A City on the Brink

In the autumn of 1870, Paris found itself encircled by Prussian forces, a dramatic turn in the Franco-Prussian War that had begun just months earlier. The conflict emerged from escalating tensions between Napoleon III’s Second Empire and Otto von Bismarck’s Prussia, with the latter skillfully manipulating the Ems Dispatch to provoke French hostilities. After decisive Prussian victories at Sedan and Metz, where Emperor Napoleon III himself was captured, the German armies advanced swiftly toward the French capital. By September 19, Paris was completely cut off from the outside world, with over two million civilians and 400,000 defending troops trapped inside the fortifications.

The siege created unprecedented conditions for urban survival. As food supplies dwindled and morale plummeted, the provisional Government of National Defense, led by General Louis Jules Trochu, faced immense pressure to break the encirclement. The political atmosphere grew increasingly volatile, with radical elements like the Belleville revolutionaries threatening insurrection against what they perceived as inadequate leadership. Trochu’s administration walked a tightrope between military necessity and political survival, all while the civilian population endured growing deprivation.

The Descent Into Despair

By November, after nearly two months under siege, the initial patriotic fervor had given way to widespread despondency. Contemporary accounts from diplomats and observers paint a grim picture of the city’s deteriorating conditions. American Minister Elihu Benjamin Washburne, who remained in Paris throughout the siege, documented the growing despair in his diary, noting the eerie emptiness of streets and the palpable decline in public spirit.

The food situation became increasingly dire. Traditional sources of nutrition vanished as supplies ran out, forcing Parisians to turn to unconventional sustenance. Dogs, cats, and even rats became valuable commodities in what became known as “le siège gastronomique.” While some, like journalist Henry Labouchère, found roasted rat “quite tasty—something between frog and rabbit,” these culinary experiments underscored the desperate circumstances. More alarmingly, disease began to spread through the overcrowded city, with smallpox claiming hundreds of lives weekly.

Manufacturing Heroes in Dark Times

With military progress stagnant and conditions worsening, Parisian newspapers turned to creating inspirational stories to maintain public morale. The most notable of these was Sergeant Ignatius Hoff of the 107th Line Regiment, who was portrayed as a nearly mythical figure employing “Mohican tactics” reminiscent of modern special forces operations. According to reports, Hoff specialized in nighttime raids against Prussian sentries, allegedly accumulating 27 pickelhaube helmets as trophies by November.

This propaganda effort foreshadowed similar practices in later conflicts, particularly the celebration of ace pilots like Georges Guynemer during World War I. The creation of such heroes served psychological purposes beyond mere entertainment—it provided the besieged population with symbols of French ingenuity and courage against overwhelming odds. However, as Washburne noted, even these dramatic tales could not fully distract from the “rapidly increasing distress” that became ever more visible in daily life.

The Elusive “Plan”

Amid growing public discontent that culminated in the October 31 uprising, pressure mounted on Trochu to produce a decisive military action. The general had become famous—or infamous—for his constant references to having a “plan,” though the exact nature of this strategy remained mysterious even to his closest associates. A popular satirical song circulated through Paris:

“I know Trochu’s plan,
Plan, plan, plan, plan!
My Lord! What a plan!
I know Trochu’s plan:
Thanks to him, nothing’s missing.”

Critics even spread rumors that when Trochu’s alleged plan was examined after the war, it turned out to be a blank sheet of paper. While Trochu denied this specific allegation in his memoirs, he did admit to having no concrete strategy for breaking the siege—a startling confession from the man tasked with Paris’s defense.

General Ducrot’s Offensive Vision

If any coherent military planning existed, it came not from Trochu but from General Joseph Vinoy and particularly General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot, who embodied the aggressive French military tradition. Captured at Sedan but having escaped Prussian custody philosophy that would characterize French military thinking until the trauma of World War I.

Ducrot had warned Napoleon III before the war that the army was unprepared for conflict with Prussia, but argued that if war came anyway, France’s only hope lay in a rapid strike against the South German states. Now, trapped in Paris, he advocated for a massive breakout attempt. After the failed sortie at Châtillon in September, Ducrot grew increasingly impatient for another major offensive operation.

Choosing the Battlefield

Military planners identified three potential breakout points: the area between the Marne and Seine rivers southeast of Paris, the Saint-Denis plain to the north, and the Gennevilliers peninsula northwest of the city where the Seine formed a distinctive bend. This last location, familiar to Impressionist painters who found inspiration in its landscapes, offered particular strategic advantages.

Ducrot favored the Gennevilliers option because the Prussian siege lines there appeared weakest. A successful breakthrough would immediately place French forces in unoccupied territory, unlike other potential breakout directions. From Gennevilliers, Ducrot envisioned advancing northwest along the Seine toward Rouen and eventually Le Havre, potentially linking with provincial forces and relieving pressure on the capital.

The choice reflected both military calculation and psychological considerations. A successful operation in this sector might not only achieve tactical objectives but also demonstrate French resolve to both the besieged population and international observers watching the conflict.

The Failed Breakout and Its Consequences

The eventual sortie from Paris, launched in late November, ended in failure. Ducrot’s forces encountered stiff Prussian resistance and made minimal gains at tremendous cost. The operation exposed fundamental weaknesses in French planning, coordination, and execution—problems that had plagued the war effort from its beginning.

The failed breakout had profound consequences. It dashed hopes for a swift end to the siege, condemned Paris to several more months of deprivation, and accelerated political radicalization that would culminate in the Paris Commune of 1871. Militarily, it demonstrated the superiority of Prussian organization and leadership, while revealing deep flaws in French military doctrine that would take decades to address.

Cultural Legacy and Historical Memory

The siege of Paris left an indelible mark on French culture and collective memory. The experience of hunger and deprivation entered popular consciousness through literature, art, and culinary traditions—the consumption of unusual animals during the siege became symbolic of Parisian resilience. Édouard Manet’s lithograph “The Barricade” and other artistic works captured the tension and suffering of the period.

The myth of Sergeant Hoff and similar stories reflected the human need for heroes in times of crisis, establishing patterns that would recur in subsequent conflicts. The propaganda efforts during the siege represented an early example of modern psychological warfare and morale management, techniques that would be refined in twentieth-century total wars.

Politically, the siege and its aftermath contributed to the collapse of the Second Empire and the establishment of the Third Republic. The trauma of defeat and occupation fueled French revanchism that would shape European politics for decades, ultimately contributing to the conditions that led to World War I—exactly as Labouchère had predicted, though his ten-year timeline proved overly optimistic.

Modern Relevance and Lessons

The siege of Paris offers enduring lessons about urban warfare, civilian resilience, and the relationship between military and political leadership. The challenges of supplying a large city under siege, maintaining public morale, and coordinating military operations remain relevant to contemporary conflicts. Trochu’s struggle to balance defensive requirements with political pressures illustrates perennial dilemmas faced by leaders in crisis situations.

The episode also demonstrates how myths and narratives emerge during conflicts, often serving important psychological functions but sometimes distorting historical understanding. The contrast between Trochu’s alleged “plan” and the reality of improvisation highlights the gap between public expectations and military capabilities—a dynamic observable in many conflicts throughout history.

Finally, the Franco-Prussian War and the siege of Paris marked a watershed in European history, contributing to German unification under Prussian leadership and altering the continental balance of power. The memory of 1870-1871 would shape French military thinking until World War I, with lasting consequences for European stability and international relations.