Three wars, three separate enemies, and never more than one at a time · Operator: Chenyjunny
한국어 (Korean) · All guides & articles
In 1862, when Otto von Bismarck became Minister President of Prussia, the idea of a unified German state was decades old and had already failed once, as a peaceful project, in 1848. Bismarck's version succeeded within a decade, and it succeeded through a method that says as much about diplomacy as it does about armies: he fought three wars to build the German Empire, and he made absolutely sure that none of Prussia's rivals were fighting alongside each other when he fought them.
▶ Play Era of ConquestThe opening move, in 1864, wasn't even against a rival German power — Prussia and Austria fought together against Denmark over the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The two German powers won easily and jointly administered the conquered territory, but the arrangement was unstable by design: shared administration of a contested territory between two powers who would eventually have to decide which of them led a unified Germany was never going to last, and Bismarck knew it. The war had cost Prussia nothing in terms of German rivals — it had spent Austria's goodwill on a joint prize while quietly setting up the dispute that would justify the next war.
That next war came in 1866, and its outcome was decided as much before the fighting as during it. Bismarck spent the run-up to the Austro-Prussian War making sure Austria would face Prussia essentially alone: France was kept neutral through diplomacy, Russia had no reason to intervene, and Italy was brought in on Prussia's side specifically to force Austria to fight on two fronts at once, splitting Austrian attention between the Italian theatre and the main campaign against Prussia. The decisive Prussian victory at the Battle of Königgrätz in July 1866 ended the war in weeks. Prussia annexed several smaller German states that had sided with Austria and organized the rest of northern Germany into a new confederation under its own leadership — but pointedly did not press the peace terms against Austria itself into anything humiliating, leaving the door open for Austria to stay neutral, rather than vengeful, in the war still to come.
The remaining obstacle to full unification was France, which had watched Prussia's growth with increasing alarm and had no interest in a unified German state on its border. When war came in 1870, the pattern repeated: Bismarck had already ensured Austria would not intervene on France's behalf, and the southern German states that had stayed outside Prussia's new northern confederation joined the war against France instead of standing aside or opposing Prussia — the shared external threat did in months what decades of peaceful negotiation had not managed, binding north and south together against a common enemy. France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War culminated in January 1871 with the proclamation of the German Empire at the Palace of Versailles — a unified German state declared, deliberately, on the defeated enemy's own soil.
It's worth noting what unification did once it was finished, because it is the flip side of the same lesson. Bismarck had spent nine years making sure Prussia never fought more than one power at a time — but the empire that resulted was, almost overnight, the strongest single state on the European continent, and every other power now had to think about it the way Prussia's individual rivals had once had to think about Prussia. Bismarck understood this instinctively: for the next two decades as chancellor of the new empire, he pursued a deliberately cautious foreign policy, building a web of alliances aimed less at conquest than at reassuring everyone else that Germany's ambitions in Europe were now satisfied. A power that has just finished proving it can beat anyone in a fair fight has every reason to spend the next stretch of time proving it does not intend to test that again — because the alternative, as later chancellors would discover, is every neighbour deciding that the safest response to a suddenly dominant Germany is to stop being neutral about it.
What ties the three wars together is not troop numbers or tactics — it's sequencing. Bismarck never allowed Prussia to face more than one serious opponent in the field at a time, and he spent as much effort on the diplomacy that guaranteed that as he did on the armies that won the battles. Denmark was fought with an ally that would later become an opponent. Austria was fought after France had been neutralized and Italy had been recruited to split Austrian attention. France was fought only after Austria had been pacified and the southern German states had been given a reason to join rather than watch. Each war narrowed the number of enemies left, and each one was scheduled only once the diplomatic groundwork made a one-front fight possible.
This is precisely the discipline that Era of Conquest's diplomacy and delegation systems are built around. A nation at war on two borders simultaneously is a nation that has already made Bismarck's mistake for him — it is why the game's default AI stance only starts a new war while fighting fewer than two at once, and why a non-aggression pact on a quiet border is cheap military insurance rather than a wasted turn. Securing your Austria — the neighbour you are not ready to fight yet — before you commit to your Denmark is not caution for its own sake; it's the same arithmetic Bismarck ran three times in a row, and it is available to you on turn one rather than after a decade of prior failure to learn from.
There is a sharper version of the lesson in what Bismarck chose not to do after Königgrätz: he refused to humiliate a beaten Austria, because a vindictive peace would have guaranteed Austrian hostility in the war against France that he already knew was coming. Ending a war you have won is not just about banking the territory — it's about what the defeated party does with the grudge afterward. A peace that leaves a former enemy merely neutral is often worth more than one that leaves them determined to return the favour the moment you are weak again. In a game where every treaty runs on an opinion score, that translates literally: the route back to zero and eventually to a workable pact is always open, and closing a war on generous terms is frequently the cheaper path to keeping your rear quiet than grinding a beaten rival down to nothing and hoping they never get the chance to remember it.
More articles: The curse of the two-front war · Rome's web of alliances · Why coalitions formed against Napoleon
Guides: All guides & articles · Diplomacy · Delegation