Explain How Did Frederick The Great Break The Rules

These developments influenced most of the powerful nations of Europe and were soon repeated in similar forms around the world. Furthermore, many of the Prussian enhancements in army doctrine are the foundation of the command structures of many modern militaries today.

Frederick the Great of Prussia and William III of the Dutch Republic were two well known great leaders of Europe. They lived decades apart, William from 1650 to 1702, and Frederick from 1712 to 1786, yet had uncannily similar lives, in many aspects. These leaders, because of a somewhat controversial past, have lost many important clues about what their lives were really like. Nonetheless, it is known for sure that both were knowledgeable, great military leaders, champions of justice, and very likely homosexual.

Analyze the military, political, and social factors that account for the rise of Prussia between 1640 and 1786.

Prussia had become the most powerful state in Europe. “Most German’s were enormously proud, enormously relieved. And they

In the year of 1792, a twelve year old boy named Carl von Clausewitz enlisted in the Prussian army for war, and soon after appearing in such battles as Jena-Auerstädt and Waterloo, became dedicated in conflict and its reasons for their results most of his life. By being alive at the same time as Napoleon's rise and fall, Carl von Clausewitz was able to document and relate how war was fought, won, and lost. It's important to comprehend that in his writings, he is relaying why it is pertinent to think about how war is fought, not how to win a war. Clausewitz' theories described in “On War,” are not only effective in wars fought in today's time and past, but will remain current in future endeavors, due to its generic layout of

Frederick diminished the power of the Junkers, who were the nobility of Brandenburg and Prussia that threatened his power. He did so by giving them reconfirmation of their own privileges, which included authority over serfs in exchange for their acceptance of taxation. The “Great Elector’s” son, Frederick I, became the first Prussian king by helping the Habsburgs and Holy Roman empire in the War of Spanish Succession. He later passed the throne down to his son, Frederick William I. Frederick William I, known as “the Soldiers’ king”, is considered to have truly consolidated Prussian absolutism by eliminating the “last traces of parliamentary estates and local self-government.” [1] In addition, Frederick William I turned Prussia into a military estate by forcing conscription, which became lifelong in 1713. Instead of destroying the Junkers, he appeased them by allowing them to lead his growing army in which peasants were forced to serve in. In addition, he abused the Junkers’ acceptance of taxation, which allowed him to create such a well-trained army and an educational system that was under state control. Therefore, he created a “rigid and highly disciplined” [1] civil society that consisted of a

Frederick was saved by the death of his most hated enemy “Tsarina Elizabeth” on jan 5, 1762 and the succession of this nephew, Peter iii. Frederick was known as his hero, he speedily ordered hostility from the

With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country France from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people 's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people 's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.

The Thirty Years War that spanned most of the Holy Roman Empire drawing in most of the European superpowers of the time started off as a much smaller rebellion in the Kingdom of Bohemia in the east of the Empire. The Bohemian revolt started with the Defenestration of Prague where two Catholic regents and a secretary were thrown out of a window by a group of frustrated Protestants. The regents had been placed in control of the city by the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, Matthias to rule until his successor, Ferdinand of Styria, was elected to replace him. The Protestants were frustrated because their petitions to Matthias asking

He will undoubtedly be remembered for his pursuit of Enlightenment ideas and patronage of the arts, but it was the stories of Frederick’s deeds and speeches far outlived his own life. It was the stories of Frederick rallying the broken ranks at Hochkirch, being hit by a cannonball at Torgau, or Frederick’s rallying speech at Leuthen that were remembered by his men and subjects, not the fact that Frederick was more interested in French than German, or that he played the flute. It was Frederick’s reforms of agriculture, economics, and preservation and expansion of Prussia against all odds and enemies that people remembered, not the fact that Frederick wrote a commentary on Machiavelli or had a different taste in music. We remember Frederick II in our textbooks as Frederick the Great not because he was a patron of the arts or considered himself a philosopher king, but because he used his army and reforms to turn the small backwater country of Prussia into the a feared power in

Emperor Frederick II of Germany and King Louis IX of France were both important figureheads of the crusades as they personally prepared for the departure and led the army to the Holy Land. This indicated a transition of responsibility for crusading from the Church to royal figures. Even though Louis IX’s crusades failed and Frederick II’s crusade gained control of the Holy Land, Louis IX became a saint whereas Frederick II was declared the Antichrist. Therefore, the outcome of the crusades led by both kings did not determine the public’s approval and disapproval. Despite failing both of his crusades, Louis IX became a saint because of his sincere intention and devotion to liberate the Holy Land. Frederick II, on the other hand, was indifferent toward the faith and the main purpose for him to lead the crusade was to acquire

For my part, Frederick the Great – a great general as well as a skilled absolute monarch – was one of the most effective absolute monarchs of his time. I think he was an effective absolute monarch because of his contribution to the small but militarily powerful German state of Prussia in becoming an absolute monarchy. The rise of Prussia between 1600s and 1700s occurred as a result of a combination of military, political, and social factors lead by Frederick's contribution. I chose Frederick II as a great effective absolute monarch based on his actions that affected his people. He did many great things for the significance of his absolute monarchy. Frederick II of Prussia made reforms and changes that were ideas of the Enlightenment. He wanted to further his country and

In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany

Failing to achieve a quick victory over France in 1914, Germany faced war on two fronts. With no back up plan, Germany made little attempt to adapt its strategy over the course of the war. In light of this, Kuhn’s model for scientific revolutions coupled with Delbruck’s scientific study of history shed light on the actions of the German High Command as well as the consequences of those actions. In short, the High Command’s inability to adapt during World War I was due to its insistence on the strategy of annihilation, the ignorance of anomalies, and the blatant disregard to consider Delbruck’s ideas and proposals.

The period between 20th April 1792, when after prolonged debates the deputies of the French National Assembly finally declared war on the Habsburgs of Austria and 18th June 1815, marking Napoleon Bonaparte's defeat at Waterloo, was characterised by almost constant warfare, save for the brief peace of Amiens (March 1802 – May 1803). In fact, such was the extent of these wars which spanned a little over two decades that until 1914, the British referred to them as the 'Great War'.1 Of late, these wars have been an object of much contention and have come under the microscope to assist scholars in fully appreciating their significance in the transformation of European warfare. Even today, scholars and historians alike, remain divided over just how substantial a role the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars played in altering the nature of wars after 1792. Without disregarding either side, Roger Chickering has identified two 'master narratives' which do a remarkable job of explaining this period's importance, albeit in two extremely dissimilar ways.2