1866 without von Molkte

[arctic warrior]

How would the Prussians fare in 1866 or another war after 1859 without von Molkte?
Say he chooses to stay in his new country Denmark pursuing an army career or gets killed during his time in the Osman Empire?
Von Roon might still become the great reorganizer of the Prussian army, but who's going to turn that into something workable? Keeping von Roon would probably also have Bismarck as chancellor 1862.
How would this affect Bismarcks Empire building?

 

[carlton_bach]

It might or might not make a big difference. MOltke was good, but the German historians of the time were far too much into hero-worship to allow for the possibility someone else may well have been as good. Bismarck also thought well of him, which helped, but I would say it is questionable whether any of the political plans were Moltke's. He was good with armies, in the wargaming sense, but the Prussian army of the mid-19th century was an easy army to be good with. So in the end, if you have Bismarck in his place you could well have another officer have Moltke's and get similar results. Maybe the Königgrätz campaign would go differently, that took chutzpah and an almighty ego to pull off.

 

[Redbeard]

There of course is a limit for how important a single person can be, but I think we should be careful to underestimate the importance Moltke had in perfecting the Prussian general staff system (the foundation made by Gneisenau pre 1813) and how important that was for Prussia's successes.

In 1864 Prussia and Austria were too superior in numbers for even a stupid commander to loose, especially as the Danish political leadership energetically worked, and succeeded, to be more stupid than the enemy. But change the Danish leadership a handful of years before 1864 and we might have some interesting ATL - one might be Moltke staying in the Danish army (Susano's nightmare ).

The 1866 campaign and especially Königsgratz to a surprising degree was won by coinicidence - the decisive Prussian Armycorps at Köningsgratz turned up at the right time and place by mainly luck. So although it wasn't the staff system that won this war, matters might not improve by removing the staff master, after all being skilled and well prepared is the most fertile soil for the seeds of luck.

In 1870 however, I think the Prussians and their German allies will be in deep trouble short of Moltke and his staff work contributions. I doubt if the Germans will be able to so decisively outmanoeuvre the French, and the war will instead evolve into a line of very bloody frontal battles - and here I think the French with their superior weapon technology will prevail.

By 1914 all the major powers had perfected staff work to the level possible with 1914 technology, and probably would have done so anyway - Moltke or not.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Even without staff work, the huge advantage in infantry arms must certainly have given the Prussians an almost insurmountable advantage.

There of course is a limit for how important a single person can be, but I think we should be careful to underestimate the importance Moltke had in perfecting the Prussian general staff system (the foundation made by Gneisenau pre 1813) and how important that was for Prussia's successes.

In 1864 Prussia and Austria were too superior in numbers for even a stupid commander to loose, especially as the Danish political leadership energetically worked, and succeeded, to be more stupid than the enemy. But change the Danish leadership a handful of years before 1864 and we might have some interesting ATL - one might be Moltke staying in the Danish army (Susano's nightmare ).

The 1866 campaign and especially Königsgratz to a surprising degree was won by coinicidence - the decisive Prussian Armycorps at Köningsgratz turned up at the right time and place by mainly luck. So although it wasn't the staff system that won this war, matters might not improve by removing the staff master, after all being skilled and well prepared is the most fertile soil for the seeds of luck.

In 1870 however, I think the Prussians and their German allies will be in deep trouble short of Moltke and his staff work contributions. I doubt if the Germans will be able to so decisively outmanoeuvre the French, and the war will instead evolve into a line of very bloody frontal battles - and here I think the French with their superior weapon technology will prevail.

By 1914 all the major powers had perfected staff work to the level possible with 1914 technology, and probably would have done so anyway - Moltke or not.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[carlton_bach]

Even without staff work, the huge advantage in infantry arms must certainly have given the Prussians an almost insurmountable advantage.

Not necessarily. The Dreyse gun was a great advantage in 1866, but it wasn't a decisive edge. The Austrians had the better artillery and good cavalry, and in a longer war, numbers could also have told.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Not necessarily. The Dreyse gun was a great advantage in 1866, but it wasn't a decisive edge. The Austrians had the better artillery and good cavalry, and in a longer war, numbers could also have told.

Wasn't it something like seven shots to one? Plus the Austrians had to stand to reload... That sounds pretty decisive. Also, Moltke wasn't the only Prussian general with ability... I can't imagine Bismarck placing all his eggs in one basket.

 

[carlton_bach]

Wasn't it something like seven shots to one? Plus the Austrians had to stand to reload... That sounds pretty decisive. Also, Moltke wasn't the only Prussian general with ability... I can't imagine Bismarck placing all his eggs in one basket.

THe Prussian generals were generally of a high calibre, so even without Moltke the chance of victory is even or better - this wasn't some kind of Napoleonic gamble. But the Dreyse rifle is seriously overestimated. The best figure I have is one shot per six seconds as a rapid-fire rate, with powder fouling steadily cutting this down from the thirds or so shot. I don't have good figures for the Austrian guns, but they were caplock muzzleloader rifle muskets, and the usually quoted rapid fire rate for those is three shots per minute. So it's about 1/3 or 1/4, roughly the edge dismounted cavalry had over regular infantry in later ACW battles. It's a good thing to have, but hardly a war winner on its own, especially if the enemy has superior artillery.