Frederick the Great-a military genius or mediocre?

[Prince of Darkness]

After reading some reliable accounts of the 7YW and the War of Austrian Succession, my view of Friedrich de Grosse changed slightly. Although it's undeniable that his victories such as Rossbach and especially Leuthen, are magnificent, but his defeats are equally disastrous such as Kunersdorf and Kolin.
Frederick can pull off a dramatic victory against incompetent opponents such as Charles de Rohan and Prince Charles, when he faced better generals such as Daun and Saltykov he often met mixed results.
Frederick did understand the art of war, and his oblique order was perfect, but unlike Napoleon he seem not to have any tactical innovations over his enemy.
At Kunersdorf he faced equal odds but still managed to be defeated, it's hard to tell that he was a real tactical genius or not.
But his enlightenment and administrative skills were certainly excellent, and the title ''Great'' is unshakable. But was he really the greatest soldier in his time?

[Martian]

Friedrich was a gambler.He succeeded where other gamblers like Napoleon failed miserably

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Because Frederick fought Cabinet Warfare, while Napoleon didn't.

[Prince of Darkness]

If Napoleon succeeded, he will be called ''Napoleon the Great'' just like Frederick.
And Frederick's gamble was extremely risky, too. He dared to invade Silesia (in order to control the Oder trade) in risk of at war with Austria, one of the great powers of Europe while Prussia was just a small state with a competent (but small) army.

[Salem1]

Well, I just checked the result of all wiki battles of the Seven Years War and didn't find any of them to be particularily impressive. Frederick may have won tactical victories being outnumbered but that's nothing new. His forces never just butchered the enemy army without taking notable losses of its own as is characteristic of truly decisive victories, and his armies suffered lots of defeats as well. None of his battles, except perhaps his greatest victory, were favourable to Prussia in terms of relative manpower loss. That means that if the war had continued then Frederick would eventually be forced to capitulate because he would run out of soldiers while his enemy wouldn't. He may have caused double casualties but what does that matter if your enemy has double your amount of soldiers?

In my book, stuff like this is a true decisive victory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_fraustadt while this is by comparison, not even a victory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Holowczyn. Prussia losing 12 000 men and Russia losing 18 000 should've been considered a Prussian disaster, I mean there's no way Prussia would've held up to Russia with that kind of casualty ratio.

[konny]

Frederick's military achievements must be seen in the context of his time: He used aggressive and offensive strategies against enemies who were used to rather careful and methodical operations. He was no tactical genius, there had been other in his time who realy were innovative, in particular the Austrians, and that way his strategy did include the risk of defeats - and these defeats did happen. But in the end he succeeded by running clockwise around his lands and attacking every army that crossed the border.

[CiviC]

If Napoleon succeeded, he will be called ''Napoleon the Great'' just like Frederick.

Actually he was called "the Great" (http://popartmachine.com/item/pop_ar...BOUCHER...)but history remembers him simply as Napoleon, there is no need to be more specific, and this says a lot of his historical stature.

As for Frederick the Great of Prussia, he was a very lucky man Russia made peace in the moment Prussia was on the brink of collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_mir...of_Brandenburg

[FliegerAD]

As for Frederick the Great of Prussia, he was a very lucky man Russia made peace in the moment Prussia was on the brink of collapse

Lucky and brilliant. Fighting a war utterly outnumbered without much technical or tactical superiority of his troops for years and not losing is an achievement.

By 1756 the Prussian field army consisted of 123.000 men, with 8.000 in reserve and 30500 in garrisons. That high number was never reached again in the Seven Years War. It is, btw, the official number given by the History Department of the Prussian Generals’ Staff (1) Other give lower numbers, ranging around 145000 men e.g. (2)
Frederick took 62.000 for his invasion of Saxony (3), while the rest were deployed to defend against the threads of Sweden in North, which later indeed landed near Stettin, France and German allied in the west, and Russia in the east, which also came.

The Austrians had 177.444 men, of which 15.700 were border protection (Grenztruppen) (4), others give higher number of 201.000 (5). Initiated by Maria Theresia, who hated Frederick, Leopold von Daun had reformed the Austrian army, so that the quality gap between the infantry of Prussia and Austria had been reduced, if not eliminated. In turn, Frederick’s actions to reform his cavalry were equally successful, so that the Austrians enjoyed only a small, if any, advantage. Quality-wise both armies were close to each other.

The French army (not including the navy) numbered between 200.000 and 213.000 in 1756, depending on the source (6), and around 290.000 by war’s end, of which 140.000 were operating on German grounds, with tens of thousands remaining in France still (7). That is not surprising since the Second Treaty of Versailles obligated France to provide 105.000 troops for an offensive and subside further German allies (8). So anyone saying the French were not fully committed to the war is off the mark. That they made such a poor performance in spite their numbers is hardly the fault of Frederick, but rather a result of his strategy and the great defensive operations of his minor allies.

Russia was less committed that is true, however. Of it’s 172.240 field troops, only 60.000 up to 130.000, depending on the campaign, actually went on the offensive (9). Considering Frederick situation this was more than enough anyway. The first battle was given by some 25.000 Prussians against 55.000 Russians, in August 30 1757 (10).
Of course again, one can argue about the exact numbers that were involved in battle, and Kunersdorf is an excellent example. The Prussian army numbers are quite clear, around 48.000-50.000, including the 7.000 troops guarding Frankfurt a.O. The numbers of the Austro-Russian army vary in the sources, ranging from 79.000 to 60.000. In the best case, Frederick had 10.000 men less than his enemy, in the worst case, he had 31.000 men less. That is quite outnumbered in my book, not "equal odds"!


As for the German minors, the numerical superiority again was against Frederick. Furthermore, one needs to add the 14.000 Swedes who occupied an area near Stettin, right in the back of Frederick.



From: P.H. Wilson: German Armies. War and German Politics, pp.267-286.


It is more than obvious that Frederick was in a situation of sever numerical inferiority throughout the war, with the exception of Saxony’s invasion. The fact that he did survive this situation must be attributed to his strategy. The Russians, French, Austrians did not stop their advances after Kunersdorf – and after years in which whole armies of them were annihilated – because they just did not feel like it, or because they were not so committed… It was Frederick, who still had an operational fighting force, and violently interrupted enemy plans.


One can try to belittle that achievement all day long, but as a matter of fact: in the end he never lost a war.
Btw, Napoleon was one of those envious begrudging men... When he wrote about Frederick, Napoleon always picked the highest number for the Prussians, the lowest for the enemy etc.

To me it is poetic justice that he died as prisoner in middle of nowhere, while Frederick died as the first King of Prussia, having made his little country a Great Power of his time.



(1) S. Fiedler: Taktik und Strategie der Kabinettskriege, p.141
(2) D. Marston: The Seven Years War, p.20; J. Mollo: Uniforms of the Seven Years War, p.9
(3) S. Millar: Kolin 1757, p.11
(4) Fiedler: op.cit., p.85
(5) Marston: op.cit., p.23
(6) Ibid., p.24; Mollo: op.cit., p.34
(7) H. Delbrück: Geschichte der Kriegskunst, vol.4, bk.3, ch.5
(8) Marston: op.cit., p.35
(9) Ibid., p.22; Mollo: op.cit., p.49
(10) A. Konstam: Russian Army of the Seven Years War, p.4

[CiviC]

To me it is poetic justice that he died as prisoner in middle of nowhere, while Frederick died as the first King of Prussia, having made his little country a Great Power of his time.

Poetic justice is also that Napoleon utterly destroyed Prussian model army at Jena-Auerstad and payed the debts for Rossbach Napoleon was the only military leader to bring Prussia on her knees untill WWI.

[FliegerAD]

If you think there is anything poetic about debts paid 60 years later by beating an outdated army with poor leadership...
Simple as that: Napoleon bad-mouthed Frederick and ended up a loser in chains, metaphorically speaking, in no small part thanks to the reformed Prussian army. Frederick on the other hand not only refrained from bad-mouthing historical leaders, on the contrary he admired them especially Charles XII, and brilliantly led his wars to a victorious end, so that he could end his life as free man and as a victor.

And that is all I said, I was not comparing their tactical or strategical skill, as those threads are useless. I would have preferred us talking about Frederick, not some side note I made ...

[CiviC]

Simple as that: Napoleon bad-mouthed Frederick

Wrong. Napoleon said about Frederick after his victory at Jena-Auerstad : "Gentlemen, if this man was still alive I would not be here".

[Abendstern]

As for Frederick the Great of Prussia, he was a very lucky man Russia made peace in the moment Prussia was on the brink of collapse.

Not that much of luck as it was the fair reward for having withstood the combined efforts of the HRE, Russia, France and Sweden for 6 years of war - the prerequisite to why it could come to this at all.

Not that much of luck as earned admiration, shown by the new Czar of Russia himself.

There also was not so much luck involved when after the murder of Peter, Catherine (the Great) did not continue the war mostly for the reason that Russia had already been bankrupted by previous 6 years of fruitless military efforts. And that here major ally Austria was in the same situation as was her biggest sponsor - France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_mir...of_Brandenburg

That article is ripe with fallacies. The term "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" was coined by Friedrich himself and does not refer to the death of the Czarina. Berlin was not encircled by the Russians in 1762. Also the event was preceded by Kunersdorf for 3 entire years and can hardly be seen in the context presented there. Wikipedia at its worst.

[eisenkopf]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Lucky and brilliant. Fighting a war utterly outnumbered without much technical or tactical superiority of his troops for years and not losing is an achievement.

By 1756 the Prussian field army consisted of 123.000 men, with 8.000 in reserve and 30500 in garrisons. That high number was never reached again in the Seven Years War. It is, btw, the official number given by the History Department of the Prussian Generals’ Staff (1) Other give lower numbers, ranging around 145000 men e.g. (2)
Frederick took 62.000 for his invasion of Saxony (3), while the rest were deployed to defend against the threads of Sweden in North, which later indeed landed near Stettin, France and German allied in the west, and Russia in the east, which also came.

The Austrians had 177.444 men, of which 15.700 were border protection (Grenztruppen) (4), others give higher number of 201.000 (5). Initiated by Maria Theresia, who hated Frederick, Leopold von Daun had reformed the Austrian army, so that the quality gap between the infantry of Prussia and Austria had been reduced, if not eliminated. In turn, Frederick’s actions to reform his cavalry were equally successful, so that the Austrians enjoyed only a small, if any, advantage. Quality-wise both armies were close to each other.

The French army (not including the navy) numbered between 200.000 and 213.000 in 1756, depending on the source (6), and around 290.000 by war’s end, of which 140.000 were operating on German grounds, with tens of thousands remaining in France still (7). That is not surprising since the Second Treaty of Versailles obligated France to provide 105.000 troops for an offensive and subside further German allies (8). So anyone saying the French were not fully committed to the war is off the mark. That they made such a poor performance in spite their numbers is hardly the fault of Frederick, but rather a result of his strategy and the great defensive operations of his minor allies.

Russia was less committed that is true, however. Of it’s 172.240 field troops, only 60.000 up to 130.000, depending on the campaign, actually went on the offensive (9). Considering Frederick situation this was more than enough anyway. The first battle was given by some 25.000 Prussians against 55.000 Russians, in August 30 1757 (10).
Of course again, one can argue about the exact numbers that were involved in battle, and Kunersdorf is an excellent example. The Prussian army numbers are quite clear, around 48.000-50.000, including the 7.000 troops guarding Frankfurt a.O. The numbers of the Austro-Russian army vary in the sources, ranging from 79.000 to 60.000. In the best case, Frederick had 10.000 men less than his enemy, in the worst case, he had 31.000 men less. That is quite outnumbered in my book, not "equal odds"!


As for the German minors, the numerical superiority again was against Frederick. Furthermore, one needs to add the 14.000 Swedes who occupied an area near Stettin, right in the back of Frederick.



From: P.H. Wilson: German Armies. War and German Politics, pp.267-286.


It is more than obvious that Frederick was in a situation of sever numerical inferiority throughout the war, with the exception of Saxony’s invasion. The fact that he did survive this situation must be attributed to his strategy. The Russians, French, Austrians did not stop their advances after Kunersdorf – and after years in which whole armies of them were annihilated – because they just did not feel like it, or because they were not so committed… It was Frederick, who still had an operational fighting force, and violently interrupted enemy plans.


One can try to belittle that achievement all day long, but as a matter of fact: in the end he never lost a war.
Btw, Napoleon was one of those envious begrudging men... When he wrote about Frederick, Napoleon always picked the highest number for the Prussians, the lowest for the enemy etc.

To me it is poetic justice that he died as prisoner in middle of nowhere, while Frederick died as the first King of Prussia, having made his little country a Great Power of his time.



(1) S. Fiedler: Taktik und Strategie der Kabinettskriege, p.141
(2) D. Marston: The Seven Years War, p.20; J. Mollo: Uniforms of the Seven Years War, p.9
(3) S. Millar: Kolin 1757, p.11
(4) Fiedler: op.cit., p.85
(5) Marston: op.cit., p.23
(6) Ibid., p.24; Mollo: op.cit., p.34
(7) H. Delbrück: Geschichte der Kriegskunst, vol.4, bk.3, ch.5
(8) Marston: op.cit., p.35
(9) Ibid., p.22; Mollo: op.cit., p.49
(10) A. Konstam: Russian Army of the Seven Years War, p.4

Good post, would give you rep if I could!

[Prince of Darkness]

Frederick was indeed a good general, but not as gifted as Napoleon or Charles XII in my opinion. Frederick inherited a well-trained and disciplined army but nearly lost his first battle at Mollwitz, running away in middle of the battle before marshal Schwerin informed him that he had won the battle.
I would say he learned from his experience and began to win a series of victories against the Austrians and Saxons without French help (but the French indeed drawn away huge amounts of Austrian armies, I would like to see the result between Frederick and Khevenhuller), and successfully retained Silesia.
But in 7YW he was not so lucky and faced Franco-Austrian-Russian armies alone, but I rather say the allied cooperation was rather bad and they never met unti Kunersdorf.
One of Frederick's great talents was his determination. Even after several crushing defeats he still managed to fight on and preserve his country through luck and exploitation of enemy's weakness. And the Russian help a lot, too. After Gross-Jagersdorf Apraxin had a chance to overrun East Prussia and even march toward Berlin but he rather withdraw in fear of angering the possible tsar candidate Peter.
And after Rossbach the Austrians under Charles were content to stay in their position and grudgingly attacked Silesia with slow and indecisive actions before Frederick quickly arrived and crushed them.

[alhoon]

If Napoleon succeeded, he will be called ''Napoleon the Great'' just like Frederick.

Napoleon the Great is called the Great anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great


Also from what I have read, Napoleon the Great respected Frederick. In these ETW quotes of Napoleon, there's one military advice he gave about studying the campaigns of Frederick the Great.

PS. My favorite quote from Frederick is what he said in the following situation:
He was visiting a prison and all prisoners were shouting "I'm innocent! I didn't do anything! Please give me pardon!" etc. Then Frederick saw one man that was sitting silently in a corner of his cell.
"What are you here for?" he asked the prisoner.
"I'm a criminal. I'm guilty" Said the prisoner.
Then Frederic turned to the guards. "Quick, take this man out of prison! He will corrupt all those good people!"

[FliegerAD]

Also from what I have read, Napoleon the Great respected Frederick. In these ETW quotes of Napoleon, there's one military advice he gave about studying the campaigns of Frederick the Great.

I presume you have not yet read what Napoleon then wrote about Fredericks campaigns. I was referring to that when I said he bad-mouthed Frederick, because he always picked the lowest number in the sources for the enemy and the highest for Frederick’s troops, he often attributed successes to Frederick’s generals not himself, while losses were almost always Fredericks fault in the first place, and of course, according to Napoleon Frederick had good luck several times that saved him.
Napoleon indeed also said Frederick was great and worth studying, but it does not take much imagination after reading his studies why he said that: to make sure everyone understood that he, Napoleon, was much greater anyway.

I can only recommend reading the commentary on that by Bernhard Boie from the History Department of the German Generals’ Staff (Militärische Klassiker des In- und Auslandes, Vol. 2 1881). Naturally it rather represents the other extreme almost adoring Frederick by it helps balancing out Napoleon’s screwed history. It also contains the whole French text by Napoleon, btw.

Alternatively one can stick to anecdotal evidence like CiviC does…

Frederick inherited a well-trained and disciplined army but nearly lost his first battle at Mollwitz, running away in middle of the battle before marshal Schwerin informed him that he had won the battle.

The infantry he inherited was good; the cavalry was bad in comparison to the Austrian-Hungarian horse as evidenced by their total failure at Mollwitz. It was Schwerin who advised Frederick to leave the field then, who admitted having lost control and was ashamed by it. After that he massively reformed the cavalry, essentially recreating the lights (Hussars, later Bosniaks).
You may read Fredericks accounts on that, don’t worry it is naturally not German but French. (Militärische Klassiker des In- und Auslandes, Vol 5 1882, commentary by A. Taysen; and Histoire de mon temps, Ch. 3)


And as I said before, to me it makes little sense comparing him to other generals from completely different periods. We should leave such pissing contest to people like Napoleon.

That article is ripe with fallacies. The term "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" was coined by Friedrich himself and does not refer to the death of the Czarina. Berlin was not encircled by the Russians in 1762. Also the event was preceded by Kunersdorf for 3 entire years and can hardly be seen in the context presented there. Wikipedia at its worst.

Indeed thanks for pointing that out, I have just not dared clicking the link...

[Ojf]

he was gay so mediocre

[gsoxx]

Good post, would give you rep if I could!

I took care of it.

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Frederick the Great, King IN Prussia not OF Prussia btw, was Great.

Napoleon always considered small and underpowered forces & Generals/Captains/Whatever and remarked on them, using them to tell us how to lead and succeed in war (Not that I love war.)

Other notables that Napoleon mentioned: Gustav Adolph, Conde, Turenne, Hannibal, Alexander

Personally, I don't think that Frederick was gay. I do think that his father was a Royal Jerk that strong armed his son into his will so badly, Frederick had no other choice!
Consider Frederick's father beheading his best friend in front of him just to teach him a lesson.

As Nappy said: "Hats off gentlemen! If this man were alive, we would not be here"

hellas1

[alhoon]

He became king of Prussia after kicking the Austrians' butt.