Book suggestions and helpful links

[WhoCares]

Well, I don't really have any myself, but I would be interested in some book suggestions on the era.

I don't want to start without any book suggestion, so I add a link to a contemporary book on the Seven Years War:

Archenholz, Johann Wilhelm von - Geschichte des siebenjährigen Krieges in Deutschland (1791)
You can download the scanned version of a copy from 1866 - it might help if you can read old-german


Also interesting are maps of the time - here is a link (also from TU Darmstadt Digital Library) to a map of France from 1756. It also includes pictures and some information on apparently important french fortesses listed around the map border - I would have loved to capture the Vauban-fortress of Saarlouis - the Casemates nowadays house some nice restaurants and bars (we need a :drunk: emoticon )

This is a link to a latvian map archive, where you can find some contemporary maps mostly of the eastern theater.

[arsan]

Hi!
I think it has been already posted somewhere in the forum, but this web is so good that it's worth repeating it
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/
All you wanted to know about the Seven Years War and much more!
Cheers!

[boudi]

More simply, wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War

[WhoCares]

Ryhiner Collection - University of Bern, >16000 high resolution images: maps, town plans and topographical views from the 16th to the early 19th century. Covering RoPs theaters but also many other places...

[Longhairedlout]

Hi, I dont know if you have heard of Scribed, its as site where you can look at and download PDF's of book's about mostly everything, I have been reading about the Seven years war on it.... the link is below


http://www.scribd.com/search?cat=red...&sa.x=0&sa.y=0

[samba_liten]

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/metabook/fgreat.html

Carlyle's History of Friedrich II of Prussia, Called Frederick the Great.

[Charles]

Hi, just picked up the game and am still finding my way around. I still have the old SPI board game on Frederick the Great and this game sure brings back memories.

I just wanted to add two books to the list.

"The Army of Frederick the Great" by Christopher Duffy; and

"The Army of Maria Theresa" also by Duffy.

Both are very good books chock full of details which interest military historians and wargamers. About 2/3 of the book deals with the nuts and bolts of the army: officers, men, infantry, cavalry, artillery, command staff including detailed description of organisation, tactical deployment, qualities and problems, etc. There is also a lot of info on uniforms. The last 1/3 deals with an overview of the armies in combat from 1740-80, with the major emphasis on the Seven Year's War.

One thing that comes through is that the Prussian Army was ahead of its time in many areas, including selection and promotion of officers, recruitment of men, which gave it an edge over other armies at the time. The Austrian Army, being an older organization, was playing catchup during the 1740s to stay competitive, but by 1756, reforms to the artillery, new infantry muskets and the wonderful Croat light infantry turned it into a dangerous adversary.

The book of Maria Theresa's Army is out of print, but there is a 2nd edition available of the one on Frederick's Army.

[ird]

I recently found a free e-book on The Seven Years War by G Henty which I'm currently reading. Follow this link - you don't need an ebook reader, you can read it from your computer

http://manybooks.net/titles/hentyga1971419714.html

It's a mix of the history of the war as told by a young Scotsman under the service of Frederick. I'm loving it

[Lord Irvine]

I've just finished Nancy Mitfords book on Frederick the Great. It was a fairly light but interesting read. It doesn't go into a lot of detail on the military or diplomatic side but is full of his interactions with his family and friends, especially his friendship/relationship? with Voltaire. It was only $7 from Amazon so it's not a big outlay. The most interesting part of the book deals with his early life and growing up with his abusive father, Frederick William. Some of it seems sureal at times! I enjoyed it but if you are only interested in Frederick's military campaigns give it a miss.

Has anyone read Szabo's "The Seven Years War in Europe 1756-1763". Is it worth getting?

[mjw]

Szabo provides some great info on the battles and operations. The problem is that he is vehemently anti-Frederick to the point that is clouds all reason. It gets to the point that according to Szabo, the austrians never lost a battle. He even
provides narrative on why leuthen was a narrowly diverted prussian disaster that did little to affect the Austrian army.

[kosmoface]

Okay, this might be interesting only in parts, because Delbrück discusses much more than the seven years war, but it is nevertheless quite interesting, because he compars French and Prussian military organization and shows the difference of Napoleons and Fredericks stragey.

Hans Delbrück - History of Warfare, Book IV
http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Modern-Wa...ref=pd_sim_b_2

If you speak German you can read it for free on www.archive.org (which I highly recommend anyway)

Right now I'm reading:
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War from Frederick William Longman
http://www.archive.org/details/frede...eata00unkngoog

It's well written and informative. Shows a little bit the political dimension of the WHYs and also the HOWs of some battles in broad strokes.

Originally Posted by WhoCares

Archenholz, Johann Wilhelm von - Geschichte des siebenjährigen Krieges in Deutschland (1791)
You can download the scanned version of a copy from 1866 - it might help if you can read old-german

Just read the introduction. I think he's the antithesis to Szabo - a fan of the Prussian Empire through and through.

[Lord Irvine]

Originally Posted by mjw

Szabo provides some great info on the battles and operations. The problem is that he is vehemently anti-Frederick to the point that is clouds all reason. It gets to the point that according to Szabo, the austrians never lost a battle. He even
provides narrative on why leuthen was a narrowly diverted prussian disaster that did little to affect the Austrian army.

I had heard that mentioned about Szabo and was wondering does it get to the point where his bias is over the top and starts to grate on the reader. It could be a good antidote to the hero worship of Frederick where he can do no wrong (would he really be "The Great" if the Czarina hadn't choked on her caviar? ). One of the things that attracted me to considering this book is that it supposedly gives equal coverage to Ferdinand and the war in western Germany and the great benefit this was to Frederick as this seems to get overlooked in some histories.

I don't want to fork out $40 and half way through start to think the author was the Queen of Poland in a previous life and still harbored a grudge .

[kosmoface]

First: he was called "the Great" long before the Czarina died

Second: there are no IFs in history. Yup, Frederick was lucky with Russia during the Seven Years War, but you can point at all great people and say that they were in this or this instance lucky. Does that take away from their deeds? I don't think so.

e.g. Napoleon nearly was defeated in Marengo, Italy earlier in his career. He only 'won' this battle because his reserve came late (without knowing that the battle was over) and routed the Italians which thought they had won and weren't marching in order. Afterwards they called Napoelon a war hero and he himself lied that this exactly was the plan from the getgo, when it was extremely lucky of him in truth.

And now? Does this diminish Napoelons successes? Is Frederick the 'un'great because he, besides all what he did right, was lucky with the Russians?

I'm very sure we wouldn't talk about Prussia, let alone play this game without Frederick. Calling him "the Great" therefore is a-okay with me. But that doesn't mean that he didn't make mistakes. During the Seven Years War there were crucial ones. He could have decided this war in the first year for example IF... but I digress.

IFs are interesting, but the result is not measureable, it is only fantasy not history.

[Lord Irvine]

Originally Posted by kosmoface

IFs are interesting, but the result is not measureable, it is only fantasy not history.

IF's make for fun discussions though!

Anyway under Paradox's new naming policy he's no longer to be referred to as Frederick the Great, but as Frederick the Best. It's more understandable to today's marketplace.

[Lord Irvine]

I've just discovered all the book discussions seem to be in the SYW Uniforms Links thread!! I'll get my coat..........

[kosmoface]

Originally Posted by Lord Irvine

IF's make for fun discussions though! .

That's for sure. And it's a good set up for games, too.

Originally Posted by Lord Irvine

Anyway under Paradox's new naming policy he's no longer to be referred to as Frederick the Great, but as Frederick the Best. It's more understandable to today's marketplace.

lol

[Baris]

Some writings about Frederick... From some sources I read that Frederick was famous with his flank attack, especially "Leuthen battle" was a chance to show his excellent skills as a commander. Some of his units generally hide in the woods or near a river,while the other flank engages the enemy from rear or side.



"Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, is considered the best commander of the European Enlightenment. Despite possessing relatively few people and resources, he transformed the tiny Prussian state into a great military power (which arguably wouldn't be brought down until 1945). Strategically, he modernized the Prussian military into a well-trained, well-disciplined unit. He taught them to fire faster, march with more precision, and deploy artillery quicker. Tactically, he employed oblique tactics which massed all units on one side of the battle line in order to sweep through the enemy forces one at a time (instead of all at once). This allowed Frederick to achieve victories against numerically-superior enemies at Hohenfriedberg, Rossbach, and Leuthen."

For more information, read:
Frederick the Great by Gerhard Ritter
Frederick the Great by Giles MacDonogh
Frederick the Great by Christopher Duffy
Military Blunders by Geoffrey Regan
Dictionary of Battles by David Chandler
Extreme War by Terrence Poulos


Some other link" http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ " talks about battles and formations in Napoleonic era, some tactics and units must be similar..

“Soldiers should fear their officers more than all the dangers to which they are exposed.... Good will can never induce the common soldier to stand up to such dangers; he will only do so through fear.” says Frederick.

[Charles]

a couple of points on King Frederick:

1. most of the reform work on the Prussian Army had been done by his father, grandfather and great-grandfather. He merely took what they had done and used it or continued the evolution, for example improving the recruitment of personnel and the military education of officer.

2. the oblique attack was his personal innovation and quite revolutionary at the time, but it really only worked well at Rossbach and Leuthen when he was facing inferior commanders. He also insisted on using it all the time, thereby losing the element of surprise. At Kolin and Torgau, Daun quickly figured out what he was doing and reoriented his forces so the Prussian Army still wound up doing a frontal attack.

3. As a strategist, the record is mixed. Certainly his strategy of using interior lines to defeat his enemies in detail during the SYW was quite sound. However, he miscalculated badly with his invasion of Saxony and his treatment of the Saxons after capitulation. This made it very easy for the Austrians to convince France, Russia, Sweden, etc. to declare war on Prussia.

4. Operationally, he was excellent. He moved his forces at lightning speed, by 18th century standards, up to 12 miles a day. His use of the fortified camp at Bunzelwitz in 1761 is legendary. Even with inferior forces, he often managed to maneuver enemy forces out of favorable positions or force his enemies to fight under unfavourable conditions. Obviously his reputation as a general who was not afraid to fight made his enemies more cautious whenever he showed up.

5. Tactically, we have again a mixed record. Certainly once the battle started, he was very clear headed about the overall situation and not afraid to throw in all his forces to win (Prague, Rossbach, Leuthen, Liegnitz). However, he was also very stubborn and started or continued battles under unfavorable conditions, which lead to heavy losses or defeat (Kolin, Zorndorf, Kunersdorf, Torgau).

[Bertram]

Point 3 assumes that there would have been no war when Frederic had not invaded Saxony. Frederic did invade Saxony because he was afraid that Austria was gearing up to take back Silesia (which they lost in the succesion wars). Austria was laying the diplomatic ground work for such a war.

It would be an interesting scenario to see what happens when Prussia did not take Saxony, and Austria starts a war over Silesia. Prussia could have the same troops as at start of the campaign (or the 56 Saxony scenario), Saxony would have her army intact, and Austria - who would have mobilized at her leisure, would invade (somewhere in spring 1759, if the speed with which they mobilize in the game is any indication) with all the troops they can muster in the first year of the campiagn. No other armies involved (otherwise the "what if's" get really out of hand).

We could call it "The empire shoots first" .

[Baris]

Very interesting facts about Frederick. But it looks plausible and realistic. It can be quite right about his father modernizing the army.

He can be stubborn in battlefield, but in his civil life, He was more tolerant to religion differences and liked poetry or music as I read. He was a great musician, He is also idealistic I guess like many commanders or leaders in Napoleonic era.

I wonder did he want to be 3rd Rome? He was inspired by some philosopher rulers of Roman Empire. Maybe because of his friend Voltaire changed some of his toughts. Even they had a disagreement some times.

Any more reference I will be glad to read,

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Bertram

It would be an interesting scenario to see what happens when Prussia did not take Saxony, and Austria starts a war over Silesia. Prussia could have the same troops as at start of the campaign (or the 56 Saxony scenario), Saxony would have her army intact, and Austria - who would have mobilized at her leisure, would invade (somewhere in spring 1759, if the speed with which they mobilize in the game is any indication) with all the troops they can muster in the first year of the campiagn. No other armies involved (otherwise the "what if's" get really out of hand).

We could call it "The empire shoots first" .

That could be fun, actually. Maybe even have Saxony and/or Russia come in on one side or the either depending on how well the war is going.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Baris

Very interesting facts about Frederick. But it looks plausible and realistic. It can be quite right about his father modernizing the army.

He can be stubborn in battlefield, but in his civil life, He was more tolerant to religion differences and liked poetry or music as I read. He was a great musician, He is also idealistic I guess like many commanders or leaders in Napoleonic era.

I wonder did he want to be 3rd Rome? He was inspired by some philosopher rulers of Roman Empire. Maybe because of his friend Voltaire changed some of his toughts. Even they had a disagreement some times.

Any more reference I will be glad to read,

everything I know about Frederick comes from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Army-Frederick.../dp/188347602X

Obviously, it is more concerned with the military aspects, but Frederick the man shines through on every page. He was very much a man of his century, a close friend of Voltaire, who believed in enlightened absolutism.

He was not a religious fanatic. His war effort was financed/administered by jewish bankers. His supply network was overseen by jewish merchants.

From what I can see, his wars were opportunistic and not part of an over all scheme. He grabbed Silesia when Austria was weak and wanted to do the same thing with Saxony.

He did have faults. He was notoriously cheap and refused to grant his general's promotions (to save the salary) or decent pensions, even though he made a 30 million thalers profit on the SYW.

[Hohenlohe]

One thing more...In his earlier years he was occupied with some interesting philosopies and thoughts. He had read much about the books of Nicholas Macchiavelli and wrote an antithesis called "Anti-Macchiavelli", but in later years he obviously used the thoughts of Macchiavelli as basis of his internal and foreign politics.
Another thing was his personal behaviour versus his younger and very talented brother Heinrich who was often more successful in defeating the enemy in decisive battles, at last in the Battle of Freiberg which was the last and decisive one happened in 1762 in Saxony. He treated his brother not very well because he did not accepted someone more or equal talented beside him.
But all in all he was great in many aspects and after the war very respected by the people. As Napoleon appeared at his sarcophag in Berlin he was mentioned with the sentence that if Frederic was still alive he, Napoleon, would not stay in Berlin but would have been defeated on the battlefield.
Napoleon showed very great respect to this prussian King.

Although from hungaro-german origin I bow my head in great respect of this great King and admire him very well.

greetings

Hohenlohe

[Baris]

I will try to get that book, it looks unbiased and objective, by reading your comments. Thanks,

From what I understand he was more of a little despot and opportunist(in politics) than a philosopher king. Even his young age gave him some intellect by reading, nature of politics in europe or world at that time may have caused Macchiavelli's ideals to appear in his head. But he also wasn't kind in relations with his brother or some other generals. And the profit he made as a result of the war can be explained that he is far from idealist.

It strange that more knowledge or Intellectuality of a man or ruler causes more control on society, Philosopher king can be more dangerous with regards to Plato . But in this case it served well.. ,as a philosopher king and the social reforms he achieved, he is remembered with respect.

I think he shares similar beliefs about world and religion as interpreted in Napoleonic France. Which is a good thing. He is a Great leader after all as he helped Prussia to climb up the ladders to be a big power in european history.

[kosmoface]

Originally Posted by Charles

everything I know about Frederick comes from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Army-Frederick.../dp/188347602X

One source alone will always give lopsided results, no matter how the author tries to be objective, his opinion will always shine through.

Sadly for the non-native German speakers on this forum there's not much translated. Naturally there are many more books about Frederick available in German.

[SAS]

I recommend:

-Frederick the Great, The Magnificent Enigma by Robert B. Asprey