Introduction
During the age of Frederick the Great, 1740 to 1786, Western militaries used similarFrederick’s time, the West applied military tactics and that swept away the most obvious approaches to military organization. These Western warfare techniques and tactics throughout the west. It provoked several decades of furious debate over the extent and nature of the changes in the 16th century warfare. There were several aspects of warfare during the age of Frederick the great. According to Geoffrey Parker, “five essential aspects of Western warfare remained constant for centuries always including a combination of superior technology, high discipline, aggressive traditions, rapid response, and financial structures”. All five aspects of the Western way of war characterized warfare in the age of Frederick the Great, but challenge and response dynamics and high standards of discipline characterized warfare in the West the best. structures.”
The change to regimental communities, to subject matter expert inclusions, and to centralized state commissioned armies were required for the creation of a modern community in the Seventeenth-Century paid huge dividends during the age of Frederick the Great. These significant changes touched all aspects of Western warfare in the Frederican period, providing powerful statesmen of militaries with a unique capacity to respond to challenges by changing their practices and financing their changes. This aspect of warfare worked effectively for many military groups in Europe and America because they were able to accept the need for changes as they arose, plus take instructions from inventors of various social backgrounds in order to do so effectively. Centralized states possessed an ability to become self-sustaining with new developments producing growth within their regions. This growth increased their ability to have a technological edge because labour-intensive systems proved to be expensive towards covering the cost for gunpowder, weapons, and defences.
A radical change spread throughout the West and the rest of the world once Frederick the Great changed his technique during battles to mass his army against vulnerable points of his enemies’ army as a penetration and pursuit tactic. This action was considered radical because Frederick’s army invaded the Silesia, whose army was far superior and out-numbered his Prussian army two to one. Antoine-Henri Jomini described Frederick’s maneuvering tactic as a principle for threatening opponents and as a decisive point for the outcome of battles. Jomini, also made a valid point towards Austria’s failure to adapt to this maneuver technique by exploiting interior lines caused a loss for them twice (once against Prussia and the other France). Jomini further explained that an enemy supply line would almost always exist as a decisive point in an attack, especially if they have been fighting for an extended period of time across a large amount of land. If this type of attack occurred against a western state capable of quickly mobilizing resources then their survival rate would be far greater than others unable to provide support beyond the bounds of their commissaries or lines of communication.
Discipline controlled large armies and navies during the time of Frederick II and proved to be a critical aspect from the Western style of warfare to train and care for troops. During this time military forces concentrated on training drills within battlefield formations because infantry as a weapon was a cheaper way to win wars. These training drills began with Maurice of Nassau, but were later improved by Gustavus Adolphus, Louis XIV, and Frederick the Great as a method to enhance maneuverability speed. This increased discipline to rapidly conduct musket-loading or pike-handling drills allowed armies of the west to compensate for numerical inferiority against foes lacking discipline. The aim of this type of tactical mobility in war and peace shifting from marching order to battle ordered proved a units ability to respond to commands. As an obedience drill, officers and drill masters forced soldiers to maintain their composure when withstanding full cavalry charges by generating fear for acts of disobedience through killing soldiers on the spot. This act highlights the desire towards building highly disciplined military troops and serves as a form of impersonal military discipline. As an iron rule, discipline enhanced social and psychological behaviors of soldiers raising the spirits of troops and facilitated their effectiveness to fight together as a single unit in mind and will.
Within the aspect of financial structures the establishment of nations to capitalize their budget and to mobilize credit in support of military operations truly defined them as Western states. Most nations in Europe concentrated on using financial power as their secret weapon to win wars. Finances were used to seek international support and to acquire heavy machinery to push on with the battle. A lot of money collected from taxes were used to pay military personnel and attracted a lot of people to join the army as soldiers, mercenaries, or conscripts. Recruits were of lower class societies, lacked loyalty to their armies, and frequently sought ways to desert them or join other armies if their financial needs were not met. Therefore, States in the West capable of paying their personnel for service consistently and on-time supplemented their drills with long-term service. Plus, wealthier states were capable of funding longer wars to supply troops with resources needed for battle without their victories being tied to logistics. However, in 1775 Frederick the Great wrote, “I perceive that all small states can maintain themselves against the greatest monarchies when these states put industry and a great deal of order into their affairs.” Furthermore his writings on feeding, drilling, and evaluating the intelligence within his army leads me to believe that he understood the importance of taking care of his troops and the populations within his area of influenced.
The aspect of aggression during the age of Frederick the Great was limited because nations fought for limited goals and objectives. They used reason to prevent excessive cost derived from forbearance battle cultures, but ensure their soldiers were taught to accept losses. The use of weapons technology was evident in warfare during the age of Frederick the Great as well, but none revolutionized technology to a new level of destruction. Simply allowing most nations keep up with technology as it advanced.
The military forces concentrated more on the discipline of individual soldiers. Even though the superiority of armament and attacking techniques were important for winning the war, most of them realized the impacts of discipline on the outcome. The western military concentrated on discipline more than on religion, kinship, or patriotism. They realized that discipline alone could boost their fighting spirit. Discipline was the only instrument of war that clustered individual men to fight together as a single unit. It was important to be highly disciplined to achieve the requirements of fighting the protagonists. With high levels of discipline, most military groups were able to supplement their drills with long-term service. Discipline enhanced social and psychological behaviors of soldiers thus facilitating their combative effectiveness. According to the history of the warfare, the soldiers enforced discipline for unitary operation to tame their rivals. Most of the disciplined forces were highly intellectual and able to supplement their intelligence with weaponry to win the war. It is therefore basic intuition to state that discipline was to work in tandem with intelligence and technology to win the war. For instance, discipline played a significant role in the German and Soviet Union’s militaries.
The military during Frederick’s time had unique capacity of responding to challenges. This aspect of warfare worked effectively for many military groups in Europe and America. The soldiers were trained to respond quickly to any attack from their antagonists. The quick response caused confusion in the opposing troupes. For instance, the German military was quick and strategic in launching a retaliatory attack against its rivals through its blitzkrieg tactic. The blitzkrieg tactic was a military tactic where the military used light tanks while being escorted by infantry. To counter the tactic, the rival soldiers had to respond with utmost speed to stop them. Failure by the target military to respond quickly and tame the attacking groups was always consequential. The commanders were on record for mobilizing their troupes as fast as possible in case of any impending attack. They responded to any alarm of retaliation as quickly as they could irrespective of the time, terrain, or manpower. However, in most occasions, the Germans had their way whenever the opposing soldiers were reluctant to response speedily. Quick response and attack was one of the best military aspects that worked for most of the armies and navies that tried it.
Another aspect that was evident during Fredrick’s time was the financial structures of the nations taking part in the warfare. In this case, financial structures refer to the amount of capital that the nations were willing to invest in their military operations. The nations preferred using money to manpower to facilitate their success in the retaliatory attacks. Most nations in Europe that took part in the warfare concentrated on using financial power to win the wars. The used the finances to seek international support and to acquire heavy machinery to push on with the battle. They realized that money could improve their chances of winning wars against their enemies because it was a show of economic power. Frederick discovered that money could solve his military’s strategic plans. He spent a lot of money collected from taxes to pay the military personnel and hence boosting their morale to continue fighting. This escalated their performance in the battlefields as compared to their counterparts who had a large number of soldiers in the field. Additionally, money attracted many people to join the army as soldiers. Financial capability is an important aspect of warfare even in the current century. For a country to maintain its military operation, it must incur a lot of money as maintenance expenses. Most countries invest a lot of money in their military for training, allowances, and for purchasing weapons. The economic superpowers also double as military superpowers in the world. It is therefore intuitive to assert that it is preferable to have adequate amounts of money than manpower to run armies and navies.
The other aspect of war during Frederick’s time was the culture of military aggression. Aggression is the act of facing the enemy without deceptive fear or willingness to surrender due to fear. The military culture during this era was in support of aggression. The soldiers were very aggressive while attacking their enemies. They applied this technique and managed to eradicate the chances of facing defeat. They were sure to defeat their rivals with the available techniques and by all possible means. Additionally, they present their minds to celebrate victory. The motivation was to win the war and celebrate the victory. They did not think about the negative side of the war, but victory. This aspect of warfare in the west facilitated the triumph of most soldiers. Victory was not an option for them because the intention of battling is to win. The aspect of victory made them heartless and competent in their battles. Frederick was always optimistic whenever his soldiers went out to battle. The aura of victory usually filled the battlegrounds during most bloody encounters between rivaling groups. With reference to history, statistics indicate that the most of the aggressive nations in the world found it easier to practice the victory culture.
Even though most armies and navies used low-level technology, Frederick’s army was technologically superior. The use of weapons was evident in the warfare with most of the participating nations making sure that they were at par with the advances in weapon technology. Peter, Craig and Gilbert state that, “Maurice increased his siege train and began to assign a permanent role in his army to artillery, engineers, and supply, and he made siege operations more efficient by introducing the use of troop labor.” The developments in military seemed obvious. “the longbow was scarcely a new technology a new technology; it had been a principal weapon of the English monarchy’s armed forces for half a century.” The discovery of gunpowder and ammunitions prior to the Frederick’s time was a boost to the military operation. For instance, in the mid 18th century, the Soviet Union came up with new advances in weapon power. The use of powerful machinery by Soviet Union was a great challenge to the other nations in the West. It had emerged earlier that the West was very advanced in terms of weaponry and artillery. This was before the latest inventions of missiles, rockets, and precision guided ammunition in the later centuries. The best technical improvements in weapons saw major improvements in military tactics. The advances in weaponry threatened the military affairs in the Soviet Union by Germany, for instance. The Soviet Union military was scared that the technical weapon revolutions would have dire consequences on their retaliatory war techniques. They also feared that it would alter their techniques of facing another military rival group. The advances in military weaponry increased the potential impact on the targeted rivals. The weapons were capable of increasing the destruction potential by more than double. The Soviet Union lacked high-tech weapons to face their rivals at that time. This situation forced the Soviet Union to change its art and tactics to counter the military groups that used the most powerful weapons. They further adopted new combative tactics to take care of the military shortfall.
Conclusion
Referring back to history in the age of Frederick the Great, one is likely to discover different aspects from the western way of war used by militaries at a time of limited warfare. Leaders during this time had to be resourceful in selecting which aspects of the Western warfare would lead them to victory towards their limited goals when challenged to respond with innovation, discipline, and the means to fund battles. As a Soldier in the 21st century military as a teaching application Frederick’s era provides a good scenario for leaders to define the problem of a particular nation and develop appropriate solutions to solve the problem. This will provide leaders with an opportunity to assess engagements prior to the use of high-tech precision equipment. Financial capability is perhaps the most relevant aspect of warfare in the 21st century and will perhaps be apparent until the end of time. The question will be who will be the economic superpowers in the world and will they be will to fight to reign supreme for financial dominance.
NotesThe warfare during Frederick’s time is an important event in military history. The aspects of war used during this warfare are educative for the 21st century’s military. The whole world understands the relevance of this historic event to the military due to its resourcefulness. By going through the history, one is likely to discover different warfare aspects that were in action during Frederick’s era. Some of the aspects that were evident during Frederick’s era include the financial structure of the nations, weapons, discipline and intelligence, financial structure, and aggressive culture of the military. The historic warfare is important to the 21st century’s military due to its application as an educational platform. For instance, the 21st century military training academies refer to the military history during Frederick’s time to come up with appropriate combative techniques. This is because the military aspects used during this time offer great lessons of combativeness prior to the use of high-tech military equipments. The military history is also important in studying the strengths and weaknesses of the armies during the warfare. Studying their strengths and weaknesses is a training tactic that is aimed at reacting in a different or the same manner if faced with the same scenarios. Studying the aspects is also an added advantage to the future generations of soldiers who will be able to discover the ancient military drills and secretes.
Bibliography
Knox, MacGregor and Williamson Murray. The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050.
Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Paret, Peter, Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert. Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Parker, Geoffrey. The Cambridge History of Warfare. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2005.
Von Clausewitz, Carl . On War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
