What do you want to know about German history?

[Freodin]

I won't debate most of what you wrote here. I disagree with it, and it is not part of the academic discipline of history. You can take that as you want... I won't enter a discussion on it.

What you call accepted is what you also call propaganda when it comes from a source of which you don't approve?

Just to that: "propaganda" in the historical context is value-neutral. It doesn't need the reader to "approve" or "disapprove". It just makes it necessary for the reader to know and understand that the motives of the author might lead to the presented informations not being completely or even mostly correct.

 

[LucasWhite]

Let's consider this...in the political climate of Germany today, in response primarily to the Nazi era, why would universities be trying to reduce emphasis on race and militarism, even if such reduction is not sound historically?

I have studied German history for over 30 years now, up to university level. What's your qualification?

I think and read books, preferably primary sources. Will post some passages here for your reactions.

 

[Freodin]

Let's consider this...in the political climate of Germany today, in response primarily to the Nazi era, why would universities be trying to reduce emphasis on race and militarism, even if such reduction is not sound historically?

Let's reconsider this. I have given some detailed explanations for my position regarding militarism, and some points that makes your concept of "race" rather dubious.

How about instead of trying to find explanations for why universities are doing history in a way that you disagree with, you explain where my mistakes are?

And by "explain" I do indeed mean "explain"... not simply state that I am wrong or that you reject my claims. Show me why my explanations are not correct!

 

[LucasWhite]

Let's reconsider this. I have given some detailed explanations for my position regarding militarism, and some points that makes your concept of "race" rather dubious.

How about instead of trying to find explanations for why universities are doing history in a way that you disagree with, you explain where my mistakes are?

And by "explain" I do indeed mean "explain"... not simply state that I am wrong or that you reject my claims. Show me why my explanations are not correct!

I have posted many explanations here on why I disagree. I will continue to do so, but I am going to shift to doing so through direct posts from passages in books. At the moment, I am away from home and busy.

Your last round of responses clarified some of your views, and I see that we are not as far apart as previously indicated. I think we have basically neared the end of the back and forth, and on many issues have reached the place of subjectivity, sometimes on questions that cannot be known for lack of sufficient evidence for either side. I do like to hear your side of it but, to be honest, I have a nagging suspicion that the political/legal/social climate and anti-nazi reaction influences your and many other Germans' stances on issues of race and militarism.

 

[Freodin]

I have posted many explanations here on why I disagree.

I apologize if that sounds too much like nagging right now, but considering what I read from you until now, I must insist.

I'm referring to this part of your last post:

Prussian militarism was not exceptional. Maria Theresa, Napoleon I, and Napoleon III did not feel the wrath of it much.

I had already explained this part before... and yet you felt that your "explantion"... or your understanding of my explanation made it necessary to simply repeat your previous claim.

I think I have reasonably shown why your claim that this shows "Prussian militarism" or an exceptional military prowess of Prussia is incorrect.

So now, please answer accordingly: do you understand why your claim here is wrong? Do you understand and accept my explanations?

I will continue to do so, but I am going to shift to doing so through direct posts from passages in books. At the moment, I am away from home and busy.

I am looking forward to what you are going to present.

Your last round of responses clarified some of your views, and I see that we are not as far apart as previously indicated. I think we have basically neared the end of the back and forth, and on many issues have reached the place of subjectivity, sometimes on questions that cannot be known for lack of sufficient evidence for either side. I do like to hear your side of it but, to be honest, I have a nagging suspicion that the political/legal/social climate and anti-nazi reaction influences your and many other Germans' stances on issues of race and militarism.

In this regard, I would need you to clarify your stances on "race" and "militarism". Contrary to what you wrote here, it doesn't seem as if we are "not as far apart".

You still insist on your claims, which I see and have explained as historically unfounded... and now you simply add to that the claim that the reason I cannot see your... truth?... is the political stance of Germans towards race and militarism. Without any evidence, I have to add.

 

[mark kennedy]

... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?

Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.

Do you know anything about Germany during the Pax Romana(27 BC to AD 180)?

 

[Freodin]

Do you know anything about Germany during the Pax Romana(27 BC to AD 180)?

Well, yes. That's quite simple.

There was no Germany during that time.

Nah, kidding, I get what you mean... roughly.

But really, that is a problem: there was no "Germany" during that time. There were a number of different systems, cultures, political entities in the area that we call "Germany".. and even that is difficult, because "Germany", as we all know, changed quite a lot in area over her history.

So what do you mean? The roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Superior? The non-roman border regions? The area that the Romans called "Germania Magna"? All the area where germanic (not german!) tribes settled?

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, yes. That's quite simple.

There was no Germany during that time.

Nah, kidding, I get what you mean... roughly.

But really, that is a problem: there was no "Germany" during that time. There were a number of different systems, cultures, political entities in the area that we call "Germany".. and even that is difficult, because "Germany", as we all know, changed quite a lot in area over her history.

So what do you mean? The roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Superior? The non-roman border regions? The area that the Romans called "Germania Magna"? All the area where germanic (not german!) tribes settled?

I know Trajan was warring with the Germanic tribes but that kind of ended in a stalemate. Somehow the Germanic tribes started learning things about modern warfare from the Romans and by the fifth century Alaric I took Rome itself a couple a hundred years latter. Julius Caesar couldn't take France after ten years and Trajan battled the Germanic tribes endlessly, never really conquering much. Just wondering was your take on the period from the first century to the fifth was with regards to Rome.

 

[Freodin]

I know Trajan was warring with the Germanic tribes but that kind of ended in a stalemate. Somehow the Germanic tribes started learning things about modern warfare from the Romans and by the fifth century Alaric I took Rome itself a couple a hundred years latter. Julius Caesar couldn't take France after ten years and Trajan battled the Germanic tribes endlessly, never really conquering much. Just wondering was your take on the period from the first century to the fifth was with regards to Rome.

There was a distinct drop in developement between Celtic Gaul and Germania Magna... the Celts had a highly developed city culture. That made them more vulnerable against the Roman conquest as well as more interesting as a target.

Caesar's first descriptions of the Germans he encountered is highly coloured by his political ambitions. He describes them as mighty warriors, terrifying enemies... evoking his countrymen's memories of the Cimbri and Teutoni who they had to fight half a century earlier.
And just like the descriptions of these germanic tribes, who were stylized as a huge horde of fearsome warriors, who needed a real hero - Gaius Marius - to beat them, so Caesar used Ariovist and his Suebi as opponents for his own heroism. How much of that is reality is questionable... but the gist of the story is real. Germanic tribes did cross the Rhine, they did fought against Gauls and Caesar did build a bridge of the Rhine, but didn't stay.

After the conquest of Gaul, all the problems the Gauls had with the Germans became Roman problems. And the Romans also knew... every conquest brought a new frontier, every frontier brought new enemies. The attempted conquest of Germania Magna up to the Elbe river was never completed, after the war against Arminius and after it became clear that it just wouldn't pay off. The Romans didn't conquer territory... the subjected societies... and most of Germania was rather lacking in societies worth to be subjected.

So the Romans settled down and just held the frontier. Politics and diplomacy were just as important as military expeditions. Germans and Romans raided and traded and the border region, its tribes and kings could get quite wealthy.

Larger germanic societies could draw the attention of Roman expansionism... or their own attempts of conquest and looting could draw Roman reactions.

It was most likely the roman internal problems, and the resulting decline of trade and tribute that resulted in the germanic invasions into roman territory from the 3rd century onwards.

Trajan's major wars were against the Dacians, who weren't a germanic tribe. Trajan started his reign in Germania... he had been governor of Germania Superior (the southern part of the German provinces)... but there weren't any major military actions in that time.

The germanic frontier - Rhine and upper Danube - held for almost four centuries. Why this system broke down in the end is still a huge topic under historians. As with all these major events, it was most likely several things comming together. Internal problems in the Roman Empire, economical decline, climate changes, external pressure from the east... it's a huge topic.


And once more I have to add, not to disparage anyone, just to clarify: even if I am willing and motivated to respond to any question, as far as my knowlegde and ability to research goes... I would like to focus on German history... the history of Germany.

Talking about the germanic tribes of the Roman era in relation to Germany is a little like wanting to talk about the History of the United States and asking about the Inca. They were Americans, weren't they?

 

[mark kennedy]

There was a distinct drop in developement between Celtic Gaul and Germania Magna... the Celts had a highly developed city culture. That made them more vulnerable against the Roman conquest as well as more interesting as a target.

Caesar's first descriptions of the Germans he encountered is highly coloured by his political ambitions. He describes them as mighty warriors, terrifying enemies... evoking his countrymen's memories of the Cimbri and Teutoni who they had to fight half a century earlier.
And just like the descriptions of these germanic tribes, who were stylized as a huge horde of fearsome warriors, who needed a real hero - Gaius Marius - to beat them, so Caesar used Ariovist and his Suebi as opponents for his own heroism. How much of that is reality is questionable... but the gist of the story is real. Germanic tribes did cross the Rhine, they did fought against Gauls and Caesar did build a bridge of the Rhine, but didn't stay.

After the conquest of Gaul, all the problems the Gauls had with the Germans became Roman problems. And the Romans also knew... every conquest brought a new frontier, every frontier brought new enemies. The attempted conquest of Germania Magna up to the Elbe river was never completed, after the war against Arminius and after it became clear that it just wouldn't pay off. The Romans didn't conquer territory... the subjected societies... and most of Germania was rather lacking in societies worth to be subjected.

So the Romans settled down and just held the frontier. Politics and diplomacy were just as important as military expeditions. Germans and Romans raided and traded and the border region, its tribes and kings could get quite wealthy.

Larger germanic societies could draw the attention of Roman expansionism... or their own attempts of conquest and looting could draw Roman reactions.

It was most likely the roman internal problems, and the resulting decline of trade and tribute that resulted in the germanic invasions into roman territory from the 3rd century onwards.

Trajan's major wars were against the Dacians, who weren't a germanic tribe. Trajan started his reign in Germania... he had been governor of Germania Superior (the southern part of the German provinces)... but there weren't any major military actions in that time.

The germanic frontier - Rhine and upper Danube - held for almost four centuries. Why this system broke down in the end is still a huge topic under historians. As with all these major events, it was most likely several things comming together. Internal problems in the Roman Empire, economical decline, climate changes, external pressure from the east... it's a huge topic.


And once more I have to add, not to disparage anyone, just to clarify: even if I am willing and motivated to respond to any question, as far as my knowlegde and ability to research goes... I would like to focus on German history... the history of Germany.

Talking about the germanic tribes of the Roman era in relation to Germany is a little like wanting to talk about the History of the United States and asking about the Inca. They were Americans, weren't they?

Well that was certainly informative, guess I went a little far back. I would also be interested in how the political situation influenced the Thirty Years War. It devastated Germany and I've always felt Roman dreams of an empire had a lot to do with the devastation. Your thoughts...

 

[Freodin]

Well that was certainly informative, guess I went a little far back. I would also be interested in how the political situation influenced the Thirty Years War. It devastated Germany and I've always felt Roman dreams of an empire had a lot to do with the devastation. Your thoughts...

I am quite sure I can follow you. The Romans - the original ones, from Rome, who started this "Roman Empire" thing - had, very basically spoken, one major reason for building their empire: loot. All of the Roman foreign politics - in latter times less than in the early era - was fundamentally city internal power politics. Fighting your neighbor brought you loot and fame, which raised your status and gave you power. Conquering your neighbor lead to defending your new conquests... and brought new neighbors. It's interesting to see that the Roman expansion stopped where new conquest meant more costs than gain, either due to not enough gain (Germania and the skytian steppes, or saharan Africa) or too much expense (like fighting against the Parthians or Persians).
With the times, the basic stability and the general shift away from city-Rome as a sole focus of power, the approach changed. Another factor was the advent and spread of Christianity, and its views on eschatology. The Roman Empire was considered the pinacle of civilization, the "last empire" before the end-times... something good and great in itself.
The people of the Great Migration never meant or wanted to destory the Roman Empire... they wanted in on the business. The Roman Empire at this time had too many internal problems to be able to integrate them... had the situation been a little better for the Romans, all these germanic kingdoms would have sooner or later just been soaked up, and their population become "Romans"... just like the people of Gaul, Spain, Africa.

And the "Roman Empire" never fell. For centuries, there had been political divisions. The Empire might have lost control over some territory... even its original city. But the "Roman Empire" had long ago been seperated from the city of Rome. There was a "Roman Emperor", there was an Empire... that the West wasn't controlled by it was just a minor setback in the overall system of things.

So the idea of the Roman Empire had never ceased. The coronation of Charlemagne in 800 was just the continuation of a temporarily lapsed office. In the mind of the people, it was the same Empire, the same office... just after a period of vacancy.

But this was the Christian Roman Empire. One of its main attributes was that it was THE Christian Empire. It was the secular realm meant to protect Christianity and the Church until the End. This mean the idea of the "Roman Empire" was universal.

Charlemagne's empire didn't survive. It couldn't survive the dichotomy between the "universal realm" and the familiy-oriented form of germanic rulership. That there should only be one (western)-roman emperor who should have the allegiance of the other frankish kings didn't hold up in reality. The family feuding of the Karolingians quickly reduced the "Emperor" to an unimportant prince in Italy.

It took a dominating leader figure to reestablish. There are a number of reasons why Otto the Great, King of Germany reached for Italy and the (again lapsed) imperial crown... but without doubt at the time he tried, he was the most powerful ruler of any of the Karolingian successor states, and the Church saw a powerful protector in him. And even though he never tried to expand his overlordship into a formal rulership over the other kingdoms, France and Burgundy, he definitly saw his rule as universal, and as the (secular) head of (western) Christianity.

So the idea of the "Empire"... the Roman dream... continued, and it continued to be inseperably connected with Italy. That was the problem that continued to trouble the Kingdom of Germany.

Her kings were meant to be Roman Emperors. They were meant to be universal rulers, and they were meant to rule Italy and protect the pope in Rome. The recurring need to excert power in Italy meant that the kings had to delegate power in Germany.
While in France, the monarchy managed to regain the power it had lost to the nobility, mainly in the later wars against England, and the Norman conquest of England established and formalized a centralized monarchy, in Germany it was the division of power between king, electors and nobility that became fixed.

And after all this long-winded explanation, and after a lot of events left for other questions, we come to the Thirty-Years-War.
The "Holy Roman Empire" had lost a lot of its universality at that point, especially after the discover of the Americas had shifted the focus of power to the Atlantic states: Portugal, Spain, France and England. The division of power between the Emperor and the nobles had become a legalized fixture. Each Emperor could only excert as much power as his personality and personal lands could afford.

And there was a new division of power: the split in the Christian church. During the last century, Germany had found a workable solution that had prevented a major civil war like the one in France. There had been a treaty, the "Augsburger Religionsfriede", which established Protestantism as an accepted religion in Germany, and guaranteed both confessions their status. But it was complicated, couldn't solve many details, couldn't solve the basic question of "Christian unity" at all... and it didn't foresee the future complications.

One of those was the rise of a third confession: the calvinistic "reformed" confession. This new church and the rulers and people who followed it were not part of the Augsburgian treaty. There very existence threatened the status quo. It made all sides more wary towards each other.

That's the basic situation before 1618. Catholic princes and the emperor, set on keeping what they still had, and trying to regain what the catholic faith had lost. Protestant princes trying to keep what they had gained and defend their position against recatholisation. Calvinist princes trying to gain status for themselves, be an accepted part of the system. And between all these, the people of these fiefdoms, trying to establish their status, their power, their religion.

War started when the catholic king of Bohemia - who was also the emperor - tried to recatholizise this land, over the wishes of her nobility. They rebelled and chose a calvinist prince as their new king. This war was over rather quickly, the calvinist lost, and this could have been the end of this thing. But rather it escalated. Every side now saw this as a chance to gain for power for their side, which induced others to defend themselves against the other. Foreign powers took the opportunity to futher their own goals on the expense of Germany. It became a big huge free for all, take what you can grab.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well that is an excellent survey, I'll try to clarify my question a little since you have an extensive knowledge of these things. At the 'Diet of Worms' (1521) Martin Luther effectively defies Charles V, who was the grandson of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand who sponsored the voyages of Columbus, sometime after the German Peasant revolt (1525), I've never believed the two were unconnected. Now while I see a direct line going into the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War and the much later American Revolution, I've often wondered how much of the Protestant Reformation was political. The theology isn't all the challenging but the political intrigue is much harder to navigate. My knowledge of the period, which is admittedly a long period, is sketchy at best. You discussions so far have proved to be very informative, just curious if you would care to elaborate a little more on the political situation as the Roman Empire began to influence Germanic political power and include it.

 

[Freodin]

Well that is an excellent survey, I'll try to clarify my question a little since you have an extensive knowledge of these things. At the 'Diet of Worms' (1521) Martin Luther effectively defies Charles V, who was the grandson of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand who sponsored the voyages of Columbus, sometime after the German Peasant revolt (1525), I've never believed the two were unconnected. Now while I see a direct line going into the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War and the much later American Revolution, I've often wondered how much of the Protestant Reformation was political. The theology isn't all the challenging but the political intrigue is much harder to navigate. My knowledge of the period, which is admittedly a long period, is sketchy at best.

Well, Luther's reformation was definitly connected to the German Peasant Revolt, but not a prime cause. Peasant Revolts had happened for quite some time at that point, all over Europe. They were grounded in a fundamental shift in economical and political conditions, most of which were to the detriment of the lower classes.
The reformation raised basic questions about the old "divine order" and the worldly power of the Church, and thus gave the peasants a form of justification for their claims. Luther himself had made some statements that could be interpreted socially... though he was quick to distance himself from the revolters. Luther may have questioned the way the catholic church enacted its authority... but he never questioned the authority itself, nor the basic political system... the "divine order". Doing so would have undermined his own authority.
How much of it was "political" and how much was "theological"? That's difficult to distinguish, because you have to be aware that there was no basic seperation between both. The political systems, in the view of the time, represented God's will for this world. There might be trangressions against this system, humans overstepping the limits... but the basic system was "the divine order".
The Peasant Revolt - all of them - never wanted to change this order. Their stated goal was the return to the "correct" application of this system, which they thought had become perverted. The reformators though were as interested in keeping the status quo as the Catholic Church was. Both needed the political authorities to back up their spiritual authority.

You discussions so far have proved to be very informative, just curious if you would care to elaborate a little more on the political situation as the Roman Empire began to influence Germanic political power and include it.

That's quite a wide topic... in space as well as in time.
The basic state of germanic societies was one with a subsistance economy and a political structure based on personal authority. The economical situation varied regionally, especially considering the closeness to the "civilized" world of the Mediteranian.
The Roman conquest onto the Rhine and Danube amplified this economical disparity. The germanic tribes at the borders now had clear examples of all the things that they could also have... the question was just: how to get it?
The methods were quite modern. Brute force, trade or gifts. There were raids, of limited scope, because the Roman military was too powerful for any tribe. Trade flourished, legal and illegal. And there was a deliberate system of "foreign aid"... the Romans used a well-established system of carrot and stick, honouring rulers who did their bidding, or using their military power to punish those who didn't play according to Roman rules.
Overall, this system turned out to be more efficient, and cost-effective than brute conquest. It lead to a fluent, but basically stable political situation.

 

[Freodin]

At the 'Diet of Worms'...

I had to pause for a second when reading that. Yes, this is the completely correct name for this event. Yet to read it in this english form, in an english text, evokes... some very strange images.

 

[LucasWhite]

I think I have reasonably shown why your claim that this shows "Prussian militarism" or an exceptional military prowess of Prussia is incorrect.

So now, please answer accordingly: do you understand why your claim here is wrong? Do you understand and accept my explanations?

No, my claim about Prussian militarism was correct, and yours is entirely separated from the historical reality. Generally speaking, I reject all of the propositions of yours that I listed, in whatever degree or context that you meant them, but you clarified some of them to make them less wrong than they previously were. I understand your explanations, and I reject them as unsound and as a product of a preformulated bias against militarism, likely as part of the reaction to the Nazi era that pervades today's oppressive legal and social condition in Germany. I hope that you don't accidentally make a motion with your hand that resembles a nazi salute, and if you do, I hope that you get a good lawyer.

To argue with you could go on forever, because as I have said: your claims are unsourced (to proper sources anyway) - just a mirroring of modern revisionism of convenience, you invent details that are not in my claims and then disprove them to try to look clever, you write a lot but do not disprove the argument but just give additional details and then claim victory.

Don't talk to me about evidence when I am rooted in primary sources, and the stances that you are pushing here are a product of the anti-white, anti-militarism modern propaganda. Merkel would love you, and that is saying a lot. I am not pro-white, but I am not anti-white. I will not twist history to fit an anti-white and anti-militarism narrative.

 

[LucasWhite]

All of those men in Prussia who achieved glory with Friedrich the Great, in the War of Liberation, and in the Franco-Prussian War - three of the most monumental stages of conflict in European history - are now told that Prussian Militarism was not very important back then. I hope you realize that this is subjective and can't be proven correct or incorrect, but the evidence is all on the side of the greatness of Prussian militarism, way before Wilhelm II as you oddly claim. The evidence is massive and is in the writings of great authors and in the primary sources (Carlisle, Bismarck's Memoirs, Moltke's writings, etc), not in brief forum posts.

 

[LucasWhite]

Concerning Friedrich Wilhelm I...

His military reforms strengthened Prussia's army to the limit of the societies capabilities, but did not militarize society as much a giving a stronger societal background to the military.

 

[Freodin]

No, my claim about Prussian militarism was entirely correct, and yours is entirely separated from the historical reality.

I really don't know how to make you realize this. This is not how an argument works, at all.

You made a claim - I countered it, with arguments. You denied my arguments, without presenting any on your own. I explained my arguments again, and ask you to point out how and why they are wrong. You respond to that by simply stating that you are right and I am wrong.

This is not how that works. If you think you have some valid arguments for the exceptional status of "Prussian militarism", then in Fredrick the Great's name... start to present them!

Generally speaking, I reject all of the propositions of yours that I listed, in whatever degree or context that you meant them, but you clarified some of them to make them less wrong than they previously were. I understand your explanations, and I reject them as unsound and as a product of a preformulated bias against militarism, ...

And here you go to demonstrate that you do NOT understand my explanations, nor the military history the context of which this needs to be seen. You have no clue... and you cannot see beyond your preconceived ideas.

Nowhere in my explanations or argumenst have I argued "against militarism". I have not denied that it - in some form - existed, or that Prussia had some very noticeable achievements.

My points are only two: first, the Prussian military dominance was nothing "exceptional". Periods of military dominance and great leadership have existed in many nations in many eras. You haven't made a single point that dealt with this point.
Second, the "Prussian militarism" that resulted in a militarization of society and the dominance of military habitus is a phenomenon of the late 19th century. It didn't exist in the Prussia of Friedrich Wilhelm I, Friedrich II, or the Prussian kings of the napoleonic or post-napoleonic time.
Again, you haven't made a single argument dealing with this point.

... likely as part of the reaction to the Nazi era that pervades today's oppressive legal and social condition in Germany. I hope that you don't accidentally make a motion with your hand that resembles a nazi salute, and if you do, I hope that you get a good lawyer.

Yes, Nazi trappings or behaviour is illegal in Germany. Yes, the Nazis were masters of propaganda and lies... and they stylized Friedrich II as a kind of german national hero. Unjustifiedly.

So what? My focus is military history. I am educated in looking at historical facts without bias and to draw comparisons. Which I have done here... and which you simply have ignored.

To argue with you could go on forever, because as I have said: your claims are unsourced (to proper sources anyway) - just a mirroring of modern revisionism of convenience, you invent details that are not in my claims and then disprove them to try to look clever, you write a lot but do not disprove the argument but just give additional details and then claim victory.

To point out the huge military successes of Napoleon over... all the rest of Europe, Prussia included... is revisionism?
And it is me who "invents details that are not in [your] claims"... when I have demonstrated in my last post that you strawman most of my points in order... not even to refute, but simply reject them, without adressing them.

And my claims are "unsourced"? As yet, I was the only one who provided a source... and you now reject it as "not proper". Not proper? The Beck editors in general is famous for their historical editions, and their "Reallexikon Der Germanischen Altertumskunde" is one of the most renowned historical works in this field.

What other "sources" do you want? Some works about the Napoleonic wars, the War of the Fourth Coalition especially? (Try to guess why I mention this certain war.)
A biography of Prince Eugen of Savoy? Some of the many, many sources available about the Peninsular War? Gustav II Adolf and his war in Germany? Charles XII?

Or do you only accept people like Carlyle, who was known to engage in overenthusiastic hero-worshipping?

What kind of investment to you have in this topic that you are so entrenched, and unable to accept other viewpoints?

Don't talk to me about evidence when I am rooted in primary sources, and the stances that you are pushing here are a product of the anti-white, anti-militarism modern propaganda.

Napoleon Bonaparte, Gustav Adolf of Sweden, Wellington, Henry V, Eugen of Savoy, John Churchill Duke of Marlborough, Wallenstein, Tilly... all of them were... non-white and non-militarist? Only Prussian leaders were white and militaristic?

Do you even listen to yourself?

Merkel would love you, and that is saying a lot. I am not pro-white, but I am not anti-white. I will not twist history to fit an anti-white and anti-militarism narrative.

You are twisting history into an anti-white and anti-militarist narrative, everytime you don't get your will. The simple mention of "anti-white" as an agenda in a question dealing with European history alone shows where your allegiance lies. You brought race into this, and I can guess why you felt you needed to do that.


I will give you one last chance. Provide the sources that you are "rooted in". Defend these sources. Adress my points.
If you can do that, we might salvage something from this. If you carry on as before, I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[LucasWhite]

If you think you have some valid arguments for the exceptional status of "Prussian militarism", then in Fredrick the Great's name... start to present them!

I already have multiple times. Friedrich Wilhelm I brought militarism to the forefront of Prussian life, as it was at the forefront of his life. His son Friedrich the Great won incredible victories over many years of legendary fighting. After resting too much on Friedrich's victories (credit, Queen Luise), the Prussians were instrumental in defeating Napoleon, the greatest military man in the last 1,000 years. Then, the Prussians defeated Austria and assumed leadership of the German states through their military, by routing Austria in just 7 weeks of war and because no other German state thereafter dared challenge them. Then, in 1870-71, the Prussian military absolutely outclassed France's military is every way in an incredibly important war to both nations, and the German states unified in January 1871 to form the German Empire.

You know all this and tried to deny the impact of Prussian militarism in it, as you will again. We're going in circles.

 

[Freodin]

Concerning Friedrich Wilhelm I...

The only reason why Friedrich Wilhelm was able to build an army of the kind he did, was because he never used it.
His son did... and it financially ruined Prussia. He himself knew that, wrote himself (primary source: Friedrich II von Preussen, "Generalprinzipien vom Kriege", 1748) that wars needed to be short, because a long war for drain Prussias resources and depopulate the country.
It was also the same Friedrich the Great who didn't care about any kind of religion or race, if his country would profit from immigrants, and considered building Mosques for potential ottoman immigrants. Yes, anti-white and anti-militarist, this one.