3 ms·

There aren't many books on that war, for sure. I recently read one of them. This sounds like a pretty weak history: > the Germans won because they were more ef

There aren't many books on that war, for sure. I recently read one of them. This sounds like a pretty weak history: > the Germans won because they were more effectively organised, better trained and mobilised more men than the French. That sounds like a non-military opinion. Most of the battles in that war were "battles of encounter," where some units just happened to fight, and then the local commanders escalated it. The Germans always devolved more power to their commanders to act based on local conditions, while the French had a sluggish, top-down organization. John Keegan in Six Armies in Normandy calls that art operativ, as the Germans put it. The Germans also had better artillery. It certainly did lead directly to WW I, though.

dmix 3y ago
The author doesnt seem to be a traditional "military" historian, her CV lists books related to war, but more focusing on mobilization and civilians. So that makes sense. https://www.rachelchrastil.com/ https://www.rachelchrastil.com/
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  True, and maybe the military aspect of the war is the least interesting part.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    As a war college graduate myself, I'd agree and disagree. Wars are ultimately won and lost in the terrain of the human mind. People are defeated when they believe in their collective minds that fighting is no longer worth it. That's straight from Clausewitz. But militaries in wars ultimately create the conditions which facilitate those thoughts, and are the primary drivers of who wins and who loses. To say that the military aspect of a war is the "least interesting part" betrays an anti-military bias. But it is true that the military aspect of a war is not the only aspect which is necessary to understand how and why a war was won and lost, and its long-term effects on the belligerent nations.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      Believe me, I don't have an anti-military bias. I read the stuff compulsively. I hosted an author at Google who wrote about Clausewitz (and if I hadn't, no one else would have and he wouldn't have come). I was thinking that the causes of the war, the unification of Germany as a result, the Paris Commune, and the lasting enmity in the French as a result of losing Alsace-Lorraine are all more "interesting."
      - psunavy03 3y ago
        Fair enough. I'd agree that long-term, the causes and effects of a war matter more. They're just caused to occur largely (though not exclusively) by the effects on people's psyches of military action happening on the battlefield. Military history is an unpopular genre these days, and I think part of it is the whole "oh, you joined the military, you must have been stupid and had no other options" prejudice. Which is alive and well in well-educated places like here. My apologies. Who was the author? I'm curious. I took my courses via correspondence, and didn't have the chance to get a Masters (not that an MS in National Security and Strategic Studies would help in tech). But it always struck me how much Clausewitz is misinterpreted in popular culture as the "wars are politics by other means" guy, when he meant that as only one side of a Hegelian dialectic.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8K312sz9to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8K312sz9to I also did a podcast for Operation Code: operationcode.org/podcast
smogcutter 3y ago
At the very least that sounds like “more effectively organized” to me. It’s interesting that the Napoleonic wars include a similar running theme, but with the shoe on the other foot: fast-moving, aggressive French organized into independent corps vs staid, conservative Austrians and Prussians.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Maybe if you interpret it generously. "more effectively organized" could mean almost anything. Very true; Napoleon was quick.
- riffraff 3y ago
  This is also the story of the second italian war of independence, a few years earlier , where the same Napoleon III and French army were successful against Austria-Hungary.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Beating Austria-Hungary was like an NBA team beating a middle school.
    - smogcutter 3y ago
      “Clearly you were not at Wagram.” - Napoleon Bonaparte
tnecniv 3y ago
I’m surprised to hear there aren’t many good books on the war given how significant it was in shaping Europe. That was impressed upon me in high school European history.
masswerk 3y ago
There were important, even decisive "soft factors", as well. E.g., literacy among common solders and even officers was much higher in German forces, which has impact on communications, the ability to navigate troops, etc. (At least, this was deemed an important factor in French post-analysis. – "The Culture of Defeat", orig. "Die Kultur der Niederlage", by Wolfgang Schivelbusch has a great chapter on this.)

dmix 3y ago

The author doesnt seem to be a traditional "military" historian, her CV lists books related to war, but more focusing on mobilization and civilians. So that makes sense. https://www.rachelchrastil.com/ https://www.rachelchrastil.com/

AlbertCory 3y ago
True, and maybe the military aspect of the war is the least interesting part.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  As a war college graduate myself, I'd agree and disagree. Wars are ultimately won and lost in the terrain of the human mind. People are defeated when they believe in their collective minds that fighting is no longer worth it. That's straight from Clausewitz. But militaries in wars ultimately create the conditions which facilitate those thoughts, and are the primary drivers of who wins and who loses. To say that the military aspect of a war is the "least interesting part" betrays an anti-military bias. But it is true that the military aspect of a war is not the only aspect which is necessary to understand how and why a war was won and lost, and its long-term effects on the belligerent nations.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Believe me, I don't have an anti-military bias. I read the stuff compulsively. I hosted an author at Google who wrote about Clausewitz (and if I hadn't, no one else would have and he wouldn't have come). I was thinking that the causes of the war, the unification of Germany as a result, the Paris Commune, and the lasting enmity in the French as a result of losing Alsace-Lorraine are all more "interesting."
    - psunavy03 3y ago
      Fair enough. I'd agree that long-term, the causes and effects of a war matter more. They're just caused to occur largely (though not exclusively) by the effects on people's psyches of military action happening on the battlefield. Military history is an unpopular genre these days, and I think part of it is the whole "oh, you joined the military, you must have been stupid and had no other options" prejudice. Which is alive and well in well-educated places like here. My apologies. Who was the author? I'm curious. I took my courses via correspondence, and didn't have the chance to get a Masters (not that an MS in National Security and Strategic Studies would help in tech). But it always struck me how much Clausewitz is misinterpreted in popular culture as the "wars are politics by other means" guy, when he meant that as only one side of a Hegelian dialectic.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8K312sz9to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8K312sz9to I also did a podcast for Operation Code: operationcode.org/podcast

smogcutter 3y ago

At the very least that sounds like “more effectively organized” to me. It’s interesting that the Napoleonic wars include a similar running theme, but with the shoe on the other foot: fast-moving, aggressive French organized into independent corps vs staid, conservative Austrians and Prussians.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Maybe if you interpret it generously. "more effectively organized" could mean almost anything. Very true; Napoleon was quick.
riffraff 3y ago
This is also the story of the second italian war of independence, a few years earlier , where the same Napoleon III and French army were successful against Austria-Hungary.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Beating Austria-Hungary was like an NBA team beating a middle school.
  - smogcutter 3y ago
    “Clearly you were not at Wagram.” - Napoleon Bonaparte

tnecniv 3y ago

I’m surprised to hear there aren’t many good books on the war given how significant it was in shaping Europe. That was impressed upon me in high school European history.

masswerk 3y ago

There were important, even decisive "soft factors", as well. E.g., literacy among common solders and even officers was much higher in German forces, which has impact on communications, the ability to navigate troops, etc. (At least, this was deemed an important factor in French post-analysis. – "The Culture of Defeat", orig. "Die Kultur der Niederlage", by Wolfgang Schivelbusch has a great chapter on this.)