Reasons for Prussian decline before 1806

Something I often read in Napoleonic histories is that Prussia was in decline in the early 19th Century. Her military edge waning, her court politics growing decadent. Which, these histories then go onto say, is why Napoleon thoroughly thrashed the Prussians when they joined the wars against him.

But, in the French Revolutionary war, the Prussians seem to have performed quite ably and no-one accuses them of being in decline when they were partitioning Poland.

So what happened between 1793 and 1806 that made Prussia "decline"? Was there a real weakening of the country, or is the narrative simply a product of historian's biases?

fasquardon
 
They lost their greatest general Friedrich II von Hohenzollern.

They also stagnated militarily - they rested on the reputation of Prussian military professionalism that Frederick the Great had created. Little if any sign of military innovation.
 
They lost their greatest general Friedrich II von Hohenzollern.

But he died in 1786 and 7 years later the Prussians still seem to have been a competent power.

They also stagnated militarily - they rested on the reputation of Prussian military professionalism that Frederick the Great had created. Little if any sign of military innovation.

So it was simply a case of being at peace for too long while their neighbours were all enrolled in the school of hard knocks?

fasquardon
 
They lost their greatest general Friedrich II von Hohenzollern.

FtG was Germany's equivalent to the Duke of Wellington - the man who runs the Ancien Regime so successfully that people start to think it doesn't need reforming. So after FTG's death nothing was done in the way of reform until 1806, when they tried to operate Frederick's system without Frederick - and fell flat on their faces.

The British Army had a similar experience in the Crimea, when it tried to operate Wellington's system without Wellington.
 
The British Army had a similar experience in the Crimea, when it tried to operate Wellington's system without Wellington.

Everyone was in a mess during the Crimean war - often to an even greater degree than the British. My impression has always been that alot of that was simply because the technology and logistical demands of war had changed alot since the Napoleonic Wars. Indeed, reading histories written from the Ottoman and Russian perspective, the British are mentioned as being notable for their efficiency and dangerousness. So can Britain really be said to have "stagnated" or "declined"?

fasquardon
 
But he died in 1786 and 7 years later the Prussians still seem to have been a competent power.



So it was simply a case of being at peace for too long while their neighbours were all enrolled in the school of hard knocks?

fasquardon

The 1790's saw something of a sea change (pardon the mixed metaphor) in warfare. The French brought in a different form of warfare, albeit almost by mistake - massed use of skirmishers, the employment of large attack columns with shock impact, all supported by artillery (and the French artillery was the best equipped in Europe). Add on the levee en masse and you had a very powerful force.
The Prussians just stuck to the same old songbook that they'd been taught by Frederick the Great. It worked then, they thought, so why not now?
If you want an example of how utterly outmatched the Prussians were in 1806, read up on the Jena Campaign. It was a brutal lesson in warfare for the Prussians.
 
The 1790's saw something of a sea change (pardon the mixed metaphor) in warfare. The French brought in a different form of warfare, albeit almost by mistake - massed use of skirmishers, the employment of large attack columns with shock impact, all supported by artillery (and the French artillery was the best equipped in Europe). Add on the levee en masse and you had a very powerful force.
The Prussians just stuck to the same old songbook that they'd been taught by Frederick the Great. It worked then, they thought, so why not now?
If you want an example of how utterly outmatched the Prussians were in 1806, read up on the Jena Campaign. It was a brutal lesson in warfare for the Prussians.

Was there any way for the Prussians to see the change and react in time?
 
Ok, a quick peek at Chandler shows that the Prussian Army was indeed hopelessly outmatched by Boney. It was rooted in the doctrine and tactics of Frederick the Great, with rigid linear tactics and massively cumbersome supply trains - 12 miles march a day was supposed to be good progress. in 1806 it was still equipped with the 1754 pattern musket. It had bold cavalry that owas rganised and used in a very conservative manner and an adequate artillery arm that was often badly used. All in all Clausewitz was right when he said that: "behind the fine façade all was mildewed." It had high morale in 1806 but was very badly led - FtG did not leave a proper military heir, capable of taking his ideas and evolving them. Instead initiative was discouraged.

To make matters even worse the Prussian Government saw no need to change anything either - and it dithered a great deal. How could it be different? I'm not sure. Maybe if Prussia doesn't pull out of the war in 1795 but continues on, thus actually learning new tactics and doctrines?

EDIT: Oh and the Prussians had no staff system either. And yet they thought that they'd take on Boney and beat him. Madness.
 
I don't know that not having a staff system would have such an effect. The British under Wellington did not really have one and still defeated the French.
In fact the British effectively used the tactics of the pre-revolutionary wars including at Salamanca where Wellington (who could not attack:) ) used Frederic the Great's advance in oblique order to achieve his victory.
 
I don't know that not having a staff system would have such an effect. The British under Wellington did not really have one and still defeated the French.
In fact the British effectively used the tactics of the pre-revolutionary wars including at Salamanca where Wellington (who could not attack:) ) used Frederic the Great's advance in oblique order to achieve his victory.

But isn't that exactly the point that was made earlier?
A talented individual will always be able to overcome the drawbacks the system places on them to a certain extent. That however doesn't turn those drawbacks into advantages.
 
But isn't that exactly the point that was made earlier?
A talented individual will always be able to overcome the drawbacks the system places on them to a certain extent. That however doesn't turn those drawbacks into advantages.

Indeed look at how the British Army fared when not commanded by Wellington.
 
Hubris.
The Prussians had fought off the continent 50 years earlier and they were still living off that fact.

They did have a chance to learn more modern tactics, (see the American Revolution) there were a group of reformists who saw this very defeat coming but the Reichstag and Konig refused to see how much the ARW had changed warfare.

Unfortunately they all fell on deaf ears until Jena-Auberstadt, after which Prussia was forced to reform secretly.

And I don't buy the old Fritz was the shit, and that's why.
Most of what he did was only because of systems his father put in place but never used. Any competent king could have been just as glorious with what was given, and I love Fritz i'm just saying.

The French learned, and Prussia was probably the only country with the ability to learn from the ARW however they didn't because of Hubris.
 
I once read a novel where someone states shortly after Jena that the problems with Prussia's army were: The officers were too old because they inherited their posts from their fathers; and many soldiers were foreigners press-ganged into service, who weren't exactly happy to serve the Prussian king.
 
Everyone was in a mess during the Crimean war - often to an even greater degree than the British. My impression has always been that alot of that was simply because the technology and logistical demands of war had changed alot since the Napoleonic Wars. Indeed, reading histories written from the Ottoman and Russian perspective, the British are mentioned as being notable for their efficiency and dangerousness. So can Britain really be said to have "stagnated" or "declined"?

fasquardon

My impression is that it was the supply system that let the British down, not the actual front-line soldiers. Then again, it is perhaps worth noting that the Brits generally avoided major land commitments, so public opinion was often less forgiving of heavy casualties than that of other countries. You see a similar thing with WW1, where the stereotype of hidebound and out-of-touch generals persists, even though the German officers were generally full of praise for the BEF.
 
Top