What do you think?
Rate this book
George Washington and Frederick the Great: Parallel Lives
How Frederick the Great and George Washington embody the competition between liberal democracy and authoritarianism
Both Frederick the Great and George Washington saw themselves as model rulers exemplifying different modes of enlightened governance. Frederick, absolute ruler of Prussia, styled himself as the embodiment of “enlightenment from above”; Washington, as the first president of the United States, held himself accountable to Congress, with the power of the presidency subject to checks and balances. In this unique study, Jürgen Overhoff traces the parallel lives of two of the most important and influential statesmen of the eighteenth century, from their early years to their ascension to political power and their historical legacies. Overhoff considers the significance of each man not only in the context of his own country but in the larger geopolitical space of Atlantic history.
Overhoff describes how Washington admired Frederick’s actions during the Seven Years’ War (also known as the French and Indian War) in the 1750s, when Frederic allied with the British and North Americans. Later, Frederic was impressed by Washington’s leadership of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Prussia and the United States even signed a friendship treaty after the war. But, as Overhoff shows, the two men had very different ideas about the principles of the Enlightenment, monarchy, and democracy. Despite his Enlightenment bona fides, Frederick ruled Prussia by edict and decree, always with the goal of maintaining his own power. Washington famously stepped down after two terms in office. Overhoff argues convincingly that the political trajectories of Frederick and Washington shed light on the contemporary clash between authoritarianism and democracy.
Both Frederick the Great and George Washington saw themselves as model rulers exemplifying different modes of enlightened governance. Frederick, absolute ruler of Prussia, styled himself as the embodiment of “enlightenment from above”; Washington, as the first president of the United States, held himself accountable to Congress, with the power of the presidency subject to checks and balances. In this unique study, Jürgen Overhoff traces the parallel lives of two of the most important and influential statesmen of the eighteenth century, from their early years to their ascension to political power and their historical legacies. Overhoff considers the significance of each man not only in the context of his own country but in the larger geopolitical space of Atlantic history.
Overhoff describes how Washington admired Frederick’s actions during the Seven Years’ War (also known as the French and Indian War) in the 1750s, when Frederic allied with the British and North Americans. Later, Frederic was impressed by Washington’s leadership of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Prussia and the United States even signed a friendship treaty after the war. But, as Overhoff shows, the two men had very different ideas about the principles of the Enlightenment, monarchy, and democracy. Despite his Enlightenment bona fides, Frederick ruled Prussia by edict and decree, always with the goal of maintaining his own power. Washington famously stepped down after two terms in office. Overhoff argues convincingly that the political trajectories of Frederick and Washington shed light on the contemporary clash between authoritarianism and democracy.
- GenresHistory
344 pages, Hardcover
Published March 31, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 7, 2026
I traveled last weekend across the Pennsylvania Turnpike, west to east, a trip I've made over a hundred times. No need for GPS or MapQuest. I take the King of Prussia exit (326), just ten minutes from my destination. I skirt the King of Prussia Mall, located, of course, in the town of King of Prussia. Soon, I am on the King of Prussia Road, with just two quick turns from there. An odd name for a Pennsylvania town, the driver might wonder, but no further.
Of course, that somnambulistic state was gone last weekend, with this book nestled in my carry-on. But why name a Pennsylvania town for some European monarch who never set foot in America, and why so soon after America's creation of a republic?
But first, how I discovered this book. I read a lot of books about American presidents and a website I frequent is bestpresidentialbios. Its Upcoming Releases page is a fertile source, and includes some books outside the mainstream. That's where I espied this book, months before its publication date. It piqued my interest. The thing is, I knew little about Frederick the Great. I'm not even sure I knew he had a shopping mall named after him. So I read Nancy Mitford's biography of him, and then a dual biography of Frederick and Bach. So I was better-informed about the King of Prussia by the time the long wait was over for this one.
That Frederick and George Washington should be examined together is not forced. They were contemporaries and, I learned here, they studied each other. They admired each other as military strategists, but Washington's regard for Frederick waned as he questioned the power of monarchs. For his part, Frederick came to view Washington's preference for representative government foolish.
As for the book itself, I found it well-written. The back and forth between the two leaders worked seamlessly. All that allows the author's scholarly points: that the men's biographies led them to opposite political thoughts; and that the comparative lessons learned are perforce applicable today. Indeed, the author ends with the notion that "the comparative biographies of Frederick the Great and George Washington is a strangely timely enterprise."
He means, of course, youknowwho:
Since the second decade of the twenty-first century, a surprisingly large number of authoritarian rulers have emerged across the world, generating an astonishing amount of support and launching massive counterattacks to liberalism and the system of checks and balances. This development has delivered a dramatic setback to democratic values on a global scale. . . . The fight between authoritarianism and democracy is back on the political agenda of the transatlantic world.
And he thought that and wrote that even before the most recent unpleasantness. It was Frederick who wrote: there are precautionary wars, which princes are wise to undertake. It is true that they are in fact offensive, but they are, nonetheless, just wars. So one prince's Silesia is another prince's Iran. Experience, however, was about to to teach him that one who recklessly starts a war and then unexpectedly abandons his allies cannot so easily withdraw from the fray.
Some lessons from the past the author didn't underline for us, but I found they resonated; to-wit: the lost art of compromise. He tells the story of Benjamin Franklin, who didn't approve of everything in the proposed Constitution, but recommended its passage. Franklin spoke: when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. . . . as a certain French lady, who, in a dispute with her sister, said, 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that's always in the right.' . . . for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution.
I liked learning that the Marquis de Lafayette, a friend to both men, took the key to the Bastille after the French Revolution. In turn, Lafayette sent the key to Washington "as a token of victory gained by liberty over despotism." And then, when Benjamin Franklin died, Washington inherited Franklin's applewood cane. Washington now possessed two unusual insignia of democratic republicanism unrivaled throughout the world.
I liked learning, too, that Frederick's successor, Frederick William II, died with the reputation of having been a dicker Lüderjahn which kinda speaks for itself, even untranslated, but which the author helpfully offers is a big, fat, no-good voluptuary.
There was one glaring error, calling James Madison a jurist. And the author could be gushing about the two men - unswerving faith . . . indomitable combatants . . . astonishing victories . . . staunch character and faith . . . specially chosen by providence to perform extraordinary deeds - but that was rare. Still, to support that over-writing, the author tended to focus on military victories and ignore defeats.
As to all that King of Prussia business, the Prussians and Americans hammered out a treaty soon after America won its independence. Now that the two nations had become friends, idiosyncratic gestures of mutual sympathy were made by the humble denizens of both: Locales outside Philadelphia and Berlin spontaneously changed their names. A tavern a few miles northwest of Philadelphia frequently patronized by Washington and his officers was redubbed "King of Prussia." A town sprang up around the inn in the following years, and to this day it is still known by that name. Around the same time, residents of Hammerstall, a village located southwest of Berlin near Storkow, gave their hamlet the more sonorous appellation of Philadelphia. This village also still exists, living on as a witness to a time when even the people of Frederick's enlightened Prussia began to think of the United States as the land of their dreams.
And wait till they see the mall!
Of course, that somnambulistic state was gone last weekend, with this book nestled in my carry-on. But why name a Pennsylvania town for some European monarch who never set foot in America, and why so soon after America's creation of a republic?
But first, how I discovered this book. I read a lot of books about American presidents and a website I frequent is bestpresidentialbios. Its Upcoming Releases page is a fertile source, and includes some books outside the mainstream. That's where I espied this book, months before its publication date. It piqued my interest. The thing is, I knew little about Frederick the Great. I'm not even sure I knew he had a shopping mall named after him. So I read Nancy Mitford's biography of him, and then a dual biography of Frederick and Bach. So I was better-informed about the King of Prussia by the time the long wait was over for this one.
That Frederick and George Washington should be examined together is not forced. They were contemporaries and, I learned here, they studied each other. They admired each other as military strategists, but Washington's regard for Frederick waned as he questioned the power of monarchs. For his part, Frederick came to view Washington's preference for representative government foolish.
As for the book itself, I found it well-written. The back and forth between the two leaders worked seamlessly. All that allows the author's scholarly points: that the men's biographies led them to opposite political thoughts; and that the comparative lessons learned are perforce applicable today. Indeed, the author ends with the notion that "the comparative biographies of Frederick the Great and George Washington is a strangely timely enterprise."
He means, of course, youknowwho:
Since the second decade of the twenty-first century, a surprisingly large number of authoritarian rulers have emerged across the world, generating an astonishing amount of support and launching massive counterattacks to liberalism and the system of checks and balances. This development has delivered a dramatic setback to democratic values on a global scale. . . . The fight between authoritarianism and democracy is back on the political agenda of the transatlantic world.
And he thought that and wrote that even before the most recent unpleasantness. It was Frederick who wrote: there are precautionary wars, which princes are wise to undertake. It is true that they are in fact offensive, but they are, nonetheless, just wars. So one prince's Silesia is another prince's Iran. Experience, however, was about to to teach him that one who recklessly starts a war and then unexpectedly abandons his allies cannot so easily withdraw from the fray.
Some lessons from the past the author didn't underline for us, but I found they resonated; to-wit: the lost art of compromise. He tells the story of Benjamin Franklin, who didn't approve of everything in the proposed Constitution, but recommended its passage. Franklin spoke: when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. . . . as a certain French lady, who, in a dispute with her sister, said, 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that's always in the right.' . . . for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution.
I liked learning that the Marquis de Lafayette, a friend to both men, took the key to the Bastille after the French Revolution. In turn, Lafayette sent the key to Washington "as a token of victory gained by liberty over despotism." And then, when Benjamin Franklin died, Washington inherited Franklin's applewood cane. Washington now possessed two unusual insignia of democratic republicanism unrivaled throughout the world.
I liked learning, too, that Frederick's successor, Frederick William II, died with the reputation of having been a dicker Lüderjahn which kinda speaks for itself, even untranslated, but which the author helpfully offers is a big, fat, no-good voluptuary.
There was one glaring error, calling James Madison a jurist. And the author could be gushing about the two men - unswerving faith . . . indomitable combatants . . . astonishing victories . . . staunch character and faith . . . specially chosen by providence to perform extraordinary deeds - but that was rare. Still, to support that over-writing, the author tended to focus on military victories and ignore defeats.
As to all that King of Prussia business, the Prussians and Americans hammered out a treaty soon after America won its independence. Now that the two nations had become friends, idiosyncratic gestures of mutual sympathy were made by the humble denizens of both: Locales outside Philadelphia and Berlin spontaneously changed their names. A tavern a few miles northwest of Philadelphia frequently patronized by Washington and his officers was redubbed "King of Prussia." A town sprang up around the inn in the following years, and to this day it is still known by that name. Around the same time, residents of Hammerstall, a village located southwest of Berlin near Storkow, gave their hamlet the more sonorous appellation of Philadelphia. This village also still exists, living on as a witness to a time when even the people of Frederick's enlightened Prussia began to think of the United States as the land of their dreams.
And wait till they see the mall!
Displaying 1 of 1 review