Why was Prussia and it's army so weak circa 1780s to 1840s ?

mad orc

Banned
Prussia under Fredrick was strong.
It started to rise again in 1840s.


Why was it so weak from 1780s to 1840s.
Why did it lose so badly in Napolenic wars.
Why was it's army comparatively weak?
 
Frederick William II and Frederick William III weren't the soldiers Frederick the Great was, for starters. And even Frederick the Great had to rely on his dad to have built up the Prussian treasury.

Not to mention that a lot of Prussia's victories in this time period were at the negotiating table; they gained (then lost) parts of Poland due to an agreement with the Habsburgs and Russia, then gained the Rhineland in the reorganization following Napoleon.
 

longsword14

Banned
Why was it so weak from 1780s to 1840s.
Why did it lose so badly in Napolenic wars.
Why was it's army comparatively weak?
Why do you believe that the Prussian army was weak throughout this time period ?

After the end of the 7YW, most of the army was let go and atrophy as usual set in. Prussia, unlike Austria, did not fight much in the Revolutionary Wars. When they did fight in 1806 the defeat was so thorough that they lost territory, were laden with indemnities and the Prussian Army was reduced to a very small number.
Yet, Prussia made a very impressive recovery, raising a large army to participate in finally defeating Napoleon.
 

mad orc

Banned
Frederick William II and Frederick William III weren't the soldiers Frederick the Great was, for starters. And even Frederick the Great had to rely on his dad to have built up the Prussian treasury.

Not to mention that a lot of Prussia's victories in this time period were at the negotiating table; they gained (then lost) parts of Poland due to an agreement with the Habsburgs and Russia, then gained the Rhineland in the reorganization following Napoleon.
But what was the technical reason for a weak army.
Did get not use the latest weaponry of those times ?
 

longsword14

Banned
But what was the technical reason for a weak army.
Did get not use the latest weaponry of those times ?
Technical reasons would be the loss of qualified higher personnel during peace, lack of money and the men at the top were not as interested in maintaining things as before. Prussia did not fight a lot between 7YW and 1806.
In the end it was the Prussians who created the world's first modern general staff, so it is not all bad.

The period you mention was not affected terribly by technological leaps. Prussian armaments were fine but due to the limited size and problematic finances Prussia could not be Napoleonic France.
After 1815 there was no burning need for a large army, and there is nothing to say that the Prussian army was outmatched by its contemporaries.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
But what was the technical reason for a weak army.
Did get not use the latest weaponry of those times ?
Everyone (Russian, Austrian and Prussian) lost to Napoleon in 1805-07.

Prussia's army was ok - Prussian leadership was markedly inferior to Republican / Napoleonic levee en masse and corps system.

Reversing your question - did Napoleon have more modern weaponry than the other continental nations - no. He was a better general just as Frederick the Great and his generals outmatched their opponents.

Prussian weakness really only exists from 1806-1813 - outside of those years it was a middle ranking power.

EDIT - also the claim that Prussia was "strong" under Frederick the great kind of misses the point that if Empress Elizabeth of Russia hadn't died then Prussia would have been utterly defeated. Frederick gambled on an 18th century version of blitzkrieg followed up by a desperate defence of his gains and won because his opponents dropped out of the war , not because he defeated then utterly.
 
Last edited:
Prussian weakness really only exists from 1806-1813 - outside of those years it was a middle ranking power.

I'm by no means a subscriber to the Great Man Theory, but you have to admit Prussia punched well above its weight in the 18th century due to Old Fritz. Even then, a fearsome reputation and daring victories aren't gonna help you against an enemy that has both a high quantity and quality army, like what Napoleon's France had.

And Prussia's rise to prominence in the 19th century was as much a product of diplomatic wrangling as it was victory on the battlefield.
 
Why did it lose so badly in Napolenic wars.
Why was it's army comparatively weak?
They partitioned Poland with the help of two massive empires and the King of Poland, followed by being given Hanover and other lands in northern German in exchange for a few small possessions along the Rhine. They attacked Napoleon when Nappy was making noises of returning Hanover tot eh British King for peace, so Napoleon stomped on them and took back most of the land or restored it to independence. The When people give figures of Prussia losing half its land during the war, it is kind of disingenuous, given they seized it easily and were backstabbing neighbors to an extent. As for it being comparitvely weak, it depends against who. I can't find much info on when the Prussians and French went at it or the lead up to it, but I am posting a link to a battle. Might have some details.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena–Auerstedt
 
But what was the technical reason for a weak army.
Did get not use the latest weaponry of those times ?

Clausewitz (who served in the Prussian army at the time of Jena) gave some insights which probably could be summed up as excessive reliance upon the "glorious past" (time of Old Fritz) at the expense of the tactical and organizational innovations (and the resulting nasty things routinely associated with the times of stagnation: corruption, intrigues, etc.). By the time of Jena campaign Prussian military on all levels sincerely believed that they are still the best, hence the behavior that often looked as plain idiotic.

Technically (as far as hardware was involved) they were not too bad: IIRC, Nappy used a lot of the captured Prussian howitzers.
 
I'm by no means a subscriber to the Great Man Theory, but you have to admit Prussia punched well above its weight in the 18th century due to Old Fritz. Even then, a fearsome reputation and daring victories aren't gonna help you against an enemy that has both a high quantity and quality army, like what Napoleon's France had.

And Prussia's rise to prominence in the 19th century was as much a product of diplomatic wrangling as it was victory on the battlefield.

To be fair, Fritz inherited a high quality army and a well-organized state. He made a lot of improvements and, personally, was a better general than his opponents even if this did not prevent him from suffering defeats. But he was not the only good Prussian commander in the 7YW (if this was the case, he'd lost). Of course, memories about the brilliant victories somewhat overshadowed those of the defeats and by the early XIX the legend substituted the reality.
 
After the defeat of 1807, they quickly reformed, but didn't do too much after 1815, admittedly.

Before 1806, the army was too old, literally: Even many low-ranked officers were beyond 50.
 
EDIT - also the claim that Prussia was "strong" under Frederick the great kind of misses the point that if Empress Elizabeth of Russia hadn't died then Prussia would have been utterly defeated. Frederick gambled on an 18th century version of blitzkrieg followed up by a desperate defence of his gains and won because his opponents dropped out of the war , not because he defeated then utterly.


To be fair, the official reason for the Russian anti-Frederic position was an opinion that Prussia became too strong and should be weakened to a degree which will prevent it from being a potential danger to its neighbors (http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokum...ilet_vojna/Materialy_russ_arm_flot/1-20/2.htm).
Cynical translation to the human language: Russian government of Elizabeth I wanted to prevent Prussian intervention into the Polish affairs and potential expansion at Polish expense. Not because this would pose any danger to the Russian empire but because the PLC became Russian "sphere of influence" and, unlike Catherine II, Elizabeth did not want to share it with anybody else.

Bottom line: Prussia was considered as a strong (and aggressive) state before the 7YW. Argument about a possibility of eventual defeat is valid but, OTOH, we should not forget that in the 7YW Prussia with a minimal help had been fighting combination of Austria, Russia and France (well, and Saxony) and managed to score quite a few successes. Surely, not a sign of a weakness.
 
Correct me if wrong, but was the adoption of the socket bayonet over the plug bayonet, a bit earlier than most other armies, about the only technical innovation the Prussian Army moved ahead in?
 
Prussia's military expenditures for much of the XVIII century were massive, reaching 80% of the annual budget. Later this decreased to more conventional levels and that probably affected Prussia's capabilities, as it did not have huge resources at the time.
 
Why was it so weak from 1780s to 1840s.
Quick correction, the short lived Prussian Army reform movement, 1806-1815, produced a very capable army which performed well in the last two Napoleonic Wars. Issue is that after the Napoleonic Wars the Prussians accepted it as their new standard for their "it worked in the past so it has to be good enough for now" type of complacency. Once again it took an absolute humiliation (this time at the hands of Denmark in 1848) to get blood circulating through the brains of the Prussian military establishment.
 
Prussia's military expenditures for much of the XVIII century were massive, reaching 80% of the annual budget. Later this decreased to more conventional levels and that probably affected Prussia's capabilities, as it did not have huge resources at the time.
This was not unprecedented: Russian military budget in 1700 - 1730s (even at peace time) was routinely in 75 - 90% with much less impressive results as far as quality was involved.
 

longsword14

Banned
Correct me if wrong, but was the adoption of the socket bayonet over the plug bayonet, a bit earlier than most other armies, about the only technical innovation the Prussian Army moved ahead in?
Also a conical flash hole to allow priming by tapping the weapon. Not sure it was an innovation though; some others also had it but it was removed from later versions of their musket.
 
Top