The history of unified Prussia[i] began under the reign of a weak, ineffectual ruler, and ended under the command of one of the strongest of the Enlightened despots, running his country with an agile mind and a fist of steel. In much the same way, this motley collection of feuding principalities by the time of the French Revolution transformed into a mighty contender for European dominance, one of the great powers of the end of the 18th century. Such a dramatic shift in national identity affected all parts of this region; thus to examine the state of Prussia at the beginning of the period, and then the effects of such a change on Prussian politics, society, economics, religion, and the military provides a clear picture of the totality of Prussian history.
It is evident that much of national success relies upon the actions of the ruler, and Prussia is certainly not an exception. George William of Lüneburg-Celle was elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia from 1619 to his death in 1640, and his reign was characterized by failure. During the opening engagements of the Thirty Years’ War, his brother-in-law King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden requested his assistance, and after persistent prodding, George William relented.[ii] In actual military terms, he did little more than allow Swedish troops to garrison on his territory, and it was ultimately the presence of these troops that provided the justification for the imperial armies under Tilly and Wallenstein to brutally ravage the German countryside. At the time of his death, his electorate and the surrounding principalities were decimated, pillaged numerous times by both Catholic and Protestant armies.
The economic results of the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War were staggering. The historian Günther Franz estimated that during this period the varied German states experienced a population decline between 30-40%[iii], a devastating loss to productivity almost beyond comprehension. While there remains disagreement among historians as to the exact effect of the conflict, the final results are undeniable: “Whatever the long-term effects of the war, therefore, its direct, immediate effects were destructive. At best, the Thirty Years’ War started a general decline…at worst, it replaced prosperity with disaster.”[iv]
The Germanic states had never been the seat of culture and learning, but this newest assault upon their sovereignty left the citizenry resentful and ready to let the world hear their voices. Authors like Andreas Gryphius and Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein wrote works decrying the horrors of the war, and Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen wrote what many consider to be the greatest novel of the seventeenth century[v], Der abenteuerliche Simplicissimus Teutsch (The Adventures of Simplicius Simplicissimus) partially based upon his experiences in the conflict. The artwork, too, reflected the deep-seated societal memory of the terrors of battle and warfare, though it did not reach the same level of importance to culture as the literature during this period.
The people in the Germanic states were almost entirely Protestant, and of the Protestants, the vast majority were Lutheran, except for the regions of Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg, which were predominately Calvinist. Partially in recognition of the conditions in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), but also through the pragmatic realization of the importance of public satisfaction, Frederick William (ruled 1640-1688), himself a staunch Calvinist, attempted to even the positions of the Lutherans and Calvinists within his own government. Realizing the political hazard to initiating institutional change, he merely appointed Calvinists to any open positions in the councils, a solution which went largely unmolested by the populace.[vi] This shrewd maneuver paved a road for the recovery of the Prussian states, encouraging the citizens to work together in brotherhood and not in fear or distrust.
Politically, however, Prussia was still unable to rise from its own ashes. The official title of the ruler of the region, “Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia,” discloses the lack of true Prussian sovereignty. Ultimately, the elector remained in the service of the King of Poland. Additionally, the culture of prestige held sway here as much as in the other European culture centers. However, where the prestige system in other countries worked as a positive incentive for local bureaucrats to take gestures that would help their citizens, Prussia’s weak, patchwork government provided a poor institution for such practices. Thus, councilors and local bureaucrats faced perverse incentives to take actions which would harm their own citizens in exchange for influence. Even less conducive to state formation, the Prussian military in 1650 was a pitiful 2,000 strong, utterly incapable of facing the might of militaries like those of the French or the Spanish. Prussia’s institutions, in combination with their martial weakness, made them little more than a second-rate power in the seventeenth century. Francis L. Carsten put it bluntly: “At the beginning of the seventeenth century…[t]here was nothing to indicate that Brandenburg or Prussia would ever play a major part in German or in European affairs.”[vii]
Everything changed with the ascent of Frederick II to the throne as the King in Prussia. The dramatic paradigm-shifting currents of the Enlightenment traveled as far as backwater Prussia, and this Frederick, unlike his predecessors, began to see himself as an enlightened despot. Indeed, this statement can be made no clearer than in his personal writings, in an essay he wrote on the forms of government:
“Rulers should always remind themselves that they are men like the least of their subjects. The sovereign is the foremost judge, general, financier, and minister of his country, not merely for the sake of his prestige. Therefore, he should perform with care the duties connected with these offices. He is merely the principal servant of the State.”[viii]
Frederick II, while more powerful than the previous Dukes of Prussia, still was called King in Prussia, rather than King of Prussia, in deference to the Poles, who technically held sway over the dukedom. It wasn’t until 1772 that Frederick annexed several additional territories and claimed the full title as despot over the nation.
However, while Frederick didn’t officially possess full sovereignty, he proceeded with a dramatic campaign of reform. His first order of business for the country, contrary to the expectations of his fellow scholars and thinkers-who expected more traditional Enlightenment reforms, economic or societal-was the military. His predecessor Frederick William, known as the Great Elector for his own reforms, instituted the miles perpetuus-standing army-and equipped the well-trained and disciplined force with state-of-the-art weaponry.[ix] Frederick II, however, took the respectably-sized military and made it the most powerful in all of Europe-194,000 men by 1786.[x] It dwarfed the armies of rival nations, and proved its prowess time and time again in the field.
“[The Prussian military], 126 battalions and 210 squadrons, formed a highly efficient field army, which an iron discipline, a careful training on the parade-ground and in the manœuvres and camps of exercises which were held every year had made a force even more formidable than that which Frederick William had bequeathed to his son….No efforts had been spared to collect vast reserves of clothing, weapons, provisions and military stores of every kind.”[xi]
However, even more impressive than all these reforms was Frederick himself. An avid student of many fields, he studied tactics and strategies religiously. He showed such tactical finesse in the field of battle that Napoleon Bonaparte, upon visiting his tomb, remarked to his officers, “Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here.[xii]
The effects of the Enlightenment were not restricted to martial reforms, however. The consequences of Frederick’s philosophical beliefs spread to the economic realm as well. Most monumental of Frederick’s changes came in agriculture reform. He is famously quoted as saying, “True riches consist only of that which comes out of the earth,[xiii] a verbatim citation of the stance of the physiocrats, early economic theorists who, contrary to the mercantilists and their fascination with bullion, viewed the earth and its agricultural bounty as the chief form of wealth. In the same letter written to Voltaire, Frederick continued the thought: “Whoever improves the soil, cultivates land lying waste and drains swamps, is making conquests from barbarism.”[xiv] Perhaps more here than even in his views on the military reforms, Frederick demonstrated his zeal for the Enlightenment. And unlike many of his fellow philosophs, Frederick took action, draining hundreds of thousands of acres of marshes, establishing hundreds of new colonies and villages, and even draining inland lakes to provide water for urban centers like Berlin.[xv] Agrarian life changed as well: “humanity and economics preached…that methods of cultivation and relation between lord and peasant must be changed as a means to increasing happiness, wealth, and national power.”[xvi] At the same time as this revolutionary change in the official idea of the citizen’s place in society, he instituted comprehensive tax reforms that both slightly lessened the tax burden on the population and made the entire process significantly more efficient, keeping the money out of the hands of the corrupt and moving it quickly to the national coffers. Edgar Kiser and Joachim Schneider studied the tax system in Prussia during this period and concluded:
“…Direct personal control by rulers, employing disabled veterans in low-level positions, using collegiate organizations for monitoring tax officials, and establishing long-term but conditional contracts for tax farming in the domains…made it one of the most efficient systems in early modern Europe.[xvii]
The results of these reforms on Prussian history cannot be overstated. For instance, Frederick was not only able to avoid the fiscal crises faced by contemporary monarchs, but he left 51 million Thaler in the treasury at his death (six times the amount Frederick William I had left him), even after funding several expensive wars.[xviii] In addition to the pure monetary gains, Prussia moved from status as a second- or third-rate power to the fifth of the Great Powers in European politics, largely due to the tremendous growth in the economy, now recovered from the devastation wrought in the Thirty Years’ War.
Politically, the chief reform passed by Frederick attacked the vaunted prestige system that sustained the bureaucracies of the neighboring absolutist states. Many in France, Spain, and Italy had concluded that a monarchy couldn’t function properly without a vast bureaucracy, but Frederick believed that the system operated contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment. Thus, in characteristic fashion, he changed the system so that the notion of prestige no longer affected standing or promotions. For instance,
“In contrast to the bureaucratic ideal type, Prussian rulers dismissed officials arbitrarily and frequently. For example, Frederick II dismissed 25 percent of all presidents of provincial boards between 1740 and 1786.”[xix]
By punishing officials that did not adhere to his desired choices, he shifted incentives from helping the local citizenry receive benefits to competing with other officials to keep their jobs. However, the major change to the bureaucratic structure was the imposition of a militaristic meritocracy. Prussia’s upper echelons in the social order by the end of the 18th century were composed largely of soldiers. Frederick once claimed,
“Let me make it plain once and for all that I will not sell titles and still less noble estates for money to the debasement of the nobility. Noble status can only be gained by the sword, by bravery and by other outstanding behaviour and services. I will tolerate as vassals only those who are at all times capable of rendering me useful service in the army, and those who because of exceptionally good conduct and exceptional service I choose to raise into the estate of the nobility.”[xx]
In this way, Prussia’s traditional bureaucracy shrunk considerably, in many cases replaced by former military officers past their martial use, rewarded for their faithful service with a governmental position. It can be stated, then, that while Frederick truly did not sell noble positions for money, he did sell them for blood.
Ultimately, Frederick’s final purpose with his governmental reforms was to the “maintenance of his power internationally, including, as far as the two seemed compatible, those psychological and material conditions on which, in the long run, it rested.”[xxi] Frederick, ever mortally afraid of military defeat, attempted to structure his nation in such a way as that eventually be made almost impossible. When the Seven Years’ War-the greatest test of Frederick’s fortitude and the nation’s endurance-finally ended, Prussia could breathe a sigh of relief, for Frederick’s hard work had paid off. As Thomas Babington Macaulay put it, “[Frederick gave] an example unrivalled in history of what capacity and resolution can effect against the greatest superiority of power and the utmost spite of fortune.”[xxii]
All these economic, social, and political changes instituted in the Enlightenment had profound effects on the Prussian people, but many of these effects are widespread and difficult to quantify. Perhaps the easiest way to view the difference in Prussian culture between the early days of the seventeenth century and the later years of the eighteenth is to discuss the changes in the arts. Much as the Thirty Years’ War and the societal upheavals during the conflict resulted in the particular stylings of the German Baroque period, the assimilation of Enlightenment ideas into popular thought brought about an entirely new literary culture. Perhaps the most important man of letters during this period is Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832). Ironically, Goethe himself didn’t think much of Prussian culture: he claimed a single cultural capital-like a Paris or Rome-was necessary for true culture, and he referred to his state as without even “general culture.”[xxiii] Regardless of Goethe’s contempt for his countrymen, the population became increasingly educated and cultured as time went on. An interesting point of how far the Prussian culture had progressed within the Enlightenment is the fact that Voltaire-one of the most obviously enlightened writers of the age-kept a close friendship with Frederick II, and was in fact one of his great supporters in the literary and social circles of Europe. But Goethe was not the only important figure during this period: in fact, the German Enlightenment was an intensely fertile period of German literature and, even more importantly, philosophy. Some of the world’s great philosophers: Christian Thomasius, Christian Wolff, Alexander Baumgarten, and Immanuel Kant, developed their ideas in the famously tolerant religious atmosphere propagated by Frederick during this time. Friedrich Nicolai spoke of this tolerance in 1783 when he stated “it is essential that free discussion of every matter should be allowed without any qualification”[xxiv], and “opinions, above all religious opinions, must never be subject to compulsion.”[xxv] Clearly, by the end of the 18th century, Prussians had grown in European eyes from hapless provincials to renowned and respected philosophs.
The history of the Prussian people-similar in ways to the histories of countless other civilizations-has been written not through static situations but through the unpredictable caldron of change. Much as the change in reign between the ill-fated and unfortunate George William and his famed descendant, Frederick II, the Prussian nation developed in the space of one hundred fifty years from a contemptible little provincial nation to a vast and booming empire, destined to expand and become a major voice in world governance. Men like Frederick William the Great Elector or Frederick II-early modern examples of those Livy called us to emulate in his seminal Early History of Rome-certainly had a tremendous effect on their country’s rise. Similarly, the positive ideas of the Enlightenment, particularly the societal and political reforms, when preached by a staunch believer like Frederick II, also bestowed upon the Prussians a great capacity for growth. But ultimately, the key factor in the Prussian rise to world dominance was the fortitude of the citizen, rebounding from the devastation wrecked upon his home and community by both enemy and ally in the Thirty Years’ War. Without the effort of the citizen, assisted by the noble, the soldier, and the enlightened despot, the Prussians would never have become the great nation brought to us by history.
Bibliography
Christof Mauch, Nature in German History (New York: Berghahn Books)
C. T. Atkinson, A History of Germany 1715-1815 (Connecticut: Greenwood Press)
Edgar Kiser and Joachim Schneider, Bureaucracy and Efficiency: An Analysis of
Taxation in Early Modern Prussia, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Apr., 1994), pp. 187-204 (Published by the American Sociological Association)
The Foundations of Germany, J. Ellis Barker, trans. (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1916), pp. 22-23
Germany in the Eighteenth Century: The Social Background of the Literary Revival (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935)
Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1976)
Koch, H. W. (1978). A History of Prussia (New York: Barnes & Noble Books)
Reinhold A. Dorwart, Church Organization in Brandenburg-Prussia from the Reformation to 1740, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, (Oct., 1938), pp. 275-290 (Published by Cambridge University Press)
Sidney B. Fay, The Beginnings of the Standing Army in Prussia, The American Historical Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Jul., 1917), pp. 763-777 (Published by the American Historical Association)
Solveig Olsen, [Untitled Review] of Simplicius Simplicissimus, Monte Adair, trans., German Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1987), pp. 347-348
Theodore K. Rabb, The Effects of the Thirty Years’ War on the German Economy.The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 1962), pp. 40-51 (Published by: The University of Chicago).
Thomas Babington Macaulay, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays (Great Britain: Appleton, 1861)
[i] Throughout this paper, the terms “Prussia,” “Prussian states,” “Germanic states,” and “German principalities” are used interchangeably. While Prussia at the beginning of this period was little more than a squabbling collection of states and hardly capable of designation as a single state, it is inconvenient to refer to it as such. Thus, these terms are used anachronistically for the sake of conciseness.
[ii] Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1976), 341.
[iii] Theodore K. Rabb, The Effects of the Thirty Years’ War on the German Economy.The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 1962), pp. 40-51 (Published by: The University of Chicago).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Solveig Olsen, [Untitled Review] of Simplicius Simplicissimus, Monte Adair, trans., German Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1987), pp. 347-348
[vi] Reinhold A. Dorwart, Church Organization in Brandenburg-Prussia from the Reformation to 1740, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, (Oct., 1938), pp. 275-290 (Published by Cambridge University Press), 281.
[vii] Francis L. Carsten, qtd. by Edgar Kiser and Joachim Schneider, Bureaucracy and Efficiency: An Analysis of Taxation in Early Modern Prussia, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Apr., 1994), pp. 187-204 (Published by the American Sociological Association), 187.
[viii]The Foundations of Germany, J. Ellis Barker, trans. (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1916), pp. 22-23
[ix] Sidney B. Fay, The Beginnings of the Standing Army in Prussia, The American Historical Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Jul., 1917), pp. 763-777 (Published by the American Historical Association), 763.
[x] Edgar Kiser and Joachim Schneider, Bureaucracy and Efficiency: An Analysis of Taxation in Early Modern Prussia, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Apr., 1994), pp. 187-204 (Published by the American Sociological Association), 187.
[xi] C. T. Atkinson, A History of Germany 1715-1815 (Connecticut: Greenwood Press), 195.
[xii] Napoleon Bonaparte, qtd. in Koch, H. W. (1978). A History of Prussia (New York: Barnes & Noble Books), 326
[xiii] Frederick II, qtd. in Christof Mauch, Nature in German History (New York: Berghahn Books), 13
[xiv] Ibid, 13.
[xv] Ibid, 13.
[xvi] C.B.A. Behrens, Society, Government, and the Enlightenment: The Experiences of Eighteenth-Century France and Prussia (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 148.
[xvii] Edgar Kiser and Joachim Schneider, Bureaucracy and Efficiency: An Analysis of Taxation in Early Modern Prussia, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Apr., 1994), pp. 187-204 (Published by the American Sociological Association), 201.
[xviii] Ibid, 188.
[xix] Edgar Kiser and Joachim Schneider, Bureaucracy and Efficiency: An Analysis of Taxation in Early Modern Prussia, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Apr., 1994), pp. 187-204 (Published by the American Sociological Association), 195.
[xx] Frederick II, qtd. in C.B.A. Behrens, Society, Government, and the Enlightenment: The Experiences of Eighteenth-Century France and Prussia (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 60.
[xxi] C.B.A. Behrens, Society, Government, and the Enlightenment: The Experiences of Eighteenth-Century France and Prussia (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 177.
[xxii] Thomas Babington Macaulay, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays (Great Britain: Appleton, 1861), 256.
[xxiii] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, qtd. in Germany in the Eighteenth Century: The Social Background of the Literary Revival (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 293.
[xxiv] Friedrich Nicolai, qtd. in C.B.A. Behrens, Society, Government, and the Enlightenment: The Experiences of Eighteenth-Century France and Prussia (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 158.
[xxv] Ibid, 158.
