The various European royal families all had pacts and agreements arranged, apparently. Ferdinand was the catalyst for them to kick in.
Aye, the view that Princip and his gang causing WWI is naive; it was the catalyst for a war that had been looking more likely due to the bubbling continent.
Perceived German and Austrian aggression had long worried the 'Entente', and you can rewind all the way back to the dreadnought race back in 1906.
When you look at nationalism and imperialism, which fed militarism and the alliances, it meant that jostling pushed towards a war; Bismarck fuelled a lot of this.
Serbian nationalism, which Russia wanted to foster and support, was a way of checking German and Austrian expansion, which goes back to all the above.
It's like the origins of WWII really and how they run all the back to 1919 and Versailles; a fair few historians argue that 1919-1939 was simply a hiatus of WWI.
Was German anger towards Versailles et al. during the Weirmar years valid? Of course it was. The mixing pot kept churning and the likes of Hitler fed on this.
You also had all the Pals regiments where groups of people joined up together with the promise that they could serve alongside their friends/ neighbours/ workmates. Sometimes all the men in a village would join up or from a specific work place including football clubs. The casualties amongst them were horrific. Imagine the local devastation when hardly any of them came back.
The Pals regiments were a terrible idea but one of neccesity due to our inequality in size: we had a small, professional army (the old contemptibles).
Men were recruited, thrown in with their friends and NCOs were often chosen from the ranks due to criteria that often didn't relate to experience.
These were led by inexperienced officers. With their lack of experience, the need for offensives and favourable German positions meant they had no chance.
On the other hand, the British army of late '17 into '18 is the best army we've ever fielded... ever!