was mostly monarchist, which a very real chance of Henry, Count of Chambord becoming king. However, he would not comprise and so a stable republic was formed which went into WWI. The French recognised the importance of conscription, war games, solid forts such as at Metz and railways in fighting wars and so began to concentrate on these. Overall a great book on a rarely discussed topic in England. I recommend it.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 4 out of 5]

An exceptionally fine new history of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 which is apparently now absent from most school syllabuses (see my footnote *1 below) and although I would not suggest that it supplements or replaces earlier works like Alistair Horne's 1965 'The Siege of Paris' it does demonstrate why more recent history books are to be preferred to older ones. It is not that they may have access to new information but that they show how much was previously ignored. Ms. Cahrastil's use of first hand civilian and soldier accounts of the war and her inclusion of far more information of civilian aspects of the war, both French and German, gives her account extra richness and resonance.

Her inclusion of events such as the killing of Alain de Money at Hautefaye and the apparition of the Virgin Mary at Pontmain and the way she places them in context and relevance, that earlier historians didn't see. Equally her account of what happened at Bazeilles is an eerie foreshadowing of what would happen in WWI (please see john Horne and Alan Kramer (2001) 'German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial') fear of and wild rumours about francs-ticeurs lead to tragedy. She also notes the importance of the use of African troops for the first time in Europe, and the inevitable racist tropes it gave rise to, and most importantly how France's defeat in 1871 encouraged the Mokrani revolt in Algeria in 1871 and its defeat and the massive confiscation of land, much of which was given to displaced exiles from Alsace-Lorraine, would have consequences that still affect France today.

I am sure some will find her account lacking in the minutia of military history but I don't, I don't like military history with its details of battles. I like the concentration Ms. Chrastil gives to explaining the complexities of the logistics of both the French and Prussian armies which is often an area that conventional military histories downplay or sideline. Her accounts of how war affected civilians but also how the position of civilians changed is masterful as is her account of the role of women - learning of such trail blazing, but now forgotten women such as Coralie Cahen was one of the great delights of the book.

This history also confirms, what I have long believed, that the claim of institutional memory for organisations like armies is a myth. There was plenty of evidence from the Franco-Prussian war of the difficulties of offensive war against entrenched defenders (already apparent in the Civil War in the USA) and of many other challenges that would bedevil armies on both sides in WWI but despite the incredible amount of observation and reports back then all of it was quickly forgotten until the same problems and challenges arose after 1914. None of this is surprising - you only have to look at the failure to learn from Vietnam by the various coalition armies in Afghanistan and Iraq - but it is infuriating to see how rarely the men (and until recently it was only men) who were trained and paid to be 'warriors' were so ignorant of the history of war.

A brilliant history of a seminal event in 19th history, though not for the reasons you might think. Thankfully the author doesn't read history backwards from either 1939 or 1914 to make simplistic and false comparisons.

*1 When I was at school in Ireland back in the 1970's the Franco-Prussian War was part of the core history curriculum because it was central to the story of the rise of 19th century nationalism in the unification of both Germany and Italy and as a precursor to studying the causes of WWI which of course provided the opportunity for Ireland to rebel in 1916. The Franco-Prussian War also saw the end of the Papal control of Rome which would lead eventually to the creation of the Vatican state via the Lateran Treaty of 1929. It was only when I left Ireland that I understood that others might not understand the 19th century rise of nationalism purely as either the prelude to 1916 or view the history of the Catholic church's loss of temporal power as of significance. I have no idea how history is taught in Ireland now but I would be very surprised if it hasn't changed greatly.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

“‘War will never be an instrument of life because it is the science of destruction; to believe that we can suppress it is not utopian. The realization of the dream of the alliance of the people is not so far off as we believe. It will perhaps be the work of the twentieth century.’”

As I am writing this review, in July 2024, George Sand’s hopeful words, with which Rachel Chrastil concludes her book Bismarck’s War. The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe, are belied by yet another terrible war that is taking place in Europe, a war even that may well have the potential not only to drag on but also to lure other European nations into the maelstrom of hatred and destruction. Reading of the high hopes uttered by Sand after traumatic months of mutual killing and hardship and seeing them turned to nought in retrospect gave me a doleful feeling of futility with regard to people’s ability to learn from history and to grow maturer. As Chrastil’s book was published in 2023, leaving her readers with this very feeling might well have been what she intended.

The indubitable merit of Bismarck’s War lies in the book’s focus on the sufferings that the war brought to the soldiers on both sides as well as to countless civilians, whose cities were besieged, shelled and bombarded or whose villages were burnt down in retribution for partisan or civilian resistance to the advancing German armies. An extremely inclement winter in 1870/71 even enhanced these hardships, adding hunger and cold to brutality and senseless death. Chrastil dwells on the destruction both of Bazeilles, in connection with the better-known battle of Sedan in September 1870, and Châteaudun in October 1871. In the first instance, there was house-to-house fighting as residents took up arms against the approaching Bavarian soldiers, and in the second instance, the invaders set fire to the town after being beset by franc-tireurs, in both cases with the thought of setting an example to discourage non-combatants from resisting the German forces. What made matters more complicated was that the franc-tireurs were never officially acknowledged by the Germans as regular French soldiers so that they felt entitled to punitive measures against those they thought were aiding and abetting non-combatants in offering resistance and doing sneak attacks such as sniping. The actual damage that was done by franc-tireurs and other partisans, however, was much less than the Germans felt it was.

Originally the Franco-Prussian war was conceived as another cabinet war, especially by Helmuth von Moltke, but after the abdication of Napoleon III in the wake of Sedan and the rise to power of the French Second Republic, whose main representative Léon Gambetta, unelected and ready to postpone elections with a view to the war effort, it soon expanded into a war of the French people against the invaders, a guerre à outrance, carried by every French citoyen in order to save la patrie and la liberté from the threat posed by the Germans, who were often described as a bestial and inhuman enemy. When the Germans laid siege to Paris, Gambetta soon fled the city in an aerostat – a means to send mainly messages from the cut-off capital – and established a government in Tours, whereas the population of Paris was expected to hold on despite the dearth of food. Later, when the invaders approached Tours, Gambetta moved on to Bordeaux, thankfully claiming that the population of that latter town was much more awake to the necessity of continuing the fight than the rather sleepy people of Tours – who had up to then sheltered and supported him. One of the main obstacles to a peace treaty was, for Gambetta, the Prussians’ insistence on reclaiming Alsace and northern Lorraine, including the bitterly-fought-for Metz (which had a majority of French-speaking citizens), and that was one of the reasons why the war dragged on during a harsh winter.

What are the shortcomings of the book? For starters, the title suggests that it was Bismarck who initiated this war, and for historians this is still a moot point. Having Bismarck’s name in the title, however, would have obliged Chrastil to give much more attention to the prelude to the Franco-Prussian War, for example the foreign policy strategy Napoleon III set down in his Idées Napoléoniennes, in which he plots the weakening or liquidation of empires such as Russia and Austria and their transformation into liberal states that depend on France. We never hear a lot of Napoleon’s role in the Crimean War, the Sardinian War of 1859, and very little of his bartering for the fortress of Luxemburg in exchange for his neutrality in the Austro-Prussian War. If Chrastil holds the view that Bismarck plotted the war, which the title of her book seems to hint, it would have been incumbent on her to give plausible arguments for this assumption of hers. In fact, it would have been very interesting anyway to learn more about the muddled conflict of diplomatic interests between the great European powers on the eve of the war.

Another aspect of the Franco-Prussian War that should have been covered in more detail is the rise and fall of the Paris Commune, which Chrastil, however, deals with in little detail. After all, the Commune anticipated council democracy, tried to put into practice several modern social demands but also showed what usually happens when utopian radicalism reigns supreme.

Chrastil’s main objective seems to have been to catch and underscore the horrors of war, as when she gives a voice to eyewitness accounts of war atrocities, or when she reports an American general’s advice to Moltke,

”’The proper strategy consists in inflicting as telling blows as possible on the enemy’s army, and then in causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force the government to demand it. The people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.’”(p.230),

or when she remarks, once again in George Sand’s words, that ”’to make a man an excellent combat machine, you have to remove a part of what makes him a man.’”(p.234). However, she sometimes seems to be sharing the point of view of the republican Government of National Defense, as when there seems to be some slight censure of General Jean-Jacques Uhrich, the commandant of the Strasbourg citadel, who gave over the town to the Germans when he realized that further resistance would be futile and only cost more human lives. In my opinion, there was still this part of what made him a man in Uhrich when he took the decision to hand over Strasbourg, while someone like Gambetta, behind whose back peace talks were finally started, never saw the muzzle of a gun pointed at him, never felt the impact of shelling and never went hungry. Ironically, Gambetta would die of sepsis, aged 44, when he injured his hand trying to repair his pistol. Sometimes, the gods don’t sleep but indulge in humour.

In times as these, reading this history of the Franco-Prussian War made me think afresh about what it means when politicians, usually from behind the lines, tell people to fight for their own liberty, for the integrity of their home country, or for the truths they hold self-evident. It always means that people die who could just have gone on with their lives, and that those who encourage them to die live on. Granted, there are regimes, such as Nazi Germany, nobody could co-exist with in dignity and security, but, frankly speaking, what would it have mattered to a carpenter in Strasbourg, a peasant in Froeschwiller, or a sempstress in Wissembourg, whether they continued their lives under Napoleon III or the Third Republic, or under the German Emperor Wilhelm III? Their bread would have tasted the same, the laughter of their children would have sounded the same, and the weight of the taxes they had to pay and grumbled over would have felt the same.

Just saying.

[William Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am pleased to report that I have just completed my read of Rachel Chrastil's "Bismarck's War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe," published by Basic Books (who were kind enough to provide me with an ARC). I have recently read several books on this subject, so I had some small degree of trepidation as I approached this. I need not have concerned myself. The book upheld its promise with distinction. It is a solid military history of the war that takes a somewhat different approach from other works I have read in that the author takes pains to contextualize it as a sort of bridge between the wars that had preceded it and those that would all too soon follow it.
While looking at enough politics, both German and French, to make sense of the events related, the text then examines, in some detail, the origins of the French defeat, technologically as well as culturally. The bulk of the narrative focuses fairly tightly on military developments and carefully points out distinctions between military customs up to that time and those that seemed to manifest themselves pointedly in this particular conflict. Hostage taking and reprisals against partisans are prominent in the text as precursors of events that will later become only too familiar to modern students of military history. A good part of the book focuses on military developments that are also precursors to what might be thought of as the twentieth century German way of mobile war. The latter portion of the book sets itself apart from some texts I have read in its refusal to treat the war's conclusion as forgone after the surrender of Napoleon III at Sedan. Instead, the author looks at the consequences for both the French and the Germans of the French refusal to simply stop fighting when the Emperor surrendered himself. This leads inevitably to an examination of the Siege of Paris and its devolution into a French civil war with the advent of the Commune. Again, what is fascinating is that many books decontextualize the Commune and the events surrounding it as somehow unrelated to the larger developments in Metropolitan France and Europe. It is often treated, rather absurdly, as something that can be examined without reference to events in Europe writ large.. This text does not fall into that particular trap. The approach is refreshing and when joined to the author's clear understanding of how much of this conflict presages later events in the World Wars, events technological as well as social and political, it makes for a lively reexamination of historical events well informed by an understanding of current scholarship.

[Dropbear123 · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5/5.

It's very good. Covers the military details well, explains the political situation in detail and also provides a lot of info on the suffering of the civilian population. The motivations of people involved, the leaders, soldiers and civilians are also presented in a very clear way.

The author tries to show the parts of the way the Franco-Prussian war had similarities to the 20th century and the world wars - mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of men, the blurring of lines between civilian and military, the devastation caused by new weaponry. The author does a pretty good job at this. There's a chapter dedicated the humanitarian intervention to ease the suffering of the civilian population, as this didn't really happen much in earlier wars like the American Civil War.

This is the first book I've read specifically about the Franco-Prussian War. One thing I found surprising was how, at least in the early days of the war, how close the battles were and how many casualties the Germans took. If the French leadership had been a bit more competent and aggressive things may have turned out differently. When the war is mentioned in more general overview history books it is normally presented as the Germans absoluting dominating France with ease.

It's not a light read. It's about 400 pages and pretty much jumps straight into the action. It doesn't provide that much in the way of background context so I'd only recommend it you already know a bit about European history the in 1800s. If you do want a book specifically about the Franco-Prussian War I'd highly recommend it though.

[Dana Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like this book was incorrectly titled.

I will say, first, that this book is wonderful and fills an interesting gap in 19th century history. The appropriate sub-title indicates that it's about the Franco-Prussian war, and how it set the stage for the 20th. As a WWI nerd, mentions of this and "German Unification" and "Sedan" come up constantly, so books on this subject are highly recommended reading toward understanding how Europe ended up in the July 1914 crisis.

What makes this so interesting is (despite the name) that it's not really a military history. It all takes place fully in the war of 1870/71, but is a panoramic overview of key battles, political upheaval, civilian experiences, soldier experiences and more. It is full of primary source accounts of people involved from all levels, royalty, civilian, peasant, politician and soldier. Because it does not focus on any one thing solely, it tends to become a portrait of this 6-month window in time in France. The military buff may want to pair this with Dennis Showalter's "Wars of German Unification", for more military content.

I did notice that about 1/3 through, after the defeat at Sedan, the book shifts gears majorly and starts primarily focusing on French experiences and politics. This is fine, and I also would have welcomed more regarding German politics and civilian accounts. Which leads me to my initial thought.

Bismarck only occasionally shows up for this story. The book argues in the beginning that Bismarck played a role in engineering the war by playing Napoleon III against Prussia, and that in the aftermath he certainly used the decisive victories in this and previous wars as basis for founding the German unification. I may be missing something, and also have not fully read Showalter's history, but I'm not convinced Bismarck fully engineered this and the other wars knowing unification was the goal, more likely that he was part of a trend and capitalized on it in the end. That and the fact that roughly 75% of this book is French perspective and the founding of the Third Republic, I might have named it something different. Feels like a publisher choice, though it's more of a misleading of expectations than a demerit.

The only real drawback for me was the chronology of the book. Military engagements and key bookends are in chronological order, but much of the civilian and political sections jump around the timeline wildly and it can be hard to track at times.

Overall excellent (mistitled) book, with some chronology drawbacks.

[Robert Webber · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this well researched, detailed and perceptive account of the Franco-Prussian war. Like most wars it drew upon a multitude of historical antagonisms but the fuse was lit by Bismarck, the Prussian Chancellor, as a means of creating a unified German state. As a political strategy, it achieved the desired outcome. Curiously and despite defeat, it also seems to have revitalised The French Republic and French patriotism.

There is a school of thought that this war laid the foundations for the terrible conflicts of the twentieth century. In reality, Europe enjoyed a fairly lengthy period of peace with Germany focusing instead on the containment of Austro-Hungarian and Russian ambitions. Indeed, Bismarck curtailed expansion of the German Navy so as not to antagonise the British. German naval expansionism began with the accession Wilhelm II and was aided enthusiastically by Admiral Von Turpitz.

The Franco-Prussian war did however offer a foretaste and rendered imaginable, the wide scale suffering of civilian populations and their potential for strategic exploitation by bombing, starving etc in future wars. The global conflicts of the next century bear terrible witness to this horrifying truth.

This book is well worth careful study. Recommended.

[Simon Mee · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that makes me argumentative.  More accurately, certain responses to it.  Yes, the Franco-Prussian War was a war, where men moved in certain directions to achieve certain things, so who doesn’t what to see operational art in action?  But I believe Chrastil has the right of it – war is a bit more than operational art.

A few pointers

To mitigate this situation, Moltke made flanking an operational activity rather than a tactic. He concentrated forces on the field from different locations and aimed them at the enemy’s front and flank. In other words, he distinguished between moving to the theatre of war and advancing to contact in the field, separating mobilization from concentration.

Maps with pointy little arrows on them are better than maps with no pointy little arrows.  Pointy little arrows that have unit names (correctly nomenclatured!) and dates are my catnip. 

So yeah – technically  –  it would be better if there were pointy little arrows on the maps of Bismarck’s War and nothing I say below should be treated as a supposition that Chrastil is playing 4D chess with us.

However... ...the movements in the Franco-Prussian war are not overly complicated.  The German army won the battles on the frontiers, splitting Napoleon III’s unwieldy army apart to be defeated in detail at Sedan and Metz.  Paris is put under siege and French relief/breakout attempts are unsuccessful.  The main operational point is that Moltke had a plan to attack and Napoleon III didn’t.  Chrastil is pretty good at a clear narrative and there was no issue with following it. 

To go further, Chrastil emphasises that the main advantages on the German side (mainly the Prussians) were organisational and logistical.  Their tactics and weapons weren’t markedly superior to the French, and there is sufficient commentary within and without Bismarck’s War pointing out there were plenty of blunders on both sides. There was a real contingency to the early actions, and Germans did not give an operational tour de force that needs to be memorialised in pointy little arrow maps.  Chrastil also gives a detailed explanation of the difference between mobilisation and concentration - she’s clearly in her comfort zone on matters military.

I also believe that is possible to get a misleading impression from pointy arrow maps, both in the specific sense (can lines on a map ever truly reflect the actual movements, implying a non-existent precision?) and more broadly (should the reader’s attention really be focussed on whether XII Corps reached the Seine on the 21st of August, or the 23rd?).  This is not a pointy arrow map book, it’s a broad look at the war from a strategic and economic level, at least from France’s perspective. It is perhaps a reasonable criticism that the coverage is a little unbalanced from French versus German perspectives without that imbalance really ever being flagged to the reader.  Notwithstanding that issue, I think readers should not look for pointy little arrows that do not need to be there.

As one other side note – yes, Bismarck’s War is a totally inappropriate title for a book that doesn’t focus on individuals generally, and certainly not Bismarck particularly.  The author cannot have picked it, it’s a publisher’s decision to put something semi-recognisable on the front.

The big picture

The municipal commission of Soissons countered, 'We aren’t the police for the enemy. We are acting for the town of which we are the administrators and representatives.' Yet this statement demonstrates the ambiguity and difficulty of municipal leadership under invasion. Did they not also act in the interest of the occupiers?

So what is Bismarck’s War?  Well... ...it is a conventional big picture book, but it is good at it!  It does not overstep itself  - pointing out the changing views of wars between nations rather than personalities; the novel treatment of foreign nationals; use of colonial soldiers; life under occupation; the developing roles of women...  ...without presenting them as a sharp break from the past or necessarily causative of future events.  Even Germany’s taking of Alsace-Lorraine at the end of the war is not held up as a revanchist cause of World War One – more relevant is Germany’s (again, mainly Prussia’s) developing chauvinism.

Further, this big picture stuff is what good history is about.  The festival of Saint Napoleon and the changing portrayals as the early to mid 19th Century wore on is interesting stuff to me!  More so than whether it was the 19th Bavarian regiment that took Orleans or whether we should weigh up the claim of the 5th Wurttembergers.  The relative rigidity of gender roles, even in extreme situations was another highlight – extreme situations might warp things, but not necessarily break them.

As mentioned, the German side is relatively lightly covered, relying mainly on the experiences of one very well travelled and lucky Bavarian soldier.  The Commune is also lightly tread over – arguably this is a fair choice, they don’t seem to have widespread popularity.  Probably the major point from the book was the capacity of a major power to continue to fight, even in a losing situation, with France managing to regenerate its armies for several months, even if lacking in experience.
 
Militaries across the Continent learned the lesson that they should raise a well-trained nation-at-arms, capable of being swiftly mobilized and concentrated on enemy borders.

Bismarck’s War is not novel in its structure (here’s some battles mixed with how society experienced war), but Charstil held my interest throughout – a very easy book to power through with lots of “revelationary” points that changed my perspective of the times.  Five stars is very slightly on the high side, but the book is underrated, so here is my Sisyphean effort to move the boulder up the statistical slope of people who really like pointy little arrows.

[Chrisorc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bra början men tappade fokus när republiken kom till liv. Till slut blev det mer anekdotisk historia och mindre ett konkret och tydligt narrativ.
Bra ändå dock, lärde mig väldigt mycket.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a challenging book to rate for me. I learned a lot from this book, but the way it was organized made it difficult for me to follow at times. It was almost written as a stream of consciousness, something I am not sure I have encountered in non-fiction before. With that said, the author clearly is an expert and I feel like I have almost experienced the often forgotten war and time period.

[A D · Rating 1 out of 5]

At the top of this book there is a review which reads -
“Compelling, illuminating…compassionate and thought provoking history”
What it should actually read is -
“Slower than treacle and drier than a Bedouin’s sand shoe”
Considering that the title includes the words Bismarck’s war, you would think that the author would tell us something about him. Apparently not, I know as much about Bismarck after reading this book than I did before it, practically nothing. Considering that this was the last war that Bismarck engineered to further the cause of German unification, you would think that the author would give us some details as to how he engineered them and how they furthered his aims. Again, apparently not. She tells you almost nothing about any of the causes of these wars or how they fitted in to Bismarck’s wider aims.
Considering that photography was alive and well in 1870, you might expect a few photos of the important people or places in the story. Guess what, too bad. What you will get are some random drawings of various things of which you will have no idea of what they are about. In point of fact she tells you almost nothing about anything you might find interesting or useful to know.
Instead, what you get is a long winded, rambling and deeply boring account of isolated incidents that you neither care about and which make the book very difficult to follow.
I have read other reviewers describe this as a textbook. It’s not being marketed as a textbook though. I bought it in the history section of my local bookstore. Not in the academic library at my nearest university. I consider my perseverance in getting through this book to be one of the greatest achievements of my career as a reader. I am now going to put this book in the help yourself bookcase at my local train station. However, maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll put it straight in the recycling bin and then that way it can do some good and not be used as an act of cruelty towards some other poor unsuspecting soul.

[Robert Jeens · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is more of a description of what happened during the war rather than a detailed look at the causes and effects. Chrastil writes about the movements of the armies, describes individual battles, and tries to sometimes look at events from the perspective of the individual soldiers or civilians caught up in events. She looks at how it affected international relations, the economy and society in general. Although she does write about how it was the first modern war in Europe, this is a little overblown in the title compared to how much she covers it in the book.
This book taught me a lot. Chrastil tells us that the war began with a dispute over the succession to the Spanish throne and led to a French declaration of war. Although they declared war, the French did not actually have a plan to invade Prussia, but the Prussians had a plan to invade France, along with a more coherent, centralized command structure for their army, and so they and their allies mobilized and concentrated their forces more efficiently than the French. The Prussians and their allies won the first big battles and captured the French Emperor, Louis Napoleon, at Sedan. The French then declared a republic and vowed to fight on. The Prussians and their allies laid siege to Paris. At the same time, the Prussian leadership and allies took up residence in Versailles and so the German Empire was declared at Versailles and the Prussians and allies became the Germans. There were more battles, more armies were raised, and various peace overtures were made. Finally, French suffering had to be acknowledged and peace came for the French at the expense of a huge war indemnity and the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. It was all over in under a year.
I already knew that it was the last war of German unification, and that Prussia beat France decisively, but I didn’t know that 2 million soldiers took part, of whom 180 thousand died. Further, as advertised by the author, this war saw the beginning of what became recognizably modern warfare in Europe. The Geneva Conventions and Red Cross had both been recently formed, and so the Geneva Conventions were followed with regard to prisoners of war, and the Red Cross cared for injured and sick soldiers. Other volunteer humanitarian organizations were involved as well. Colonial soldiers fought in Europe. Both countries had to solve the problem of how to mobilize millions of soldiers over a long period of time using mechanized warfare. Civilians, including partisans and the innocent, were caught up in it.
She tries to take an all-around view of the war. As I said above, the book concentrates on army movements and battles and advances and retreats. Although she sometimes writes rather bloodlessly for such large events, the author manages to convey well French weaknesses, especially in command and logistics, and German strengths in the same areas. There is much information on French political machinations, probably because they were more interesting that the Prussian ones. France went from a monarchy to the Second Republic to the Paris Commune to the Third Republic. Meanwhile, in Prussia, it was Bismark, the King, Moltke, and the Crown Prince. There was some jostling but that never changed. She has an eye for detail. As the Parisians were cut off from the rest of France, they used balloons to communicate with the outside world. I have in my mind the idea of 1870 Parisians in bourgeois garb gathered around a balloon, hats off cheering it on. She details new understandings of duties to civilians and international humanitarian assistance. Inevitably, we get the Judith Butler gender analysis. Personally, I don’t think that it was completely abnormal for only a few women to be soldiers, for most women to be caregivers, for example, nurses, or for men to try to protect their families. But there isn’t too much of that.
At the end, France was no longer the dominant European continental power. Although that was true, on the other hand, it is amazing how France endured. She lost a major war and endured incredible political turbulence, but through it all, the economy, the ports, manufacturing, agriculture, finance, kept working. She kept her empire. The war gave birth to more nationalism and militarism. In Germany, the army was celebrated while in France it was improved. I think it is too much of a stretch to say that the Franco-Prussian War was a “cause” of World War One: too many events could have gone many ways in between for that. But it certainly made France a revisionist power and World War One would not have happened in the way it did if not for this war.
I don’t know who said it, but those who were once called statesmen we now call war criminals.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm rounding this up from 3.5 stars. It's as methodical an examination of the Franco-Prussian War as you are likely to read any time soon...and for that, I'm more than grateful. But there are a few things about this book that left me cold, such as (1) the amount of battlefield writing, which always leaves me cold; (2) a generally detached writing style, and (3) a bit of short-shrift in regards to the long-term impacts of the war, some of them dismissed or played down...rather dismissively at times, in my opinion. It's excellent scholarship, but not quite what I was hoping for...

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a nicely written history of perhaps the most important war (and aftermath) of the 19th century. This one relatively short war: 1) led to the culmination of B ismarck’s strategy for the establishment of the German Empire; 2) ended Napoleonic pretensions to empire in France; 3) led to the Third Republic in France; 4) led to a socialist revolution in Paris (the Commune); 5) established the context for the national identity and the European Diplomacy that together led to WW1. Not bad for a war that many people have not even heard of!

What is distinctive about Rachel Chrastil’s book is how it raised whole sets of issues that were relatively new in 1870 but which were to become more familiar and widespread in the World Wars of the 20th Century. This was one of the first wars in which both sides began with widespread mass mobilization facilitated by the active use of railroads and telegraphs. Huge numbers of men were readily brought into national service, supplied, and sent off to battle according to predetermined national mobilization plans. This was also a war in which the use of weapons technology greatly increased the firepower of both sides and made the resulting battles larger and more costly than was generally the case in prior wars. This change in technology, coupled with changes in how military units were organized and commanded greatly influenced subsequent wars. Here it became more important that smaller units were managed more in a.more decentralized manner for the Germans and this contributed to the success that the German armies experienced. The war also provided a laboratory for the development of the laws of war, the role of medical staff and the Red Cross, and the rules by which armies occupied and were billeted in enemy communities after successful battles. These issues resurfaced in the World Wars of the 20th century and its is unclear how many of the lessons of the Franco-Prussian War were learned well. Finally, the wawas one of the first “modern” wars in the sense of politics and military developments being strongly intermixed. The conclusion os the war and its extension and intermixing with national politics despite German victories on the battlefield, including the Paris Commune of 1871, was fundamental to the war’s legacy. The war enabled the development of the German Empire, which shaped the course of European history throughout the 20th century and arguably still shapes it in the 21st century.

The focus of the book shifts from military to political and social topics although generally maintains a focus on military units. The critical national and international dimensions are also well covered.

[Scott Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(4.5 stars) This work is an excellent overview of the Franco-Prussian War from 1870-1, which did much to set the course of history in Europe, leading to World War I and all related actions. The work is primarily a political-military history, where the author does not give a long, drawn out pre-history of the two combatants, but immediately moves into the conflict. The Germans possessed the stronger military staff/leadership, but the French had superiority in some weaponry and in territory. Yet, military actions by both sides did much to shape the early nature of the conflict, especially the ineffective leadership and decisiveness of the French, who suffered embarrassing military defeats at Sedan and left Paris open for siege. From there, the war was as much about the political actions of the German and French government. The German successes allowed for Bismarck and the Kaiser to consolidate the German states into the modern German nation/empire. The French political situation saw the end of imperial rule. All in all, a successful war for the Germans, but the French were not has hapless as history portrayed them.

There is much to gain from reading this work. If nothing else, the Franco-Prussian War and its results did much to shape the world today. From the long-standing French resentment of the war and the desire to regain lost territory to the German need to maintain their militarist posture and have the French serve as political threat, to how military services across the globe sought to model themselves on the German staff model, the war did much to shape militaries and politics. The author does cover that aspect. She doesn’t quite link the post-war to events like the Dreyfus Affair, which did much to invigorate the Zionist movement, and has direct implications today, along with other actions, but you do get the point of the importance of that conflict.

About the only criticism I would have the for the book is that the maps and graphics were not well-placed or effectively helpful. There were battlefield maps, but at the beginning and not well labeled, and the plates, which interesting, didn’t add much to where they were in the book. Still, I would highly recommend this read, as the Franco-Prussian War is a key moment in world history and had ramifications that apply all the way to today.

[Kadin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm ashamed to say that I knew basically nothing about the Franco-Prussian War before reading this book. That deficiency has certainly been ameliorated. My only real issue was that I don't feel that I got much background into the catalysts of the war and the characters behind them. The book is called Bismarck's War but Bismarck himself is noticeably missing in all but the very beginning and very end of the book. That criticism out of the way, I value this work for its look not just into the actual war fighting but also into the social, economic, and political impact of the war. The real strength of this book, I believe, is the perspective you get from the ordinary soldier on both sides, the rural French villager, the Parisian artisan. It goes without saying that even as short a war as this one has massive impacts on all those involved and in every aspect of life. I think Chrastil does a great job of presenting those here.

[Legens · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent introduction to the Franco-Prussian War - how it was fought, why the Germans won it, what its repercussions were (especially for Germany). I never realized how much German planning for World War I was based on this experience - mobilization by timetable, decisive early victories, an isolated war against an isolated enemy. (Obviously, the big difference is that Bismarck engineered the conditions for this success, whereas Wilhelmine Germany was bad at formulating a political goal, but excellent at increasing the number of its enemies.) The contextualization of the war - the national cultures, the gender roles, the societies of small French villages - is strong and well-balanced with the account of events.
It's a pity that the book's German perspective is not as strong as its French one (Chrastil being an expert on France), and limited mostly to crown prince Friedrich Wilhelm (the later Frederick III) and the Bavarian lieutenant Dietrich von Lassberg. I would have liked to read more about the Paris Commune as well (but I understand why Chrastil treated it so cursorily). The most glaring omission in the book is that of more and better maps.

[David C Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, readable narrative of the war with special attention to its impact on the lives and culture of civilians, including women. It does a nice job of moving between individual stories (nurses, combatants, refugees) and the bigger picture. It’s a bit odd that despite the title Bismarck barely figures once his strategy of unifying Germany is outlined. Instead the emphasis is mostly on France and the fall of the empire. I’m not sure about Chrastil’s conclusion that Germany’s easy military victory was a poisoned chalice. For one thing, what was another pathway to German unification? The real turning point was the dismissal of Bismarck in 1890 with no comparable replacement.

[Willem Voorwinden · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interessant boek over de Frans-Pruisische Oorlog in 1870-71. Anders dan de titel doet vermoeden komt Bismarck echter weinig in het boek voor, en ook naar de 'making of modern Europe' kun je lang zoeken. Al met al een waardevol boek voor wie meer wil weten over deze oorlog en hoe de Franse politiek daardoor beïnvloed werd, al is de titel naar mijn idee wat misleidend.

[Jake Weber · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wanted to read this as many other books have referenced the state of affairs as having existed post-Sedan/this war as directly driving to what happened during world war 1. I think this is a useful overview of that war and some of the cultural outcomes which did contribute to the state of affairs heading into the early 1910s.

[Peyman HAGH · Rating 5 out of 5]

Define Book Summary:
A summary provides a concise and objective overview of a book's main points, themes, and characters, allowing readers to grasp its essence without needing to read the entire book.
Book Description:
Book Title: "Bismarck's War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe"
Author: Rachel Chrastil
Publisher: Basic Books. Hachette Book Group
Date Published: 2023
Copyright: 2023 by Hachette Book Group
Number of Pages: 485

The book is a fascinating one; it provides insightful knowledge about how Western countries function. It offers a detailed account of the political strategies, military tactics, and social dynamics that shaped the Franco-Prussian War, a conflict that significantly influenced the balance of power in Europe and the formation of modern nation-states. This makes it a compelling read for anyone interested in European history.

Duration of the War:

 From July 19th, 1870, to January 28th, 1871.

**Objective of the War**
Prussia's main goal was to achieve German unification, necessitating a war against France to overcome the resistance of the southern German states and unite them with the North German Confederation. The war also aimed to secure Prussian military and political dominance. This was a masterful strategy by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a political genius, to unify Germany under Prussian leadership by outmaneuvering France and fostering a sense of pan-German nationalism against a common enemy.

**Prussian Objectives:**

**Achieve German Unification:**

The war was a crucial step in uniting the southern German states (such as Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden) with the North German Confederation, ultimately forming a powerful German Empire under Prussian leadership.

**Provoke a French Declaration of War:**

Bismarck deliberately provoked France into declaring war, knowing that this would position France as the aggressor and motivate the southern German states to support Prussia against the French threat.

**Secure Prussian Dominance:**

By defeating France, Prussia aimed to emerge as the dominant power in Europe, paving the way for German expansion and solidifying its control over the new German Empire.

**French Objectives:**

**Maintain the European Balance of Power:**  

France opposed the establishment of a strong, unified German state on its border, fearing that it would upset the balance of power in Europe.

**Protect French Prestige:**

The French government, facing pressure from public opinion and its own leadership, viewed the crisis over the Spanish throne as an opportunity to assert its influence and felt that its honour was insulted by Prussia's actions.
**Key Players in the Franco-Prussian War**

The main participants in the Franco-Prussian War were the Kingdom of Prussia, headed by King Wilhelm I and his Minister-President Otto von Bismarck, and the Second French Empire, ruled by Emperor Napoleon III. Prussia received support from its German allies, including southern states like Bavaria, while France, aiming to maintain its dominance in Europe, found itself isolated mainly during the conflict.

Prussia

**King Wilhelm I:**

The monarch of Prussia, who led the Prussian forces with his chief of staff, Helmuth von Moltke.

**Otto von Bismarck:** The Prussian Minister-President who orchestrated the war to achieve German unification under Prussian leadership.

**Helmuth von Moltke:**

The chief of staff of the Prussian Army, responsible for planning and executing the war's military strategy.

The Southern German States: Bavaria, Baden, and Württemberg, initially hesitant, showed remarkable courage by joining the North German Confederation against France, influenced by Bismarck's political maneuvers and growing patriotic fervour. Their bravery and patriotism were instrumental in the German victory.

France

**Emperor Napoleon III:**

The ruler of the Second French Empire, motivated by a desire for French dominance and glory, who viewed Prussia's rise as a significant threat.

Empress Eugénie: A key figure who urged her husband to adopt a strong position against Prussia. Her determination and strong will in the face of adversity are admirable.

**Marshal François-Achille Bazaine:**

The Commander-in-Chief of the French Army of the Rhine, who led his troops to a decisive defeat at the Battle of Sedan before being captured at Metz.

**General Cousin-Montauban (Comte de Palikao):**

Became Prime Minister and Minister of War after the collapse of the previous government, but was unable to avert the French defeat.

Other Actors
**The Southern German States (Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg):**

Initially reluctant, these independent states eventually allied with Prussia against France, playing a crucial role in the German victory.

**Spain:**

The vacant Spanish throne, which was offered to a Prussian prince, served as the immediate catalyst for the war.

**The United Kingdom:**

Remained neutral throughout the conflict.

**Austria-Hungary:**

Also remained neutral, despite having previously fought against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War.

**Italy:**

Stayed neutral, although it had been an ally of Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War.

This overview clarifies the roles of each actor involved in the Franco-Prussian War and highlights the key motivations and alliances that shaped the conflict. It also sets the stage for understanding the war's aftermath and its long-term effects on Europe, including the unification of Germany and the shift in the balance of power among European nations.

**The Role of the Red Cross:**

The Red Cross, with its aid and relief to both warring armies during the Franco-Prussian War and in various other wars and campaigns throughout the 19th century, deserves our utmost appreciation. This assistance was delivered under the protection of the Red Cross emblem. In 1905, the British National Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War was renamed the British Red Cross.

** The Role of Women:**

Women from Prussia and France played a significant role in advocating for peace during the Franco-Prussian War. They saw the devastating effects of war on their families and communities and worked tirelessly to prevent further death and destruction. Their efforts, often overlooked in traditional historical narratives, provide a unique perspective on the war and its impact on society.


**The Military Lesson:**

The key military lessons from the Franco-Prussian War highlighted the advantages held by Prussia. Their well-organized universal conscription system and highly trained General Staff allowed them to mobilize a larger and more energetic army compared to France's professional but less mobilized force. These advantages, combined with superior rapid mobilization, established the Prussian model as the new standard for major powers looking to modernize their military forces.

**Prussian Advantages:**

**Universal Conscription:**  

Prussia's system mandated that every male of military age serve, creating a massive reserve force that could be mobilized quickly. This enabled Prussia to field over a million soldiers, vastly outnumbering France's mobilized forces.

**General Staff:**  

The Prussian General Staff, led by figures like Helmuth von Moltke, was a highly professional, merit-based organization that analyzed previous campaigns to avoid past mistakes. This sharply contrasted with the French military, which was often managed by political appointees and lacked a centralized planning system.

**Strategic and Logistical Planning:**  

The Prussian military displayed superior logistical planning, which allowed them to move and supply their large army more effectively than the French forces could manage.

**French Disadvantages:**

**Selective Conscription:**  

France relied on a professional army composed of a smaller force of long-serving soldiers, resulting in considerably fewer reserves compared to Prussia.

**Lack of Unified Command:**  

The French military suffered from the absence of a dedicated General Staff, and its leadership was often hindered by a lack of recent large-scale combat experience and a preference for seniority over merit.

**Underutilization of Technology:**  

While the French possessed superior weapons like the Chassepot rifle, they failed to effectively deploy advanced technologies, such as the Mitrailleuse machine gun. They did not fully exploit modern battlefield tactics.

**The Result:**  

The success of the Prussian military system in the Franco-Prussian War led other nations to rapidly adopt similar models, including the principles of universal conscription and a strong General Staff. This shift solidified the influence of the Prussian military system, setting the stage for highly organized and centralized military structures that would characterize subsequent major conflicts, eventually contributing to the outbreak of the First World War.

**End Result:**

The lesson learned from the year 1870 was that military courage, along with a well-trained, conscripted national army, could successfully overcome the challenges posed by a strong defence. Additionally, the Franco-Prussian War significantly influenced the role of civilians during armed conflict.

"The Last Lesson" takes place during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), a conflict in which France was defeated by Prussia, led by Otto von Bismarck. At that time, Prussia included territories that now make up parts of Germany, Poland, and Austria. In the story, the French regions of Alsace and Lorraine have come under Prussian control.

The geopolitical consequences of the Franco-Prussian War were profound. It directly contributed to the formation of the German Empire, which became the most powerful state in continental Europe, with Berlin replacing Paris as the center of global politics.

After the overthrow of Emperor Napoleon III in 1870, France transitioned back into a republic, establishing the Third Republic. This change occurred following the collapse of Napoleon III's Second Empire, which fell due to the Franco-Prussian War.

**The Fall of Napoleon III:**

Napoleon III was captured during the Battle of Sedan in September 1870, which led to the downfall of the Second Empire.

**Formation of the Third Republic:**

In response to the war and the subsequent siege, a provisional government known as the Government of National Defence was established in Paris to maintain order.

**Establishment of the Third Republic:**

The Third Republic was officially founded shortly after the war concluded in 1871, marking the return of a republican government in France.

**The Ulterior Motive for War:**

Bismarck used wars to unify Germany, he and other leaders also used war as a tactic to consolidate power and prevent liberal uprisings by creating a strong, unified, and authoritarian state under Prussian control. They achieved this by manipulating political situations, such as the Franco-Prussian War, to provoke external conflicts that rallied internal support and strengthened the existing establishment. For example, the Franco-Prussian War was carefully orchestrated to unite German states behind Prussia against France, leading to the creation of the German Empire and suppressing domestic liberal movements that sought a more democratic and unified German.

The author of the book did not discuss the following issue:

Napoleon III was overthrown and exiled in 1870 after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, specifically at the Battle of Sedan, where Prussian forces captured him. After his release, he lived in exile in England until he died in 1873.
**Defeat and Capture:**  

Napoleon III personally led his army but was defeated and surrendered to the Prussians at the Battle of Sedan on September 2nd, 1870.

**End of the Second Empire:**  

His capture resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy, and the Third Republic was proclaimed in France on September 4th, 1870.

**Exile:**  

After being held prisoner, he was released and went into exile in England, where he lived with his family.

**Death:**  

He died in England on January 9th, 1873, due to complications following surgery for bladder stones. He is buried in Farnborough, England.

[History Today]

During August and September 1870, the besieged French city of Strasbourg was subjected to more than 44 nights of Prussian shelling, during which its inhabitants were fired at approximately every 20 seconds. Many French people believed that such action contravened international agreements on the conduct of war, but in reality the new laws provided no protection for civilians. The often shocking disparity between how the Franco-Prussian War was waged and how combatants and observers thought it should be conducted exposes a contradiction at the heart of a conflict that was at once traditional and modern.

Major new books on the Franco-Prussian War are rare, especially in English. Rachel Chrastil’s Bismarck’s War will therefore inevitably be compared to Michael Howard’s classic study (1961). Nevertheless, the distinctive style and approach of Chrastil’s book are evident in her assertion that: ‘Mobilisation is an immense logistical challenge, a public relations game, and a feat of emotional management.’ While Bismarck’s War does not shy away from engaging in military analysis, the human dimension is centre stage.

Although it was Napoleon III’s Second Empire that declared war in July 1870, ostensibly on grounds of Prussian provocation, French forces were significantly less well prepared than their Prussian counterparts. French military planning failed to distinguish between mobilisation and concentration, Chrastil explains, causing significant logistical problems from the outset. Late changes to army structure, the mobilisation of inadequately trained national guardsmen, and shortages of horses hindered French ability to take the offensive in the crucial early days of fighting. Prussian mobilisation yielded a force that outnumbered and soon outclassed the French. By early August, German forces had taken the offensive into French territory. Prussian field marshal Helmut Moltke’s aspirations for a quick victory before France had time to gather international allies seemed probable.

Read the rest of the review at HistoryToday.com.

Karine Varley is Lecturer in French History at the University of Strathclyde.

[Olaf Koopmans · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5 ⭐️ rounded up.
Spoiler Alert, 'Bismarcks's war' is not about Bismarck. And although he does figure in parts of the story, the main story Chrastil wants to tell is the trials of war for soldiers and civilians. And in this her focus is mostly on the society and politics of France, which makes the title of the book even more misleading.

Having said that, Chrastil does a good job bringing to the attention a war that's maybe not forgotten, but compaired to what is written about the Napoleontic wars before and the big twentieth Century wars that followed, the Prussian-Franco war of 1870-1871 is historiographicaly underexposed.
And that is somewhat strange, because this war was in many aspects a watershedding period in modern History.
Foremost it ended the wars Unfication of Germany, establishing a powerfull new Nation in the heart of Europe. It also laid a lot of the seeds of frustration, which played a part in the troubles that started the World Wars of the 1914-1945.
The war of 1870-71 made the Germans overconfident and forcefull, but at the same time frustrated of not always being able to stamp their infuence as a World Power. Especialy their lack of Colonial possesions and naval power steered up a lot of resentment at the turn of the Century. Making German society vunreable for the militaristic prowness that led to their role in the start of WW1.
On the other hand, the war left the the French frustrated about their loss of pride and land, mainly Alsace Lotharingen. Teh suspicion towards their neighbour and need felt for revenge made France head on in to WW1, trying to settle the score. But maybe even more important was settling of the score after the war. The deep humiliation of a German Unfication celebrated in the famous Mirrorhall of Versailles was painstakingly repeated after WW1 when France was very much out to return the humiliation towards the Germans. A humiliation which in the end played a big role in the rise Nazism in the Weimar Republic.

And there are lots of other turning points in this war as well. As a first modern war it saw a lot damage to societies and civilians. The use of new and more destrutive weapons was a preview of the human slaughter that WW1 would become. And the use of Franc-tireurs for the first time on a large scale caused a lot of resentment among the pride of the the German Military. This resentment feeded a kind of paranoia, fearing that every civilian in a hostile country could kill or wound you. In an effort to counter this German soldiers took revenge in disproportinal and cruel measure against civilians. Both in this war and and in WW1, a lot of innocent Belgian and French people where killed this way, destroying a lot of cultural heritage along the way.
Another new development that made this a modern war was the ever larger use of conscripts to fight the battles. Conscripts were not new as a way of making up the main bulk of the military, but in combination with the onslaught by modern weapons, the war of 1870-1871 was the first which a an ever increasing amount of young able men fighting, dying or getting wounded. Leaving a big hole in society after the war, with lack of able men needed to build up nations.
And last but not least, this was the war where the Germans for the first time showed that good plans, meticilously preparations, well educated Military men, but most of all extensive railconnections and logistics, could win a war. As a result all major powers shifted their attentions from just having fighting men to a whole complex fabric of checks and balances which made up the Military aparatus. The Schlieffenplan maybe as the most forward example of that.
The downside of course of this development was that that same system of checks and balances could become an self regulating monster putting in motion the wheels of mobilisation where there's no turning back from. War as a non stoppable machinery once it gets going. Or a Christopher Walker so brilijantly put it 'sleepwalking into WW1'

To be honest a lot of what I've just mentioned is not in the Chastril's book, but more my interpretation of why the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 should get some more historiographical attentiom then it does till now.

A part of the war that Chrastil does tell very clearly is the political troubles that followed France through the whole ordeal of the war. Starting with the misguided call to war that Napolean III made, in an attempt to heal his blemished military ego. But when this led to his downfall, Gambetta was left with a the challenge to unite a divided France society behind a new Republic. And although he hung on as long as he could, he failed in the end as well, challenged by extreme leftist calling for Revolution, old Bonaparist's plotting to reinstate the fallen Empire, or conservatives longing back for a Monarchie. But most of all let down by big parts of the rural France, who didn't have enough national pride to defend a France governed by, in their opion, incompetent Republicans

That the French did hold out as long as they did, is a miracle in itself Chatsril shows that although regional pride and disappointment with the lackluster response of the militay and the republican government, did divide the country, but in a strange way it did steer a the same time a commomn mass emotion to resist the Prussian Invasion. In the end teh Germans could be victorious, when after the fall of the Second Empire, neither the Military nor the Goverment of the new Republic where able to use these emotions to unite a big front.

Like already mentioned before the main lack of this book is the absence of Bismarck and his grand scheme to use this war and the previous wars about Schleswig-Holstein to unite the German states in one Nationality under one Kaiser.
The build up to the the war only takes 25 pages, of which the German side, and Bismarck's role in it amount to a meager 6/7 pages. The final unification itself only takes another 6 pages. And that's it.
Probably one of the most misleading titles for an otherwise decent historical account of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871.

[Jonah B. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Chrastil's exploration of the human dimension of the Franco-Prussian War should garner praise, as this aspect is often missing from English-language works. While the narrative proves engaging, certain sections often ramble on and lose the reader's attention. Chrastil's account can complement traditional military histories about the War of 1870.

Regrettably, the presentation of this work falls short of expectations. Inconsistencies abound, with British and American spellings intermixed without clear rationale. Quotation marks are inconsistently placed, accent marks are misapplied, and formatting decisions lack uniformity. Additionally, numerical representations vary haphazardly, with instances of misspelling noted. Whether these shortcomings stem from the author or publisher remains uncertain. Nonetheless, such inconsistencies detract from the scholarly merit expected of an academic text.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bismarck’s War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe is a fabulous resource on an oft-forgotten conflict. Xavier University professor of modern Europe Rachel Chrastil did her homework in creating a readable narrative of a war which had an outsized impact on the world wars which would arrive in the next century.

The battlefield clashes as well as both the civilian and military commanders are explained in admirable depth by Chrastil, an academic historian whose level of research comes across well. But the title is a bit misleading: it reads more as a history of the war itself than it does a retelling of how German unified or the continent was remade.

The 1871 unification of Germany into a Prussian-led nation-state would have been much delayed without this conflict. Otto von Bismarck, the figure who alongside France’s Napoleon III was key to the war breaking out, is unavoidably featured heavily in the narrative. The Iron Chancellor’s Prussian army had recently defeated Austria in 1866, meaning their military was riding high when the Franco-Prussian War broke out. Arguments with France over whether a House of Hohonzollern family member could be eligible for the Spanish throne were held up as the questionable pretext on which this clash between Germany and France began in 1870.

Yet Bismarck himself is not as omnipresent as his role as the father of German nationhood or even the book’s title itself would indicate. The social welfare changes he would institute were barely mentioned.

Chrastil takes care to work in descriptions of the other key Franco-Prussian War players, but this strategy ends up selling short just how critical Bismarck was to the beginning of the conflict and the subsequent events in its aftermath.

One theme which is frequently communicated is the superiority of the German (specifically Prussian) officer class and battle tactics relative to the French. It is also clear that many Germans still had awful first or second hand memories of Napoleon Bonaparte’s interventions six decades prior. These historical memories made them suspicious of anything done by French politicians, even more so when his nephew took over after the 1848 democratic uprisings.

The sieges of Strasbourg and Paris during the war underscored the changing nature of warfare in the last third of the nineteenth century. The Battle of Sedan, which went a long way to shaping the outcome as a win for the Germanic confederation, is put into context and mapped out well by Chrastil. The siege of Metz is also examined within the broader war strategy, with French Marshal Achille Bazaine trapped in a desperate situation readers will in no way envy. While the Paris Commune is alluded to, it fell just outside the range of events Chrastil chose to cover in detail.

The recent introduction of hot air balloons, large scale artillery bombardment, and a prototype machine gun-as well as the growth of nationalism since the early portion of the century-meant the Franco-Prussian War would provide an early preview of the horrors in the First World War.

The author expends a lot of paragraph space analyzing the French Second Republic’s fight amongst itself. Napoleon III had kept the democratic and conservative factions largely at bay for the previous two decades.

The fact that the French military continued the fight against the North German Confederation for several months after Napoleon III’s capture underscored their commitment to victory which was ultimately thwarted by a better trained and prepared army. The Government of National Defense, or GND, was headed temporarily by President Louis-Jules Trochu following Louis Napoleon’s capture. Chrastil painted this timeframe as an admirable but ultimately futile effort on the part of France to salvage something from a disastrous conflict.

Helmuth von Moltke is present often as a Prussian commander, and his family’s connection to Germany's First World War strategy and generalship puts the fighting in this war in a different light. German Crown Prince Friedrich is a much more visible character in the storyline than the Chancellor himself, a testament to how much emphasis Chrastil placed on the military aspect (at the expense of the political) in her book.

Bismarck's War: The Franco-Prussian War and the Making of Modern Europe is a necessary addition to the libraries of those who like learning about the backgrounds of Germany or France. The motives of a Bonaparte are never easy to comprehend, but the author delves into Napoleon III's motivations as well as the important role this war played in Germany's consolidation into one country.

Rachel Chrastil wrote this book and laid it out in a manner which ensures the maximum return on each paragraph. There is simply not a lot of wasted verbiage or scenes, and the word-to-knowledge ratio is high. This ensures a quick read and a lack of drudgery-inducing sections, a risk which a less skilled historian/writer could fall into while telling the story of a conflict lacking in black and white villains and heroes.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Neil Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Franco-Prussian war - Bismarck’s war, according to historian and author Rachel Chrastil - was remembered at the time as a short, brutal but relatively localized conflict in the European context. Retrospectively, history showed it was anything but.

History professor and academic Chrastil puts the war into its wider perspective and meaning, in particular how it provided the kindling that ignited World War 1. The Europe we have today therefore can trace its origins back to the conflict, with the war also providing a bridging point from the Napoleonic wars to WW1.

Chrastil provides sweeping battlefield descriptions of a war famed for its use of artillery, use of Chassepots, the precursors of the machine guns of the Great War, the last great cavalry charge in European land warfare, and its battles decided by the narrowest of margins and lost through misjudgments and mistakes. Her knowledge of the history of military tactics and strategy is impressive. Great events like the calamitous French defeat at Sedan and the sieges of Paris, Metz and Strasbourg are amply covered.

The author devotes considerable time to the impacts of war on civilians, marking as it did the birth of humanitarian intervention on behalf of civilians in conflict zones, in particular the founding of the Red Cross. She also touches on the societal impacts of the war, for example the big leap in journalism and foreign correspondence, where telegram reports became the social media of their day.

We are treated to detailed portrayals of military personnel, both the high ranking generals and commanders, as well as the ordinary rank-and-file. Many of the great events unfold through the eyes of the young Bavarian officer Dietrich Von Lassberg.

Chrastil largely skims over the political events such as the unification of Germany, the Paris commune, the collapse of the second empire and the rise of the third French Republic. As such, this is at heart a military history. The title ‘Bismarck’s war’ is misleading in the sense that very little time is spent on Bismarck himself, the master Machiavellian manipulator who goaded France into starting the war. We learn nothing of his background in the lead up to the conflict, nor of his machinations around the unification of Germany itself. A tantalizing question posed is why the Franco-Prussian war did not suck the great powers into its vortex as WW1 would 45 years later, ie : why WW1 did not in fact break out almost half a century earlier than it did. The answer to this lies in Bismark's skillful execution of his game plan and his reigning in of the military men, particularly Moltke.

As a military history, this is as good as, if not better than, Geoffrey Wawro’s celebrated account of the war. And Chrastil unmistakably underlines the consequences of this conflict that can only be seen in deep retrospect - the seed of bitterness in France at the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, and the rise of Prussian-led militarism in the newly United Germany which set Europe on the path to the disaster that would become the mother of all European disasters with whose consequences we still live today.

[Emmanuel Gustin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 is remembered as a short, limited war, successful for the Germans who not only defeated the French but made the final step towards a unified German state. But it isn’t often described in any detail, maybe because Bismarck managed to contain it to a conflict between two parties, and as a historical event it didn’t enter anyone else’s conscientiousness. Perhaps with the exception of Marxists, for whom the Paris Commune that emerged after the war (and its violent suppression) acquired the mythical status of a failed revolution.

Rachel Chrastil’s account describes how this conflict was began, fought and concluded with a focus on the fighting and the consequences of it for the French society and the many victims. She does not dig much into the state politics of it, neither the political actions that started the war, nor the negotiations that ended it. Her focus is on the internal life of the French state, the battles that were fought on its soil, and impact this had on a people. Although this was a war largely fought according to the laws as they then existed, there was plenty of bloodshed, cruelty and suffering. Personal recollections are frequently interwoven into this account account of the conflict.

Chrastil skewers Napoleon III, Bazaine and MacMahon for their military incompetence, which destroyed the credibility of the Second Empire and lead to the foundation of the Third Republic. She sees this, rather than superior German skill, as the cause of the speed of the defeat, though a better organisation of the German mobilisation contributed to their success. Her description of the battles is well written and lucid, but I felt a need for maps: It is confusing when in one fight the French left flank is their southern force, but in the next it is the northern. Incidentally, it makes one wonder how much the French officers of 1940 were still influenced by this memory. When Gamelin refused to consider a military surrender, he might have been thinking of Bazaine’s condemnation for treason.

The aftermath of the defeat was a drawn-out struggle which the French could not win, but the Germans also had difficulty to deal with. It is interesting to ponder what could have happened if the French, like the Chinese in the 1940s, had refused to end the fighting, as many radical voices wanted. But it was undoubtedly the wiser choice in 1871 to negotiate an armistice and a peace, one that was costly for the French, but allowed both sides to get on with their lives. Chrastil repeatedly cites the German crown prince Frederick, a man who hoped that both people would find ways to live in peace. Sadly, Frederick III would rule for only 99 days and be succeeded by the bellicose Wilhelm II.

A crucial legacy of the war of 1870, as Chrastil describes it, was the growing readiness of European powers to mobilise large armies of conscripts and position them on the border, as this had contributed greatly to German success. In the summer of 1914 this would put the war on a hair trigger.

[Paul LaFontaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sat for a long time with this book. My opinion of it shifted repeatedly as I worked my way through it. The book is less a history book than an examination on the impact of a war on two societies, and it acts as a precursor to the period that follows - 1914 to 1945. Once you look at it through that lens it stands as a valuable work. Without that framework, its confusing what Professor Chrastil is trying to do here.

Two things I really liked about the book. Better than any other source, Professor Chrastil depicts the motivations of some of the players from the perspective they held at the time. In one vignette she explains why a French Marshal retreated north toward the border in a way that explained the decisions he made. Most views of the history simply slate the Marshal for his "indecisiveness." Chrastil walks through the dynamics, and you can form your own opinion. That was very well done, and the valuable exercise is repeated elsewhere.

Another thing I enjoyed was the physical structure of the storytelling that matched the shape of the war. The opening chapters, like the opening battles, were crisp and understandable. As the government of the French Empire falls the war becomes a miserable slog through a desperate winter. Chrastil takes us into the various dynamics and the situation and it literally feels like a morass as you work through the complex series of actions and counter-actions. I think the experience reading the details gives you the experience of how futile the end of that war really was. Its important to experience that. Most histories say "couple of battles, Prussians win, Paris besieged, war ends." The detail of how it ends is important as it wicks away any glory that we can pretend existed in the telling of the early days. The end of that war was a miserable wimper, and the author gives us a full view into that. This is not a disguised criticism. I think its really a valuable reading experience.

I think there is some problem with balance in the narrative. At times, the 94 civilians caught up in the misfortune of battle who sadly lose their lives get long treatments where 12,000 soldiers dying a few miles away are a footnote. The comparison of women's contributions to the war, racial views from the period and the lack of societal equality has the whiff of modern argument versus us acknowledging it was a different time and societies were not based on modern assumptions. Its enough to notice, but does not detract from the main benefits of reading the book.

I've been fortunate enough to read a few regiment and line of battle narratives of the war and know there were large chunks of the action missing. If you come here for that, you will be disappointed. Other works do that better. If you view this book as a complement to more thorough military histories you will be well served by reading it.

Recommend