The 1870 Franco-Prussian War, or a textbook example of how random civilians with....

[sarahtasher]

firearms actually perform against invaders. (this is obviously inspired by the discussion of another thread)

You might casually dismiss that as ''lol, French'', but hey

In 1870, Imperial France foolishly declared war to the Prussians. Outnumbered nearly two to one by the Germans and with at best mediocre generals, the result were a foregone conclusion. Within weeks of the war opening, the Imperial armies were repulsed from Alsace and Lorraine, and either bessieged (at Metz) or routed, reformed and then destroyed (at Sedan)

With only a corps left of regulars (troupes de ligne), maybe 20 000 men and a spattering of other well trained troops (gendarmes-the national police force of France was and is always part of the military, marines, sailors to crew guns), the Imperial regime collapsed and a national defence regime was put to repulse the Germans. Almost entirely made of French Républicains (little to do with Republicans), the National Defence based it's scheme on a idea based on something deeply idealized, the levée en masse from the Revolution, depicted by them as ''the people of France rise spontaneously against the invader and repel them by sheer numbers'' (does that remind you of something ?). The said Républicains had ironically sabotaged every attempt by the Imperials to reform the army by introducing a Prussian-like conscription system, to actually train people before sending them against the Germans.

(The 1867 plan by Marshal Niel to reform the army included building a 400 000 strong garde mobile that would have been somewhat the equivalent of the modern American national guard-more or less reservists that could take front line position if needed. But everyone, from the army that disliked the idea as too modern to the Républicains that opposed it because it was the Imperials to the Royalists that had to say no because it was not like under Louis XVI, sabotaged the project, the Républicains wanting a French style national guard, based on the revolution one, that would be much more akin to the Minutemen in concept-lots of patriotism and little of training, and not very willing to fight except for their hometown)

With the barely trained Mobiles that were not very mobiles at all (and usually quite drunk in the case of the Parisian ones), the Défense Nationale, soon to be bessieged in Paris, proclaimed the said levée en masse-everyone willing to fight for France was to enlist (not that it was really a choice to say no), either in regular armies raised hapharzadly in the provinces or in the newly minted all-volunteer National Guard-where people chose their own officers.

Paris soon raised a 400 000 strong National Guard. Considering that the bessieging Prussians were never more than 200 000 around Paris, that Paris was at the time one of the most fortified cities in the world with a ring of fortresses that were only slightly outdated, it should have been somewhat easy to break the siege with all those patriots willing to die for France, in the National Guard and in the dozens of free miltiias and corps forming around the country. The French Army even did had an advantage in weapons, still having ten of thousands of the ultra-modern Chassepot rifle, with twice the range of a Prussian Dreyse

What happened is this

-The Parisian National Guard proved completely worthless, with zero training and even less discipline-they spent most of the siege making trouble for the government instead of fighting the Prussians
-The said guard was quite good for parading with their uniforms and weapons in Paris, quite less willing to leave the walls to fight the Prussians
-The dozens of miltias that sprung in the countryside either skulked away when Prussians with cavalry and artillery came, or tried to fight and proved no match to troops that were minimally trained by modern standards. (That most franc tireurs and partisans considered that a chain of command was an outdated way to wage war did not helped)
-Despite three attempts to break the siege of Paris by massive sorties (in each case with the national guard melting away at the first shot and the regulars/mobiles having to fight heavily outgunned), the concept of ''levée en masse'' failed to work again and again.

So, let's summarize. In an age without aircraft and tanks, a 400 000 strong armed mob proved completely outmatched by a conscription army with very limited training by modern standards despite (verbally) ardent patriotism. The said mob proved about as helpless against the defeated French Army during the Commune.

[Deleted]

This thread is bullshit as you are not taking into account the outside help other countries will send the rebels, the split in the armed forces who will take equipment with them and the fact that you can cause an electrical blackout by shooting a transformer, a shot anyone with a weeks training could make. Odds are still in favour of the loyalists but you are seriously underestimating your opponent, in warfare that attitude is deadly.

[GennGreymane]

This thread is bullshit as you are not taking into account the outside help other countries will send the rebels, the split in the armed forces who will take equipment with them and the fact that you can cause an electrical blackout by shooting a transformer, a shot anyone with a weeks training could make. Odds are still in favour of the loyalists but you are seriously underestimating your opponent, in warfare that attitude is deadly.

Also ignores the equipment used in 1870

GJ OP you found an example thats horrible.

Gotta wonder where this was all copy pastaed from

[sarahtasher]

The ones that understimated the ennemy were the French. Who bought incidentally millions of rounds from the...Americans (Civil war surplus)

- - - Updated - - -

Also ignores the equipment used in 1870

GJ OP you found an example thats horrible.

Do you have an example of random rebels fighting sucessfully invaders ? And btw, that does not prevent people to use 1775 as an example.

[GennGreymane]

The ones that understimated the ennemy were the French. Who bought incidentally millions of rounds from the...Americans (Civil war surplus)

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have an example of random rebels fighting sucessfully invaders ? And btw, that does not prevent people to use 1775 as an example.

You seem to like using eras where having similar equipment to your invader is possible. Wanna count Vietnam? When the North Vietnamese were veterans of the war against the french and had plenty of backing by Russia?

[Independent voter]

Isn't this the war where the Germans had developed a rapid fire cannon? Well more rapid fire than the French cannon? One of those paradigm shifts.

[Deleted]

France can't be defeated in a fair fight.

[le fu]

Lol OP.

Great example with the franco-prussian war, mate.

Now tell us about the french revolution 80 years prior when civillians armed with pitchforks and rarely a musket utterly destroyed the armies of ALL the european monarchies allied against France after the king was killed.

You're that guy who reads too much super hero comic books and believes an outfit would give people extra power, aren't you ?

protip : a soldier is a civillian in a uniform. There are some civillians arguably better trained at handling weapons than actual soldiers.

I'll put a rough hunter from Montana against some fragile cofee-machine attendant from the pentagon any day in a firefight. Even if the first is a civillian and the second a soldier in uniform, i'll bet my dollars on the man living among trees and bears over the metrosexual hipster who happens to be some general's son.


I'm as french as a mustached cheese wearing a beret, and I tell you this :

S H A L L N O T B E I N F R I N G E D.

God bless America and the constitutionnal right to own and bear arms and to form militias.

I wish we had the same gun laws and castle doctrine over here in France.

Just like I wish people from Orlando had someone carrying among them. May have saved tears and blood 24 hours ago.


Now go be an antigunner somewhere else.

[Azadina]

Do you have an example of random rebels fighting sucessfully invaders ? And btw, that does not prevent people to use 1775 as an example.

Afghanistan with Soviet union as the invader. Finland with Russia as the invader.

[Kapadons]

He seems to completely leave out Guerrilla tactics the "rebels" would employee

Also, not having a clear cut enemy proves very problematic. How could you possibly determine who to go after?

Also, 1.4 million Americans serving in the US Armed forces, or 0.4% of our population. Against what could possibly be 335 million Americans. Numbers win a war. And undoubtedly a large number of that 1.4 mil would not support a tyrannical government.

Short of the government nuclear bombing large swaths of the US, the current US government would lose in a "government overthrow" or " peoples revolution"

[Deleted]

Afghanistan with Soviet union as the invader. Finland with Russia as the invader.

They didn't invade, they were invited.

- - - Updated - - -

He seems to completely leave out Guerrilla tactics the "rebels" would employee

Also, not having a clear cut enemy proves very problematic. How could you possibly determine who to go after?

Also, 1.4 million Americans serving in the US Armed forces, or 0.4% of our population. Against what could possibly be 335 million Americans. Numbers win a war. And undoubtedly a large number of that 1.4 mil would not support a tyrannical government.

Short of the government nuclear bombing large swaths of the US, the current US government would lose in a "government overthrow" or " peoples revolution"

There's no way in hell those 335 mil untrained plebs would even stand the slightest chance against the 1.4mil US force.

[May90]

Do you have an example of random rebels fighting sucessfully invaders ? And btw, that does not prevent people to use 1775 as an example.

Not exactly the same, but something like this happened in South Korea in 1980 during Gwangju Uprising. Loosely armed civilians controlled the city for a few days, repelling all attempts of the central government to take the city over. Although, when the elite army forces moved in, the city was taken in a couple of hours... Still, I think this example demonstrates that civilians/combatants aren't nearly as helpless as some think.

Let's also not forget the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US army, and the Soviet army in the latter case: the wars themselves were a joke and there was very little actual resistance - but it is random combatants striking unexpectedly all over the country that wore the soldiers down and caused them to abandon the countries in the end. Granted, many of those combatants had special military training in terrorist camps, so this example isn't very pure.

Overall, of course a well trained army will easily beat a similarly sized and armed army of random rebels. It is not rocket science. And, let's be honest, "THIS IS SPARTA!!!" doesn't work really well outside cinema theaters.

[Kapadons]

They didn't invade, they were invited.

- - - Updated - - -



There's no way in hell those 335 mil untrained plebs would even stand the slightest chance against the 1.4mil US force.

I respectfully disagree.

[Xeones]

Oh man, we better all get ourselves some personal drones and nukes to be up to date.

[poser765]

Now tell us about the french revolution 80 years prior when civillians armed with pitchforks and rarely a musket utterly destroyed the armies of ALL the european monarchies allied against France after the king was killed.

Your knowledge of the French Revolution and the subsequent Coalition Wars is seriously suspect.

[Kellhound]

The ones that understimated the ennemy were the French. Who bought incidentally millions of rounds from the...Americans (Civil war surplus)

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have an example of random rebels fighting sucessfully invaders ? And btw, that does not prevent people to use 1775 as an example.

Ask people who have invaded Afghanistan how big of a pain in the *** random rebels are.

[Deleted]

Afghanistan with Soviet union as the invader. Finland with Russia as the invader.

Both were supplied by foreign powers, plenty of pics out there of Finns wearing using German kit.

[Grimbold21]

Finland with Russia as the invader.

I maybe be wrong here, but even though Finland inflicted heavy casualties, they were still fought into submission were they not? I'd imagine that in this context a country demanding that you cede parts of your territory as a part of an end of hostilities is somewhat of an indication of your inability to continue to fight.

[Skaiz]

I respectfully disagree.

I disagree as well. People seem to forget that our soldiers are citizens too. Fathers, sons, and brothers. My friends who have served as well as myself who has served would not point a gun at a USA civilian under government orders. ever. 1.4 mil would shrink into nothing.

[Deleted]

I maybe be wrong here, but even though Finland inflicted heavy casualties, they were still fought into submission were they not? I'd imagine that in this context a country demanding that you cede parts of your territory as a part of an end of hostilities is somewhat of an indication of your inability to continue to fight.

If Finland was "unable to fight", then Stalin would've done what he actually wanted, which is take over the entire country. Of course the defender, being attacked by a much more powerful force, does everything to try and stop the assault, which in this case meant having to come to some kind of a peace agreement.

Or is there some proof somewhere that Stalin only wanted the parts of Finland that he eventually ended up with, and nothing more?