Customer Rating: 
Summary: Moltke makes it look easy
Comment: Howard's The Franco-Prussian War details the conflict of 1870-71 wherein Prussia defeated France in the last of the three wars of German unification spanning the time from 1864-1871. The development of the modern Prussian general staff, started in the wake of Napoleon's crushing victory at Jena, here reaches its culmination both in the person of Moltke and the crowning victory over the Second French Empire. What few mistakes were made against Austria in 1866 had been corrected, and as Howard writes, "By 1870, the machine was perfected."
The swift and decisive Prussian victory, Howard concludes, actually portended disaster for the unified Germany. It brought the Germans of that era to believe that since their nation had been unified as a result of military action, that it would be through military action that the nation would be preserved. This was to bear significant consequences over the next seventy-five years.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Dry as Dust
Comment: I don't know enough about the Franco-Prussian War to criticize the research and the facts presented. But this is certainly not an enjoyable book to read. If that is a factor for you, be warned.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Boring but informative
Comment: I actually have not finished the book yet, so forgive my hypocrisy. From an information and accuracy perspective it is probably the best book on the war. However it is a bit of a tough read, so be prepared. Howard details technology and warfare of the time, along with politics and the like and the book doesn't miss much. However, perhaps that is the reason it seems so long. overall I would say a good book.
Customer Rating:
Summary: an authoritative treatment of a complex conflict
Comment: Howard does a masterful job in detailing the the military preparations of both sides before the conflict, describing the war itself, and even going into some detail about the increasing importance of technology in "modern" warfare (especially transport). However, there are some shortcommings - the chief among them are the maps. While they are useful in giving the reader an idea of what happened where, they really needed to be more detailed, showing troop movements and positions. I also thought the lack of perspective on the war was disappointing - after all, the Franco-Prussian war was instrumental in the creation of German nationhood, the birth of the Fourth republic, and a foundation stone of the First World War. None of these important after-effects were discussed in any detail whatsoever. As a book of pure military history, though, Howard's book is beyond reproach.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Military history as it should be written
Comment: 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
