Why World War I Did Not Really Begin With Franz Ferdinand’s Assassination

A depiction of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination on June 28, 1914.

Was it just one tragic event that ignited World War I? Fought from 1914 to 1918, the war involved many of the world’s great powers, split mainly between the Allied and Central Powers. Interestingly, we tend to simplify the narrative, considering that we’re usually too short on time to fully explain the entire buildup to a war that led to 40 million casualties and changed the geopolitical landscape of the 20th century. We’re often taught in school that World War I began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914. The pull of the trigger by Princip not only represents the violence of the assassination, but also the deep nationalist feelings, cultural fissures, and independent alliances that were increasingly pushing Europe toward a series of diplomatic mistakes and hasty war declarations. This snowballed into what's commonly referred to as the Great War, also called World War I.

To set the scene, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, visited Sarajevo, the provincial capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The city had been formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. They were travelling in an open-top motorcade when six planned assassins were planted along their route. The first conspirator was Čabrinović, who attempted to kill the couple with a bomb. Fortunately, the bomb ricocheted off the rolled-back car cover onto the road. However, it was still triggered by the timed explosive, and the automobile following behind them was badly damaged. Following the initial assault, the two royals decided to proceed to the hospital and visit the wounded; however, Princip, one of the assassins, realized that the motorcade would pass near the Latin Bridge, and he positioned himself accordingly. The driver turned the car, and it brought the Archduke and his wife within the range of Princip, and he discharged two shots from a Belgian-made Fabrique Nationale M1910 .380 caliber handgun. Luigi Albertini, an Italian historian who was alive during the assassination, said that "the first bullet injured the Archduke in the jugular vein, the second caused an abdominal wound on the Duchess." 

Historians would refer to the period before Franz Ferdinand's assassination as Europe's "powder keg", comparing the rivalries of the time to a gunpowder barrel that was ready to erupt into a fire even with a small spark. Traditional historical narratives pinpoint the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as the immediate cause of World War I. In this view, the assassination is seen as the casus belli—a clear, dramatic event that directly set off a series of rapid military mobilizations and diplomatic crises. After the Archduke was killed on June 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary reacted swiftly, issuing demands to Serbia that, after not being met, led to a declaration of war. This action activated a domino effect based on pre-existing alliances, pulling multiple nations into the conflict almost overnight. The simplicity and clarity of this cause-and-effect storyline make the assassination easily blamable for the outbreak of the war, and we often see it cited as the main reason in many textbooks, popular discourse, and collective memory.

Revisionist historians, however, propose a more nuanced picture. They contend that Europe was already in a state of heightened tension by the time of the assassination—that the continent was, in essence, “sleepwalking” toward a larger conflict. According to this view, the assassination did not create the war but rather accelerated an inevitable slide into conflict. In other words, the war would have happened at some point anyway, regardless of whether or not Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. For one, the rapid militarization and industrialization of both the German and British militaries made large-scale mobilization less of a problem, as it became easy to move soldiers and strike first. Additionally, the aftermath of the Great Game (1813-1907) and the Treaty of Berlin (1878) were like tiny bandages to the wider wounds in regions like the Balkans, where several states did not receive independence and many cultural minorities were marginalized by their governments. If anything, revisionists actually believe that even without the assassination, European leaders' miscalculation and pressures would have, nevertheless, ultimately led to war. The assassination was only the final match to ignite an already combustible atmosphere.

An additional factor to consider when assessing all of this is the imperial ambitions and economic rivalries of the European powers. Before World War I, the scramble for Africa led to widespread colonialism. As there was no more land or resources to be controlled, these powers eventually began fighting each other to expand their control in Africa. These conflicts ultimately stemmed from the need to compete both militarily and economically, especially as the Industrial Revolution ironically left several countries less industrialized and weaker, increasing tensions through smaller-scale conflicts in Africa.  

Lastly, as previously mentioned, various alliances and agreements between countries created divides and secret partnerships. For example, alliances like the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were designed not only for mutual defense but also to exert control over perceived adversaries, thus entangling nations in commitments that extended far beyond their borders. These covert agreements fostered a climate of suspicion, as nations knew that any localized conflict could trigger a cascade of mutual defense obligations. Moreover, since many of these pacts were negotiated in secrecy, it left the public and even some policymakers unaware of the extent to which these alliances would compel nations to go to war. If anything, the existence of these hidden partnerships meant that a diplomatic rupture caused by any isolated event could quickly become a full-scale global conflict.

This intricate pattern of suspicion and power politics transmuted what might have been a local and controlled crisis into a continental catastrophe. Finally, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the thespian icon of the far greater and unrolling crisis in Europe—a turning point that exposed the inherent instability of a continent teetering on the brink of war. Rather than a simple case of one event leading to unadulterated war, it was the cumulative effect of diplomatic errors, military disparity, and ambitions of great powers that set the stage for World War I.

In the end, Franz Ferdinand’s death became the dramatic emblem of a much more profound and evolving crisis within Europe. People often like to entirely pin the causes of World War I on the assassination, but as we saw, it was just the tip of the iceberg. The legacy of this period reminds us that understanding history requires looking beyond headline events; we need to examine the complex confluence of factors that truly drive nations toward conflict.