The Lights of Liberty - a counterfactual history

Hello friends,

This is to be my first attempt at publishing a (hopefully) decent timeline. You may have noticed that this is also my first post, and might now be inclined to consider me an arrogant upstart, having never partaken in any discussion what-so-ever on this forum and still just plunging in and starting a timeline. In my defense, I’m a long-time lurker and I’ve been reading the wonderful products of this forum for years. I figured it’s about time I contribute something of my own.

This timeline will often be presented in a “scrapbook” format, including excerpts from counterfactual history books and newspaper articles and the such. Keep in mind that these various sources are as likely as not to be quite biased. They might not even be entirely truthful. Needless to say, the views expressed through various fictional intermediaries don’t necessarily express my own opinions.

At various points, historical figures will be quoted. Keep in mind that in many cases, these are adapted to fit with the altered circumstances of this different history. In fact, a lot of them will be entirely fabricated.

Throughout this timeline, I will use footnotes to clarify certain points, or to otherwise remark upon specific aspects of the timeline. In addition, I will use general notes to point out… well, more general things that I believe need need pointing out.

I sincerely hope that you will enjoy reading this history as much as I have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy writing it. As it is my first attempt, I’m sure you will all be able to detect a multitude of blatant inaccuracies and inconsistencies. If you do, please point them out to me, so I can correct them.

Now, enough of my rambling—on with the show! I humbly present to you...

THE LIGHTS OF LIBERTY​

---


The old song tells us that for want of a nail, the shoe was lost. It tells us that many a huge and sweeping change can result from the escalating effects of a single very minor change. How wars can be lost for the want of a horseshoe nail. It sounds like a lesson in caution—be aware, children, your actions have consequences!—but it is more than just an educational tale. It is a realistic depiction of our history.

The truth is that more often than not, sweeping changes do come about because a king tripped at his coronation, for instance, or because a single letter is lost in the mail. Such minor incidents lead to a minor change, but that change in turn leads to another, which is a little less minor, and so it goes on and on. Before you know it, the world is beyond our recognition.

The little changes that make all the difference are usually impossible to trace, and the people of the world that takes its very shape from such a change would usually be hard-pressed to point out the event that led to everything they despise and everything they hold dear. That, too, is perfectly conveyed in the children’s song about the horseshoe nail: who would ever guess that a war was lost because of a single nail?

Historians will point at weather conditions, the tactical and strategical abilities of the commanding officers, at the lay of the land, just to explain why things went as they did. And none of them will ever suspect that is was all because of a nail.

Of course, that’s just an example, to make the point clear to the children. History is changed by small and seemingly insignificant changes, certainly, but it’s hardly ever the actual absence of a horseshoe nail that makes all the difference.

But sometimes… sometimes it is just a nail.

Consider that occasionally, a horseshoe nail is accidentally driven slightly into the sensitive hoof. This is called “quicking”, or nail pricking. It causes pain for the horse, and it may show signs of lameness or may become lame in following days. Usually, a horse that is quicked will react immediately. But in some cases, it doesn’t cause immediate problems.

Now it’s the fifth of August, 1730, and a youth named Robert is in a dreadful hurry. He urges his horse on—faster, faster, and faster still! One does not dally when one is on his way to meet a king, especially not with the weight of guilty conscience on one’s back. Indeed not! Young Robert would rather relieve himself of that particular burden.

He spurs his horse on one last time, and in a thousand worlds, this would have gotten him at his destination a fraction of a second earlier. Yes, one particular nail is digging into his horse’s right front hoof, but in a thousand worlds, that makes no difference for the moment. In those worlds, the horse goes lame a few days later, and Robert never even learns of the fact.

In this world, it matters. In this world, it drives that one ill-placed nail just a fraction further into the horse’s sensitive flesh, and the horse trips up. At such speeds, it doesn’t end well for Robert. He dies the very moment his skull cracks on the ground, and he will not have an opportunity to tell the king about the secret plans, as he fully intended to do.

By the time his body is found, it is already far too late.


---


GENERAL NOTES:

Well, that´s the prologue, folks. I´m fairly sure most of you have already figured out exactly what the POD for this timeline is.

From here on out, the timeline will be divided into separate parts/chapters, each subdivided into multiple posts, depending on the length. I´m currently preparing the first installment of part one, and you may expect it shortly.

Excerpted from The House of Hohenzollern, by Ludwig Krikke (Osting-Waldmann press, Prussia, 1985):

In his youth, Prince Frederick was primarily interested in philosophy and music, but his authoritarian father, king Frederick William, chafed at this and forced his son to become educated in the arts of war and practical statesmanship. Frederick William was quick-tempered, and regularly abused his son, often beating and humiliating him for minor transgressions.

Frederick eventually came to hate his father’s authoritarian abuses with such a passion that he would rather forsake his family, his country and his throne—would in fact rather risk his own life—than continue to suffer under his father’s yoke. And so, on the fifth of august, 1730, prince Frederick of Prussia made his bid for freedom. When the royal retinue was near Mannheim, in the Electorate of the Palatinate, he escaped from his quarters, met up with several army officers who had been his co-conspirators, and executed his secret plan: to flee for the safety of Great-Britain. [1]

(…)

Certainly, Frederick William wasted no time in excluding his wayward son from the Prussian line of succession, taking the matter to the Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire. [2] Considering that Frederick’s escape to a foreign power consituted treason, the Imperial Diet had no other choice than to support Frederick William’s decision. Frederick was permanently barred from succeeding to the throne of Prussia, leaving Frederick William free to name his second son, prince Augustus William, as his heir. This proved to be an ill-fated choice…


---


Excerpted from Sanssouci, by Leroy French (Robinson & Quayle, Confederacy of Southern America, 1950):

The prince-in-exile was originally received in Great-Britain with great warmth, and king George was not inclined to honor the Prussian demands that Frederick be returned at once, for the reasons listed previously. Relations between king George and prince Frederick cooled before long, however. Frederick had entertained ambitions of striking at Prussia with Hanoverian backing, deposing his father, and concluding a permanent alliance with Great-Britain. King George knew such hopes to be utterly unrealistic, and while he would gladly provide Frederick with a safe haven, he had it made explicitly clear that Frederick was expected to stay out of international politics henceforth.

Enraged, Frederick considered abandoning London for Paris, but the arrival in Great-Britain of his close friend and erstwhile co-conspirator Hans Hermann von Katte apparently caused him to change his mind. Von Katte, who had concealed his involvement in the escape, had departed from Prussia shortly after Frederick, and had reached Great-Britain by way of Batavia (then known as the Dutch Republic).

Abandoning his plans to seek refuge in France, Frederick instead sought out the company of intellectuals en radical freethinkers in London, spending his days discussing politics, philosophy, law, science and art.


---


Excerpted from The House of Hohenzollern, by Ludwig Krikke (Osting-Waldmann press, Prussia, 1985):

(…) but Augustus William grew increasingly ill under the pressure of his father’s demands. In 1739, he died of a fever. [3] His younger brother, so systematically overlooked by the king, now became heir to the throne. It remains an unsolved mystery: why did king Frederick William fail to observe prince Henry’s talents? Even at a young age, his aptitude in various fields was remarkable. It remains a question for the ages. Father and son barely communicated throughout the single year that Henry was crown prince.

As described in the previous chapter, when Frederick William died of dropsy in 1740, preparations had been made for Henry’s quick ascension to the throne. The prince had already gathered a circle of trusted and capable advisors and lieutenants. In fact, considering his young age upon ascension to the throne—Henry was only fourteen years old in when his father died—this circle of trusted advisors initially reigned in his name, by and large. But the king grew up fast, and within a few years, he wielded true power. He had great plans for his kingdom, even in his youth, and when the hour came, he wasted no time.


---


Excerpted from Sanssouci, by Leroy French (Robinson & Quayle, Confederacy of Southern America, 1950):

Almost as an afterthought, king Henry sent a formal message to Great-Britain in 1745, declaring that Prussia no longer desired the return of prince Frederick. It was, perhaps, the first indication that Prussia—or Henry, at least—had realized that the weight of alliances was shifting. It can be certain that the gesture was not made out of any particular affection for Frederick. By all accounts, it appears Henry never cared about Frederick at all. As long as no sudden rival claim to the Prussian throne was presented by the prince-in-exile, Henry had more important things to deal with.


---


Excerpted from The Making of Prussia, by Wilhelm Anrath (Liebgott publishers, Prussia, 1962):

(…) and although Henry was presented with various proposals, none of them struck him as convincing. Since the very commencement of his reign, the king had felt that the judicial and political organization of Prussia were in need of a major overhaul. It took several years before the king was in a position to give the matter his full attention, and it was not until 1751 that he finally reached an idea that he considered adequate.

He dismissed Prussian scholars, such as the freiherr von Cocceji—whose work he had found lacking—and instead sent an invitation to several foreign scholars and philosophers. Henry’s grand vision was to make the Prussian court into a centre of intellectual debate. As king, he could then profit from the fruits of such intellectualism.

The result, perhaps, disappointed him initially. Many of the French intellectuals at the time were otherwise engaged, such as with the compilation of the Encyclopédie. They politely declined the kings’s invitations. Nonetheless, the king soon found reason to rejoice, when the great thinker Montesquieu chose to travel to Prussia, followed shortly thereafter by the promising philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.


---


FOOTNOTES

[1] IOTL, Frederick did not manage to escape. Robert Keith, one of his co-conspirators, got cold feet. At the very last moment, he informed the king about the plans, and Frederick was apprehended. ITTL, the POD is that Robert (as shown in the 'prologue') gets into a fatal accident while on his way to warn the king. Therefore, Frederick succesfully makes his escape.

[2] Frederick William wanted to do this IOTL, even though Frederick’s escape failed. In fact, he considered executing his son. Only the fact that such actions would be hard to justify to the Imperial Diet (Frederick never having actually left Prussia, after all) prevented him from doing so. ITTL, there can be no doubt that Frederick William makes sure Frederick can never become king of Prussia.

[3] Augustus William was inclined toward ill health IOTL, and handled stress very badly. IOTL, he died in 1758, and that was without having the great stress of being the appointed crown prince and suffering the brunt of his father's abuses. I believe it is plausible that his health would suffer severely ITTL, resulting in his earlier death.


GENERAL NOTES

So. There you have it. The man who would have been Frederick the Great is living in exile in Britain. Augustus William predeceased his father, and Henry is now king of Prussia. To top it all off, Montesquieu and Rousseau, two of the most influential thinkers of their day, are to become philosophers at Henry's court (much as Voltaire spent time at Frederick's court IOTL).

As this is my first timeline, any and all feedback would be appreciated.

Good start.

How far are you planning on taking this?

Thanks! My idea was to write the timeline from 1730 through 1930 (exactly two centuries), and I've got a general notion of where I believe things would go.

Of course, I'm all for realism and keeping things interesting. Based on feedback/criticism, I'll aim to take this timeline down the most realistic and/or interesting path.

Awesome. Can't wait to see where this goes.

Now that I'm actually posting something here, it seems I'm on a roll. I can't promise such frequent updates all the time, but while I'm writing like a lunatic, I might as well share the results.

Here goes: part I, continued.



---



Excerpted from The King’s Loyal Philosophers, by Jean-Chrétin du Bois (Agodi Books, France, 1981):

Upon their arrival in Prussia, the philosophers were by all accounts most warmly received, and their first meetings with king Henry proved to be both pleasant and engaging. Certainly a promise of the succesful cooperation that was to come. Rousseau, who kept a journal of his time at Sanssouci, tells us that the king wasted no time on idle chit-chat, and immediately started questioning all of his guests on their ideas regarding natural law, and countless other subjects.

Within a matter of weeks, Montesquieu at least was working entirely in the Prussian king’s employ, having accepted an offer of patronage. His task was a daunting one, and after discussing it with several Prussian legal scholars, he began to understand why the king had summoned help from France. Trying to create a unifying code of law for the entire Prussian kingdom, he succinctly noted, was a fool’s errand. The local aristocrats, eager to hold on to their own authority, would undermine such an endeavour at every turn.

This observation was in complete accord with Montesquieu’s own idea – innovative at the time – that every society will invariably have a unique environment and history; a unique identity shaped by its material conditions. Among other things, this would result in a desire of every community to create its own laws and regulations. And was every region of Prussia, he reasonded to the king, not a society in itself? In France, the provicial parlemènts held the power to create and uphold local laws and ordinances. Why should it be any different in Prussia?

It was now clear to him what he would have to do, in order to succeed in his mission. Instead of creating a body of law for the entire kingdom, every provincial administration should be directed to write down the largely unwritten local laws and customs. That solution, he believed, would stand a better chance of succeeding.


---


Sanssouci, the Kingdom of Prussia, 1752

“What do you mean, local laws?”

“Well, allow me to explain, Your Majesty...”

And Montesqieu explained what he had come to realize, and the more he explained, the more it seemed that the king agreed with him. “Yes, yes of course... I have, naturally, read your works on the matter... You might very well be onto something here.”

“What I suggest is the following: you can instruct each Provincial Diet to start gathering the local laws and customs, writing them down in a single code of law for each province. Whenever they encounter a situation that is not dealt with by any such law, they can look to the Roman Law to fill the gaps, and include the Roman solution into their corpus. Alternatively, they can devise a solution based upon their common sense.”

“Ah, I like that – that way we will create an a system that is equitable for everyone.”

“Indeed so, Your Majesty. And then there will be a system of law that is accessible for anyone who can read, anywhere in your kingdom. Everyone will know exactly what rules to live by, and judges will be needed only to read these laws aloud to the citizenry should any conflict arise.”

Henry smiled widely at that. “So, no more need for those leeches we call laywers, then?” [1]

“None at all, your Majesty,” Montesquieu assured him.

“I find that a most delightful prospect.”


---


Excerpted from The Making of Prussia, by Wilhelm Anrath (Liebgott publishers, Prussia, 1962):

And so, with the king’s blessing, Montesquieu embarked on the most far-reaching set of judicial and political reforms that any nation of Europe had ever seen at that point in time. The effects of his labours in the years to come would not only change the nature of Prussia’s political organization forever, but also the very fabric of society. And not only in Prussia, not even only in Europe, but also across the ocean, in America...


---


Excerpted from The House of Hohenzollern, by Ludwig Krikke (Osting-Waldmann press, Prussia, 1985):

King Henry soon came to regret his open invitation to the critical minds of all Europe. Although we know that the king’s philosophical endeavours eventually reflected well on Prussia, the first weeks were less than satisfactory to Henry himself. He had fondly imagined a fair harmony of debate and enlightenment. The practical reality was more like a no-holds-barred fighting match. As it turned out, the philosophically inclined tend to disagree with each other on countless points that, to mere mortals, would seem vanishingly unimportant and minor. Within a week, two Polish scholars had departed in a huff, Jean-Jacques Rousseau had insulted nearly everyone else, and the king was seriously considering sending all of his guests away and abandoning the whole project. Several historians, such as Du Bois, have glossed over such difficulties, but a careful reading of Brueckner reveals that we should be wary of such an idealised presentation of events. Though Henry became known as a patron of philosophers, the early stages of his endeavours were not without incident.

Fortunately, the problems eventually sorted themselves out. Some guests, disappointed, left the Prussian court, and those who stayed managed not to strangle each other. That still left the king with a second problem, namely that various of his eminent guest were hardly too shy to refrain from criticizing him (albeit politely). That was most unexpected. Most brusque of these offenders was monsieur Rousseau, whose youth was no doubt a factor in his impertinence. In the end, he decided that he could not reconcile his own ideals with king Henry’s notions of enlightened despotism. Harsh words were exchanged, and one could certainly criticize monsieur Rousseau for his undisciplined behaviors. But considering his unfortunate end, at so young an age, let us speak no ill of the man, and move on to other topics (…)


---


Excerpted from The King’s Loyal Philosophers, by Jean-Chrétin du Bois (Agodi Books, France, 1981):

While King Henry and Montesquieu were on friendly terms from the start, the ill-fated Rousseau felt increasingly out of place in Prussia, and soon decided to return to France, intending to continue his work on the Encyclopédie. It was not to be; he fell gravely ill on the return journey, and in Straßburg, he became so afflicted by fever that he was rendered unable to travel further. After a sichbed of three days, Rousseau died of his fever. The world will never know what influence his radical notions might have had on the development of European philosophy, had he lived to work them out in greater detail.

One result of Rousseau’s demise, incidentally, was the return of Voltaire to France. Having spent years living in quasi-exile in Batavia (then known as the Dutch Republic), Voltaire was prompted to return by Diderot and d’Alembert, the chief editors of the Encyclopédie. They enlisted his aid in an increased capacity, having lost Rousseau’s input permanently. Voltaire is believed to have infused the Encyclopédie with distinctly republican sentiments, which he developed during his exile in Amsterdam en Leiden. It remains an irony that one of “King Henry’s philosophers” was replaced as editor of the Encyclopédie by none other than Voltaire. After all, Voltaire had famously insulted the French intellectuals who had accepted Henry’s offer of patronage, by remarking “Any philosopher who associates with a tyrant like the king of Prussia is a fraud, and should not be taken seriously.”


---


Excerpted from Sanssouci, by Leroy French (Robinson & Quayle, Confederacy of Southern America, 1950):

It is truly striking, how similar Frederick and Henry ultimately were. Both sought out the councel of intellectuals and philosophers. While Frederick engaged in countless debates with the artists and radicals of Great-Britain, Henry surrounded himself with philosophers from various nations. Both brothers sought, first and foremost, to continually educate and better themselves. Henry would use the knowledge gained to bring glory upon glory to Prussia, and became known as the archetypical enlightenend despot of Old Europa. Frederick, rather, became an archetypical anti-despot; a standard bearer for the cause of human liberty. Still, both Henry and Frederick became symbols of the Enlightenment ideal…


---


Excerpted from The King’s Loyal Philosophers, by Jean-Chrétin du Bois (Agodi Books, France, 1981):

Montesquieu’s great Prussian Reforms are rightfully considered to be the single greatest achievement that Montesquieu accomplished during his lifetime. He was presented with the unique opportunity to put his vision regarding political and judicial matters into practice, and he seized it without hesitation. More importantly, where his ideas ran into obstructions, he came up with new solutions instead of attempting to force unworkable ideas on an unwilling nation.

That is not to say that the reforms were met with no significant resistance. Reality proved a little more resilient than the lofty ideals that Montesquieu and king Henry were so fond of, and at times, they were quite close to despairing. But they pressed on, and eventually succeeded in the implementation of broad reforms.

As early as 1752, Montesquieu worked to further develop his theory of “Les Conditions Matérièlles”; the unique circumstances that defined every people on the earth, and which determined their need for their own suitably crafted laws and regulations. It is during this endeavour that he came to realize that though every province would need its own code a law, all of Prussia should also be unified on some level.

The earliest reference to his solution to that quandry is found in january of 1753, when he suggested to king Henry that while a single code of law for the kingdom was unpractical, a single constitution would be a very sensible option. Such a document would outline the tasks of the king’s general government, leaving all other tasks and powers to either the provinces, or to the king himself.

No doubt inspired by the Magna Carta of Great-Britain, Montesquieu further suggested that the king use this constitution to outline the most fundamental rights he granted his citizens, thus forever solidifying the holy pact between the king and his people. Henry, ever the enlightened despot, was ecstatic about the idea.

It is thought to have been king Henry himself who first suggested to Montesquieu that the constitution should be explicitly made to supercede all other laws, so that the supreme position of the general government and the king himself over the provinces was legally secured. Whatever the case may be, Montesquieu agreed and adopted it into his plan.

Realizing that a constitution must be in place before any provincial laws could be codified (after all, how could they comply with a constitution that was not yet written?), Montesquieu first set out to draft a constitutional document.


---


Excerpted from The First of the Modern Constitutions, by Jacob Wells, the winning entry in Living History’s thirteenth annual essay contest, 1978:

It is in the summer of 1753 that Montesquieu presented his draft of a constitution to the king, who was by and large pleased with it. He had some of the wording changed, but had no issue with its contents, which (as detailed above) he had previously discussed at length with Montesquieu.

The Prussian Constitution contained the following provisions:

• The king is the absolute ruler of the state, and all laws are written in his name. The rules of succession are also determined in the constitution;
• The constitution can be altered by the king and by the king alone;
• All laws are to comply with the constitution and with the decrees of the king;
• Local laws can be adopted and altered by the Provincial Diets, in the king’s name;
• The law should be the singular source of justice: habits, customs and unwritten conventions should all be written down in the law;
• A judge may not interpret the law, and must simply be the “mouth of the law”, reading its provisions out to the population, and not interpreting it any further;
• Should no law apply, the judge must refer the case to the Diet, in what is called a référé législatif, where a new law can then be made. Only when that law is made can the judge pass sentence;
• All citizens enjoy the right of the king’s protection, and may appeal to him when they feel they have been unfairly treated under existing laws;
• Foreign relations and military matters are declared the exclusive affair of the king’s national government. Provinces are no longer to concern themselves with decisions regarding these matters.

In addition to the constitution, several “Fundamental Laws of State” were introduced, mainly outlining the government’s tasks when it comes to foreign affairs and matters of war. These laws were to be placed above other laws, just as the constitution was. Incidentally, these laws coincided with (and further strengthened) king Henry’s ongoing military reforms.

After fully reviewing the proposals, king Henry declared them to be law, and sent copies to all provinces, so they could take note of this decree. A historical occasion, both for Prussia and the world. Now, a further analysis of the points mentioned above (...)


---


Excerpted from The Making of Prussia, by Wilhelm Anrath (Liebgott publishers, Prussia, 1962):

With the constitution drafted, king Henry aimed to complete his reforms as soon as possible. By the summer of 1753, the king issued an order to all the Provincial Diets to start writing down the laws of their territories, following the specific guidelines that Montesquieu had drafted, to wit:

• When local customs or laws are in conflict with each other, decide which is more equitable, and write it down thusly;
• When local customs or laws conflict with Roman law, rely on the local customs or laws. Only use Roman law when no local customs or laws apply;
• When Roman law is to be used, but deemed unequitable, adapt the provisions to be more suitable;
• When no law can be found to suit a known situation that is thought to require regulation, use common sense to draft a new law;
• When doing all of this, keep in mind the Prussian Constitution and the Fundamental Laws of State, and ensure that no law is in conflict with their provisions.

With these established guidelines, Prussia had not only adopted the first modern constitution, but also the first modern judicial hierarchy. This innovative (at the time) approach proved compelling, and over the course of several years, the Provincial Diets worked to comply with these orders. Many provincial legislators did of course raise various objections, but the king was firm in his convictions, and not to be swayed. In early 1755, the last provinces published their finalized codes of law, thereby making the Prussian legal system the most tightly organized in all of Europe. [2]

It is this firm basis that provided king Henry with the much-needed security he had desired for so long. The smooth running of his government had allowed him ample time to make military preparations, and when Britain wisely decided to renounce her alliance with Prussia’s enemies the following year, the time had come to act decisively against troublesome Austria…


---


FOOTNOTES

[1] An intense hatred of everything resembling a lawyer is apparently a Hohenzollern family trait, ITTL as IOTL. Frederick William, Frederick II and Hernry all expressed a hatred of lawyers IOTL, Frederick William even going so far as to mandate that all lawyers in Prussia always wear distinctive black cloaks “so you can always recognize the scoundrels”. (I’m not making this up.)

[2] Incidentally, IOTL, Montesquieu caught a cold that proved fatal in 1755. With him being in a whole different country at the time ITTL, that’s obviously butterflied away entirely. Poor Rousseau died young. Montesquieu, on the other hand, gets an extra lease of life.


GENERAL NOTES

The type of legal reforms as presented here all tend to reflects Montesquieu's ideas as he wrote them down IOTL, albeit in a form that is specifically suited to Prussia's circumstances. I hope all the talk on legal reform hasn't been too dry. I've tried to keep it somewhat readable.

Anyway, now we know what's been going on in Prussia. Next update: more on Frederick's exploits.

This is amazing. As far as I understand it, you have essentially anticipated what the Code Napoleon did with reference to the creation of Civil Law.

The death of Rousseau is going to have intense butterflies across the sea.

For a first time poster? Brilliant. Subscribed.

Since it is somewhat connected with the events you have thus far butterflied, what do you say to the potential earlier POD of Frederick becoming King of Britain?

I'm glad people like where this TL is going thus far.

ManintheField, what butterflies across the sea do you expect from Rousseau's death? Frankly, I'd always considered him mostly as a strong influence of French philosophical & political thought. (For instance: several major players in the French revolution cited Rousseau as their main influence.) Have I missed something important?

Stolengood, you idea of Frederick as king of Britain is far more original than my POD. I really hope you'll consider turning that into a timeline, following the discussion on the subject. It sounds spectacular.

Widukind said:

I'm glad people like where this TL is going thus far.

ManintheField, what butterflies across the sea do you expect from Rousseau's death? Frankly, I'd always considered him mostly as a strong influence of French philosophical & political thought. (For instance: several major players in the French revolution cited Rousseau as their main influence.) Have I missed something important?

Click to expand...

That's my bad. I switched up Montesquieu and Rousseau in my head without bothering to check. I was thinking of the separation of powers doctrine.

Still, there will be effects -- both men were important touchstones for the educated, reading portion of Anglo-American society. It's arguable how much direct influence Rousseau himself had but a lot of the more radical, democratic side of the American Revolution and American politics in the early republic have a lot in common with what Rousseau himself had to say.

ManintheField said:

Still, there will be effects -- both men were important touchstones for the educated, reading portion of Anglo-American society. It's arguable how much direct influence Rousseau himself had but a lot of the more radical, democratic side of the American Revolution and American politics in the early republic have a lot in common with what Rousseau himself had to say.

Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. Montesquieu's actions ITTL will certainly have a noticable effect, both in Europe and America. But as I understand it, the American democratic radicals (Jefferson, Paine, etc.) were not so much influenced directly by Rousseau, but rather they separately developed similar ideas. Their main influence (who also influenced Rousseau) was John Locke.

France, on the other hand... there's probably no single man who had more influence on French radicalism than Rousseau did. Without him, France is going to be a different country, regardless of whether there will be a French revolution ITTL. Just for starters: the absence of Rousseau likely butterflies anything resembling the Jacobin Club, and if the Girondins (or something like them) still form, they will not be the same.

NICE!!!

This is a good an nteresting timeline; I'd never have suspected it of being writen by a first time poster. PLEASE keep it coming!

I can see problems down the road for Prussia, since the constitution can be altered by the kinf and only the king. So, a king that's not first rate can ruin the country even faster and easier than in most cases, by changing the constitution on a whim...someone might want to mention the document's vulnerability.

Now I'm looking forwards to the growth of freedom in America...please keep writing!!!!

WOW!

Thank you, NHBL. I will definitely keep writing. And it's funny you should mention that particular provision of the constitution. While it reflects Montesquieu's OTL ideas, from our modern-day perspective it's obvious that it's going to cause problems at some point. Anyway, the next update specifically mentions this part of the consitution, although it deals with the way Henry got the Provincial Diets to accept it, rather than with the problems it may or may not cause...

For the socio-political development of America ITTL, you'll have to excercise a bit of patience. The next update (which I'm currently finishing up, and will post in a few hours) will conclude the first part/chapter of this timeline, and it's only the third part that really deals with American history in a major way. But I'll try to keep you entertained in the meantime.

I'm going to have to subscribe to this. I love 18th century philosophy and how it could have gone off in weird directions.

Glad to hear it, Mumby. The more the merrier!

Now, for the closing installment of Part One:


---


Excerpted from The House of Hohenzollern, by Ludwig Krikke (Osting-Waldmann press, Prussia, 1985):

Following the War of the Austrian Succession, it became increasingly clear that the interests of Austria and Britain were diverging. [1] Britain had left her ally humiliated, pressuring Maria Theresa to give up Parma, the larger share of Lombardy, and to abandon Austrian-occupied Bavaria. Most importantly, Austria was forced to surrender Silesia, one of the Bohemian crown lands, to king Henry. This had made Prussia a great European power. It was clear that Britain no longer viewed Austria as powerful enough to proved a check on French power, and sought to encourage the growth of Prussia, as a means of providing balance.

Austria was determined to reclaim Silesia, and could not abide Prussia’s growth. Therefore, Britain and Austria found themselves with conflicting interests. This proved impossible to resolve, and in 1756, Britain and Prussia agreed that Britain would not aid Austria in a renewed conflict over Silesia, provided that Prussia assented to protect Hanover from French ambitions. Shifting power and the weight of vested interests had ensured that Prussia was now Britain’s natural ally on the continent.


---


Excerpted from Sanssouci, by Leroy French (Robinson & Quayle, Confederacy of Southern America, 1950):

When it became clear, in 1756, that Great-Britain would indeed terminate her alliance with Austria, Frederick vehemently opposed this decision. Through his network of friends and admirers in London, he anonymously published several essays attacking king George and king Henry. The authorship of these works was a very public secret, and his position in Britain soon became untenable…


---


Excerpted from The Making of Prussia, by Wilhelm Anrath (Liebgott publishers, Prussia, 1962):

Fredericks slanderous attacks on the noble kings of Prussia and Great-Britain—his own brother among them, no less!—can be regarded as nothing but treason against both his native and his adoptive land. His radical and ungentlemanly nature was here revealed once more, as it would be time again in his later life. (Consider, after all, his role in American history.) In fact, without exaggeration, it can be concluded that Prussia had indeed been most fortunate on the fifth of August, 1730. For had Frederick not escaped to Great-Britain that day, he might have become king of our beloved land. No sane man can doubt that he would have been universally ill-suited for such a role…


---


Excerpted from Sanssouci, by Leroy French (Robinson & Quayle, Confederacy of Southern America, 1950):

Again considering a flight for Paris, to offer up his services in the fight against his brother’s kingdom, Frederick was unexpectedly presented with an alternative. In 1757, Frederick was introduced to the newly arrived colonial agent of Pennsylvania, by their mutual acquaintance Richard Price. Frederick immediately developed a rapport with mister Benjamin Franklin, and it was Franklin who suggested the possibility of leaving Great-Britain, not for France, but for America. Some believe that Franklin convinced Frederick upon their first meeting. Whatever the case may have been, the erstwhile prince left for Pennsylvania later that year. And by all accounts, king George was glad to see the back of him.


---


Excerpted from The House of Hohenzollern, by Ludwig Krikke (Osting-Waldmann press, Prussia, 1985):

When king Henry was informed of his brother’s departure from Great-Britain, he gave no other reaction than to order a formal decree, stripping Frederick of all his titles. Multiple sources confirm that he stated: “I am glad my brother, the prince, is dead. He was a very unhappy man.” He never spoke of Frederick by name again, although he later repeatedly commented that the Americans, in their war, were fortunate to have “men like that marshal of theirs”.

Dickley and others (notably, French), have promoted the claim that king Henry was unaware of that marshal’s true identity, and that the remark about his brother’s death demonstrated how little he knew or cared about Frederick. Evidently biased pseudo-historians, such as Anrath, have even suggested that Henry cursed his brother for “treason”. (A claim that remains entirely unsubstantiated.)

In reality, Henry’s attitude suggests that he understood his brother perfectly, and cared about him deeply. One might go so far as to speculate wether Henry might not have wished that he himself could have been the one to escape the throne. Note, in this regard, the theory that Henry in fact secretly emulated his brother, by adopting a secret identity of his own—at least as a nom de plume. Though many historians doubt that the works of “marshal Gessler” are actually by Henry, new evidence suggests the king might have authored these works after all. It cannot be denied that the relationship between king Henry and his elder brother was a complex one, which should not be so simplified as to be mistaken for mere disdain.


--


Excerpted from The King’s Loyal Philosophers, by Jean-Chrétin du Bois (Agodi Books, France, 1981):

The Prussians like to pretend that as of 1755, their constitution was the be-all end-all epitome of judicial brilliance. In truth, Montesquieu’s greatest talent was his ability to perfect his system through trial and error, and he got plenty of both. 1755 wasn’t the year the problems ended, it was the year they started to manifest.

The main problem with the legal system, as it had been designed by Montesquieu, was caused by Montesquieu’s steadfast conviction at that time that a judge should be no more that the “mouth” of the law, and should not be allowed to interpret it at all. As it turned out, laws need interpreting, because nearly all words in nearly all languages have multiple meanings, which all depend on the context. When the law forbids you to keep dangerous animals within city limits, a judge must decide on a case-by-case basis which animal is dangerous and which is not. It is hardly practical to design a law listing every known animal that might be dangerous...

However, because of the harsh penalties facing any judge that dared ruling without an explicit legal basis, it turned out that judges immediately began over-using the offered solution: the référé législatif. They began to refer nearly all of their cases to the Diets for judical preview, and the result was a complete breakdown of the legal system. The Diets were swamped in countless appeals for a référé législatif, and were unable to process so many cases. For a while, justice was simply no longer being adminstered in the kingdom of Prussia. [2]

Fortunately for the king, the stipulations regarding judicial interpretation and the référé législatif were dealt with in the constitution, and this allowed the king to alter the procedure at will. After discussing the matter with Montesquieu, who also saw the error in his initual theory, they came up with a solution, and the constitution was altered accordingly: a judge would henceforth be allowed to interpret laws, but as in England, the articles of any law should be interpreted grammatically (i.e. ‘literally’). [3] No judge would be allowed to deviate from the literal wording of the law, but he was allowed to interpret the literal wording according to the varying meanings that any one word might have.

After this crucial reform, the system functioned far more smoothly, and the problems that had arisen turned out to be a blessing in disguise: had Montesquieu not been able to implement his ideas in practice, he might never have realized the impractical aspects of his ideas, and would have never adapted them to operate more effectively. As it was, he did evolve his ideas, and revised his written works accordingly.

By 1757 Montesquieu was widely known throughout Europe as the man who had made the enlightened despot, Henry, even more enlightened than he had already been. Reformers of all nations had come to regard him as their role model. When he published a revised edition of L’Esprit des Lois, incorporating the new insights he has gained, such as a greater role for judges and the practical merits of regional codification as opposed to national codification, it rapidly spread across Europe. In France, the king feared it might destabilize the government, and had the book banned. This didn’t stop it from being secretly shipped to France after it was legally published in other countries.

In 1758, Montesquieu pusblished his last major work, Les Conditions Matérièlles, a dissertation futher elaborating on the idea that every different region and every separate people has its own needs and thus requires its own laws. It was as much a succes as his previous work, and inspired local diets and parlements in the various German states and in France to take a more active and independent stance. The book has rightfully been called the main source of philosophical and sociological inspiration of modern confederalism.

Montesquieu’s health had begun to fail him in mid-1758, and he passed away in early 1759, weakened by the harsh winter months of Prussia. He was mourned by the king, by the nation, and by all of Europe—though by that time, the continent was more than a little distracted by the ongoing war, of course...


---


Excerpted from The First of the Modern Constitutions, by Jacob Wells, the winning entry in Living History’s thirteenth annual essay contest, 1978:

The second major provision of the 1753 constitution—that only the king of Prussia had the authority to alter the constitution—proved to be a contentious point from the outset. The Provincial Diets had taken issue with so drastic a formalization of the king’s unchecked authority over them. In theory, Prussia had not been anything short of an abolute monarchy previous to the constitution’s introduction, but in practice, most European monarchs always ensured they had some broad measure of support for their reign and their actions. Prussia had been no exception to this. To see the king unquestionably confirmed as the absolute authority over all matters of state, then, caused many a Prussian notable to worry about the implications.

Informal promises by Henry to maintain the age-old “understanding” between the king and the aristocracy, combined with certain royal favors granted to influential notables, eventually led all the Provincial Diets to accept this constitutional provision as well, though with considerable hesitation. It is certainly somewhat ironic, then, that no more than two years later, the Diets themselves were all but begging king Henry to use his royal prerogative to alter the constution. Specifically, to remove the injuction on the interpretation of laws by prussia’s judges. Henry purposely stalled the issue, letting the Diets to drown in a flood of appeals for référé upon référé—just long enough to ensure that they had to come to him. From that point on, the king’s absolute authority was unquestioned. By the time the dangers of such unchecked power in the hands of one man became fully apparent, it had already become an entrenched element of constitutional law (…)


---


Excerpted from Pennsylvanian History, by Hank Lowndes (Franklin Press, Republic of Northern America, 1922):

It may be remarked upon that Frederick, the former prince of Prussia, became a focal point of society life immediately upon his arrival in our fair state (or rather, colony, then). He was a gladly-welcomed associate of both proprietary and anti-proprietary politicians, refusing to take a position on the contested issue. Well-liked as he may have been, Frederick nevertheless remained a guest, and never considered himself a son of Pennsylvania. Instead, he repeatedly expressed a desire to see French America, and perhaps settle there. From the start, this was his intention. Of course, such desires would have to wait for the duration of the war.

Regardless of such obstacles, Frederick made the best of his time, seeking out stimulating company and engaging in intellectual circles. By the time the war drew to a close, he had (as he phrased it) “rubbed the last tarnish of Europe of his soul”. Montréal was to become his home on our continent, but it was in Pennsylvania that Frederick became an American.


---


Excerpted from Sanssouci, by Leroy French (Robinson & Quayle, Confederacy of Southern America, 1950):

As soon as hostilities ceased—at least as far as America was concerned—in 1760, Frederick deemed it safe to travel to the occupied French territoty, then still known as Québec. He left Pennsylvania for Montréal, where the victorious Wolfe had established his headquarters. It had long been Frederick’s desire to see French America, but the course of the war had prevented him thus far. Now that French America had become just another part of British America, Frederick wasted no time in travelling there.

His command of the French language and his love of French culture made him immediately popular among the Francophone elite of the time, and that affection proved mutual. Within a week of his arrival in the city of Montréal, the former prince gladly declared that he was, for the first time in his existence, truly without worry. He adopted this as his monniker, and from that moment on, prince Frederick of Prussia truly ceased to exist. His place had been taken by that great American— Frédéric Sanssouci.





---


FOOTNOTES

[1] Yes, the War of the Austrian Succession happened ITTL as it did IOTL. Frankly, I can’t see Henry handling that any different from the way Frederick did it IOTL. If hating lawyers is a Hohenzollern family trait, so is pragmatic opportunism and the general tendency to grab land off their neighbors.

[2] That’s exactly what happened in revolutionary France IOTL, when the French revolutionaries tried to implement Montesquieu’s untested OTL theories. Unlike Prussia ITTL, they didn’t have Montesquieu still around to revise his own ideas. The resulting chaos permanently damaged the reputation of Montesquieu’s judicial theories IOTL.

[3] In England, ITTL as IOTL, the practice of laws having to be interpreted in accordance with the strictly literal meaning of their wording applies only to written law (the “statutes”). Most law in England, however, is unwritten, and exists in the form of the precedent-based Common Law. ITTL, Prussia obviously has no such distinction, as the constitution demands that all laws be written down.


GENERAL NOTES

And that's it for Part One. Prussia is perhaps the most modern nation in the world, under its succesful and popular Monarch. But it is not Frederick who is called "the Great" ITTL. His brother sits on the throne, while Frederick—that is, Frédéric—find himself in a whole new world. But what about the war (the one we know as the Seven Years' War)? We have barely heard of it. That will be remedied in Part Two:

"Six Years of War"​

Good update.

A divided America? Interesting. Wonder what spin you'll put on it...

Frederick the Great, in AMERICA

It blows the mind!

Widukind said:

[2] Augustus William was inclined toward ill health IOTL, and handled stress very badly. IOTL, he died in 1758, and that was without having the great stress of being the appointed crown prince and suffering the brunt of his father's abuses. I believe it is plausible that his health would suffer severely ITTL, resulting in his earlier death.

Click to expand...

Fair enough - AW survives seven years of FW's mistreatment, which is time enough to get sick and die.

Henry is now king of Prussia. To top it all off, Montesquieu and Rousseau, two of the most influential thinkers of their day, are to become philosophers at Henry's court...

Click to expand...

Yabbut Henry is 14 years old. There's no way he reigns or has any influence for at least four years, or maybe longer. He certainly isn't going to be hanging out with the philosophes and savants. It's also going to be very hard for Henry to succeed when he has a perfectly good older brother who is an adult.

Rich Rostrom said:

Yabbut Henry is 14 years old. There's no way he reigns or has any influence for at least four years, or maybe longer. He certainly isn't going to be hanging out with the philosophes and savants. It's also going to be very hard for Henry to succeed when he has a perfectly good older brother who is an adult.

Click to expand...

Please note that Henry becomes king in 1740 (when he is fourteen, yes), but eventually decides to invite various intellectuals to join him at his court in 1751, when he is twenty-five. They mostly arrive the next year, making him closer to 26. I realize, in hindsight, that I was probably unclear on that. I skip several years in Part One. That's mostly because Part One is meant to establish the situation as it comes to exist in the 1750's, when TTL really gets off the ground. everything prior to 1751 is pretty much 'establishing shots'. I'll see if I can edit that a bit, maybe make it clear that Henry's first few years on the throne mostly meant that his advisors ruled in his name.

I'm curious what older brother you mean, though. Considering that Augustus William is dead ITTL, Henry's only older brother is Frederick. Who escaped to Britain, has zero desire to become king, and is excluded anyway, considering that his escape consitutes an an act of treason. (Though, again, I'll edit that to make it clear that Frederick William had Frederick excluded from the line of succession.)

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out, because it reveals where I've been unclear and sloppy. I'll correct that ASAP.

ETA: I have edited the first installment of Part One (post #2 in this thread), particularly excerpts one, three and five, based on your comments. Thanks again, Rich Rostrom!

---


Excerpted from A History of Warfare, by A.J. Steinhower (Rockwell Books, Confederacy of Southern America, 1941):

The Six Years’ War has been described as the first global conflict, and although this designation is disputed, the war is widely recognized as an example of how complicated international alliances can turn a local confrontation into a war on a much wider scale. A military clash that started out in North America, primarily over conflicting British and French claims to the Ohio valley, [1] soon swept up all of Europe, as well as the colonial empires of the nations involved.

The conflict had been brewing for some considerable time, and the dispute over the Ohio valley was merely the proverbial drop that filled the bottle. Hostilities erupted in 1754, but only in the spring of 1756 was war openly declared, which is why the conflict became known as the Six Years’ War rather than the Eight Years’ War. 1756 is also the year that the war became a global affair, as the Prussian king decided to take pre-emptive action against his inevitable opponents (...)


---


Excerpted from The Making of Prussia, by Wilhelm Anrath (Liebgott publishers, Prussia, 1962):

Modern Prussia was made first and foremost by Henry the Great, but he forged it in the fires of war as much as he shaped it with the burning light of reason and progress. How could he do otherwise? Prussia has always had great ambitions, and that incurs petty jealousy in other nations. Ever since the great diplomatic reversal, France and Austria had been conspiring to bring Prussia down. King Henry wisely responded to this by establishing an alliance with Great-Britain, so that the Prussians and the Britons could stand together against the covenant of France and Austria. Empress Maria Theresa actively sought to form an anti-Prussian coalition. Austria’s hostile actions alarmed king Henry, and left him with no choice but to strike first—by invading Meissen (at that time known as Saxony), where an Austro-French army was being assembled to invade the rightfully Prussian province of Silesia.

King Henry crossed the border on the 20th of August 1756, [2] in a bold pre-emption of the planned Austro-French invasion. After a series of victories, the entire Electorate of Saxony, as it was called then, was occupied by Prussia, and their armies were incorporated into the Prussian forces. Despite the fact that Prussia was vastly outnumbered, 1756 was a year of great victories.

As soon as the snow had melted, king Henry once again displayed his characteristic boldness, and invaded the Austrian Kingdom of Bohemia. His armies won the Battle of Prague, and laid siege to the city. The exellently organized intelligence units of the Prussian army warned the king well ahead of time that a major Austrian relief force was en route, and king Henry gave them a very warm welcome. Though even more disproportionally outnumbered than in any previous encounter, the Austrians had not expected king Henry to be fully prepared for their arrival, and although the cost was high, he decicively smashed the Austrian forces, who had no choice but to retreat from Bohemia entirely. [3]

To any lesser man, it would have been tempting to stretch his fortunes and invade Austria outright. King Henry thought better of it. Earlier that year, the Russians had invaded East Prussia (though the much smaller Prussian force present in those parts fiercely resisted the invaders, they could not win), and a French army was rapidly approaching the Prussian-held Electorate of Saxony from the west. He knew he would have to defend what he had already gained, rather than reach for more and lose it all.


---


Prussian army camp, south of Zwickau, Prussian-occupied Saxony, 2nd of November 1757

“Your Majesty, it’s just as you predicted,” the general exclaimed. “Our scouts confirm that Soubise has changed his marching direction. They suspect we are marching north to intercept them along their original marching course.”

Henry smiled. General Soubise would be expecting him to be north of the city by now. They would not be planning for a sudden attack from the south. “Are our divisions ready?”

“Absolutely, Your Majesty. The cavalry can descend upon them at any time of your choosing.”

He nodded. This was it, and now he’d have to be careful. “Just before dusk sets in. I want to catch them as they are just preparing to set up camp, but before they have any guards positioned. And we will have to be swift – if the fighting isn’t over by the time the sun has fully set, we’ll be caught in the dark just as much as our enemies.”

The general grinned, clearly appriciating this strategy. “We’ll be ready, Your Majesty. They will not know what hit them.”


---


Excerpted from the diary of Jules Urbain, a lieutenant in the army of general Soubise, and one of the few survivors of “Zwickau”:

It was hell. All the devils of the dark crashing down on top of us. We’d halted our march only moments before, I was just ordering a sergeant to set up patrols to guard our encampment, and then—

We never saw where they came from. Everywhere, it seemed. Cavalry charging down the hill, hacking up anyone in their path. I shouted, but by then, they were upon us already, and the last thing I knew was hard blow to my head.

When I came to, they had finished their horrible work. The ground was littered with dead, and all our supplies had been pillaged or set aflame. The Prussian devils were already retreating, and I survived by playing dead. From a great distance, I observed their commander: a man exuding natural authority, but dressed in a simple uniform, he looked every inch the hard-souled Prussian general. He was too far away to see his expression, but his very pose spoke volumes about his attitude. This man had no qualms about the mass murder his army had just commited (for I was later told they had even put all surendering soldiers to the sword), nor was he particularly ecstatic about it. From what I could observe, this was simply a man enjoying a job well done.

Later, I was told by one of the other survivors that it had been their king, Henry the Butcher himself.

I cannot think back to that day without seeing that terrible man, or the thousands of corpses, or finding the head of general Soubise on a pike...


---


Excerpted from A History of Warfare, by A.J. Steinhower (Rockwell Books, Confederacy of Southern America, 1941):

Because of the controversy surrounding it, the Battle of Zwickau is often named as one of the most prominent battles of the entire Six Years’ War, but it is debatable whether this is entirely justified. This is not to say it wasn’t a very impressive military achievement: Henry opened with a surprise cavalry charge on general Soubise’s main encampment, and within two hours, over 10,000 enemy soldiers were dead. The Prussians, in contrast, suffered no more than 23 fatalities and 156 injuries.

Following this crippling attack, Henry marched through the night, and attacked the remaining divisions of Soubise’s army at dawn. His tactics were far less brutal there: most of the enemy forces surrendered, and the mass executions of prisoners were not repeated. Nevertheless, “Zwickau” has remained synonymous with both overwhelming force and unrestrained ruthlessness.

For all this grim reknown, Zwickau is in actual fact to be considered far less important than the Battle of Pilsen, a month later. The Austrians had gathered a vast army to take back Bohemia. Their initial intention had been to invade Silesia, but regaining Prague was considered a more pressing task. A force of over 80,000 Austrian soldiers, supported by 210 cannons, aimed to crush the outtnumbered Prussians: Henry had no more than 45,000 men and 180 cannons at his disposal. [4]


---


Excerpted from The Making of Prussia, by Wilhelm Anrath (Liebgott publishers, Prussia, 1962):

Zwickau and Pilsen, more than any other battles during the war, demonstrate the military genius of king Henry. To speak of these battles is to speak of the fundamental meaning of victory. The king utterly vanquished a vastly superior enemy force, not just once, but twice in rapid succession. These victories proved beyond any doubt that he was the world’s most talented general, and that his soldiers were the world’s very finest.

Prussia’s many foes were far from ready to yield, however, and the king was fully aware that they would assemble new armies. Sweden threatened from he north now, Russia was still advancing from the east, Austria would soon come at our nation again from the south, and the French were faring better against Hanover than they ever had against a Prussian army. In addition, Bavaria and several other small states had established a combined force to support Austria.

When the primary army of Hanover, under general Cumberland, was defeated at Hastenbeck it took Hanover and Brunswick out of the war entirely. His allies in the west defeated, king Henry knew he would have to prepare for a French invasion into Prussia. He sent urgent requests for British support, but the Britons had their own problems...


---


FOOTNOTES

[1] This is all just as IOTL, because at this point, the goings-on in Europe have not yet caused any major butterflies across the ocean.

[2] That is, nine days earlier than Frederick did IOTL. Hardly a difference, but indicative of the ever-so-slight improvement of Prussian military organization relative to OTL. The Prussian military was already exellently trained IOTL, but Henry’s reforms ITTL have contributed to an even more effective government and central command structure.

[3] IOTL the Prussian reconnaisance efforts were less well-organized, and Frederick was taken by surprise. As a result, he was defeated at the battle of Kolin. Henry fares better, obviously.

[4] Though still outnumbered, Henry has significantly more forces at his disposal than Frederick did at Leuthen IOTL. This is because Henry suffered no defeat at Prague, and as a result, no further defeats and resulting losses in men and materiel in the meantime.