What if the Prussians lost the 7 Years War?

The fact that it's tiny and with massively reduced revenue streams would result in its army being tiny. During the First Silesian War Prussia was scraping the barrel to field an army of around 30,000.

The number would be meaningful if not the couple things:

1st, Austrian army at that time was even smaller (at Moliwitz 21,600 Prussians vs. 19,000 Austrians) and had to be built up during the war (ditto for Prussia).
2nd, by the beginning of the 7YW size of the Prussian army was approximately 150,000 so what it had at the beginning of the 1st Silesian War is quite irrelevant.

After the 7YW it was maintaining an army of 160,000 (1768) - 190,000 (1786) which means that even with the loss of a half of its population it would be able to maintain a standing army of 80,000 - 90,000 with a possibility to increase it if needed. Taking into an account a general quality advantage of the Prussians circa 7YW, not too bad (for a while).

Hapsburg empire with a much greater population had at the start of the 7YW an army of approximately 200,000 and approximately the same number by 1778.

France (the biggest population in Europe): 1756 - 330,000, 1786 - 156,000

Russia: 1756 - 340,000 (but it would be able to send only a fraction of that number to any specific theater of war).


Now it has even less means to build an army and the period of massive armies is starting to dawn.

It will not kick in until the French Revolutionary Wars and Prussia was by far more effective in raising the armies, as a proportion to its population, then Russia, Austria or France. 160,000 out of the population of 2.5 millions means that even with the loss of a half population it would be able to have an army of 70 - 80,000.


Tilsit was nowhere near as Carthaginian as the peace the Austrian alliance had in mind.

What "Austrian alliance" had in mind was to get back at least part of Silesia and not let Fritz to keep Saxony. Elizabeth, as a part of this "alliance" just opportunistically grabbed what her troops conquered and, if anything, did not look for a complete annihilation of Prussia: Fritz was a bad guy but, if properly subdued, could be useful in a future against the Hapsburgs (relations had been steadily souring during the war almost all the way to a complete breakdown by the time of Elizabeth's death).


See the numbers above.

Sadly I don't have access to my personal library at this time, I'd love to track down a citation for you.

As I said, did not see anything of the kind so please do. But, unless some serious contemporary documentation is cited, speculations are rather pointless.

Right Bank Ukraine is some of Europe's most fertile land and a large population which would yield a high amount of revenue.

In the late XVIII thanks to the better organization of farming a single serf on the very bad lands of the Baltic provinces of the Russian empire was producing to his master more income than 3 serfs on the most fertile lands in its "Russian" part.

The region was Greek Catholic and as previously seen in Left Bank Ukraine and as seen in Right Bank Ukraine when it was eventually annexed, that was very easily replaced by Russian Orthodox.

At the time of its annexation option of getting the Eastern Prussia was not on the table and general political situation was quite different so this is quite irrelevant.


The extended border with the Ottomans and their moribund vassal is a virtue rather than a vice, as Russia's general direction of expansion in that period was towards the southwest at the expense of the Ottomans.

At the time of Elizabeth wars with the Ottomans were not in the agenda and being subjected to the Crimean raids was not considered and advantage.
 
So whom would Elizabeth support during PLC election? Poniatowski is not her former lover, she doesn't know him. He's nobody. Czartoryski is powerful magnate with large support base in PLC and is pro-reform, Wettin... previous one was perfect-rarely even visited Poland and not even tried to do any reforms, problem is, oldest son of Augustus III died just after dad, and his grandson was only 14, there are other sons of Augustus available, but third Wettin in row also presents some danger-tradition of hereditary rule in PLC.
 
2nd, by the beginning of the 7YW size of the Prussian army was approximately 150,000 so what it had at the beginning of the 1st Silesian War is quite irrelevant.
I'm sure this increase had nothing to do with the fact that the acquisition of Silesia more than doubled Prussia's population and vastly increased its wealth. You know, what with Silesia being the wealthiest province in the Habsburg Empire.

After the 7YW it was maintaining an army of 160,000 (1768) - 190,000 (1786) which means that even with the loss of a half of its population it would be able to maintain a standing army of 80,000 - 90,000 with a possibility to increase it if needed. Taking into an account a general quality advantage of the Prussians circa 7YW, not too bad (for a while).
Between Silesia, Prussia, and western Pomerania, Prussia is losing a lot more than half its population. Also the "quality advantage of the Prussians circa 7YW" is debatable at best. Generally they only traded one for one with their Austrian counterparts.

It will not kick in until the French Revolutionary Wars and Prussia was by far more effective in raising the armies, as a proportion to its population, then Russia, Austria or France. 160,000 out of the population of 2.5 millions means that even with the loss of a half population it would be able to have an army of 70 - 80,000.
Again it's losing a lot more than half its population and most of its wealth.

See the numbers above.
Your numbers do not indicate that Russia and Austria had small armies.
 
Prussia is functionally destroyed as anything identifiable and Frederick is placed under the Imperial Ban and becomes an outlaw, not only for his perfidy in the Austrian Succession but also for his illegal ravaging of Saxony

Hohenzollerns probably retain Brandenburg; Pomerania, Prussia, their Rheinland territories are up for grabs.

A Habsburg swap with the Wittelsbachs for Bavaria (not exactly the same as OTL) is almost guaranteed to occur within twenty years or so barring unexpected butterflies, although where I’m not sure. France may gain the Austrian Netherlands, as promised.
 
Prussia is functionally destroyed as anything identifiable and Frederick is placed under the studentl Ban and becomes an outlaw, not only for his perfidy in the Austrian Succession but also for his illegal ravaging of Saxony

Hohenzollerns probably retain Brandenburg; Pomerania, Prussia, their Rheinland territories are up for grabs.

A Habsburg swap with the Wittelsbachs for Bavaria (not exactly the same as OTL) is almost guaranteed to occur within twenty years or so barring unexpected butterflies, although where I’m not sure. France may gain the Austrian Netherlands, as promised.

Frederick probably has not lived to see the war's end. His brother will make peace. Elizabeth, of all Frederick'sopponents was the most strident in advancing the view that he be rduced only to the historical margravate. At best they will perhaps retain further Pomerania, and that's it. Ducal Prussia will be exchanged for Inflanty and Courland. The PLC is in personal union with Saxony, Elizabeth's ally and hence why Russian troops could march with impunity. Not that it probably made much of a difference either way. Riga is the key strategic objectives here. Controlling the region directly gives Russia direct control over all of its exports into the Baltic as well asmost of the GD of Lithuania as Riga controlled most of that trade as well as the bulk from the core Russian heartland.


Britain may win in the colonies but will lose with the fall of Prussia. If they don't compromise they will lose Hannover and face the prospect of Austria compensating France for its losses with control, direct or indirect of the Austrian Netherlands. This would be a change in the strategic situation on the continent that the British simply cannot and will not allow this prospect to happen. They deal. Sacrificing colonial satisfaction and strategic desires, which bluntly are secondary to strategic considerations in Europe, for peace in Europe. Sweden receives its historical provinces in Hither Pomerania, may or may not include Stettin. Saxony probably gains Magdeburg directly or under a cadet regime. The Rhineland territories. Could also end up with the Wettins or alternatively the Wittelsbachs of the Palatinate.


Yes Brandenburg probably reforms militarily in the aftermath.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure this increase had nothing to do with the fact that the acquisition of Silesia more than doubled Prussia's population and vastly increased its wealth. You know, what with Silesia being the wealthiest province in the Habsburg Empire.

Doubling the population and increasing army size 5 times. Somehow, the Hapsburgs who owned Silesia did not have an overwhelming (or any) numeric advantages. So perhaps, a simple fact of possessing Silesia is not enough to explain the known numbers.

Between Silesia, Prussia, and western Pomerania, Prussia is losing a lot more than half its population. Also the "quality advantage of the Prussians circa 7YW" is debatable at best. Generally they only traded one for one with their Austrian counterparts.

One for one? Prussian losses in the 7YW were between 262,500 and 180,000 (loss acknowledged by Fritz) against ALL opponents. Austrian losses were 400,000 according to https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семилетняя_война#Потери_воюющих_держав.

Superior quality of the Prussian troops had been acknowledged by all contemporaries so there is nothing "debatable" there.

Again it's losing a lot more than half its population and most of its wealth.

Half of the population (not a "lot more") and as far as wealth is involved, your statement is meaningless unless backed by the numeric data. So far I saw practically none of those.

Your numbers do not indicate that Russia and Austria had small armies.

It is just because you used term "big armies" without clearly understanding what it means.

Seemingly big overall size of the Russian army in the XVIII century is misleading: big part of these troops had been spread all over the empire as the garrisons and never used in any war and another big component were irregulars who never had been completely used. For the 7YW Russia used an army of approximately 130,000.

Russian armies of the XVIII had been always outnumbered in the wars against the Ottomans. During the 2nd Ottoman war of Catherine II with 100,000 engaged against the Ottomans there was a problem with assembling 30,000 soldiers to stop Swedish attack.

When it came to the Coalition wars, sizes of the participating Russian contingents had been rather modest:
2nd coalition: 65,000 in Italy, 9,000 - Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland, 86,000 - reserve.
3rd coalition: 180,000 promised, 90,000 in a reality in Austerlitz campaign and with a population of almost 40M total army on paper 280,000 (including invalids, old soldiers still in service as the garrison troops, irregulars, etc.).
4th Coalition - 120,000.
By the time of Tilsit, inadequacy of the Russian military force, both numerical and organizational, became obvious to all concerned and by 1812 the numbers raised to 488,000 and kept increasing with a peak size up to 900,000 including militia and irregulars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia

Total size of the Austrian army by 1809 was up to 430,000-450,000.

By September 1794, French Revolutionary Army had 1,500,000 men under arms.

That's what the "big armies" mean.
 
Last edited:
Doubling the population and increasing army size 5 times. Somehow, the Hapsburgs who owned Silesia did not have an overwhelming (or any) numeric advantages. So perhaps, a simple fact of possessing Silesia is not enough to explain the known numbers.
It's almost like Charles VI deliberately underfunded the army. Furthermore I don't think I or anyone else tried to claim that Austria was using its demographic advantage to its full potential. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

One for one? Prussian losses in the 7YW were between 262,500 and 180,000 (loss acknowledged by Fritz) against ALL opponents. Austrian losses were 400,000 according to https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семилетняя_война#Потери_воюющих_держав.
Yes comparing Prussian dead to Austrian casualties of all types. We'll ignore that the number of Austrian dead numbered less than 130,000.

Superior quality of the Prussian troops had been acknowledged by all contemporaries so there is nothing "debatable" there.
And Contemporaries to Crasus' Parthian campaign reported arrows punching through both scutum and mail even though that's actually impossible. Where was Prussian quality at Kunersdorf? Or how about Torgau? Prague? Kolin?

Half of the population (not a "lot more") and as far as wealth is involved, your statement is meaningless unless backed by the numeric data. So far I saw practically none of those.
Silesia alone is half of Prussia's population already. East Prussia and Western Pommerania easily bump it up to "a lot more".

It is just because you used term "big armies" without clearly understanding what it means.
Reread the conversation. You were the only one to use the term. In fact you brought it up out of nowhere.

That's what the "big armies" mean.
Thank you for clearing up the ambiguity you created.
 
With Prussia/Brandenburg (would it be Prussia anymore after losing Prussia proper?) weakened and after Austrian loses against revolutionary France, Russians would have to allow Poles to rebuild their army (which would be of low quality due to lack of experience after decades of peace) and to build working administration (Russians would need cash from Poland also for their armies). "Godless French" marching East would make even Polish nobility willing to pay taxes. And even without serious reforms of government and army, Polish nobles of late 18th century are better educated than their fathers and grandfathers, and aware, that system of PLC is anachronism, so it would not be that hard at this point.
 
Actually, wheat and grain were not such unimportant things in the XVIII or even XIX century (Russia was getting a lot of money from grain exports and much later there was even "customs war", conducted by Bismark and Witte, over the Russian/Prussian conflict of interests in this specific area). Not that at this time Brandenburg was the most advanced part of Europe but it was much bigger than Eastern Prussia.

Unimportant? Of course not. People need to eat after all, and indeed the ability to produce staple crops on a "Bonanza" scale in Eastern Europe actually grew in importance to the global economy as the later 18th and 19th century rolled in... because the increased urbanization, conversion/enclosure of small scale agriculture meant areas that had once been self-sufficent in food production (at the expense of having basically no market economy as huge poritions of the population were dedicated to subsistence agriculture or the manoral/feudal economy). But its certainly unremarkable and its profit comes from scale rather than margin. Russia's money from grain exports (Which was customs duties for the government) was of course important; in an era before the bureaucracy was complex, economy monitized enough (Hell, into the 20th centuries huge areas of Russia still had their farm laborers getting paid "In hospitality" rather than wage), or population skilled enough to produce goods for a complex internal market economy to implement an effective direct monetary tax, you either need indirect taxes or tax in kind (The state takes the grain and sells it). As for Bismark's customs war, that was politics all the way down: His Prussia/Germany was the projection of the conservative Junker land-owning class of East Prussia... who's increasingly shakey financial prosperity and thus a solid part of their political status depended on having a market for their grain production. If you can't keep their estates profitable and they have to sell the land, the way the franchise works you lose the in-built conservative margin that gurantees the state keeps the political character Bismark wanted her to have rather than falling under the sway of the increasingly socialist-leaning masses.
 
Unimportant? Of course not. People need to eat after all, and indeed the ability to produce staple crops on a "Bonanza" scale in Eastern Europe actually grew in importance to the global economy as the later 18th and 19th century rolled in... because the increased urbanization, conversion/enclosure of small scale agriculture meant areas that had once been self-sufficent in food production (at the expense of having basically no market economy as huge poritions of the population were dedicated to subsistence agriculture or the manoral/feudal economy). But its certainly unremarkable and its profit comes from scale rather than margin. Russia's money from grain exports (Which was customs duties for the government) was of course important; in an era before the bureaucracy was complex, economy monitized enough (Hell, into the 20th centuries huge areas of Russia still had their farm laborers getting paid "In hospitality" rather than wage), or population skilled enough to produce goods for a complex internal market economy to implement an effective direct monetary tax, you either need indirect taxes or tax in kind (The state takes the grain and sells it).

A household tax paid in money had been, together with many other taxes (like salt tax) and forms of taxation (like state monopoly on liquor production and sales), in place in Russia well before export of the grain kicked in on a major scale (somewhere in the 2nd part of the XVIII century).

Not sure about an absence of the market economy in the Muscovite/Russian state: produced good may not be sophisticated but people still had to buy a lot of items and the merchant class was big and rich enough to be a serious factor. By the end of the Time of Troubles a SINGLE city, Nizny Novgorod (with a major annual fair) was able to raise a "liberation army" (to reconquer Moscow) with the guaranteed salaries well exceeding the customary ones. Single most popular export item at the time of Tsar Alexei was high quality leather (production of which, AFAIK, requires a skilled labor).

The problem (all the way to the reign of Catherine II when the exports of grain and iron increased dramatically) was not as much an internal monetary supply in which copper coins prevailed but shortage of silver and gold needed for purchases abroad (demand was steadily growing since mid-XVII), paying foreign specialists, etc. Existing exports were not enough to cover the growing needs and the local deposits of the precious metals were not, yet, discovered. Russia was buying silver coins, melting them and making its own silver coins of a small denomination.
 
And Contemporaries to Crasus' Parthian campaign reported arrows punching through both scutum and mail even though that's actually impossible. Where was Prussian quality at Kunersdorf? Or how about Torgau? Prague? Kolin?

Completely irrelevant argument: high quality of the Prussian army is undeniable fact confirmed by the numerous military historians and specific defeats, especially when it was fighting against the serious odds, don't change it. At Prague Frederick won, at Kolin he lost to a much bigger force (34,000 vs 57,000), at Torgau he won, at Kunersdorf he lost (48 - 50,000 against 64,000 in a very strong position) but Russian eyewitness described it as almost a miracle, especially defeat of Prussian cavalry led by Seidlitz. BTW, at this specific battle he demonstrated a much greater tactical flexibility than his opponent: Saltykov expected attack from a different direction and was forced to throw his units piecemeal into the battle (in the terms of victories/defeats Prussian record against the Russian troops was worse than against the Austrians).

What about Prussian victories at Leuthen (33,000 vs. 66,000 Austrians) or Rossbach?

The very fact that Frederick managed to keep fighting for 7 years against 3 major European powers tells a lot about quality of his army.

Thank you for clearing up the ambiguity you created.

Ah yes, you wrote "massive armies". Distinction without a difference. Changes nothing because no matter how you called them, they would not appear for the next 3+ decades.
 
Completely irrelevant argument: high quality of the Prussian army is undeniable fact confirmed by the numerous military historians and specific defeats, especially when it was fighting against the serious odds, don't change it. At Prague Frederick won,
And he took higher casualties than the Austrians.

at Kolin he lost to a much bigger force (34,000 vs 57,000),
And he took higher casualties than the Austrians.

at Torgau he won,
And he took higher casualties than the Austrians.

at Kunersdorf he lost (48 - 50,000 against 64,000 in a very strong position) but Russian eyewitness described it as almost a miracle, especially defeat of Prussian cavalry led by Seidlitz. BTW, at this specific battle he demonstrated a much greater tactical flexibility than his opponent: Saltykov expected attack from a different direction and was forced to throw his units piecemeal into the battle (in the terms of victories/defeats Prussian record against the Russian troops was worse than against the Austrians).
And he took higher casualties than the Austrians.

I said that Austrian forces roughly exchanged 1 for 1, in all these examples the Austrians actually did better than 1 for 1, regardless of who held the field of battle at the end of the day.

What about Prussian victories at Leuthen (33,000 vs. 66,000 Austrians) or Rossbach?
Statistical outliers which can be entirely attributed to quality of leadership rather than overall quality of armies.

edit: for Rossbach specifically I'll also point out that France couldn't even take Hanover, this was absolutely a low point for them.

The very fact that Frederick managed to keep fighting for 7 years against 3 major European powers tells a lot about quality of his army.
I don't think I ever suggested that his army was of poor quality.

Ah yes, you wrote "massive armies". Distinction without a difference. Changes nothing because no matter how you called them, they would not appear for the next 3+ decades.
You were the one to bring up "Big Armies" for no reason in post 16. My mention of "massive armies" in post 20, "The fact that it's tiny and with massively reduced revenue streams would result in its army being tiny. During the First Silesian War Prussia was scraping the barrel to field an army of around 30,000. Now it has even less means to build an army and the period of massive armies is starting to dawn." Since nuance and context are lost on you, let me spell it out: *

"... the period of massive armies is starting to dawn": Armies at the end of the 1700s were much bigger than those of the 1760s. This in no way implies that Russia and Austria had such armies in the 1760s or that this period was underway (and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that's what I was saying). Rather as it is following "Now it has even less means to build an army and ..." I think it's pretty clear that I was saying that the trend towards even larger armies meant that the prospects of of a Prussia reduced only to Brandenburg would only grow dimmer as time went on (and since this whole conversation is about the relevance of Prussian army reforms, we probably aren't talking about Prussia making another grab at glory within 10 years of its crushing defeat).

*edit: just realized how needlessly confrontational that bit sounded, sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
Even without Silesia and Ducal Prussia Brandenburg remains a regional power, and the largest German State outside of Austria. Do not forget the Rhineland provinces. More to the point Austria will still have enemies- I do not think Russia will be especially happy (she bled a lot for Ducal Prussia and Austrian Silesia), nor England.

Prussia could come back from this, potentially, or remain a regional power, but I do not think she would necessarily be broken.
 
Even without Silesia and Ducal Prussia Brandenburg remains a regional power, and the largest German State outside of Austria. Do not forget the Rhineland provinces. More to the point Austria will still have enemies- I do not think Russia will be especially happy (she bled a lot for Ducal Prussia and Austrian Silesia), nor England.

Prussia could come back from this, potentially, or remain a regional power, but I do not think she would necessarily be broken.

Why are they allowed to retain these?
 
Why are they allowed to retain these?
Who would take them? Even in defeat Prussia, England and the German states won't allow France to just march in to the empire (if nothing else Austria would call dibs). And frankly I have trouble seeing Austria getting them either, or rather if she does that will likely end the French alliance and open the door to a Franco-Prussian-Russia counteralliance, which frankly would probably end rather ooorly for Britain and Austria in round three....

What if comes down to is this. Nations have interests, and these interests are not served in breaking Prussia entirely. On the contrary both Russia and especially France have reason to want a weakened but still capable Prussia eagerly wanting revenge and willing to offer much to secure allies abroad. Russias heir is also a strong Prussophile and woild likely prove amenable to a post war deal.
 
Would it be possible for Brandenburg/Prussia to take Saxony's or Bavaria's place as Napoleon's best German ally during Napoleonic Wars? Initially Brandenburgians would oppose French kingslayers, but once beaten... Napoleon have something to offer-Silesia, Saxony, Western Poland. Although siding with loosing side would not be smart in the long run.
 
Who would take them? Even in defeat Prussia, England and the German states won't allow France to just march in to the empire (if nothing else Austria would call dibs). And frankly I have trouble seeing Austria getting them either, or rather if she does that will likely end the French alliance and open the door to a Franco-Prussian-Russia counteralliance, which frankly would probably end rather ooorly for Britain and Austria in round three....

Frederick Augustus von Wettin? The Wittelsbachs? We've already hit in this thread that Brandenburg may well lose Pomerania. Why will they retain these territories?
 
Even without Silesia and Ducal Prussia Brandenburg remains a regional power, and the largest German State outside of Austria.
Bigger than Bavaria? I'm no where near an expert on German geography, but I don't recall Brandenburg being that big.

Do not forget the Rhineland provinces.
How much do they count for? They are in one of the most developed parts of Europe, but they're also really small and broken up.

Frederick Augustus von Wettin? The Wittelsbachs? We've already hit in this thread that Brandenburg may well lose Pomerania. Why will they retain these territories?
Not all of Pomerania, just the bit Sweden had claim to.
sw16601720.gif
 
Top