Be among the first 200 people to sign up for Brilliant.org and save 20% off your subscription! brilliant.org/ArmchairHistorian/ Our Patreon: www.patreon.com/armchairhistory Our Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist Any corrections should be posted below this comment. Thanks for watching! Griff
Great video, but I have to note, that the Prussian kings and later German Kaiser isn´t named Frederick. It´s Friedrich. Frederick is the english version, but it is also used in Germany, so it´s leads to misunderstandings. Maybe you can add such a speech bubble and note that this real name was Friedrich (often called "der große Fritz"). I don´t want, that a German think that guy was named Frederick, if she/he would use your video for a history test.
Napoleon would never ally with him, and if he had done so, the alliance wouldn't have lasted. Napoleon continually snubbed his allies, and he essentially goaded neutral Prussia into war through repeated insults.
I expected that the result of the video is, that they were not that great, but at the end it seems their reputation is right and they were among the best^^ Fantastic video, nothing to complain about in it, except that you should´ve mentioned the Zündnadelgewehr for the victory at Königgrätz in 1866 too. But it´s not real mistake.
@@LowStuff Though in terms of gdp (at least in the 18th century) you couldn't compare Prussia with countries like France and Britain, so money to field such a large army was probably a great concern (it was one for the other two countries, anyway, but probably far less).
The funny thing is, Prussia was on the brink of defeat in the 7 Years War, they were saved only by the Tsarina dying, and being replaced with a Tsar who loved Frederick II.
Prussia had all of the Germany that it wanted by 1871. That being said, even if Bismarck, Moltke and Roon WANTED to absorb Austria into their empire, I doubt the rest of Europe would have allowed it considering the imbalance of power it would create.
@@bondrewdthelordofdawn3744 TF you got those numbers bro?? US Budget comprised somewhere around 4-5 trillion a year and the defense budget is only 600-700 billion a year so hell no it is not. Medicare and Social security took nearly 50 percent of its budget per year yet i wonder why the US healthcare is still an expensive MF.
@@jonathan_hanst your numbers are so far off its laughable. Thats the base defense budget that doesnt include any of the military RND doesnt include military discretionary funding, on average no one knows exact price but its estiamted we spend in the ballpark around 1.7trillon a year.
I'm impressed by your good German pronunciation because a lot of content creators don't bother to look up how the names are actually pronounced. Good job!
if i remember family tradition; on sunday you go to church fot one hour come home and then rifle range for two hours, any more questions anyone?..........................................rgw
@BadAim With all due respect I disagree. Diplomacy was the second of Prussias great strengths, although it is often overshadowed by the military. After the 30-years war it was through diplomacy that the Prussians could secure subsidies from several bigger Powers in europe by presenting themselves as an individually weak nation that could tip the scales in big wars and as such guaruantuee peace in europe. Without these subsidies the reformation of Prussia would not have been possible. Next up is the fact that Prussia managed to secure support from other large players during their successfull wars, which it needed because it didnt have the economy to fight long wars. This is especially noteworthy as after the 30-Years war the major powers created a system that was supposed to punish agressors in any future conflicts, yet prussia managed to play the european powers against eachother so that it always had backing (the miracle of the Habsburgs notwithstanding), or at least could be sure that the other nations wouldnt fight against it. It was in loosing this diplomatic skill and in believing their own propaganda of military superiority that led to Germany happily marching into two world wars and loosing them both with devastating consequences.
Too bad they cant keep up for too long and it's only logical war can't last forever and so paying the elite troops forever would be a waste of the state money while your neighbors are using their money to develop
Barely, Napoleonic strategies focused on having advantageous geography and the combination of arms(artillery, cavalry, infantry). Napoleon did implement intense drilling, but that's a pretty standard measure to improve military strength.
Ok so, you'll become an awesome commander and defeat the Prussians once and they'll youll lose at Waterloo and be sent of on the coast of south America and die at 50 - Future, more sexier you
When Napoleon visited Frederick the Great's tomb with a group of his generals, Napoleon purportedly instructed them, “hats off gentlemen, if he were alive we wouldn't be here today.”
Yeah, unfortunately we copied Germany's educational model that we are trying to reverse today. By the way, America copied Germany's medical doctrines to positive effect, at least.
We also copied our Social Security system, unemployment system civil service system etc. etc. In other words, we are copies. We are also thieves because we stole the Germans blind twic, after both wars.
Come on! That's way to harsh to call it the german's fault that you got an educational system in which you guys voted for a dumbass like trump. Germans fucked up A LOT through out history, but you can't attribute THAT to us. That's your business alone, mate.
@@pumkintheboi7545 That's why France got such a big buff in the "Bonaparte Patch" Course after a while the meta stabilized and the Prussians got a crazy buff in the "Germany Update"
Idk if youre German but one more interesting thing is that the German school system is in fact a prussian-style school system. This really shows how Germany is still influence by it. Many nations admire German discipline and honestly I think its because of the prussian school system that gives us discipline. It has its flaws as it could very Well be modernized but its still great nontheless
@@kxllerkind7667 I am in the U.S. Our S.S system was copied from the German. Germany had Social Security system in place by 1872. Workmen's Compensation also from Germany, our Civil Service organization directly from the German government reforms of 1842 (year?).
The thing is, many armies troughout history have been strongly influenced and defined by their leaders. The Byzantine Army under Basil II for example was probably the best in the world for a few decades. But after his death it fell into decay. Likewise the Prussian army under Frederick the Great was superb but once he died, the army lost it's touch (clearly shown against Napoleon at Jena)
Y‘all talking about European leaders. But let’s not forget about Sun Tsu, he never lost a battle and wrote the book called „The art of war“ even Napoleon read it and studied it.
@@m.cuongnguyen7475 And he did what? If you want talk about Eastern leaders, Genghis Khan, Oda nobunaga, qin shi Huang, Osman, Suleiman the magnificent...
you forgot to mention that prussia was on the verge of losing the war, although they won those crucial Battles, until the Russian queen died and the young tzar took over who was a big admirer of Fredrick the Great.
"The German Way of War" is an excellent resource for understanding what Prussia did to eventually dominate central Europe and bring about German Unification.
I believe you misrepresented the Oblique Order. Think of it as a hammer. The head is the heavy side, the stick is has to be firm. The stick has to hold against attacks, the hammer deals a blow and threaten the flank.
Look at the victories won by Fredrick the great.! Not only was his Army the best(the most courageous.most loyal, most fanatical) but the Prussians themselves were the best.
6:49 The Battle of Leuthen, though decisive, did not knock the Austrians out of the War militarily. The Austrians under Maria Theresa pulled a Churchill and refused to seek peace and continued fighting, raising new forces under Field Marshall's Daun and Loudon, who'd go on to give Frederick his 2 greatest defeats, at Hochkirck (in which his army, while encamped and asleep, was surprised attcked by the Austrians, who captured most of Frederick's artillery and killed 3 of Frederick's most trusted generals: James Keith, Prince Moritz von Anhalt-Dessau (son of Leopold the Old Dessauer) and his brother-in-law Franz of Brunswick), and at Kunersdorff (where Frederick destroyed his 51000 man army, leaving Berlin exposed; the inaction of Loudon and the commander of the Russian reinforcements led to the begining of the infamous "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg).
Yeah there's also the fact that he would have been completely defeated had Elizabeth not died so suddenly and been succeeded by literally anyone other than Peter III
@@q345ify Which goes to show that it paid off for Fredrick to establish certain imago of himself. Made Peter a fan of his. Sure, it's something you can't preplan, but that's exactly how the benefits of personal character and imago manifest.
I love how every history video that is a question like "Did the USA want to nuke Vietnam?" there is always a phrase that goes like "In fact, in 19XX this guy named XXXX XXXXXX considered the nuclear option but because of a rat sleeping over the launch button he was too scared to fire"
Keeping in mind that Prussia had a small area and population in Central Europe, it was surrounded by four powerful enemies in the Seven Years' War: France, Austria, Russia, and Sweden.
The Prussian army took a long time to perfect and the Armchair Historian mostly does not know what he is talking about. (1) The Prussian Officer was excellent because he acquired his rank ONLY BY HIS ABILITY TO LEAD MEN TO VICTORY IN COMBAT. Nothing else counted. (2) The Slant Formation. Other nations' armies faced each other in parallel lines. Fredreich de Grosse's great innovation was the Slant formation. Recall the parallel line of other armies. Now imagine a second line at 45 degrees facing it. This 45 degree slant allowed more muskets on target and faster reloading mint more shots fired. Which equaled more dead enemies and more battles won. (3) The Prussians were more EFFICIENT. Officers were taught to allow nothing to go to waste. Captured enemy weapons were put to immediate use. Captured enemy supplies were used. Fleeting opportunities on the battlefield were immediately exploited. The Prussians even gave medals for winning battles by DISOBEYING orders. (4) Gummi Befehl or "Rubber Orders" Orders with a lot of stretch in them. Basically a Prussian officer was told what needed to be done and it was left up to him how to do it.
Itwasn't his argument it was just a reference to the subject from popculture, something the viewer might know. It's used to loosen up the mood and make it less boring. Why do you think so many scientific journals and specialist litterature is so boring even when you are interested in the subject? You should use stuff like that in videos, presentations, pretty much everything where you have an audience. This can set apart someone people enjoy listening to and someone who bores people to death
Best Armies in his time period: 16th century: Spain Early 17th century: Ottoman Empire Late 17th century: France Early 18th century: Austria Late 18th century: Prussia Early 19th century: France / Britain Late 19th century: Germany Early 20th century: Germany Late 20th century: USA Early 21st century: USA
I'd argue that England and France were better for early 17th. Russia for early 18th and British for late 18th. Russia for early 19th and USA for late 19th. Soviet Union for early 20th after 1943. Everything else is on point.
Chauntel Shannon I didn‘t include Russia, because though technically having the largest armed force, throughout history the Russian army had issues with the discipline of there troups, a lack of skilled commanders, and transporting supplies through the undeveloped countryside of modern day Belarus and Ukraine to a potential western enemy was a logistical nighmare. The USA‘s armed forces weren‘t involved into big military conflicts against a foreign nation until ww1. So that‘s why I didn‘t include them.
I'm sorry, but this was not all that impressive IMHO. A decent basic overview? Sure, particularly on the origins. But lopsided. It talks about the three greatest victories Frederic(k; he preferred French in person), but it *doesn't* talk about his three greatest defeats or draws, or the Prussian Army's performance without him (whether under competent leadership like that of "Die Alte Dessauer" or others). This is particularly notable since *Frederic freaking lost his capitol * during the course of the Seven Years' War; and then suffered the shattering collapse at Kunersdorf in which an Austro-Russian army essentially *won the war* , only ifor Empress Elizabeth's death to undo it. So this feels a bit like talking about the Napoleonic French Army without mentioning Borodino, Vitoria, *the Battle of Nations* , or Waterloo. It's odd to simply attribute that "After Fred the Prussian Army declined" without discussing the reasons Why. Or for that matter the fact that it was nowhere close to being invincible even during the height of its power (like we can honestly say the French under Louis XIV before Blenheim, the British before Fontenoy, the Spanish before Rocroi, or the Swedes before Lesnaya did). This leaves it feeling quite limp. The truth was, the Prussian army and its leadership was impressive- Especially for the relative drought that IMHO came between the end of the War of the Spanish Succession and the outbreak of the French Revolution- but it was not as dominant in war as it is often made out to be, even against the relatively underappreciated like Russia and Austria. And Frederic had a string of draws or military defeats far longer than Marlborough, the Duc de Luxembourg, or Eugen of Savoy. To name just a few. Against the backdrop of atrophy in the French and Dutch armies, British preoccupation in the colonies and with its navy, and Sweden's shattering fall from its Carolean heights with the death of Karl XII the Prussian Army really does stand out as the greatest or close to it. But against the backdrop of the 75 years on either side of the Battle of Leuthen? Ehhhhhh........
The SYW professional army was good but the real reason it did well was Frederick’s leadership. The reformed Austrian army was better than previously and under FM Daun almost equal to the Prussians, and stymied Frederick at every turn. But a draw was a strategic defeat for Austria where its war goal was conquest. The 1806-7 professional army was well trained but inexperienced and old-fashioned with very poor leadership, leading to catastrophic defeat against Napoleon’s military genius backed by the Grande Armee at its height. The 1813-5 conscript army was average with experienced leadership. The 1866 conscript army was average, but better school education for the other ranks, better rifles, and better leadership compared to Austria’s Benedek - truly woeful - gave the Prussians the edge. Still, a midday attack by the Austrians against the pinned Prussian centre might have won the day. The Prussian and French conscript armies of 1870-1 were evenly matched in training, equipment and motivation but very poor French generalship and inexperience compared to the Prussians saw a decisive German victory. Overall, the Prussian army was with the exception of 1806-7 usually well trained and led at tactical level but as always, dependent for success on the relative leadership abilities of the opposing high commands
The Imperial Army under Prince Eugene of Savoy and the French Army under Marshal Maurice De Saxe were just as good if not better. In fact Frederick the Great pretty much learned everything he knew from Prince Eugene anyway.
France had access to much more resources, though. What impresses me about Prussia is how they clawed their way out of virtual nothing to the big boys' table, and in not too long time too
Brandenburg/Brandenburg-Prussia was literally a minor state regularly kicked around by its Neighbors(Mecklenburg literally had Wittlesbach Brandenburg collapse, after the 5th war Brandenburg instigated against them in a 25 year period...Which led to the Hohenzollerns ending up with it...Brandenburgs last straw was the 30 years war, and the Great Elector was truly the architect of Prussia...His son would form Prussia, but he was the one who atleast turned a ravaged nation no stronger than the Duchies and electors around it, into a force that defeated poland and sweden in the mid-late 1600s...France was always left to be a great power, as it was set for the center stage as west francia over a millenia ago
A german state in the era of the Habsburg Dominance dwindling in Northern Germany, in the age of empires, pulled itself to the great power table against all odds...Multiple german states had rose to dominance for short times, but fell from relevance(14th century Mecklenburg). Then others that peaked (Bohemia) under Charles IV but died with Sigismund and eventually got annexed by Austria...or states that just totally splintered after centuries of Dominance(Saxony)... But none of these ever managed to consolidate there power for a relevant time...Saxony crumbled into multiple states leaving just the electorate we know today...Bohemia under the Luxumbourgs lasted only 80 years, and Mecklenburgs Near Baltic domination and almost having its own kalmar union(Albrecht II der Große actually invented the idea but Margaret of Denmark just copied it against albrechts son, albrecht III) so Its dominance died with Albrecht II, as his military prowess was arguably the only thing that allowed it to swing so much weight for its size...Albrecht II in many ways seems like the proto Frederick the great...But the difference was, Prussia had established and Consolidated its position. And rose in a time were when it had a defeat like Jena, it was established and important as the balance of power to counter Austria in germany, so it would only gain from defeat....Prussias rise to a world power and eventual unifyer of Germany was nothing short of Absurd competence, and absurd luck.
The great issue with the Prussian military pre-Jena was the fact that it recruited it's leadership only from the nobility. This left the quality of leadership within the army to the great dice role of aristocratic quality. They lucked out under Frederick the Great, with great generals like Seydlitz, Zeithen, Prince Moritz of Anhalt Dessau, Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, James Keith, Schwerin, who performed great service before and during the Seven Years war, along with the King himself and his brother Henry (whose own talents were overshadowed by his legendary older sibing; He himself was almost made King of the newly formed United States, before the idea of a monarchy was thrown out during the constitutional convention) managed to keep Prussia from being divided up and left destitute by Austria, Russia, Saxony and Sweden.
My professor in a 400/600 level "History of Germany since 1750" class just showed this video in class, so congratulations on making a video and undergoing research worthy of graduate level academia
According to "famous men of modern history." Frederick the great went to bed at 10PM and woke up at 4 am, everyday for the rest of his reign as king. That's dedication.
How can you talk about myth of Prussian army and not mention The Miracles of the House of Brandenburg? The only reason why 7 years war wasn't ended in 1759, when 48 thousand Prussian army was reduced to 3 thoudand in one battle is because failure of Austrian and Russian diplomacy; the only reason Prussia didn't lost war in 1761, when Russia occupied Baltic part of Prussia is ascention of Peter 3 to throne and his genious decision to white peace and give troops to Prussians
I wonder if people even know the other part of the Hohenfriedberger marsch.. (If you are wondering about it, here, I will write it for you;) Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Schnall um deinen Säbel und rüste dich zum Streit! Prinz Karl ist erschienen auf Friedbergs Höh'n, Sich das preußische Heer mal anzusehen. Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Schnall um deinen Säbel und rüste dich zum Streit! Prinz Karl ist erschienen auf Friedbergs Höh'n, Sich das preußische Heer mal anzusehen. Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! *Hab'n Sie keine Angst, Herr Oberst von Schwerin, Ein preuß'scher Dragoner tut niemals nicht flieh'n! Und stünd'n sie auch noch so dicht auf Friedbergs Höh'n, Wir reiten sie zusammen wie Frühlingsschnee. Hab'n Sie keine Angst, Herr Oberst von Schwerin, Ein preuß'scher Dragoner tut niemals nicht flieh'n! Und stünd'n sie auch noch so dicht auf Friedbergs Höh'n, Wir reiten sie zusammen wie Frühlingsschnee. Ob Säbel, ob Kanon', ob Kleingewehr uns dräut: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth! Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit: Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth!*
PRUSSIANS also trained their Militias and Mercenaries BIG DIFFERENCE .Before that time nations or Feudalist masters did not train Mercenaries they just hired them.
>Leuthen prevented Austria from participating in the rest of the Seven Years War Objectively wrong. Austria remained a major combatant until the end of the conflict and fought many major engagements after Leuthen, including ones which it won. >by 1830 Prussia again became a formidable military power They were creamed by Denmark in 1848...
Dont joke around. You have the toy in lego, that's it. The reason you survive was Russia and the British protected you. Don't get an erection. the 2nd war showed just how badly you would be brutalized if there is no Russian or British support propping you up.
>You have the toy in lego, that's it. And more generals who beat Napoleon than any other country. >The reason you survive was Russia and the British protected you. Austria fought on for about a year after Russia signed a separate peace, and was at war with the UK at the time so clearly this is not the case. >Don't get an erection. Read a book. Daily reminder that EU4 isn't an academic source. >the 2nd war showed just how badly you would be brutalized The second war was fought prior to the army reforms of Maria Theresa and by a very different pool of generals. Additionally Austrian forces were fighting in three theatres simultaneously. So no, it's not comparable. >British support Yes a declaration of War on Austria and preventing France from moving against Prussia really helped Austria. /s >propping you up. I'm not Austrian lol.
Really nice video, I have just one - unfortunately - major critizism. You mentioned the Prussian military reforms during French occupation and then quckly jumped forward to the unification wars. You should've payed more attention to those reforms though and needed to focus on the introduction of the General Staff! This institution was what made German military dominance possible for the ~150 years to come - so until the end of WW II. It was incredibly important and so effective that other nations tried to copy it, but never reached the Prussian/ German perfection there until after WW II. Basically, what before only military geniuses, like Napoleon, were able to achieve, the Prussians were able to do with their General Staff - even if no military genius could be found within the army during a given time (i.e. Franco-Prussian War, although v. Moltke was awesome, he was no genius like Napoleon, Hannibal or Alexander).
So he never touched the creation of the Prussian General staff? Just shows you how poor this wanna-be historian is! That is the greatest single revolution in military history. Every other armies after Franco-Prussian war copied it, but never really get the ideas right. No longer will armies be dependent on few military geniuses.
He's not really relevant to the topic of analyzing Prussia's military, its structure, innovations and tactics. Simply, Prussia got overpowered by too great an enemy alliance, but thankfully the new ruler of one of them was a fanboy of Prussia's king, so things started sorting themselves out.
It was said that Frederich Wilhelm II, was imprisoned by his father for being rebellious (Prussia). Not unusual at that time. Even Louis XI (1461-1483)was imprisoned by his father Charles V (1422-1461) for being rebellious as well (France).
I think the Caroleans were the best, but it depends if you're talking about in their own time periods. The Romans were the best when their empire existed, the Caroleans were the best in the Great Northern War and the British army was the best from around 1850 to the end of WW2. Of course if you're thinking "what if they all fought each other" then obviously the USA would win because they're the modern superpower. All perspective.
The problem of comparing people in different times are mostly technological and the fact that they studied each other, for example: Hannibal was a genius, but his tactics are known by most modern military officer who by now should have developed a counter.
