basileus66 | 19 Jan 2008 5:46 a.m. PST |
My mistake about Gross-Jagersdorf. As for the rest, Zaremba, I can't see any convincing argument from you either. |
ZAREMBA | 20 Jan 2008 2:39 a.m. PST |
Basileus66, I am not trying to convince you. We have different opinions about this matter. I think historians have to understand historical personalities without moral prejudices, avoiding extremist opinions. And I respect you and your opinions. Thanks for your attention. |
JeanLuc | 20 Jan 2008 7:19 a.m. PST |
""But this does not mean that Frederick can claim credit for victory at Leuthen, according to Szabo. As Leuthen is seen as the crowning (only?) achievement of Frederick's military skill it is important to ask how much of the success was down to him."" You could say thet for any general in chief at any battle. A battle is always won with a good battle plan, good subordinates and a bit of luck. |
JeanLuc | 20 Jan 2008 7:25 a.m. PST |
""By the way, I am not calling Fredrick a "tyrant" compared with our present, but with his. Naturally, there existed other tyrants in his times. Some even worser. But that doesn't change that he was a tyrant."" That is putting 20th /21 st century political considerations in an 18th century context. Frederick was a despot. Like the majority of countries in that time absolutim was the rule. The exeptions were England and the dutch republic. BUT do not forget that democracy did not exist and that the nobility still had great power in these two countries. One thing one must not forget is that in Prussia there were no more serfs and that people had a relative freedom compared to Russia or France. |
JeanLuc | 20 Jan 2008 7:54 a.m. PST |
"1758 and 1759 were disastrous years for Prussia" – yet for the first time in the war the two sides were roughly equal! Read the book to find out how Frederick managed to mess things up. Strange when one sees the order of battle for the different battles there is not much equalness |
JeanLuc | 20 Jan 2008 8:25 a.m. PST |
the book of Henry LLoyd (1720-1783) "histoire des guerres d'allemagne" Is a great book he critisises Frederick's military feats. And yes Fred was not a great conqueror. He did political mistakes, military mistakes. But what we must not forget is that you have to get in the perspective of the era. Back then yes he was considered a great general. And with a good reason. He managed to raise his tiny puny kingdom (yes i know he was only king of east Prussia) to an important country. Now military he was good, had good subordinates, and he tried to inovate. He did push his luck and was sometimes overconfident. but so did all great generals. |
basileus66 | 21 Jan 2008 11:53 a.m. PST |
Frederick was a despot. Like the majority of countries in that time absolutim was the rule. The exeptions were England and the dutch republic. BUT do not forget that democracy did not exist and that the nobility still had great power in these two countries. Nope. I am not saying that Frederick was a tyrant because my moral of 20th Century, but because he didn't respect even his own rules. That was the criterion to define a tyrant in Eighteenth century. And that is the reason why I call Frederick a tyrant: because he broke his own laws and the laws and uses of his Kingdom, using the armed force to silence any protest. He broke the international laws and uses of his own time to promote his own interests, to such a point that even his allies were ashamed of his ruthless and unlawful behaviour. And that is the rule against a tyrant was measured in Eighteenth century. Who talked about democracy? Not me. I call him what I call him because what he did in relation with the ethics of his own time. |
basileus66 | 21 Jan 2008 12:02 p.m. PST |
I think historians have to understand historical personalities without moral prejudices, avoiding extremist opinions. That's only a partial true. You can pass a judgement, as historian, of a historical character if and when he or she violated the uses and laws of his/her own age. Some easily understandable examples: Gilles de Rais and Erzsebeth Bathory. Both of them lived unforgiving and cruel times but their crimes were horrific even in the middle of madness. You can judge them. They didn't deserve the simpathy of their biographers or historians. Would Hitler deserve it? Or Stalin? Or Pol Pot? Or Chivington? I think not. Of course, Frederick was not a mad killer as those mentioned above, but he was such a disagreeable character even for the moral standards of Enlightment, that he can be justly trashed by historians, without the historian being guilty of loosing his objectivity. Then, naturally, we have Hayden White, who would say you that Passion is, precisely, the only possible way to write history
|
seneffe | 21 Jan 2008 3:52 p.m. PST |
Did Frederick use armed force to silence any protest? I'm not denying the assertion, but I've never come across the example. |
crogge1757 | 21 Jan 2008 5:00 p.m. PST |
Take it easy basileus66, Not sure what sort of nightmares you're haunted with. Poor Frederick. Not sure if if he deserves such a hash treatment. As for me, I don't kick dead horses (not my style) See, I'm a Rhinelander by birth – i.e. my parents are from there, and everybody else before was Roman. I'm a Catholic – NOT PRUSSIAN – that should make for a certain degree of objective judgment. I know for sure of 2 individuals buring in hell: 1st is Martin Luther and 2nd is this Swedish jerk devil Gusatvus king from the land of midnight. I also know, if I should manage to get present pope Benedetto really drunk with a few botttles of our hellish tasty Riesling, he'd agree with me on the faith on the two poor souls I mentioned (otherwise I'll quit paying tax) But I guess I would not manage to get him down to the sort of judgement you have for Frederick, even if I'd employ Roman torture. Ohter Individuals you mentioned in your threat I do not even dare to link with on this topic. Bad taste. Consider revising your library – I have no idea what in Jesus name you draw your wisdom from. Better stay with common sense or, at least, with a god sense of humor. And
do better reading. My best wishes, C. P.S.: Are you a decendant of poor faithed von der Trenck? |
JeanLuc | 21 Jan 2008 11:58 p.m. PST |
"Nope. I am not saying that Frederick was a tyrant because my moral of 20th Century, but because he didn't respect even his own rules. That was the criterion to define a tyrant in Eighteenth century. And that is the reason why I call Frederick a tyrant: because he broke his own laws and the laws and uses of his Kingdom" there is the Louis XIV saying : L'ETAT C'EST MOI (I am the state) It clearly means what the rules were for rulers in that time. they decided not some parliament/douma or other "council". Even if these existed these only existed and "ruled" with the conscent on the Ruler. the Laws and rules were the Kings prerogative so if he decided to chnage the rules well then the rules changed. |
JeanLuc | 22 Jan 2008 12:00 a.m. PST |
"He broke the international laws and uses of his own time to promote his own interests, to such a point that even his allies were ashamed of his ruthless and unlawful behaviour." What international laws ? |
Orbit1966 | 22 Jan 2008 4:24 a.m. PST |
Hi this is Hwiccee, I would love to resume this interesting debate but unfortunately I can not on this forum. As you may have seen elsewhere I have for more than 2 years been trying to get removed my copyrighted and intellectual property which has been taken without permission and used on this site. This has come to a head and I can no longer continue my presence on this disreputable web site.
So this is my last post on this forum on topic and I am only doing this as a mark of respect to the posters on this discussion. I am afraid I will not answer any further questions you have on this forum but would be happy to talk on other, less dubious, forums.
Ok a quick few notes on things I have missed (and sorry in advance if it is a little disjointed)
Clarifications:
1: I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Prussian army was not, generally, a formidable force. 2: Szabo (and incidentally myself also) do not think that Frederick was a ‘bad' general but neither was he a ‘great' general. He was probably Frederick's Performance:
Just because Frederick was at a battle that the Prussians won does not mean that he can claim any credit for it. After all no doubt Frederick's personal servant was also at the same battles & this doesn't mean he was responsible either. Using the 18 largest SYW Prussian Battles: 2 were won by subordinates (Reichenberg and Freiberg) and don't really impact on this, this leaves 16 other battles. 5 victories, 2 draws and 9 defeats (he gets all the defeats even if not present). Lost battles with Frederick in command – 3 (Kolin, Hochkirch, Kunersdorf) It should be noted that in each of these Frederick before or during the battle made blunders that made things worse. Lost battles the result of Frederick's direct commands – 6: (Gross Jagersdorf, Kay, Moys, Breslau, Maxen, Landshut). Note: Frederick is responsible for these because the defeats were all the direct consequence of his specific orders and against the judgment of the actual commanders. Drawn Battles – 2 (Lobositz, Zorndorf). Both of these I have put as draws. This is of course debatable especially in the case of Lobositz. From here on we have battle name then summary of battle for Frederick & then main reason for Prussian victory/draw. Lobositz – Nearly lost battle with Austrian detachment, rescued by Keith and Bevern – ‘victory' because of subordinates. Zorndorf – Seydlitz rescues a draw when Frederick's plans fail – ‘victory' because of subordinates. Victories – 5: (Prague, Rossbach, Leuthen, Liegnitz, Torgau) Prague – Despite greatly outnumbering enemy managed to attack at disadvantage. Plan countered by superior general & defeated. Rescued by infantry regimental commanders and Ziethen – victory because of subordinates. Rossbach – Abysmal enemy and Seydlitz does everything – victory because of enemy actions and subordinates. Leuthen – Planned a straight forward attack in plain sight on enemy left, as at Prague and Kolin. By luck this was hidden from the enemy & achieved a flank attack – much to his surprise – victory by luck Liegnitz – by luck Prussians avoid a trap & get to face a detachment – victory because of luck Torgau – gets the main force destroyed and loses the battle. Rescued by luck/Ziethen after his plan totally fails. – victory because of luck or subordinates (depending on whether you think it was luck or skill that Ziethen found the gap) Szabo doesn't say this but you can conclude that Frederick's performance was competent at some of these battles & at others he would of course make some contribution. So of the 16 battles we have: - Frederick the ‘Great' (i.e. was main reason for success) – 0 Frederick the ‘Competent' (i.e. his influence was mainly good) – 3 Rossbach, Liegnitz, Leuthen Frederick the ‘Handicap' (i.e. his influence was mainly bad) – 13 (all the others) Frederick the ‘Great' or Frederick the ‘Nothing Special': So Szabo's point is that he is basically nothing special as a commander and that the superb Prussian army, and other leaders it had, managed to win despite Frederick and not because of Frederick. Leuthen Szabo has 40,000 Prussians at the battle and 50 to 55,000 Austrians (including the German auxilaries), he cites evidence for these. So not counting the Germans, who were of doubtful use, the sides were probably fairly even. Could anyone have won?
Obviously we will never know but I would go for yes and also yes with Frederick & without his luck i.e. if things went according to his plan and luck did not intervene to hide his movements. I think that basically the Prussian army was superior to the Austrian army in real terms, rubbish Austrian commander and better troop quality, and the Austrians were stupid to fight (as indeed the more competent commanders pointed out). In wargamers terms I would say that if we were going to assign points (or something) to the armies then the Prussian army would be significantly more points than the Austrian army. Here I am assuming that the Prussians have a reasonable/average commander and the Austrians have Charles of Lorraine (i.e. an idiot). So I think that if Frederick had done what he intended to do or if some other person had commanded the Prussians on balance would have won. But who can really tell how the dice would have rolled. I think that Robert E. Lee had the same kind of luck at Chancellorsville, as did Napoleon at Austerlitz and Hannibal at Cannae. The difference is that Lee, Napoleon and Hannibal planned these actions; Frederick did not plan to do what happened at Leuthen. 'It's strange the more I practise the luckier I get.' And the Prussian Army certainly practised a great deal
On the subject of luck I have noted above some other occasions where luck helped & Leuthen is basically about it (plus possibly Torgau but that could be subordinates skill). All the luck comes from events off the battlefield like the lucky move before Liegnitz, the Russian Empress dying, various enemy supply problems, etc. With all of these the Prussian army could practise as much as was possible & it would make no difference. p.s. The attributing Prussian victories to luck was one of the many errors of a previous pro Frederick poster. Balance of Power:
Szabo's argues that the two sides were a lot more even than usually assumed. Army size was based on wealth not populations & the balance of wealth was more or less even. Also in any case Prussia had access to a much large population base than just its own citizens. So I would pose a question to you – in the following situation would you rate General A as a ‘great' general? Both sides have say 100 men of equal quality men. Through a series of blunders General A loses a lot of men in minor actions, leaving detachments exposed, failing to gather his army together, etc. So now he only has 40 men left and the enemy army of 100 men is about to win the war – he has to attack to stop them. His army wins a spectacular victory and survives but not in any kind of decisive way. So now maybe he has 30 men and the enemy 70. But the enemy are not defeated and are still on course to win the war. Then luckily something happens and the enemy back off & he has survived until the next campaign. Is General A a ‘Great' commander? How about if the following year we have the same story – 100 vs 100, battle with 40 vs 100 but General A lose & still he is saved by events outside his control. Is he ‘Great'? According to Szabo the two above are basically what happened to Frederick, even if you assume he was responsible for the victories and Szabo does not. But what Szabo is saying is that the only reason Prussia needed ‘big victories' was because of Frederick's mistakes. If true can he be ‘Great'? OK that is all I have time for now.
|
JeanLuc | 22 Jan 2008 5:06 a.m. PST |
Frederick the great is i think Great not only for military considerations. A "Quality" is attributed to a king for many reasons. One cannot deny the fact that he put Prussia on the world map. He elevated the country from an obscure Kingdom and duchy to one taht was looked at as an example. |
Ulenspiegel | 22 Jan 2008 6:19 a.m. PST |
Minor issue: the strength at Leuthen was according to the German General Staff clearly in favour of the Austrians, so 40:50 k is very optimistic. Here I would like to see good data, because the authors of the German General Staff and more modern authors complained about the problems in Austrian archives when it comes to the Austrian forces at Leuthen :-))) BTW: The same (modern) authors have no problems to use Austrian archives in case of Kolin, where the Austrian data were considered more reliable for some Prussian units. orbit1966 wrote: "Balance of Power:
"Szabo's argues that the two sides were a lot more even than usually assumed. Army size was based on wealth not populations & the balance of wealth was more or less even. Also in any case Prussia had access to a much large population base than just its own citizens. " But was Austria really poor or was Austria as other historians argue not able to acquire her wealth? To have more money in the chest does not really mean more substance but sometimes only the ability to use your resources better than the enemy. That here Prussia was a mucher better administration/thief than Austria was even recognised by Marai Theresia. Population size: The Austrians were able to suppress Prussian recruiting in Austrian controlled territories according to H. Bleckwenn in the second half of the war. So the population base did matter and was not in favour of the Prussians and does not explain the Austrian unability to translate her larger population in a signifficant larger army that ensures victory in attritional war. Ulenspiegel |
basileus66 | 22 Jan 2008 10:25 a.m. PST |
Take it easy basileus66 I take it very easy. One thing is that I dislike Frederick, other waaaay different is that I become angry because other people like the old .
And
do better reading. Curious piece of patronising
But I should say that I would pass. I am perfectly happy with my range of readings. Mind that I even agree with you about Gustavus Adolphus. Are you a decendant of poor faithed von der Trenck? Nope
Simply not too prone to hero-worshiping. |
basileus66 | 22 Jan 2008 10:26 a.m. PST |
the Laws and rules were the Kings prerogative so if he decided to chnage the rules well then the rules changed.
That's not true, even for Louis XIV
as much as he would like to think it was. |
basileus66 | 22 Jan 2008 10:27 a.m. PST |
What international laws ? Bodin? Vitoria? Ring any bell those names? |
Kevin F Kiley | 22 Jan 2008 11:30 a.m. PST |
How about absolute monarch for Frederick? George III was labeled a tyrant by the Americans in 1776. |
seneffe | 22 Jan 2008 12:41 p.m. PST |
I'll be making a start on Szabo very soon- looking forward to it. As far as points in this thread goes, for what its worth I think after a strong Austrian start its gone pretty much Frederick's way in the end, although I've certainly no great love for the old stoat. The anti-Frederician forces have the slight feel of the survivors of Roth Wurzburg holding out in the churchyard, with ammo very running low. They'll be firing their buttons off next (I know, that was the Haller Regt
.). |
ZAREMBA | 22 Jan 2008 1:05 p.m. PST |
Basileus66, I love Bodin or Bodinus. I studied History of political thought at University five years ago
and I studied many other philosophers
But Philosophy is not a set of "international laws". Philosophy may inspire a law but it is not a law. And, I think human laws are ephemeral and variable. Again, the moral or enthusiastic sentences about historical personalities are useless in serious historical analysis. Historians study decisive facts, their causes and consequences. About Frederick, he was respected and admired in his times by philosophers, musicians, kings and military men. Thanks for your attention. |
JeanLuc | 22 Jan 2008 2:08 p.m. PST |
Who is that french philosopher who stayed at the court in Berlin again? |
Der Alte Fritz | 22 Jan 2008 3:55 p.m. PST |
I assume that you mean Voltaire. |
Soubise | 22 Jan 2008 4:10 p.m. PST |
As I understand it, the argument of Hwiccee is that Frederick gets no credit for any of his victories because they were accomplished by Frederick's subordinates; and that all of the defeats of Frederick's subordinates in independent commands, were actually Frederick's fault and hence he is given credited with the defeat. If the subordinates are so great, then surely they would also be great whilst in independent command, yet the outcome of the actual events indicates otherwise. You seem to want to have it both ways. By the same logic, Napoleon did not win the battle of Austerlitz, it was won by Soult and his division commanders who attacked the Pratzen Heights. Nor did he win Jena, Freidland, Wagram and on and on. Lee didn't win any of his ACW victories because his subordinates carried out the attacks that won the battle. And I think that calling the Austrian generals who lost battles to Frederick, "idiots" is a bit extreme. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 22 Jan 2008 5:38 p.m. PST |
For those of you who have asked me for details of Hwiccee's departure from TMP, please see the topics TMP link and TMP link |
basileus66 | 22 Jan 2008 10:26 p.m. PST |
About Frederick, he was respected and admired in his times by philosophers, musicians, kings and military men. Not at all. He paid, and lavishly, to musicians, philosophers and military men to be admire by them. I too would have been one of his most devoted admirers if paid as much as Voltaire was! If Frederick was a genious in something was in his master of propaganda. I can concede that. Probably, in our present he would direct JP Morgan with iron hand. I know that he was admired by Napoleon
but what Napoleon admired from Frederick was his ruthless behaviour; his lack of moral complaints to act as he wanted only thinking in the benefit that himself would reap from his actions. Just as Napoleon himself did. Both of them were tyrants in their own times. Their contemporaries recognised their lack of scruples and even for a cyinical bunch of governments like those of the Enlightment and Revolution, both Frederick and Napoleon overstep the limits. Though, Frederick had an advantage over Napoleon: he was a legitimate king. So he survived SYW and lived afterwards from the rents of an undeserved prestige as military leader. As you see I am not too fond of hero-worhsip. Actually I can't remember any historical character that occupied a position of political responsability that I admire. It would be an oxymoron. However there are a few that I really despise. My 17th-18th Centuries short list (just kings) would be: Gustavus Adoplhus, Charles XII, Peter the Great, Louis XIV, all Spanish Borbons (the best was Ferdinand VI
and he was totally mad!), and Frederick II. Perhaps there are worser kings out there, but those are my own hate-pets. |
Cyrus the Great | 22 Jan 2008 11:18 p.m. PST |
Actually I can't remember any historical character that occupied a position of political responsability that I admire. It would be an oxymoron. However there are a few that I really despise. My 17th-18th Centuries short list (just kings) would be: Gustavus Adoplhus, Charles XII, Peter the Great, Louis XIV, all Spanish Borbons (the best was Ferdinand VI
and he was totally mad!), and Frederick II. Perhaps there are worser kings out there, but those are my own hate-pets. basileus66, I have no axe to grind in this discussion, but I think you've dug your own grave and the only thing that prevents you from jumping in is the fact that you've stuck not one, but both feet in your mouth! You've condemned yourself by your own hand by stating that you lack the ability to discuss Frederick the Great, among others, with any cold, dispassionate, historical objectivity. I saw you pondering why you had earned stifles on another thread for this topic and maybe, this could be the reason why. I have no problem with you being upfront about your prejudices and you have the right to your opinion, but others may feel that it doesn't carry much weight because of your presentation. I'm just trying to be helpful and no, I am not one of your stiflers. I don't stifle. |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 5:03 a.m. PST |
I have no axe to grind in this discussion, but I think you've dug your own grave and the only thing that prevents you from jumping in is the fact that you've stuck not one, but both feet in your mouth! You've condemned yourself by your own hand by stating that you lack the ability to discuss Frederick the Great, among others, with any cold, dispassionate, historical objectivity. I saw you pondering why you had earned stifles on another thread for this topic and maybe, this could be the reason why.I have no problem with you being upfront about your prejudices and you have the right to your opinion, but others may feel that it doesn't carry much weight because of your presentation. I'm just trying to be helpful and no, I am not one of your stiflers. I don't stifle. Just to point a couple of things, Cyrus: 1) I am not discussing history. When I do I earn money for that. For me TMP is a place where I come to relax and just to have fun, not to get money nor extra work. So here I can be as objective or subjective as I like. I need not to demonstrate nothing. 2) If anyone is so touchy to stifle somebody because he doesn't like the other guy opinions about a character died for 250 years, whose personality is defined is the stifler not the stifled. BTW, what I was curious is not to have been stifled but about the fact I wasn't aware at all until checking when I joined TMP. Curious how much anger a hero-bashing can awake
3) I don't believe you are actually trying to be helpful, Cyrus. What I believe is that you are trying to show your moral superiority and gentlemanship detachment. Ok. Be my guest. If that makes you happy I am most obliging. So, Cyrus, I am honest enough -with other people and with myself- to show what skeletons I had in my closet. If other people feel bad for that I would recommend them to grown up. We are not first graders anymore, aren't we? Political correctness is probably the worst evil that mankind has to bear. |
JeanLuc | 23 Jan 2008 5:07 a.m. PST |
"I too would have been one of his most devoted admirers if paid as much as Voltaire was!" That was how things worked in that time. How would philosophers, writers, play-writers, componists have lived if they were not paid with a grant or be on the payroll of nobles? Not of their copyrights or with the few hundereds book they could sell. |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 6:08 a.m. PST |
That was how things worked in that time. How would philosophers, writers, play-writers, componists have lived if they were not paid with a grant or be on the payroll of nobles? Not of their copyrights or with the few hundereds book they could sell. Of course
And due that conflict of interest we can be fairly sure that their opinions would be coloured by their pockets. |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 6:15 a.m. PST |
Of course
And due that conflict of interest we can be fairly sure that their opinions would be coloured by their pockets. Mind that I don't find anything wrong in that. They had to earn a living in a very unforgiving time without retirement pensions. |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 6:17 a.m. PST |
By the way
What is exactly a stifle? How it works? Just curious. |
Cyrus the Great | 23 Jan 2008 8:48 a.m. PST |
basileus66, Someone doesn't like what you have to say so they hit the stifle button. Where once your text appeared, there is now nothing more than a grey box. You are free to post, but they can no longer read what you have to say. 1) I am not discussing history. When I do I earn money for that. For me TMP is a place where I come to relax and just to have fun, not to get money nor extra work. So here I can be as objective or subjective as I like. I need not to demonstrate nothing. Well at least people will know where you're coming from now. |
ZAREMBA | 23 Jan 2008 8:57 a.m. PST |
Basileus66, Frederick was Great in many matters: 1- He wrote several essays on Philosophy. He protect distinguished philosophers like Wolff. He loved Culture, literature, Arts. Please, read History of Philosophy by F. Copleston, vol. 6, about 18th C. german Philosophy. 2- He wrote opera librettos and composed acceptable music. He was a good musician, playing the german flute. He contracted musicians like C.P.E. Bach, Benda, Quantz,
3- He loved Architecture, and he embellished Berlin (Opera House, for example) and other places with monuments and palaces. 4- He promoted general education and founded the Prussian Academy. 5- He promoted agriculture and improved the prussian economy. 6- He wrote essays, instructions and other works on military matters. Very admired works in his times. 7- He improved Cavalry. He increased Infantry, in quality and infantry. And wrote good instructions about the use and performance of Artillery. 8- He finished the Seven Years War with victories in the battlefield. He maintained Silesia and increased the power and prestige of Prussia. I can continue, but
And please, Orbit and Basileus, read again Clausewitz´s On War. He praised Frederick´s military merits with objectivity, including the King´s failures in battles. Thanks for your attention. |
ZAREMBA | 23 Jan 2008 9:08 a.m. PST |
Dear friends, Sorry the mistake: Frederick increased Infantry in quantity and quality. Thanks for your attention. |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 11:02 p.m. PST |
Zaremba, 1.- And so what? Philosophy is not a good by itself, just a way to understand our world. 2.- That he loved music has no relevance about if he was a tyrant or not. Or a good general. Hitler loved Wagner opera so much that when he lived in Viena just before WWI he spent all his money going to the Opera house. When he was the German head of state invested millions of reichsmarks in music festivals and the like
However that doesn't changes a bit what he was: a bloddy dictator. And I am not even beginning to explain to you (I suppose you actually know) what a prestige item means. 3.- Again: Also did Hitler. Perhaps a staunch love for Architecture and embellishing your capital magically transforms a tyrant into an Ideal Ruler? 4.- And Louis XIV did the same in France, and also Peter I, Tsar of Russia. But both of them were recognised tyrants by their contemporaries. 5.- Again the same argument which didn't change a bit about the moral of the individual being considered. To the chagrin of every Spanish one of the most economically succesful periods of our history happened under the dictatorship of Franco. You can't be serious to propose such a faulty syllogism: Frederick improved Prussian economy; To improve economy is a ethically admirable thing that no tyrant would do; so Frederick shouldn't be considered a tyrant. 6.- That's true and is to the point. He wrote military tracts that were very admired in his own time
Though not everybody did. But the nature of the times consented that the words of a King had more weight than it deserved. 7.- He improved the Cavalry, yes, but the infantry was the legacy of his father. However, all considered, I would gladly defy your Improvement Theory for the period after 1759. I can't accept that the way to improve the quality of your soldiers would be putting them in a mincing machine of Russian or Austrian artillery and musketry. 8.- Yes, he did. But not because his own merits. Should the Tsarina lived a couple of years more and Frederick would have been utterly defeated. It didn't happen. So he was lucky, and luck, certainly, has been considered a major mlitary advantage in a general for Napoleon himself. Ok. I can accept that: Frederick was a lucky commander. I have read Clausewitz more than once -though interested in other subjects, not in Frederick wars- and certainly I wouldn't have expected from a Prussian officer other approach to Frederician battlefield and strategical performance that a most carefully worded criticism
But that Clausewitz criticised him at all says a lot about what Frederick actually acomplished and what his òpinion of him actually was. Really, Zaremba, if Frederick is one of your heros it is pointless that we continued this discussion. Both can find arguments to defend our perception of him. I as a tyrant, you as an enlighted ruler (although I don't think exists a contradiction between both terms) Regards |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 11:03 p.m. PST |
Bloody dictator, not "bloddy dictator"
I should re-check my spelling before posting! |
basileus66 | 23 Jan 2008 11:06 p.m. PST |
Well at least people will know where you're coming from now I hope so. I would be really sad if anybody takes too seriously a forum discussion. |
ZAREMBA | 24 Jan 2008 9:09 a.m. PST |
Basileus66, You review every point separately, but I am trying to show that the sum of Frederick´s merits made him "Great". Neither Hitler nor your other examples owned Frederick´s versatility. Frderick improved the standard of life in Prussia (Culture, Education, Economy, respect to the religions, international prestige,
), and without the dictators´ extraordinary atrocities and repressions. About philosophy, trying to understand our world is a good thing by itself
There are not heros in History. Everyone had lights and shades. I am trying to find the midpoint in my arguments. And in Spanish Language: es un placer discutir con usted aunque no estemos de acuerdo, y espero que sigamos compartiendo discusiones de forma amigable y respetuosa. Saludos. Thanks for your attention. |
basileus66 | 24 Jan 2008 1:33 p.m. PST |
Neither Hitler nor your other examples owned Frederick´s versatility. That's very debatable. Not Hitler, perhaps, but Peter I was almost as versatile as Frederick and improved Russia as much as Frederick did with Prussia
Still, he was a despot and a tyrant (And probably very happy for being both!) What Frederick did was improve his self-esteem. Prussia suffered, and dearly, from his military adventures, which were as reckless as unnecesary. To understand our world is not bad nor evil. It is a part of our self. We can't avoid it. But we can make mistakes when interpreting it. Or when we philosophy
But, of course, you know it. I respect your search for midpoints. However I am not convinced that to look for a midpoint is the way to understanding and knowledge. I prefer to search for traits
Why Frederick behave like he did? Why his faults were tolerated but those of Napoleon's didn't? Why his subjects accepted the drain of blood and resources?
Or perhaps, they didn't? Why
Look this debate. I said that I dislike Frederick and that I thought he was a tyrant. Automatically you assumed I was passing a moral judgement
Which was true
and false at the same time. It was true because I believe that tyrants are bad choices. But also false because we didn't discusse what was the morality of tiranny in Frederick's time. Then you listed some traits that you -from your XXIth Century perspective- thinks that are positive. Again, Were they in Frederick's time? The educated Britons would have disagree with your opinion: for them anyone who reinforced his armies was a tyrant in act or in will. The peasants, carrying the brunt of the expenses, would have agree with the constitutionalists in Britain
even if they wouldn't have understand the reasoning. Playing flute, composing music
Those are marvellous traits in a composer or a musician. In a King, those are just hobbies. They don't make him a better (or a worser) King. Or person. And now in Spanish: Muchas gracias por usar mi idioma. Debo darle la enhorabuena por lo bien construidas que están sus frases. Un cordial saludo. |
Soubise | 24 Jan 2008 3:35 p.m. PST |
Godwin's Law has been officially invoked by Basileus. Hence he is declared the loser of this argument: link Godwin's Law essentially states that the longer an internet thread runs, the higher the probability approachs to 1 the certainty that the name of the leader of the 3rd Reich or his party will be invoked in an argument or debate. The person who first makes such a reference is the loser of the debate. |
basileus66 | 24 Jan 2008 10:06 p.m. PST |
Godwin's Law has been officially invoked by Basileus. Hence he is declared the loser of this argument: It is really curious how much love some people can spend in a dead Prussian King
There is a life out there, Soubise. Go and enjoy it. |
Stavka | 25 Jan 2008 12:32 a.m. PST |
"It is really curious how much love some people can spend in a dead Prussian King
There is a life out there, Soubise. Go and enjoy it." Curious statement. Why not go all the way and say it is really curious how much time some people can spend in the heated debate of the legacy of a dead Prussian King. After all, there is a life out there
|
JeanLuc | 25 Jan 2008 3:35 a.m. PST |
WHAT ! there is a life outside of wargaming ranting/argueing???? |
basileus66 | 25 Jan 2008 7:06 a.m. PST |
Curious statement. Why not go all the way and say it is really curious how much time some people can spend in the heated debate of the legacy of a dead Prussian King. After all, there is a life out there
Are you Soubise's mommy? |
dbf1676 | 25 Jan 2008 8:58 a.m. PST |
Maybe this question has already been answered on this thread, but I don't have time to read everything. Does anyone know when the sobriquet "the Great" was first attached to Fred's name? |
JeanLuc | 25 Jan 2008 9:24 a.m. PST |
After this terrible war, Frederick's priority was to rebuild the economy of Prussia which had been devastated by repeated invasions. Pomerania and Neumark were freed from taxation for two years, and Silesia for six months. Many nobles whose lands had been wasted received corn for seed. Across the country, horses belonging to the King were lent to farms. Houses were rebuilt at the state expense. The Bank of Berlin was founded
Frederick's reconstruction programme soon brought back prosperity and coinage was gradually restored to its proper value. By the end of his reign, Frederick had not only rebuild the Prussian economy but had also managed to amass the immense sum of 70 million thalers in the state treasury. He also left a well trained army numbering some 200,000 men.
|
ZAREMBA | 25 Jan 2008 9:57 a.m. PST |
Basileus66, Philosophy does not exist without mistakes. I think you understand this deep sentence (of course, it was not writen by me). There is not one way to reach understanding and knowledge. I accept the Mankind´s dualism in my historical analysis: this is my way. I think all members recognize Frederick´s faults and failures, and the same about Napoleon. Again, Frederick and Napoleon (and other great personalities) were neither heros nor villains. About moral judgements, If I say that Frederick was not a tyrant but a saint instead, I was passing a moral judgement
But my point in this discussion is the following: Historians have to avoid, if it is possible, radical positive or negative moral judgements. The traits I have listed, include few extremist moral sentences. They were writen by honest historians. A King is a man, and his "hobbies" reflect his character and personality, and, by the way, "a better or a worse person": another moral judgement
De nuevo, un placer hablar con usted. Le felicito por su agudo e inteligente sentido del humor (buen uso de la ironía). Un saludo. |
Yogah of Yag | 08 Feb 2008 12:46 p.m. PST |
For those who own a copy: Can anyone tell me the artist of the painting on the cover and title, if any? Thanks. |
crogge1757 | 08 Feb 2008 1:34 p.m. PST |
The title image is apparently a detail of the battle of Hochkirch 1758 – Austrian sides view. Painted most likely 18th c. period somtime after the 7YW. It may not be a canvas, actually. The Vienna Schönbrunn residence has one ore more rooms decorated with motives of the 7YW. I think it originates from there, or, alternatively from the War Museum in Vienna. Maybe on their home pages you find more. |