Why was Prussia weaker in 1800-1866 compared with 1740-1800?

Was Prussia weaker in 1800-1866 compared with 1740-1800?

  • Yes, Prussia was weaker compared to Austria in the latter period because ...reasons.

    Votes: 9 14.8%
  • No, Prussia was not weaker compared to Austria in the latter period, it was just more timid.

    Votes: 21 34.4%
  • No, Prussia was weaker than Austria the whole time, Fred the Great was just extra skilled/lucky

    Votes: 31 50.8%

  • Total voters
    61
Austria was pretty strong in 1740s, it's just that they had too many fires to put out at once. They also were caught with their pants down since Charles VI rather naively thought that once everyone signed the Pragmatic Sanction papers, no more war right? And their officer corps was weak. I expected the ethnic Poles, Bohemians (Mostly Czech speakers), and Croatians to desert like they did in late WW1 making them crappy soldiers meaning most of the Hapsburg manpower pool was worthless, but when I looked into the War of Austrian Succession, the soldiers of the Hapsburg kingdoms fought hard (instead of auto-deserting like I expected) and Austria eventually managed to get a working logistical operation going in Central Europe, but Frederick was just a better tactician than them.
The pragmatic sanction probably would of worked if old fritz wasn't quietly sitting on the best army in Europe.
The right person at the right place at the right time.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Austria was pretty strong in 1740s, it's just that they had too many fires to put out at once. They also were caught with their pants down since Charles VI rather naively thought that once everyone signed the Pragmatic Sanction papers, no more war right? And their officer corps was weak. I expected the ethnic Poles, Bohemians (Mostly Czech speakers), and Croatians to desert like they did in late WW1 making them crappy soldiers meaning most of the Hapsburg manpower pool was worthless, but when I looked into the War of Austrian Succession, the soldiers of the Hapsburg kingdoms fought hard (instead of auto-deserting like I expected) and Austria eventually managed to get a working logistical operation going in Central Europe, but Frederick was just a better tactician than them.

I'm a little more interested in the 19th century than the 18th to be honest. Could Prussia have won a struggle with Austria in 1848-1850? Particularly if Russian diplomatic support to Austria ends up being limited to words alone? Or, if not then, could a sufficiently cynical and ruthless Prussia have jumped Austria during the Crimean War (which keeps the other powers rather busy) or jump Austria while it was under attack by France and Piedmont-Sardinia in 1859.

I usually hear that the humiliation at Olmutz and the failed mobilization of 1859 (actually to be on Austria's side) was needed to spur the reforms Prussia needed to win in 1866. And that the Prussians could have lost in 1866. But I wonder if it was more a matter of Prussia being possibly strong enough to win clashes between 1848 and 1865, but just not being confident enough (perhaps the long shadow of Jena hanging over the Prussians). I mean Prussia of this era was bigger, more compact (two pieces instead of more enclaves), more industrial and more populous than 18th century Prussia or Napoleonic era Prussia.
 
I'm a little more interested in the 19th century than the 18th to be honest. Could Prussia have won a struggle with Austria in 1848-1850?
The Austrians have Radetzky, and Prussia literally just lost to Denmark... I'm no expert of the militaries of the period, but that math seems simple enough.
 
Top