Could have France win Franco-Prussian war of 1871?

The mitrailleuse wasn't a machine gun, it was carriage mounted and not maneuverable. It was closer to a field artillery firing cannister than a machine gun. The French deployed mitrailleuse like field artillery, and it's short range meant that it was meat for actual Prussian artillery.

>The mitrailleuse wasn't a machine gun
was closest to a machine gun than any shit that the prussian could have putted in field

>When you assdevastate the French so hard with a cavalry charge that military planners still think they're viable in the late 19th Century.

Germany and Russia were both regarded as the best armed militaries of this time period. Germany was longer underway in industrialized weaponry and tactics than the French had been. Prussia, by Marching straight to Paris held the upper hand for the majority of the war. Arguably, France lost as soon as Prussia crossed over the border, this was not the revolution wars and they had no Napoleon I with them. The fact that France had allowed Prussia so close and not be able to break the siege of Paris for months let alone initially not only showed their incompetence but also their disadvantages were clear when they failed to present the ability to mobilize a formidable force to oppose the Prussia invaders.
What's really neat actually is that the Franco-Prussis war was directly the cause of WWI.

France stagnated too much after the Napoleonic war
most of the dominance of the Germans was due to their superiority off their officer corps and the efficiency of the chief of staff
this gives the Germans considerable amount of tactical flexibility and decision making that allows them to gain such impressive victories
France stagnated after Napoleon with their minds taking too much stride in elan or spirit of the attack and also neglecting small unit cohesion
Russia was also stuck in a rut after the Napoleonic War with its antiquated system
Britain was better but also still reeling on from their previous system of buying promotions but their advancements led to things such as tanks and combined arms

>France
>win
thx for the laffs

...

...

>Weygand
>Petain
>De Gaulle
>not catholic

this, my polish daddy could beat your french daddy, suck it!

>implying it never happened

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Des_Fiches

yeah their officers were incompetent and tactics outdated, but this really seem to be consistent pattern from 1871 to Bien-Phu. The question is why is that so with much millitary expirience? Germans lost 2 world wars and they have better reputation for God's sake.

>closest to a machine gun
Well a super soaker might be the closest thing to a gun you own, but it's not gonna do you any good in a fight.

It was the Empire which lost the armies, why do you blame the French Republicans for losing when they inherited a destroyed army and a country being invaded?

It was France which was regarded as the best military of the period, the Germans were just starting to overtake them following 1866, and the French were still more prestigious internationally
The Russians sure as hell weren't regarded as a model to imitate after Crimea

Judging on the sources ive looked at, 1. it was because Germany bankrupted itself. 2.began to demilitarize, then all of the sudden drafted conscripts. 3. Didn't count on Italy dropping out of the triple alliance so soon. 4. Fucked up all possible relations with Britian prior to the Russian-Baltic defensive alliance.

Estentially they predicted war to happen in 1890's not 1914 so they spent a lot of money on their military them, but this spending crippled them and they had to demilitarize in the 1900s. In the meantime in order to get more money they attempted to overpower Britain in the output of productive needs and were getting dangerously close to doin it to. This made Britain pissed among many other reasons so Germany lost a powerful possible ally. As far as the German-Russian alliance that was completely possible, Germany fucked it up not only by having Austria attack the Balkans and declaring war on Russia, but also Siding with such an incompetent force like the Ottomans. This ruined any possible chance of compromise between Germany and Russia as well as Germany and Britain who also did not like the Ottomans. A French compromise, of course was put the door long ago.

It was after 1871 and after the unification that Germany became regarded as the best armed force where as Britain was the best Navy. According to what ive researched on the topic, both primary and secondary by American and British accounts, Russia was a competetor to being the best army up until the late 1890's. It was common for people of this time to reference Russia's mass numbers, but also Germany's ability to mobalize in an instant in regards to that time period. Germany was said to be the fastest-growing army of 1880-1890 as well.

To be fair however these are not accounts from military experts, just reports and politcians of that time as well as scholars writing about it from the early 2000's on.

Because the Republicans wanted the war to happen, the emperor didn't. They may have presented a peace loving façade before the war, but they sure did everything to support the war happening by voting the war funds and then fervently supporting the war effort once the empire fell.

the republicans pushed for war and then stabbed Napi III in the back, at least napi had the decency to not ignite a civil war when he realize the republican plot. Plus te republicans did not break trhough the siege of paris in months

bump