I was chatting with Germans somewhere else and they don't think Frederick II was all that Great to begin with. Why are they like this?
because we are generally high IQ people and not thirdies who worship historic persons like demigodsFrederick II was good, but he was also a gamblerhe risked the very existence of his state and could've well doomed it had it not been for outside events not under his control (the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg, namely)
>>216014307Because that faggot wasn't "le heckin epic military commander" that he advertised himself as. He was pretty mediocre if anything else, his opponents were major retards.He got lucky a few times then got high on his own farts.He was a good administrator and statesman though.>>216014351>because we are generally high IQ people and not thirdies who worship historic persons like demigodsKEKAROO
>>216014307The moment I read about him, and how Prussia was literally saved from being destroyed (The Miracle shit) by literal luck. I'd say he was just a lucky fellow.
>>216014427>He was pretty mediocre if anything else, his opponents were major retards.You can say that about any victorious commander in history
>>216014477Most of them, not any and all. When you actually study his performance in wars, you realize how hard he was carried by his subordinates and other factors out of his serious control.Nonetheless, Frederick II is great because of his excellent domestic policy and works (as far as I'm aware of).
>>216014351>> because we are generally high IQ people and not thirdies who worship historic persons like demigods
>>216014536>not any and alllol, ok IRAN, who is the exception?
>>216014307His country survived purely on "Prussian miracles" which weren't connected to him at all.
>>216014563Napoleon is the obvious one.Except him? The contemporary ones that we can confirm (which means not including antiquity figures like Hannibal and Cao Cao):Davout.Turenne.Eugene.Marlborough.Suvorov.Gustav II Adolf.Yi Sun-sin (stretching it a bit thin).
>>216014307He was a zesty fester
>>216014307History is a hugely underappreciated subject in Germany.>>216014351>Frederick II was good, but he was also a gamblerTrue but imagine not having Fortuna on your side.>>216014427Your idol, Napoleon, stated "Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here" in relation to Friedrich II. And Friedrich II. had impressive victories like Roßbach and Leuthen.>>216014669>NapoleonHe was also getting carried by his subordinates. Berthier made his staffwork possible (his absence during the 100 Days doomed Napoleon) and Lannes, Davout, Soult, Ney and Murat carried his troops.>Gustav II AdolfWon one battle, lost one battle and had a draw (where he lost his life). And like Friedrich II. Gustaf II. Adolf laid his realm in the hands of a competent coordinator, so his early death wasn't that big of a deal.
He wasn't even the greatest Frederick II
>>216015227>Your idol, Napoleon, stated "Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here" in relation to Friedrich II.Napoleon always said a lot of shit to get brownie points. One time he praised Croatian as the bravest soldiers he had ever seen then the other time it was Poles. >had impressive victories like Roßbach and Leuthen.Caused by the sheer retardation of French and Imperial forces + Prussian discipline since the forces weren't still the late stage, hastily trained conscripts.>He was also getting carried by his subordinates. Berthier made his staffwork possible (his absence during the 100 Days doomed Napoleon) and Lannes, Davout, Soult, Ney and Murat carried his troops.Coordination between a competent commander and a competent staff is different than relying on one.Berthier not being avaliable during 100 days and thus the cause of defeat is just sensational exaggeration. The causes go deeper like numerous Bourbon spies in French army who handed over Napoleon's plans to the Prussians but this part is always never gets talked about because military espionage is... I don't know? Boring?The Marshals are similar sensational exaggeration. Six Days Campaign proves Napoleon is still formidable by himself, can depend on lesser known but competent generals, and rapidly plan and move despite the odds against his fortunes and out of his control.>Won one battle, lost one battle and had a draw (where he lost his life). And like Friedrich II. Gustaf II. Adolf laid his realm in the hands of a competent coordinator, so his early death wasn't that big of a deal.My measure for him is not winning battles which is what you're implying. It was also innovation, reform, an eye for talent, and the ability to campaign against the odds. If anything, Gustav isn't that impressive in the terms of fighting a battle but his creativity and ingenuity to handle and form his troops to seize the advantage and exploit opportunities was excellent.
>>216014307I don't know which of the Friederichs it was, but one of them introduced the potato to the sandy, not very fertile fields of Prussia.
>>216014307he destroyed my country ;_;
>>216015438that was him
>>216015491he died before Poland was fully partitioned, the last partition (1795) was under his successoralso, if he hadn't taken it, Russia would've just took it all
>>216015502>herr...zis ist...ein wunderbar KARTOFFEL
>>216014307I think frederick was pretty great and im not usually a fan of prussians. We arent a hivemind IN GERMANY
I don't like Frederick, I think he was completely overrated and I despise his characterBasically he made a gamble in taking silesia which anyone could have identified as a decent betFrom then on his entire career was basically just one lucky battle after another, sometimes he managed to score a decisive victory out of sheer luck, sometimes he was saved from total annihilationThe reason why Prussia was such a dominant state was because of the work of his father and grandfather in reforming the state and the army
>>216015571>The reason why Prussia was such a dominant state was because of the work of his father and grandfather in reforming the state and the armyyeah but it also takes someone to make use of those tools, and that was himI agree he's overrated and took too many risks thotrue patricians appreciate Frederick Wilhelm I (the soldier king, his dad) and Frederick Wilhelm (the great elector, his great granddad) more
>>216015392>One time he praised Croatian as the bravest soldiers he had ever seen then the other time it was Poles.Croats and Poles were good soldiers. Especially when it came to the roles of light infantry/cavalry.>Caused by the sheer retardation of French and Imperial forcesWhich retardation? At Roßbach the prussian cavalry under Seydlitz outmanouvered and beat the allied cavalry and the allied infantry was unable to effectively deploy to ward off the prussian infantry. At Leuthen Friedrich II. again used the terrain to conceal his troop movements, organically integreated heavier gun batteries on his weaker left wing in order to reenforce it while the stronger concealed right wing attacked the Imperials. Friedrich II. outmaneuvered his foes and Napoleon did the same. >Coordination between a competent commander and a competent staff is different than relying on one.So when Nappy does it it's good and when Freddy does it it's bad?>Berthier not being avaliable during 100 days and thus the cause of defeat is just sensational exaggeration. >The Marshals are similar sensational exaggerationThe Marshals fulfilled vital roles to Napoleons Empire and to himself. >It was also innovation, reform, an eye for talent, and the ability to campaign against the odds.So like Friedrich II.
>mfw there are people in Germany who hold different opinions to meThe horror.
>>216016336>Croats and Poles were good soldiers. Especially when it came to the roles of light infantry/cavalry.The point is, Napoleon said a lot of shit.>Which retardation? At Roßbach the prussian cavalry under Seydlitz outmanouvered and beat the allied cavalry and the allied infantry was unable to effectively deploy to ward off the prussian infantry. At Leuthen Friedrich II. again used the terrain to conceal his troop movements, organically integreated heavier gun batteries on his weaker left wing in order to reenforce it while the stronger concealed right wing attacked the Imperials. Friedrich II. outmaneuvered his foes and Napoleon did the same.The difference is the fact that the enemy blundered terribly alongside the fa t that they weren't even that good. After someone else besides Charles of Lorraine took command which in this case is von Daun, the imperial armies began to perform well and checked Frederick.>So when Nappy does it it's good and when Freddy does it it's bad?Except that didn't happen. Zorndorf and Kunersdorf are clear examples of lack of proper coordination between the commander and his staff, without even considering the opinion of the staff.It's not like Leipzig where Napoleon considered everything but still decided to gamble everything on it.>The Marshals fulfilled vital roles to Napoleons Empire and to himself.Not really. They were mostly political appointees to stabilize his own army. At least half of his marshals didn't even deserve the baton. Sure, marshals like Davout, Lannes, Berthier, Suchet, and Soult were invaluable in their services but most of them weren't anything special.>So like Friedrich II.Except Frederick wasn't really an innovative reformer on a large scale to change the scopes of warfare, and he never campaigned against the odds but was rather diplomatically and politically saved by what are no less than miracles.
>>216014536>Carried by his subordinatesThe man's been dead for more than 200 years and you still won't let go of him fleeing from Mollwitz and completely ignore battles like Rossbach and Leuthen. Sad!
>>216020352>Muh Rossbach and LeuthenKnocks out France out of the war (which wasn't even committing in earnest) and further exposes the fact that Charles of Lorraine is simply not a military man and had his position because of court connections. Not decisive in any way in the grand scheme of things.>Mollwitz>Lobositz>Kolín>Zorndorf >Hochkirch>Kunersdorf >TorgauAll fuck ups and only saved by the miracle.Cope and seethe, Nigel.
Frederick II was a good military commander, Napoleon was an extraordinary one, I think this is pretty objective to say.
>>216014351>because we are generally high IQ people and not thirdies who worship historic persons like demigodshistoryless we wuzzing amerimutt blown the FUCK out lmaoooo
>>216021178True.
Why do you even care about this or that European king 300 years ago if you're basically the last generation of Europeans that feels any kind of historical continuity with these people
>>216022824Their fashion was great.Tricorns are amazing.
>>216022824history is fascinating and it's great to know about the world you're living in. History like Frederick II's or Napoleon's is epic in the actual sense of the world.
>>216022824Mikhail Lomonosov once said - "A nation that does not know its past has no future."
>>216014351>not thirdies who worship historic persons like demigodsGood goyim, you don't need any heroes.
>>216014427What actual military leaders and thinkers thought of him > your worthless Iranian opinion.
>shitstralia
