Why do you believe that the Prussian army was weak throughout this time period ?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?
But what was the technical reason for a weak army.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.
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.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.But what was the technical reason for a weak army.
Did get not use the latest weaponry of those times ?
Prussian weakness really only exists from 1806-1813 - outside of those years it was a middle ranking power.
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.Why did it lose so badly in Napolenic wars.
Why was it's army comparatively weak?
But what was the technical reason for a weak army.
Did get not use the latest weaponry of those times ?
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.
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.
They also introduced (in XVIII) a metal ramrodCorrect 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?
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.Why was it so weak from 1780s to 1840s.
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.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.
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.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?