Rating: 
Summary: Good Old-Style Military History
Review: Michael Howard utilizes the Franco-Prussian War as a case study to illustrate Germany's military dilemma of the mid-19th to mid-20th Centuries. On the one hand, Prussia employed every means at its disposal--military/industrial technology, professional military training and education, and rapid mobilization and deployment-- to set the president and become Europe's greatest military power. On the other hand, the recently united Germany's victory over France would create a fervor of nationalism and militarism that would transcend two world wars in the 20th Century in what Howard refers to as "a disaster: for herself and for the entire world" (p. 456). Howard incorporates the classic old style military history approach. The author describes the political atmosphere, causes, troop movements, weapons, strategy & tactics, battles and leaders that are common fare for this genre. To a lesser degree, Howard describes the affect the war had on society especially the Paris Commune that rose after the fighting subsided and the "precarious" peace that followed (p. 455). Throughout, Howard stresses the technological aspects of the conflict, especially the role of railroads. Even Howard admits the vast array of archival material that emerged from this war is too much for any one historian to master. He carefully selects and synthesizes primary sources from both sides of the conflict yet tends to lean more towards German language sources. Among these, Howard also consults diaries and memoirs from the major actors such as Bismarck and Moltke. Howard also credits the work of Emil Daniels who published a definitive one-volume history of the Franco-Prussian War in 1929. The social aspect of Howard's thesis pales in comparison with the military historical narrative. Much of Howard's contentions are found between the lines; a technique favored by some and shunned by other historians. Also, any treatment of vast units and their commanders describing intricate troop movements and tactics should include an order of battle in an appendix. The absence of an order of battle is a major weakness of this book. Finally, what maps are provided, are just those: maps. They show no movement of troops, offensive or defensive positions or tactics utilized, another major flaw. Howard utilizes the top-down approach to military history to great affect. The strength lies in the compare and contrasting of preliminary preparations of both countries and the political/military leadership that implemented policy. Although Howard makes the French deficiencies obvious and outlines the command faults on both sides, he does it with a sympathetic approach for the realities of the nature of war. This objective style is a major strength of the book. For the Franco-Prussian War, Michael Howard's book remains the top-dog!
Rating: 
Summary: The Franco Prussian War
Review: The Franco Prussian War of 1870-1871 was one of the most important wars of The Nineteenth century. This war would set the stage for what European wars would be like from then on. It also optioned for Germany a respect and imitation for years to come. In this book many subjects are discussed. First the different technologies and reforms of the French and Prussians are chronicled. Then the different mobilizations of both sides, their battle plans and the concentrations of the armies before fighting started. Then the first engagements are described in great detail. Then the great battle of Sedan is laid out for all to see. Then the siege of Paris and the war in the south and west of France is told in great description. Lastly the last battles of Orleans are described and then the following peace treaty is laid out. In conclusion the Franco Prussian War by Michael Howard is a good book for anyone interested in history or politics. If the book has any problems it may be the lack of translation of French and German in the text and in the footnotes. Despite this problem the book represents the Nineteenth century very well.
Rating:
Summary: Military history as it should be written
Review: The Franco-Prussian War is an unusual conflict in that it is in many ways a study in contrasts. Historically, it set the stage for two twentieth century conflagrations even as it settled scores from the early nineteenth century. Politically, it marked the zenith of French national influence, and the ascendancy of a united German power. Finally, militarily, it offered the first widespread use of breech-loading rifles and modern artillery, even as it often languished in the tactics of an earlier age.It takes a broad brush to capture all of these elements, and in this book, Michael Howard has succeeded admirably. He has taken an often overlooked conflict and placed it squarely at the crossroads of modern Europe, and a new, more terrible type of war. For while the American Civil War (or even the Crimean War) is often referred to as the first modern war, it is in fact in the Franco-Prussian War that we see all the key elements of modern warfare: national mobilization, citizen soldiers under the guidance of a professional general staff, and the ascendancy of industrialization in both transport and new, more destructive, weapons. At the same time, newer, more insidious developments in the form of guerrilla warfare and the targeting of civilians centers for strategic reasons first make their appearance on a large scale. Arising out of French objections to the Prussian selection of the Spanish monarch, this war, like many before and since, arose out of a complete lack of French appreciation for the changes that had overtaken the battlefield. While the French had relied on a small, professional army, the Prussians had adopted a model of mandatory service that allowed them to raise massive, reasonably competent forces with unprecedented speed. Thus, when hostilities broke out the French, who had assumed an easy victory, were caught on their heels and never regained the initiative. Thus from the summer of 1870 through the depths of winter and into 1871, the story of the Franco-Prussian War is the story of the courage of the French soldier being failed utterly by inept leadership. It wasn't in the strength of Prussian arms, or in the courage of its soldiers that the war was won; rather, it was in the ability of the centralized Prussian command structure to adapt rapidly to events when their French counterparts were still in the dark that victory was secured. Thus, while Howard's writing on the actual combat is vivid, it is in his appreciation of the fundamentally new Prussian way of war that he is most successful. From the king, through the Bismarck and Moltke, and on down through the rest of the senior command, he paints a vivid portrait of Prussian ideals and ambition. Conversely, he is equally successful at capturing the decrepitude and ineptness of a fragmented French government that lost the war in its opening days, and then prolonged it, to the never ending suffering of its soldiers, long after all hope was lost. Likewise along these lines, Howard nicely illustrates the increasing conflict that inevitable comes between politicians and the military in an era of total war. That said, I do have a few minor complaints. The first is that Howard almost never translates quotes from the original French or German, and while I was just barely able to muddle through with what I remember from high school and college, any one who hasn't been exposed to these languages would certainly be frustrated. Secondly, as anyone familiar with European politics knows, nothing happens in a vacuum, and yet Howard spends precious little time discussing the implications of the conflict within the international system of the time. Finally, while Howard offers many maps, they offer little to know information about troop positions and lines of march, which leaves the reader flipping back rather than digesting a detailed map at a glance. However, these are minor complaints about an otherwise eminently successful work. Howard has packed a tremendous amount of research into a readable and digestible volume. His appreciation of the politics and personalities is matched only by his understanding of the weapons of war and the nature of combat. Not only is this a successful history of the Franco-Prussian war, but also a model of what good history writing should be: balanced, well researched, and above all, readable. Finally, Howard's success elevates the Franco-Prussian War to its rightful significance as one of the root causes of the tensions that led to WWI, and hence, to WWII. Thus the student of history should appreciate this work not just for its success in considering immediate events, but for providing a bridge from the Great Power politics of the nineteenth century to the wars of the twentieth. Jake Mohlman
Rating:
Summary: Military history as it should be written
Review: The Franco-Prussian War is an unusual conflict in that it is in many ways a study in contrasts. Historically, it set the stage for two twentieth century conflagrations even as it settled scores from the early nineteenth century. Politically, it marked the zenith of French national influence, and the ascendancy of a united German power. Finally, militarily, it offered the first widespread use of breech-loading rifles and modern artillery, even as it often languished in the tactics of an earlier age. It takes a broad brush to capture all of these elements, and in this book, Michael Howard has succeeded admirably. He has taken an often overlooked conflict and placed it squarely at the crossroads of modern Europe, and a new, more terrible type of war. For while the American Civil War (or even the Crimean War) is often referred to as the first modern war, it is in fact in the Franco-Prussian War that we see all the key elements of modern warfare: national mobilization, citizen soldiers under the guidance of a professional general staff, and the ascendancy of industrialization in both transport and new, more destructive, weapons. At the same time, newer, more insidious developments in the form of guerrilla warfare and the targeting of civilians centers for strategic reasons first make their appearance on a large scale. Arising out of French objections to the Prussian selection of the Spanish monarch, this war, like many before and since, arose out of a complete lack of French appreciation for the changes that had overtaken the battlefield. While the French had relied on a small, professional army, the Prussians had adopted a model of mandatory service that allowed them to raise massive, reasonably competent forces with unprecedented speed. Thus, when hostilities broke out the French, who had assumed an easy victory, were caught on their heels and never regained the initiative. Thus from the summer of 1870 through the depths of winter and into 1871, the story of the Franco-Prussian War is the story of the courage of the French soldier being failed utterly by inept leadership. It wasn't in the strength of Prussian arms, or in the courage of its soldiers that the war was won; rather, it was in the ability of the centralized Prussian command structure to adapt rapidly to events when their French counterparts were still in the dark that victory was secured. Thus, while Howard's writing on the actual combat is vivid, it is in his appreciation of the fundamentally new Prussian way of war that he is most successful. From the king, through the Bismarck and Moltke, and on down through the rest of the senior command, he paints a vivid portrait of Prussian ideals and ambition. Conversely, he is equally successful at capturing the decrepitude and ineptness of a fragmented French government that lost the war in its opening days, and then prolonged it, to the never ending suffering of its soldiers, long after all hope was lost. Likewise along these lines, Howard nicely illustrates the increasing conflict that inevitable comes between politicians and the military in an era of total war. That said, I do have a few minor complaints. The first is that Howard almost never translates quotes from the original French or German, and while I was just barely able to muddle through with what I remember from high school and college, any one who hasn't been exposed to these languages would certainly be frustrated. Secondly, as anyone familiar with European politics knows, nothing happens in a vacuum, and yet Howard spends precious little time discussing the implications of the conflict within the international system of the time. Finally, while Howard offers many maps, they offer little to know information about troop positions and lines of march, which leaves the reader flipping back rather than digesting a detailed map at a glance. However, these are minor complaints about an otherwise eminently successful work. Howard has packed a tremendous amount of research into a readable and digestible volume. His appreciation of the politics and personalities is matched only by his understanding of the weapons of war and the nature of combat. Not only is this a successful history of the Franco-Prussian war, but also a model of what good history writing should be: balanced, well researched, and above all, readable. Finally, Howard's success elevates the Franco-Prussian War to its rightful significance as one of the root causes of the tensions that led to WWI, and hence, to WWII. Thus the student of history should appreciate this work not just for its success in considering immediate events, but for providing a bridge from the Great Power politics of the nineteenth century to the wars of the twentieth. Jake Mohlman
Rating:
Summary: A preview of 20th century wars
Review: The Franco-Prussian war took place in 1870-1871, and is both the last of the wars featuring the traditional Imperial powers (France, Enland, Spain) and the first of the modern 20th century wars featuring the new Imperial powers (Germany, Japan, the US). There is also a direct linear relationship from this war to WWI (and thence to WWII). Because of this linear relationship, and because it was the only war between major European powers between the years of 1815 and 1914, more books have been written about it than any other war in history, relative to its length (a scant half-year). Unfortunately, few of these books still in print. This one, however, is available, and is a good summary of the war. Michael Howard takes us through the 60 years of peace from the end of the Napoleonic wars, commenting on the reforms in equipment, tactics, and strategy of both the French and Prussian armies after their last clash at Waterloo. Then follows the meat of the narrative, the war itself. We are taken through the battles and campaign in some detail, starting with the important initial Prussian victories at Sedan and Metz that sent most of the regular French army into captivity. This is followed by the seige of Paris and the running countryside battles between the regular Prussian soldiers and the barely-trained French scratch armies and Francs-tireurs (guerillas). Along with the action, there is some insightful analysis. Howard convincingly argues that in both terms of manpower and equipment, the two armies cancelled each other out (the superiority of the Prussian artillery should have been cancelled by the superiority of the quick-firing French rifles). Thus, the Prussian victory mostly arose from superior staff work and organisation, for which he credits Moltke and Bismark and blames Napolean III and his staff. Also interesting was the debate on tactics that took place in both armies, for instance, the effectiveness of bombarding civilian populations as opposed to military targets only (and Howard gives us further analysis in light of the World Wars). The book is liberally sprinkled with footnotes and is well documented. Many of the footnotes are added as proof by direct quotes from original sources, and are thus in the language of the combatants. A knowledge of French and German is not required, as Howard gives you the gist in the main text, so the narrative runs along smoothly. Unfortunately, the narrative tends to be dry and the maps are small and occasionally difficult to read, hence the 4-star rating instead of 5.
Rating:
Summary: Brisk and Detailed
Review: This is a very detailed account of the military and - to a lesser extent - political maneuverings of the Franco-Prussian War. Given the detail and the heavy footnoting, it is a surprisingly brisk read, though I do have one suggestion to assist future readers: photocopy the various pages that have maps on them so you can easily refer to them as you read on. Since I hadn't thought of this idea while reading the book, I found myself holding two or even three such pages open with the fingers of my left hand while reading battle descriptions many, many pages later. One disappointment was in the very brief epilogue. The author discusses how the speed of the Prussian victory raised the stakes for all European powers, Germany in particular, but the author does not really discuss the aftermath of the war in France or explain how France formed a post-war government given the fractious way it had fought the war. Every history needs to stop at some point, of course, but a brief explanation of France's recovery seems in order.
Rating:
Summary: Brisk and Detailed
Review: This is a very detailed account of the military and - to a lesser extent - political maneuverings of the Franco-Prussian War. Given the detail and the heavy footnoting, it is a surprisingly brisk read, though I do have one suggestion to assist future readers: photocopy the various pages that have maps on them so you can easily refer to them as you read on. Since I hadn't thought of this idea while reading the book, I found myself holding two or even three such pages open with the fingers of my left hand while reading battle descriptions many, many pages later. One disappointment was in the very brief epilogue. The author discusses how the speed of the Prussian victory raised the stakes for all European powers, Germany in particular, but the author does not really discuss the aftermath of the war in France or explain how France formed a post-war government given the fractious way it had fought the war. Every history needs to stop at some point, of course, but a brief explanation of France's recovery seems in order.
|
