"Prussia could have easily conquered Hanover and established North-German Confederation".
I don't recall anyone saying it would be easy.
Look, if I offended you then I apologize. But please let the devs answer questions that are asked of them and when someone posts an idea please don't just shoot it down with what you think is possible or impossible (such as on this thread or on the other where a poster asked you to post a positve idea instead of just shooting down the ideas of others).
To paraphrase Princess Bride, "I don't think that means what you think it means." When the devs responded to your inquiry of playing Russia..we all know your feelings about Russia...they merely said that it would be handled by the diplomatic engine and that EACH nation would be able to explore an independent policy. You seem to have taken that statement and gotten a lot of milage out of it and telling us what each nation will or will not be allowed to do (who can attack whom or ally with whom) with Russia having a lot of freedom of action and others not so much.
A lot of us just have been asking the devs to clarify whether we can be allowed, say as Prussia, to also explore an independent policy and attempt to do the things they wanted to do....such as control Hannover and establish the North Confederation. Not saying it would be easy but what was? Or several other possibilities as other nations.
Those requests for clarification have now been buried beneath wallls of text I suppose.
With that said, I will give a warning to readers to read the following at your own risk and only if you need to be put to sleep (though the facts on British tonnage problems might be new):
Most of the Baltic and central countries did not rely on overseas trade for their economy. Prussian and Hanseatic ships, what few there were, mostly ported in the Baltic. As a percentage of population Prussia was able to maintain a standing army far in excess of other states due to growth in townships and a more efficient system of taxation mostly. So putting a large army in the field was something they could do with normal burdens per any state that did so…such as Russia or Austria. The system of global reliance was in its infancy.
Would war with Britain put a dent in the Prussian economy? Maybe a little. Their economic woes began when they lost half their country to Napoleon and had to pay an indemnity of 150 million.
Prior to 1805-06, Austria was still Prussia’s chief rival – for example, Frederick William sent Johann Lombard to Paris to talk about a North German Confederation and offer to help Napoleon gain influence in southern German states at the expense of Austria. (And even, later, while FW condemned the dissolution of the HRE with one hand, he simultaneously pressed for a North German Confederation with the other).
Napoleon was very conciliatory (sincerely or insincerely who can say) towards Prussia in anticipation of his war with Austria and Russia. In exchange for their neutrality he told FW to take Hannover.
FW agreed to this.
Prussia did not press the leverage but instead waited to bargain until after Austerlitz when it was too late. However, during Napoleon’s advance down the Danube, Prussia mobilized its troops again (they had done so once before when Bernadotte violated its territory) and had made the oath before Fred the Great’s tomb and that alarmed Napoleon. After Austerlitz, then, it is an understatement to say that Napoleon was less than conciliatory towards Prussia and now pressed his advantage hard.
After a series of aggrandizements into what were nominally Prussian states (Cleves. Berg, Wesel, Ansbach, etc), Napoleon then secretly offered Hannover to the British in a bid for peace. Fox almost came to the table but when it fell apart, Fox informed Frederick William of Napoleon’s underhanded bargaining of Hannover which FW learned of on August 6th. Three days later FW called for a general mobilization. It was not trade with Britain that caused an about face. On October 8th, FW issued an ultimatum that Napoleon abandon all lands east of the Rhine and withdraw all troops west of the Rhine
and recognize the North German Confederation that Prussia was organizing.
Last, it would be an example of completely ahistorical prescience for Fredrick William to realize that his army was outdated.
In 1804, British war expenditure and its affiliated services cost 29.78 million pounds while government revenue was 40.07 million pounds. 1808, it was 42.11 million and revenue was 65.77 million. By 1813, expenditures were 70.13 million while revenue was 76.69 million. So, the proportions were not working in their favor. Additionally, in 1808, the cabinet spent the majority of their hard currency, hoping for a quick victory in Spain, and borrowing went up exponentially – 32.86 million in 1804 to 105.3 million in 1813. Those are much more important numbers than interest rates, which are a function of supply and demand and Britain was the only game in town which held rates down.
It is very incorrect to say that Britain bore the burden with ease. It would also be incorrect to say they were on the verge of bankruptcy. We could go over trade figures as well if you like but I am betting that anyone reading this is saying, “Oh, God, NO!”
So here is a paradoxical fact: Although it cost Britain three times as much to fund an army on the continent, one of the major impediments to continental operations was that Britain did not have enough ships! They maintained no service controlled transports (until very late in the war and that was on a very limited basis). They rented/hired civilian ships for periods of 3-6 months (so they needed to plan ahead…no off-the-cuff invasions and small chunks at a time) and paid through the nose for often subpar ships.
To send 20 thousand infantry to Hanover required 30 thousand tonnage. To send only 2000 cavalry would require 16 thousand tonnage and 1500 artillery would require 10 thousand. Of the 26 thousand troops in Hannover, there were only 1200 cavalry and 286 artillery. (Britain had plenty of both available btw). Longer voyages increased the tonnage requirements.
As a side note, it was
losing that caused Prussia, Austria and to some degree Russia, to change the way they do things (Simms book is excellent on this). If they don’t lose do they get to upgrade their army and bureaucracy in the game? Or maybe they get to do so later?
If anyone wants to respond to this, maybe on a different thread?
Brendan Simms, The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy, and the Crisis of the Executive. (Also see, The Struggle for Mastery in Germany, 1779-1850 – which shows that even the Napoleonic Wars did not occur in a vacuum; old rivalries and sticking points such as Silesia and others, remained).
Napoleon Correspondence, especially to Talleyrand and to Frederick William
Christian Von Haugwitz, Fragments of Unedited Memoires
Karl August von Hardenberg also has a series of unpublished memoires which offer his experiences of this period.
Freidrich Meinecke, Age of German Liberation, 1795-1815
