What do you think?
Rate this book
Frederick the Great: King of Prussia
Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, dominated the 18th century in the same way that Napoleon dominated the start of the 19th - a force of nature, a caustic, ruthless, brilliant military commander, a monarch of exceptional energy and talent, and a knowledgeable patron of artists, architects and writers, most famously Voltaire. From early in his reign he was already a legendary figure - fascinating even to those who hated him.
Tim Blanning's brilliant biography recreates a remarkable era, a world which would be swept away shortly after Frederick's death by the French Revolution. Equally at home on the battlefield or in the music room at Frederick's extraordinary miniature palace of Sanssouci, Blanning draws on a lifetime's obsession with the 18th century to create a work that is in many ways the summation of all that he has learned in his own rich and various career. Frederick's spectre has hung over Germany ever since: an inspiration, a threat, an impossible ideal - Blanning at last allows us to understand him in his own time.
Tim Blanning's brilliant biography recreates a remarkable era, a world which would be swept away shortly after Frederick's death by the French Revolution. Equally at home on the battlefield or in the music room at Frederick's extraordinary miniature palace of Sanssouci, Blanning draws on a lifetime's obsession with the 18th century to create a work that is in many ways the summation of all that he has learned in his own rich and various career. Frederick's spectre has hung over Germany ever since: an inspiration, a threat, an impossible ideal - Blanning at last allows us to understand him in his own time.
657 pages, Hardcover
First published September 24, 2015
320 people are currently reading
2941 people want to read
About the author
Timothy C.W. Blanning
27 books100 followersTimothy Charles William Blanning, FBA is Emeritus Professor of Modern European History at the University of Cambridge, where he taught from 1992 until 2009. His work focuses on the history of Europe from the 17th century to the beginning of the First World War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
September 6, 2025
Dying on Time
Author Tim Blanning has provided one of those rare blends of biographies where analysis, understanding, explanation and entertainment come together to produce a very real and layered portrait of its subject. In this case the subject is King Frederick II of Prussia. Otherwise known by his sobriquet ‘the Great’. A man of brilliance and huge flaws alike. One of consistent principles over his 74 years alongside other contradictions. What is clear is that Frederick was a highly intelligent and complex character. Blanning has expertly deconstructed this man and provided an easily readable biography of him. I have walked away with a great understanding of what Frederick was about, what his outlook was, what his achievements and this implications were, who he was in the private life and how his myth has been catapulted to lofty heights by several generations after his death.
What is interesting about Frederick is that even as a hereditary monarch in the eighteenth century he could be more progressive and radical than a lot of people today. He could also be more backwards. Take two examples, firstly he encouraged migration to his lands and openly stated if they were from the Muslim domains of the Ottoman Empire he would build mosques to accommodate them. He also commissioned the building of St Hedwig’s, the largest Catholic Church in Berlin, a Protestant city in a time when religion was passionately in the hearts of most Europeans. Secondary he was extremely misogynistic and did not think much, or in fact have much, to do with women. An exception, was his favourite sister Wilhelmina. He banned women and what he termed ‘feminine behaviour’ from his palaces and courts, building a highly homoerotic culture around him. Frederick was clearly homosexual, even admitting as much in private letters and poems he wrote to friends, including where he discussed anal sex. Although we can never be sure, the evidence puts this on the balance of probabilities as being the case. One relationship, with Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf appears to have been consummated. He also had a jealous rivalry over men with his openly homosexual brother Prince Henry. This is important, as it explains Frederick, and allows one to understand the culture that Frederick built.
A man who was obsessed with the army, who loved a masculine world. This was perhaps why he spent so much time with his troops, which developed him into a good military commander. But as with Frederick there are contradictions. For example, he loved music, arts and philosophy. At the time, these were seen as more ‘feminine’ pursuits. But what about Frederick’s successes on the battlefield? As soon as his father Frederick William I died in 1740, Frederick was 28 years old and have been left a huge inheritance of 8 million Talers in cash. He used this to invade Silesia, the Habsburg lands under Empress Maria Theresa. This was the first of three Silesian wars, with Frederick winning them for Prussia. Hugely wealthy and populous lands, it was a poisoned chalice. It caused no end of problems for Frederick following his victory. It actually led to Frederick becoming completely alienated by all the powers in Europe and Prussia almost being wooded off the map. That is until the Empress Anna of Russia dying and her son Peter III taking the throne. Peter was a huge admirer of Frederick, even though his country was at war with him. He immediately changed sides and saved Frederick from disaster. Frederick obtained huge victories, such as Leuthen in 1757; but also suffered serious defeats such as Hochkirch in 1758 and Kunnersdorf in 1759.
His greatest successes were the huge addition of territory to his kingdom, through Silesia and also the partitions of Poland. At home he introduced some important social and economic reforms, allowed freedom of the press, stabilised the currency and abolish torture. In growing older he became ever more spendthrift and Spartan, turning in the bully his father was to him. Frederick William I despised him son, perhaps because of his homosexuality. Frederick in turn bullied his siblings in the same way. He unfairly treated and humiliated his heir Prince Augustus William and his very capable brother Prince Henry when they were defeated in battle. Even if they performed exceptionally previously or did well in the circumstances with little resources at their disposal. He also ill treated his wife, and ostracised her from court, visiting her only twice in around 12 years. Henry openly criticised Frederick and rejoiced at Frederick’s death, Sophia Dorothea actually wept for him. Frederick also ill treated his nephew and heir (after the death of Augustus William), the future Frederick William II. Frederick William was highly heterosexual and a party prince, but would also add future size to the kingdom. Frederick tried to oppress him and when he died it came as a huge weight lifted for Frederick William.
The memory of Frederick has been manipulated many times over since his death. He was known as ‘the Great’ in his lifetime, but many contemporaries were pleased to see him go when his time came. The myth was built up as early as the Napoleonic Wars, where in fact his armies and system was crushed at Jena in 1806 and humiliated at Tilset the following year. Through unification from the 1840s onwards Frederick was seen as a founding father of Germany, even though he actually hated all things German and preferred French culture and language. Hitler famously idolised him and again played him into the Nazi myth where Hitler was the natural successor of Frederick. Frederick died at the right time, as almost a year after his death Russia and the Ottomans entered a war which opened the eastern question, which would linger on for all of the next century, the French Revolution also began, which became the Napoleonic Wars. As I have said above, Prussia was crushed there. Frederick’s systems left many problems and it will never be known how he would have coped had he have lived through them. How much of his system is at fall for the failures which were to come? It is not worth asking the question as there were 20 years for his successors to resolved them, even if there is a link between them. Frederick was a hardworking, intelligent man who genuinely tried to guide Prussia down the right path. He was the ultimate enlightened despot and he is a clear epoch in German history. Blanning does extremely well in bring all this together and Frederick to life. No prior knowledge is needed to understand this book.
Author Tim Blanning has provided one of those rare blends of biographies where analysis, understanding, explanation and entertainment come together to produce a very real and layered portrait of its subject. In this case the subject is King Frederick II of Prussia. Otherwise known by his sobriquet ‘the Great’. A man of brilliance and huge flaws alike. One of consistent principles over his 74 years alongside other contradictions. What is clear is that Frederick was a highly intelligent and complex character. Blanning has expertly deconstructed this man and provided an easily readable biography of him. I have walked away with a great understanding of what Frederick was about, what his outlook was, what his achievements and this implications were, who he was in the private life and how his myth has been catapulted to lofty heights by several generations after his death.
What is interesting about Frederick is that even as a hereditary monarch in the eighteenth century he could be more progressive and radical than a lot of people today. He could also be more backwards. Take two examples, firstly he encouraged migration to his lands and openly stated if they were from the Muslim domains of the Ottoman Empire he would build mosques to accommodate them. He also commissioned the building of St Hedwig’s, the largest Catholic Church in Berlin, a Protestant city in a time when religion was passionately in the hearts of most Europeans. Secondary he was extremely misogynistic and did not think much, or in fact have much, to do with women. An exception, was his favourite sister Wilhelmina. He banned women and what he termed ‘feminine behaviour’ from his palaces and courts, building a highly homoerotic culture around him. Frederick was clearly homosexual, even admitting as much in private letters and poems he wrote to friends, including where he discussed anal sex. Although we can never be sure, the evidence puts this on the balance of probabilities as being the case. One relationship, with Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf appears to have been consummated. He also had a jealous rivalry over men with his openly homosexual brother Prince Henry. This is important, as it explains Frederick, and allows one to understand the culture that Frederick built.
A man who was obsessed with the army, who loved a masculine world. This was perhaps why he spent so much time with his troops, which developed him into a good military commander. But as with Frederick there are contradictions. For example, he loved music, arts and philosophy. At the time, these were seen as more ‘feminine’ pursuits. But what about Frederick’s successes on the battlefield? As soon as his father Frederick William I died in 1740, Frederick was 28 years old and have been left a huge inheritance of 8 million Talers in cash. He used this to invade Silesia, the Habsburg lands under Empress Maria Theresa. This was the first of three Silesian wars, with Frederick winning them for Prussia. Hugely wealthy and populous lands, it was a poisoned chalice. It caused no end of problems for Frederick following his victory. It actually led to Frederick becoming completely alienated by all the powers in Europe and Prussia almost being wooded off the map. That is until the Empress Anna of Russia dying and her son Peter III taking the throne. Peter was a huge admirer of Frederick, even though his country was at war with him. He immediately changed sides and saved Frederick from disaster. Frederick obtained huge victories, such as Leuthen in 1757; but also suffered serious defeats such as Hochkirch in 1758 and Kunnersdorf in 1759.
His greatest successes were the huge addition of territory to his kingdom, through Silesia and also the partitions of Poland. At home he introduced some important social and economic reforms, allowed freedom of the press, stabilised the currency and abolish torture. In growing older he became ever more spendthrift and Spartan, turning in the bully his father was to him. Frederick William I despised him son, perhaps because of his homosexuality. Frederick in turn bullied his siblings in the same way. He unfairly treated and humiliated his heir Prince Augustus William and his very capable brother Prince Henry when they were defeated in battle. Even if they performed exceptionally previously or did well in the circumstances with little resources at their disposal. He also ill treated his wife, and ostracised her from court, visiting her only twice in around 12 years. Henry openly criticised Frederick and rejoiced at Frederick’s death, Sophia Dorothea actually wept for him. Frederick also ill treated his nephew and heir (after the death of Augustus William), the future Frederick William II. Frederick William was highly heterosexual and a party prince, but would also add future size to the kingdom. Frederick tried to oppress him and when he died it came as a huge weight lifted for Frederick William.
The memory of Frederick has been manipulated many times over since his death. He was known as ‘the Great’ in his lifetime, but many contemporaries were pleased to see him go when his time came. The myth was built up as early as the Napoleonic Wars, where in fact his armies and system was crushed at Jena in 1806 and humiliated at Tilset the following year. Through unification from the 1840s onwards Frederick was seen as a founding father of Germany, even though he actually hated all things German and preferred French culture and language. Hitler famously idolised him and again played him into the Nazi myth where Hitler was the natural successor of Frederick. Frederick died at the right time, as almost a year after his death Russia and the Ottomans entered a war which opened the eastern question, which would linger on for all of the next century, the French Revolution also began, which became the Napoleonic Wars. As I have said above, Prussia was crushed there. Frederick’s systems left many problems and it will never be known how he would have coped had he have lived through them. How much of his system is at fall for the failures which were to come? It is not worth asking the question as there were 20 years for his successors to resolved them, even if there is a link between them. Frederick was a hardworking, intelligent man who genuinely tried to guide Prussia down the right path. He was the ultimate enlightened despot and he is a clear epoch in German history. Blanning does extremely well in bring all this together and Frederick to life. No prior knowledge is needed to understand this book.
January 27, 2025
Was he -’great’? There’s a credible case for the affirmative.
The history of modern Germany can be said to date from his reign, I feel. From here on we can trace the beginnings of an Imperial Germany, with the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire. On his accession, he took on the prestigious might of the Habsburg Empire and accelerated its decline with his invasion and seizure of Silesia. It was hard for me not to see parallels with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine! Frederick’s sudden strike on Habsburg territory took the major powers by surprise; no doubt part of his plan. The king felt he needed to strike first before his country was struck, already encircled by potential enemies.
As a result, he put his country – Prussia – on the map and stage of Europe, if not the world. From a second/ third rate power he changed the balance of power in Europe.
On his accession, he put into immediate use the money and military resources of his father, the barbarous and mentally troubled tyrant, Frederick William I. (Closely related to the ‘British’ Royal family the latter, like George III, suffered the mentally de-stabling disease, porphyria. The Hohenzollerns and Hanoverians also generally shared a profound dislike of their heirs!)
He had the cruellest of upbringings. At one stage his father was on the point of having him executed! He had already similarly despatched the prince’s close friend (and possible lover). Despite all this, Frederick emerged to achieve what he did. That marks him as ‘great’ in my eyes.
A complex man, he provides a fascinating study in kingship. “Enlightened Despot”, anyone? Yes, in my view, with some qualifications. Tolerant of religions and the various shades of Christianity, he was less agreeably disposed to the Jews. An atheist himself, personally he had little time for religion, but as an astute politician he appreciated that the bulk of his subjects felt differently. He gave land in a prime position in Berlin to enable the impressive Catholic cathedral to be built and he had a hand in its architectural design. But he was seen by his protestant subjects as being anti-catholic, which he probably was in essence, he had little time for the Holy Roman Empire. He was tolerant of peoples’ sexual persuasions. He himself was homosexual (as was his favourite brother, who hated him!) He was extremely misogynistic, apart from his mother and to a lesser extent, his favourite sister. His wife had a very raw deal! Patron of the arts, which flourished under him. Culturally a francophile (he idolised Voltaire though their relationship was stormy) and he insisted on french being spoken at court, regarding his own language as inferior. As war lord, he had lots of courage but made many mistakes but learned from them. Fortunately, he had good generals and fighting men below him. He was popular with his men, as he was with the poor who saw him, rightly to a degree, as a dispenser of justice to them, rather than against them. An astute propagandist, he was personally cynical and sarcastic and seems hard to like as a man.
Apparently, the author has immersed himself in all things ‘Frederick’ and it shows. The book is detailed which made it heavy on the digestion at times and physically demanding on the arms holding it. Recommended however.
The history of modern Germany can be said to date from his reign, I feel. From here on we can trace the beginnings of an Imperial Germany, with the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire. On his accession, he took on the prestigious might of the Habsburg Empire and accelerated its decline with his invasion and seizure of Silesia. It was hard for me not to see parallels with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine! Frederick’s sudden strike on Habsburg territory took the major powers by surprise; no doubt part of his plan. The king felt he needed to strike first before his country was struck, already encircled by potential enemies.
As a result, he put his country – Prussia – on the map and stage of Europe, if not the world. From a second/ third rate power he changed the balance of power in Europe.
On his accession, he put into immediate use the money and military resources of his father, the barbarous and mentally troubled tyrant, Frederick William I. (Closely related to the ‘British’ Royal family the latter, like George III, suffered the mentally de-stabling disease, porphyria. The Hohenzollerns and Hanoverians also generally shared a profound dislike of their heirs!)
He had the cruellest of upbringings. At one stage his father was on the point of having him executed! He had already similarly despatched the prince’s close friend (and possible lover). Despite all this, Frederick emerged to achieve what he did. That marks him as ‘great’ in my eyes.
A complex man, he provides a fascinating study in kingship. “Enlightened Despot”, anyone? Yes, in my view, with some qualifications. Tolerant of religions and the various shades of Christianity, he was less agreeably disposed to the Jews. An atheist himself, personally he had little time for religion, but as an astute politician he appreciated that the bulk of his subjects felt differently. He gave land in a prime position in Berlin to enable the impressive Catholic cathedral to be built and he had a hand in its architectural design. But he was seen by his protestant subjects as being anti-catholic, which he probably was in essence, he had little time for the Holy Roman Empire. He was tolerant of peoples’ sexual persuasions. He himself was homosexual (as was his favourite brother, who hated him!) He was extremely misogynistic, apart from his mother and to a lesser extent, his favourite sister. His wife had a very raw deal! Patron of the arts, which flourished under him. Culturally a francophile (he idolised Voltaire though their relationship was stormy) and he insisted on french being spoken at court, regarding his own language as inferior. As war lord, he had lots of courage but made many mistakes but learned from them. Fortunately, he had good generals and fighting men below him. He was popular with his men, as he was with the poor who saw him, rightly to a degree, as a dispenser of justice to them, rather than against them. An astute propagandist, he was personally cynical and sarcastic and seems hard to like as a man.
Apparently, the author has immersed himself in all things ‘Frederick’ and it shows. The book is detailed which made it heavy on the digestion at times and physically demanding on the arms holding it. Recommended however.
July 8, 2016
The format is loosely chronological. It starts conventionally, with Frederick’s childhood, young adult years, his marriage and ascendance to the throne. Next are Frederick’s military campaigns, which is essentially his foreign policy. This is followed by chapters with topical descriptions of his domestic reign and his personal life and family relations.
I’d be interested in an FBI or CIA profiler’s take on this man. Bullied, punished and horribly humiliated by his hyper-militaristic, religious, authoritarian father he became an enlightened (for his time) ruler but treated his family (exception: mother and sister) in the same cruel way his father treated him. Well before Napoleon he had a common touch with his troops. He provided more religious freedom and more access to legal redress than other monarchs, shunned court life, fostered capitalism and considered the well-being of his citizens. While presenting a professional image to the public, he had an openly gay (with administration and family, not sure that this was known by the citizens) personal life. While a macho-military man, his wardrobe (sought by collectors after his death) sounds like Liberace’s. While an optimist he had negative and cynical view of people as individuals and in groups, and a particular aversion to women (mother and sister excepted).
There was more detail than I could digest on European politics of the time and Frederick’s military campaigns. The maps and index were helpful. While the pictures are good, it’s hard to envision Frederick from these images (once King, he would not sit for a portrait). I would have liked more on his wife and a summary of Prussia after Napoleon.
I’m not sure how to give this stars. It is clearly 5 stars for the well documented scholarship, but the non-chronological format and the amount of detail on German history and on Frederick’s military campaigns made this a difficult read for me.
February 1, 2025
Every now and again a brilliant historian will write a biography that will be definitive for generations. If the gods have decided to really bless him they allow him to write clear, readable enjoyable prose which will be the envy of all those academic historians who write a bizarre cramped English that attempts to read like a scientific treatise. All this is to say that Prof. Blanning's biography of Frederick the Great is a masterpiece both as a work of history and as a book to read.
I am not going to try and explain who Frederick was or why he is important I will only say that almost anyone interested in German history or the history of pre French revolutionary Europe should read this and I am sure you will enjoy it. There is just so much here. I am sure to read this biography again and it is on my list (a very long one admittedly) of books I want to own.
I am not going to try and explain who Frederick was or why he is important I will only say that almost anyone interested in German history or the history of pre French revolutionary Europe should read this and I am sure you will enjoy it. There is just so much here. I am sure to read this biography again and it is on my list (a very long one admittedly) of books I want to own.
September 28, 2025
good book, but listen!
“Algarotti wrote to Voltaire: “I have seen, oh me beato, this adorable prince…I cannot put in words the number of pleasures I have experienced!”
what in the world is this meet-cute scenario between Frederick and Algarotti? a german prince. an italian playboy. a coup de foudre?? i need that book immediately!
“Algarotti wrote to Voltaire: “I have seen, oh me beato, this adorable prince…I cannot put in words the number of pleasures I have experienced!”
what in the world is this meet-cute scenario between Frederick and Algarotti? a german prince. an italian playboy. a coup de foudre?? i need that book immediately!
August 9, 2016
Frederick the Great: King of Prussia, by Timothy C.W. Blanning, is a biography of one of the most celebrated enlightenment despots of the 18th century. Frederick is a legendary figure for many reasons. He reinvigorated the Prussian state, taking it to new heights of power and guaranteeing it as a major power in European politics. He styled himself "King of Prussia" and broke many of the symbolic ties Prussia had with the Holy Roman Empire (and thus, his enemies, Austria) while also binding many of the Imperial states closer to his own control. He gained massive amounts of territory in Western Germany, Silesia, and Poland. He fought and allied almost world power in Europe at this time, allying and fighting with the Russians, French and Austrians on numerous occasions. His triumphs were not only political. He revamped the military, reinvigorated the state apparatus (albeit, under his own personal dominance) and promoted religious freedoms and the flourishing of art, culture and (briefly) freedom of the press.
Frederick the man was an interesting case study. He had a brutal and dictatorial father who punished his love of culture and art and tried to impose intensive martial prowess on his son. Frederick was also privately homosexual as much documentation would go a long way to show. He had personal romances and correspondence with many European enlightenment figures, at times professional, personal or sexual, including Voltaire and Roseau, to name a couple. He regularly wrote poetry, history and prose and was immensely fascinated by classic works of fiction and history.
Frederick the Great was an inspiration to Napoleon Bonaparte, who once remarked to his soldiers in Berlin, who were visiting Fredericks Mausoleum, "If this man was still alive, we would not be standing here today." Frederick was truly one of the 18th centuries greatest statesman politicians.
Blanning does a wonderful job chronicling the life and times of Frederick the Great, and focuses particularly on his military prowess and his attitudes toward various political, social and cultural institutions. The Press, literature, Prussian culture and Frederick's family life are all detailed. The book is not a glowing revisionist biography either, and offers a fair and poignant look at Frederick's many triumphs and mistakes, as well as his bitter and sarcastic personality (he threatened to kill himself many times throughout his life, and would publically poke fun at other European statesman). His dislike of women transcended the bedroom, as his colourful appraisals of Catherine the Great of Russia, or Maria Theresa of Austria suggest. His autocratic style of rule worked in many ways due to his intensive attention to detail and his fascination with statecraft and military theory did him credit in his many wars.
Blanning details the military accounts of the First and Second Silesian War, as well as the Seven Years War and the brief Imperial Succession crisis which saw Austria try and annex Bavaria in exchange for granting Belgium independence. Frederick was successful in various ways in all of these endeavors, however not without difficulty. The Seven Years War especially saw Prussia and Frederick at its most vulnerable, with Prussia fighting France, Russia, the Holy Roman Empire and Austria simultaneously. Detailed maps of battles and acquisitions are also present throughout the book.
All in all, Frederick the Great: King of Prussia, is an excellent account of the man, and the state he helped to create. It is thorough, detailed, and enjoyable to read. My only complaint would pertain to the books innovative layout, which breaks up the wars and diplomatic maneuvers, and intersperses cultural and personal aspects of Frederick. I would have preferred either chronological ordering, or ordering by subject. Even so, the book is highly readable, and I would recommend it for fans of European/German history, or those interested in the great movers and shakers of the 18th century.
Frederick the man was an interesting case study. He had a brutal and dictatorial father who punished his love of culture and art and tried to impose intensive martial prowess on his son. Frederick was also privately homosexual as much documentation would go a long way to show. He had personal romances and correspondence with many European enlightenment figures, at times professional, personal or sexual, including Voltaire and Roseau, to name a couple. He regularly wrote poetry, history and prose and was immensely fascinated by classic works of fiction and history.
Frederick the Great was an inspiration to Napoleon Bonaparte, who once remarked to his soldiers in Berlin, who were visiting Fredericks Mausoleum, "If this man was still alive, we would not be standing here today." Frederick was truly one of the 18th centuries greatest statesman politicians.
Blanning does a wonderful job chronicling the life and times of Frederick the Great, and focuses particularly on his military prowess and his attitudes toward various political, social and cultural institutions. The Press, literature, Prussian culture and Frederick's family life are all detailed. The book is not a glowing revisionist biography either, and offers a fair and poignant look at Frederick's many triumphs and mistakes, as well as his bitter and sarcastic personality (he threatened to kill himself many times throughout his life, and would publically poke fun at other European statesman). His dislike of women transcended the bedroom, as his colourful appraisals of Catherine the Great of Russia, or Maria Theresa of Austria suggest. His autocratic style of rule worked in many ways due to his intensive attention to detail and his fascination with statecraft and military theory did him credit in his many wars.
Blanning details the military accounts of the First and Second Silesian War, as well as the Seven Years War and the brief Imperial Succession crisis which saw Austria try and annex Bavaria in exchange for granting Belgium independence. Frederick was successful in various ways in all of these endeavors, however not without difficulty. The Seven Years War especially saw Prussia and Frederick at its most vulnerable, with Prussia fighting France, Russia, the Holy Roman Empire and Austria simultaneously. Detailed maps of battles and acquisitions are also present throughout the book.
All in all, Frederick the Great: King of Prussia, is an excellent account of the man, and the state he helped to create. It is thorough, detailed, and enjoyable to read. My only complaint would pertain to the books innovative layout, which breaks up the wars and diplomatic maneuvers, and intersperses cultural and personal aspects of Frederick. I would have preferred either chronological ordering, or ordering by subject. Even so, the book is highly readable, and I would recommend it for fans of European/German history, or those interested in the great movers and shakers of the 18th century.
June 15, 2016
This is a fine biography of an important historical figure. Frederick the Great. . . . This work does a solid job of locating him in a particular context--cultural and familial. His father was a martinet and treated Frederick pretty harshly as he was growing up. Frederick was not the idealized warrior and was somewhat skeptical of religion. His father was not pleased with either.
When his father dies, Frederick ascended the throne. His world view was firmly rooted in the Enlightenment. Voltaire was someone with whom he corresponded. In his own way, he tried to apply these principles to ruling (not always successfully).
His father left a great deal of money in Prussia's treasury. Frederick used that to create improvements, to build the military, and so on. The funding was drawn down over time.
Frederick was also involved in empire building. He ended up in conflict with Austria over many years. His role as a fighting king was mixed, according to the author. The image of Frederick the Great was as a great leader and warrior. Yet his actual performance was uneven, with his impulsive decision making sometimes leading to precarious military situations.
There is also the question of his personal life. Considerable time is spent on examining his sexuality. I wonder if there is not too much time expended on this, but the discussion is important in the context of Frederick's life and his times.
In the end, this is a fine biography and well worth reading. . . .
When his father dies, Frederick ascended the throne. His world view was firmly rooted in the Enlightenment. Voltaire was someone with whom he corresponded. In his own way, he tried to apply these principles to ruling (not always successfully).
His father left a great deal of money in Prussia's treasury. Frederick used that to create improvements, to build the military, and so on. The funding was drawn down over time.
Frederick was also involved in empire building. He ended up in conflict with Austria over many years. His role as a fighting king was mixed, according to the author. The image of Frederick the Great was as a great leader and warrior. Yet his actual performance was uneven, with his impulsive decision making sometimes leading to precarious military situations.
There is also the question of his personal life. Considerable time is spent on examining his sexuality. I wonder if there is not too much time expended on this, but the discussion is important in the context of Frederick's life and his times.
In the end, this is a fine biography and well worth reading. . . .
August 15, 2016
This is a good, solid, well-researched and authoritative biography – and it’s also a bit dull unless you are very interested indeed in Frederick the Great. And in particular in his military exploits. There are a lot of battles and campaigns here, all covered in great detail. So my lukewarm response is more to the subject matter than the worth of the book, which I appreciate is obviously a very impressive piece of historical scholarship. And I did enjoy quite a lot of it - the domestic details of Frederick’s reign, particularly his homosexuality and how that impacted on his life style, were well described and atmospheric. So much to enjoy here but also much to skip as far as I was concerned. Perhaps more for the scholarly or academic reader rather than for my more general interest in historical figures.
May 17, 2016
Royal lineages seldom produce a true leader- so when one is exceptional, as Prussia's Frederick II was- he earns the appellation "the Great." And he was gay. So concludes this historian in an excellent account of Frederick's life and times. An amazing story of a boy who was mentally and physically abused by his father, and also almost executed by him when, as a young man, he tried to flee to England (his companion in flight was executed, with Frederick forced to watch). After his father's death Frederick rose to great heights, fighting and winning two European wars, and forging Prussia into a modern state. A fascinating man.
November 13, 2020
Tim Blanning aims here at an exhaustive biography, but with mixed results. First, the author is not a particularly strong narrator. There is a large section on the cultural passions of Frederick, but I don't care about how many buildings Frederick plagiarized architectural designs from, nor how many Watteaus he owned. Frederick is primarily known to history for his military prowess, and I was hoping for more of a focus on his battles. Unfortunately, although Blanning does cover these, he is more interested in the political and diplomatic maneuvering around them instead of the details about what took place on them. This part, to me, is disappointing.
Blanning is strongest on aspects of Frederick's personality, and he makes clear that most of Frederick's troubles in later years was the outcome of his bad character. Frederick stole Silesia (for no other reason than he wanted it), from Maria Theresa of Austria right after she ascended her throne, and not surprisingly, she never forgave him. She maneuvered against him both diplomatically and militarily for the rest of her life. Frederick also gained a reputation as a man who always betrayed an ally, and because of his strong, disciplined army and clever prowess on the battlefield, he inadvertently created a massive coalition against him of nearly all the European countries. Hence the Seven Years' War.
Everyone thought he was simply too dangerous to the common welfare of all the European countries to leave in power, viewing him somewhat akin to the way we view Hitler or Stalin. This is an aspect of Frederick that is often downplayed by historians, who are normally on his side because of their awe at his military ability, and who are impressed by a set of cultural interests uncharacteristic of the usual monarchical philistine.
It is historically notorious that Frederick's father was abusive and did not trust his son, and many historians tend to side squarely with the son instead of the father. It is hard not to feel sympathy with the youthful Frederick and feel that his father was something of a monster. However, I wonder how much of the boy's innate lack of character, duplicity, and self-serving behavior was apparent to his father from an early age, and was the partial cause of the old man's wrathful suspicion of his offspring. Though Frederick's troubles in his later years was caused entirely by himself, and he never seems to repented or had any insight into his own behavior.
I went into this book feeling some liking for Frederick because of Nancy Mitford's biography of him, but came out with a thorough distaste for him.
Blanning is strongest on aspects of Frederick's personality, and he makes clear that most of Frederick's troubles in later years was the outcome of his bad character. Frederick stole Silesia (for no other reason than he wanted it), from Maria Theresa of Austria right after she ascended her throne, and not surprisingly, she never forgave him. She maneuvered against him both diplomatically and militarily for the rest of her life. Frederick also gained a reputation as a man who always betrayed an ally, and because of his strong, disciplined army and clever prowess on the battlefield, he inadvertently created a massive coalition against him of nearly all the European countries. Hence the Seven Years' War.
Everyone thought he was simply too dangerous to the common welfare of all the European countries to leave in power, viewing him somewhat akin to the way we view Hitler or Stalin. This is an aspect of Frederick that is often downplayed by historians, who are normally on his side because of their awe at his military ability, and who are impressed by a set of cultural interests uncharacteristic of the usual monarchical philistine.
It is historically notorious that Frederick's father was abusive and did not trust his son, and many historians tend to side squarely with the son instead of the father. It is hard not to feel sympathy with the youthful Frederick and feel that his father was something of a monster. However, I wonder how much of the boy's innate lack of character, duplicity, and self-serving behavior was apparent to his father from an early age, and was the partial cause of the old man's wrathful suspicion of his offspring. Though Frederick's troubles in his later years was caused entirely by himself, and he never seems to repented or had any insight into his own behavior.
I went into this book feeling some liking for Frederick because of Nancy Mitford's biography of him, but came out with a thorough distaste for him.
April 3, 2016
Frederick the Great is one of those important historical figures who receives about a paragraph or two in most high school European History textbooks. I vaguely recall learning that he was an important Enlightenment king - arguably THE model of enlightened despotism - who befriended Voltaire and helped push Prussia into the first tier of European powers.
Tim Blanning's new biography of Frederick Blanning doesn't actively try to deconstruct the notion of Frederick as an enlightened despot, but he adds some nuance. Frederick often preached the virtues of rationalism and good governance, but he had his flaws. He was sometimes vindictive and stubborn. His policy on religious toleration seems to stem at least in part from his disdain for the church as it does from abstract notions of justice. But, as Blanning admits, Frederick did adopt a general policy of tolerance, perhaps more than any other European monarch at the time. As Frederick himself said, "In my domains, there is freedom of conscience and the cock."
Blanning spends quite a bit of time discussing Frederick's homosexuality. Blanning argues that this is an important part of Frederick's life, key to understanding his court and even some of his major decisions.
Indeed, Frederick's life seems surprisingly relevant to readers in the 21st century. Frederick dealt with questions about religious tolerance, homosexuality, judicial reform, international trade, and subsidies to industries. Blanning never draws explicit comparisons between our times and Frederick's, but the comparisons are there.
One issue I had with the book is that Blanning organizes is thematically rather than chronologically. For those readers unfamiliar with the broad outlines of Frederick's life, this can sometimes lead to confusion. For example, Blanning makes reference to Frederick's friendship with Voltaire before he discusses Frederick's friendship with Voltaire. The ordering of the chapters isn't entirely clear either. A chapter about Frederick's support for the arts comes earlier in the book, but the chapter about Frederick's sibling's is one of the last. The end result is that readers might encounter references that won't be fully explained until later in the book.
Moreover, Blanning doesn't dedicate much space in his book to providing context. There's little about the history of Prussia before Frederick's father, Frederick William. Blanning describes Frederick's role in the Seven Years' War in detail, but barely mentions the British role. This isn't necessarily a flaw in the book - after all, this is a biography of Frederick the Great, not a general history - but rather a cautionary note to readers that they will probably get more out of this book if they have at least a basic high school level of familiarity with European history.
Overall, I definitely recommend this book to students of European history, although some passing familiarity with Frederick and his times is recommended.
[Note: I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review] (less)
Tim Blanning's new biography of Frederick Blanning doesn't actively try to deconstruct the notion of Frederick as an enlightened despot, but he adds some nuance. Frederick often preached the virtues of rationalism and good governance, but he had his flaws. He was sometimes vindictive and stubborn. His policy on religious toleration seems to stem at least in part from his disdain for the church as it does from abstract notions of justice. But, as Blanning admits, Frederick did adopt a general policy of tolerance, perhaps more than any other European monarch at the time. As Frederick himself said, "In my domains, there is freedom of conscience and the cock."
Blanning spends quite a bit of time discussing Frederick's homosexuality. Blanning argues that this is an important part of Frederick's life, key to understanding his court and even some of his major decisions.
Indeed, Frederick's life seems surprisingly relevant to readers in the 21st century. Frederick dealt with questions about religious tolerance, homosexuality, judicial reform, international trade, and subsidies to industries. Blanning never draws explicit comparisons between our times and Frederick's, but the comparisons are there.
One issue I had with the book is that Blanning organizes is thematically rather than chronologically. For those readers unfamiliar with the broad outlines of Frederick's life, this can sometimes lead to confusion. For example, Blanning makes reference to Frederick's friendship with Voltaire before he discusses Frederick's friendship with Voltaire. The ordering of the chapters isn't entirely clear either. A chapter about Frederick's support for the arts comes earlier in the book, but the chapter about Frederick's sibling's is one of the last. The end result is that readers might encounter references that won't be fully explained until later in the book.
Moreover, Blanning doesn't dedicate much space in his book to providing context. There's little about the history of Prussia before Frederick's father, Frederick William. Blanning describes Frederick's role in the Seven Years' War in detail, but barely mentions the British role. This isn't necessarily a flaw in the book - after all, this is a biography of Frederick the Great, not a general history - but rather a cautionary note to readers that they will probably get more out of this book if they have at least a basic high school level of familiarity with European history.
Overall, I definitely recommend this book to students of European history, although some passing familiarity with Frederick and his times is recommended.
[Note: I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review] (less)
July 29, 2019
Well rounded study of all aspects of this very complex man. Military genius who made so many mistakes - Blanning describes him as more successful warlord than general; enlightened & progressive with regard to his people’s rights but treated most of his family as badly as he was by his father; a cultured figure with an understanding of literature who betrayed his allies constantly; reckoned later to be a great German national figure but wanted to promote French culture above German. Not a military study or a chronology but consistently interesting & showing clearly what a micro-manager he was of all fields of his country’s life.
April 17, 2021
The biography goes into great detail about his personal life, his intellectual pursuits, his character, and how he governed. Regretfully, there is relatively little on his military career, which is my main interest, although in all fairness there is no shortage of other works that treat that topic. I'm not sure I'd recommend it, and it did seem a bit of a slog to get through it all, but it is well written, and thoroughly researched. I do feel like I came away with a lot of insights to his character. And he did contribute almost singlehandedly to making Prussia a major power. Now without a fair number of mistakes along the way, but I doubt many could have accomplished what he managed.
February 9, 2020
Expertly researched, well balanced, nuanced and of a complexity worthy of its fascinating historical subject, this is perhaps the definitive biography of Prussia's most famous king.
January 15, 2017
Make no mistake: Tim Blanning's new biography of Frederick II of Prussia is a fantastic book. It is thoroughly well written and researched, and paints a warts-and-all picture of the king. But I simply couldn't give it four stars because the subject himself was so distasteful. There is much to admire about Frederick: (1) his personal bravery as both (a) a relatively unabashed homosexual in militarist Prussia, and (b) an adherent of the Enlightenment whose rejection of revealed religion was well-known; and (2) his ability to survive the combined military opposition of Austria, France and Russia during the Seven Years' War. But the man himself had a very nasty side: cutting, snide, and cruel, particularly in his relationships with his wife, siblings, and his nephew and heir, the future King Frederick William II. Frederick had been inhumanly bullied by his nasty father, and was only too ready to be even more of a bully himself when he sat on the throne. Let's also not forget that his hero was Voltaire; but when Voltaire left Prussia in 1753, Frederick had his goons illegally arrest and detain his idol at Frankfurt am Main. Most of all, of course, Frederick extolled militarism as the way to advance his kingdom, and ruled as an absolute monarch who would tolerate no variance from his orders. This two-pronged strategy nearly destroyed Prussia after the battle of Kunersdorf (1758), but more ominously, clearly has its echoes in the German disasters of 1918 and 1945. But I recommend Blanning's book highly.
May 17, 2021
4.5/5
I knew very little about this period of European history so this was really informative. Frederick is hilariously expressive; the book contains passages like
Tim Blanning isn't half-bad either. The book is dotted with his subtle wit, which makes this a reasonably easy read despite the organization of the book being only loosely chronological. Nonetheless, I did skip the second half of the chapter on Culture -- it became too much for me when the author started talking about how Frederick chose Corinthian columns for one part of his palace and Ionic for the other. The point was that Frederick cared enough about this stuff to take personal attention, but the book does get a bit repetitive on this point. The part on geopolitics and war provides a good if brief overview.In my opinion, this section could have been expanded, but I understand the difficulty of pleasing everyone. Edit: In hindsight, the blend of topics in the book is quite good.
I knew very little about this period of European history so this was really informative. Frederick is hilariously expressive; the book contains passages like
Frederick called the emperor “an old ghost of an idol who once had power but now counts for nothing.” Continuing the supernatural metaphor, he added that the Imperial Parliament (Reichstag) “is but a kind of phantom…The envoy which a sovereign sends thither resembles a yard-dog who bays at the moon.”
Tim Blanning isn't half-bad either. The book is dotted with his subtle wit, which makes this a reasonably easy read despite the organization of the book being only loosely chronological. Nonetheless, I did skip the second half of the chapter on Culture -- it became too much for me when the author started talking about how Frederick chose Corinthian columns for one part of his palace and Ionic for the other. The point was that Frederick cared enough about this stuff to take personal attention, but the book does get a bit repetitive on this point. The part on geopolitics and war provides a good if brief overview.
March 26, 2020
Frederick the Great is certainly a figure worth the effort to study. I enjoyed this moreso because I recently read about Catherine the Great and Maria Theresa, his contemporaries. His accession to the throne is not as dramatic as theirs. But his reign was certainly remarkable, in many ways. What I'll remember is that he was a very forward-thinking ruler--he embraced enlightenment. And his efforts to instill the Prussian pride in the people of Germany survived many generations--certainly through WWII and maybe even today.
My beef with the book is with the author. He spent far too much time exploring Frederick's sexuality. And some of the battles were explained in too much detail. The other thing that bothered me--the author seems to enjoy showing off his expansive vocabulary. It was never so bad as to get in the way of the story, but just a little irksome.
Nevertheless, I am glad I learned about this influential leader.
My beef with the book is with the author. He spent far too much time exploring Frederick's sexuality. And some of the battles were explained in too much detail. The other thing that bothered me--the author seems to enjoy showing off his expansive vocabulary. It was never so bad as to get in the way of the story, but just a little irksome.
Nevertheless, I am glad I learned about this influential leader.
November 13, 2017
Comprehensive, thorough and unafraid. Provides a good overview of the life of frederick while neither succumbing to the adulatory nor the derogatory approach.
April 6, 2025
Dr. Blanning is a historian whom I encountered when I read his excellent "The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648-1815". Having enjoyed it immensely I was pleased to find his history of Frederick the Great.
Frederick II, in German Fredrich, was King of Prussia from 1740 till 1786. He became known as Fredrick the Great (Friedrich der Große) and "Old Fritz" (der Alte Fritz). Grandson to Fredrich I, of the Hohenzollern dynasty, who was Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia (where he was known as Fredrich III), eventually becoming King IN Prussia, as opposed to King OF Prussia.
Fredrich II's father was Frederick William I who also became King in Prussia. Frederick William was a brutal and rough man. He did build a great army, but never used it. His dislike of his son may have caused many of the issues Fredrick the Great had.
Fredrick II was able to take his father's military and treasury and put it to use in order to turn Prussia from a backwater into a European powerhouse and becoming King OF Prussia. Dr. Blanning's excellent history delves deeply into Frederick's mindset and his actions.
Fredrick II was a complex ruler for his time. He was likely a homosexual, he was certainly an aethist, and strangely "enlightened" for his time and nationality. At the age of 28, Fredrick II became King. Then he started a whirlwind program of war and expansion. His first conflict was with the Hapsburgs and its called the War of Austrian Succession. The outcome of this is Prussia acquired territory in all of Silesia and Glatz County. The second part of this war, known as the Second Silesian War, had Prussia not only establish battlefield dominance but it also forced the Austrians to adhere to the gains Prussia made in the first Silesian War. This conflict would earn Frederick the sobriquet "The Great".
Blanning's history traces the ups and downs of Prussia's foreign policy and wars, but it is the wonderful look at subjects such as culture, Frederick's views on the public, on music, poetry, etc. It is one of the best histories of Frederick I've read and will deserve a prime spot on my shelf. If you are looking for a good analysis of the conflicts, the culture of Frederick and his personal views on a variety of topics and his contribution to the arts and education in Prussia, then you will enjoy this superb history book.
Frederick II, in German Fredrich, was King of Prussia from 1740 till 1786. He became known as Fredrick the Great (Friedrich der Große) and "Old Fritz" (der Alte Fritz). Grandson to Fredrich I, of the Hohenzollern dynasty, who was Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia (where he was known as Fredrich III), eventually becoming King IN Prussia, as opposed to King OF Prussia.
Fredrich II's father was Frederick William I who also became King in Prussia. Frederick William was a brutal and rough man. He did build a great army, but never used it. His dislike of his son may have caused many of the issues Fredrick the Great had.
Fredrick II was able to take his father's military and treasury and put it to use in order to turn Prussia from a backwater into a European powerhouse and becoming King OF Prussia. Dr. Blanning's excellent history delves deeply into Frederick's mindset and his actions.
Fredrick II was a complex ruler for his time. He was likely a homosexual, he was certainly an aethist, and strangely "enlightened" for his time and nationality. At the age of 28, Fredrick II became King. Then he started a whirlwind program of war and expansion. His first conflict was with the Hapsburgs and its called the War of Austrian Succession. The outcome of this is Prussia acquired territory in all of Silesia and Glatz County. The second part of this war, known as the Second Silesian War, had Prussia not only establish battlefield dominance but it also forced the Austrians to adhere to the gains Prussia made in the first Silesian War. This conflict would earn Frederick the sobriquet "The Great".
Blanning's history traces the ups and downs of Prussia's foreign policy and wars, but it is the wonderful look at subjects such as culture, Frederick's views on the public, on music, poetry, etc. It is one of the best histories of Frederick I've read and will deserve a prime spot on my shelf. If you are looking for a good analysis of the conflicts, the culture of Frederick and his personal views on a variety of topics and his contribution to the arts and education in Prussia, then you will enjoy this superb history book.
September 25, 2022
An excellent general study on the life and influence of King Frederick II. I flick back and forth on whether I personally consider him to be 'Great'. When I first learned in this book of how he attained this sobriquet I was confused as to how Frederick held onto this title into posterity. Many notable figures are proclaimed as great in contemporary times, but lose the veneer of greatness as it wears off when their regime and influence dissipates through time.
As you progress through the book, and particularly in the middle of the Seven Years' War, it becomes evident why he is 'Great'. He is not a brilliant military mind as I initially assumed, but by virtue of such gargantuan character, Frederick has a stronger claim than most statesmen that he singlehandedly ruled Prussia to great effect. That is not to say Frederick does not have flaws. In fact he has many, and that is what makes his reign that much more fascinating.
Blanning does a wonderful job of displaying all aspects of Frederick's life and reign in a clear manner. But I do have criticisms. There needed to be more maps to convey the battles and changing political landscapes. Much imagination is required when referring to the current maps. I will not criticise the lack of details in battles as this book clearly is meant to demonstrate the breadth of subjects that Frederick touches on and military was only one. Blanning does the military aspect to a sufficient degree all things considered. Where there is too much detail on was that Culture section. I must say it did give me a greater appreciation for culture during my time reading it (and gave me more classical musicians to catch up on), but wow was it a slog at times. To give a gaming metaphor, it is like trying to 100% complete every aspect your favourite role playing video game. While it may seem necessary to some, it ultimately is an arbitrary perfectionistic adventure, and ultimately makes the experience stale. I understood what Blanning was trying to impart to me, but I did not need to know the complete architectural, interior design, and artistic peculiarities of Frederick. That section could've been a quarter of the actual size and have been excellent. It is a testament to how tedious it was that I am banging on about it right now and making you feel the same tedium I felt. Join my suffering please.
There is a slight problem where Blanning clearly delves into a 30 page essay on his particular interests which is fine, but it becomes very apparent when you turn to the next section and it is only 3 pages long.
Nonetheless, I learnt a great deal about Frederick that I will carry into my academic life as well as my personal one. Whenever I look to study any period of Frederick's in further detail, I will surely reference this book many times.
As you progress through the book, and particularly in the middle of the Seven Years' War, it becomes evident why he is 'Great'. He is not a brilliant military mind as I initially assumed, but by virtue of such gargantuan character, Frederick has a stronger claim than most statesmen that he singlehandedly ruled Prussia to great effect. That is not to say Frederick does not have flaws. In fact he has many, and that is what makes his reign that much more fascinating.
Blanning does a wonderful job of displaying all aspects of Frederick's life and reign in a clear manner. But I do have criticisms. There needed to be more maps to convey the battles and changing political landscapes. Much imagination is required when referring to the current maps. I will not criticise the lack of details in battles as this book clearly is meant to demonstrate the breadth of subjects that Frederick touches on and military was only one. Blanning does the military aspect to a sufficient degree all things considered. Where there is too much detail on was that Culture section. I must say it did give me a greater appreciation for culture during my time reading it (and gave me more classical musicians to catch up on), but wow was it a slog at times. To give a gaming metaphor, it is like trying to 100% complete every aspect your favourite role playing video game. While it may seem necessary to some, it ultimately is an arbitrary perfectionistic adventure, and ultimately makes the experience stale. I understood what Blanning was trying to impart to me, but I did not need to know the complete architectural, interior design, and artistic peculiarities of Frederick. That section could've been a quarter of the actual size and have been excellent. It is a testament to how tedious it was that I am banging on about it right now and making you feel the same tedium I felt. Join my suffering please.
There is a slight problem where Blanning clearly delves into a 30 page essay on his particular interests which is fine, but it becomes very apparent when you turn to the next section and it is only 3 pages long.
Nonetheless, I learnt a great deal about Frederick that I will carry into my academic life as well as my personal one. Whenever I look to study any period of Frederick's in further detail, I will surely reference this book many times.
August 30, 2018
This is an excellent history of a very, very fascinating man. He grew up in the early eighteenth century under the thumb of a cruel and heartless father who detested Frederick because of the latter’s effeminate ways, love of the arts and totally inept at becoming a soldier.
“Everything Frederick said or did, whether it was riding, or even just walking, set his father’s teeth on edge.” (40”
“Physical violence was now common. In the same month, Frederick was thrown to the ground and forced to kiss his father’s feet.” (42)
“On a visit to Radewitz in Saxony in May 1730, Frederick William punched Frederick in the face, tore his hair and then made him pass across the parade ground so that everyone could witness the visible effects of his humiliation.” (43)
With the death of his father in 1740, Frederick not only got out from under the thumb of this heartless man but also became King of Prussia.
He immediately sent his state architect on an extended trip to Italy to study opera houses both historic and modern.
Frederick had then sent him (Georg Wenceslaus Baron von Knoblesdorff) on an extended tour of Italy in 1736-1737 to study buildings ancient and modern, especially theater.
“On his return, Knoblesdorff set about turning Rheinsberg into a residence fir for a crown prince. The result was a country house of modest size but pleasing proportions, whose exterior has survived more or less unchanged until the present day. (54)
“Music for him was much more than an agreeable recreation and something to entertain the private man in moments of leisure. Throughout his life, he saw it an integral part of who he was and what he did.”
“The Berlin Opera House was the metropolitan cathedral of Frederick’s art-religion.” (154)
“His most ambitious orchestral works –four flute concertos and a symphony in D major—he composed while still crown prince.” (163)
“From then on he confined himself to operatic arias, courtly dances and especially flute sonatas. By the time he abandoned composition altogether, he had composed one hundred twenty-one of the last named.” (163)
When it came to governing, Frederick was a man who would not hesitate to choose war if it could further his plans for more land and more influence on the European powers.
After writing a polemic against the writings of Machiavelli, he immediately invaded Silesia. This brought down upon him the ire of Austria and France, who both had substantially larger armies than he. However, they did not have the war chest Frederick had bequeathed to him by his father.
He proved to be rather inept at leading his armies and lost battle after battle until he was on the cusp of annihilation only by sheer force of will and infrequent bouts of ingenuity he then began to win victories. The last two years of the War of Austrian Succession he did not have to fight any battles as the alliance against him turned on each other. In the treaty that ended, he was rewarded with possession of Silesia.
His tactlessness in diplomacy would bring war again.
An illustration of his tactlessness is in his written description of Catherine of Russia:
“A woman is always a woman and, in feminine government, the cunt has more influence than firm policy guided by sound reason.” (321)
When the Seven Years War broke out he not only had France and Austria against him but also Russia and the smaller powers in the Holy Roman Empire. It was the largest and most powerful alliance in the history of the world. The purpose was to annihilate Frederick and Prussia with him.
Faced with these odds Frederick prepared himself for the worse carrying around his neck a small container with poison pills which he intended on taking if things went awry.
The early battles were again disastrous for his armies but somehow he survived the first year doing a little better the next year and by the third year things began to change in his favor. Austria was having money problems and had to take twenty thousand troops off the field while France had its hands full with war with Britain and though Russia won its first battles again Prussia they soon began to wane in efficiency while Frederick’s army trained and drilled hard at the cadet school in Berlin and made up of noblemen who were completely beholding to Frederick’s generosity fought bravely and often with great ingenuity flanking larger gatherings of troops than their own armies possessed.
By the time the treaty was signed to end the war, Frederick again had all of Silesia as well as Saxony and his place among the European powers was established.
Once the war was over he turned his attention back to governance building three canals which allowed ships on their way to the Baltic or North Seas to do so by passing through Prussian territory, taking control of agriculture with crop rotation and the introduction of the potato as a field crop, manufacturing of wool and eventually porcelain basically taking over the European market for both and several other commercial enterprises that built back up his depleted treasury.
On the social front he supported the arts and sciences, demanded and got complete freedom of religion and in fitting with his own homosexuality ordered all his citizens free to make love anyway they wished.
“And we cannot make the point often enough—Frederick gave the arts and the sciences the best possible wet nurses: security, liberty and toleration.” Leonard Meister (383)
Coming to the end of his life he ended up treating his successor, a nephew, as badly as his father had treated him and it cost him.
“Frederick’s favorite dogs were not sturdy hunting dogs bred for strength and stamina, but little Italian Greyhounds and Whippets, combining elegance, delicacy and refinement. Three or four of them were constant companions, given free run of the royal apartments and accompanying their master when he went outside for rides or walks.” (489)
“At 2:19 AM, Thursday 17 August (1786), he expired. It need hardly be added that no clergyman was in attendance.
“For forty-six years, Frederick had tried to rule Prussia single-handed.” (495)
His instructions were that there was to be no pomp or public display at his death and he was to be buried next to his dogs. His nephew, the new king, disregarded his wishes, had extravagant funerals and displays and had him buried in a church in Potsdam. In 1945 following the allied bombings, his grave was discovered and in 1991 he was finally buried next to his beloved dogs.
An excellent history well-written and a story of a fascinating man well-told.
“Everything Frederick said or did, whether it was riding, or even just walking, set his father’s teeth on edge.” (40”
“Physical violence was now common. In the same month, Frederick was thrown to the ground and forced to kiss his father’s feet.” (42)
“On a visit to Radewitz in Saxony in May 1730, Frederick William punched Frederick in the face, tore his hair and then made him pass across the parade ground so that everyone could witness the visible effects of his humiliation.” (43)
With the death of his father in 1740, Frederick not only got out from under the thumb of this heartless man but also became King of Prussia.
He immediately sent his state architect on an extended trip to Italy to study opera houses both historic and modern.
Frederick had then sent him (Georg Wenceslaus Baron von Knoblesdorff) on an extended tour of Italy in 1736-1737 to study buildings ancient and modern, especially theater.
“On his return, Knoblesdorff set about turning Rheinsberg into a residence fir for a crown prince. The result was a country house of modest size but pleasing proportions, whose exterior has survived more or less unchanged until the present day. (54)
“Music for him was much more than an agreeable recreation and something to entertain the private man in moments of leisure. Throughout his life, he saw it an integral part of who he was and what he did.”
“The Berlin Opera House was the metropolitan cathedral of Frederick’s art-religion.” (154)
“His most ambitious orchestral works –four flute concertos and a symphony in D major—he composed while still crown prince.” (163)
“From then on he confined himself to operatic arias, courtly dances and especially flute sonatas. By the time he abandoned composition altogether, he had composed one hundred twenty-one of the last named.” (163)
When it came to governing, Frederick was a man who would not hesitate to choose war if it could further his plans for more land and more influence on the European powers.
After writing a polemic against the writings of Machiavelli, he immediately invaded Silesia. This brought down upon him the ire of Austria and France, who both had substantially larger armies than he. However, they did not have the war chest Frederick had bequeathed to him by his father.
He proved to be rather inept at leading his armies and lost battle after battle until he was on the cusp of annihilation only by sheer force of will and infrequent bouts of ingenuity he then began to win victories. The last two years of the War of Austrian Succession he did not have to fight any battles as the alliance against him turned on each other. In the treaty that ended, he was rewarded with possession of Silesia.
His tactlessness in diplomacy would bring war again.
An illustration of his tactlessness is in his written description of Catherine of Russia:
“A woman is always a woman and, in feminine government, the cunt has more influence than firm policy guided by sound reason.” (321)
When the Seven Years War broke out he not only had France and Austria against him but also Russia and the smaller powers in the Holy Roman Empire. It was the largest and most powerful alliance in the history of the world. The purpose was to annihilate Frederick and Prussia with him.
Faced with these odds Frederick prepared himself for the worse carrying around his neck a small container with poison pills which he intended on taking if things went awry.
The early battles were again disastrous for his armies but somehow he survived the first year doing a little better the next year and by the third year things began to change in his favor. Austria was having money problems and had to take twenty thousand troops off the field while France had its hands full with war with Britain and though Russia won its first battles again Prussia they soon began to wane in efficiency while Frederick’s army trained and drilled hard at the cadet school in Berlin and made up of noblemen who were completely beholding to Frederick’s generosity fought bravely and often with great ingenuity flanking larger gatherings of troops than their own armies possessed.
By the time the treaty was signed to end the war, Frederick again had all of Silesia as well as Saxony and his place among the European powers was established.
Once the war was over he turned his attention back to governance building three canals which allowed ships on their way to the Baltic or North Seas to do so by passing through Prussian territory, taking control of agriculture with crop rotation and the introduction of the potato as a field crop, manufacturing of wool and eventually porcelain basically taking over the European market for both and several other commercial enterprises that built back up his depleted treasury.
On the social front he supported the arts and sciences, demanded and got complete freedom of religion and in fitting with his own homosexuality ordered all his citizens free to make love anyway they wished.
“And we cannot make the point often enough—Frederick gave the arts and the sciences the best possible wet nurses: security, liberty and toleration.” Leonard Meister (383)
Coming to the end of his life he ended up treating his successor, a nephew, as badly as his father had treated him and it cost him.
“Frederick’s favorite dogs were not sturdy hunting dogs bred for strength and stamina, but little Italian Greyhounds and Whippets, combining elegance, delicacy and refinement. Three or four of them were constant companions, given free run of the royal apartments and accompanying their master when he went outside for rides or walks.” (489)
“At 2:19 AM, Thursday 17 August (1786), he expired. It need hardly be added that no clergyman was in attendance.
“For forty-six years, Frederick had tried to rule Prussia single-handed.” (495)
His instructions were that there was to be no pomp or public display at his death and he was to be buried next to his dogs. His nephew, the new king, disregarded his wishes, had extravagant funerals and displays and had him buried in a church in Potsdam. In 1945 following the allied bombings, his grave was discovered and in 1991 he was finally buried next to his beloved dogs.
An excellent history well-written and a story of a fascinating man well-told.
November 18, 2017
I have rarely consumed a 500+ page nonfiction book as quickly as this one. Blanning obviously has superb writing that is clear, concise, and flowing. Often overlooked in American history books, Frederick is relegated to a shadowy status of military conqueror with little more. Prussia was not as fascinating as Western Europe, and not as significant as the western powers. Blanning offers a rather scathing review of Frederick. Yes, he was a conqueror; but more than that, he was....crude.
Blanning's treatment of Frederick is possibly balanced. I have only read some brief biographies that praise him. Blanning acknowledges that Frederick had great charisma and something of a cult following; but he also shows his nastiness, arrogance, narcissism, hedonism, and greed, and selfishness. Blanning's subject is not a hero; but a very fallible man.
Blanning spends a lot of time arguing that Frederick's father oppressed the boy and forced him to live a Spartan, or at least manly - masculine life. The father aggressively controlled Frederick's education, clothing, associates, hobbies, and life. Blanning makes a strong argument that Frederick was a homosexual; and that fact alone accounts for much of his father's severity. Frederick Wilhelm I did not want a feminine homosexual succeeding him. During his father's life time, Frederick did not show much interest in administration or military matters. However, the strict paternal interference clearly had an impact on the boy.
When Frederick became king, the world was crumbling around him. Austria was falling into the War of Austrian Succession. This left the HRE without an emperor. Russia was going through political upheavals. Sweden still controlled parts of Pomerania; but everyone knew their time was over. Great Britain, France, and Spain were all focused on each other and their colonies. By contrast, Prussia was stable, wealthy, and ably prepared for war. Frederick decided he would seize Silesia from Austria without any pretext or claims. He spent the better part of his life keeping it.
Silesia was a very wealthy province. It was also very stable making it one of Austria's most valuable provinces. Maria Theresa did build an army to expel Prussia; but had to concede in the short term. However, within a decade, Maria had built an alliance of Austria, France, Sweden, Russia, and the HRE focused against Prussia. Blanning makes a strong case that Frederick helped her form the alliance because he was so hostile to female rulers (Russia, Austria, and Madame Pompadeur). His antagonism to female influence at court was such that he broke Prussia's long-standing ties to France and pushed them into an alliance with their traditional enemy, Austria.
The following war led to Frederick's (and Prussia's) reputation. Although Frederick lost as many battles as he won, he bled Prussia and his greed over Silesia led to the loss of many veterans and commanders. At one point he asked here members of on distinguished family were, and was informed they were all dead from the wars. It appears that luck saved Prussia. Frederick's charisma kept Prussia fighting and building more armies. However, he was quick to blame his commanders and take credit for their success. Blanning is not totally committed to that idea. However, when the czarina died, a young man who loved the militaristic Prussian camp and ethos took over Russia and removed them from the war. The peace let Prussia keep Silesia.
Frederick may have learned his lesson. The rest of his life appears to be devoted to diplomacy and building coalitions to prevent such wars. He brilliantly boxed in Joseph II of Austria; and then the Russians who kept fighting Turkey and Poland. Blanning argues that Frederick was the brainchild behind the partition of Poland in 1772 wherein Austria, Prussia, and Russia took large pieces of Poland so that Russia would not take large pieces of Turkey. Blanning argues that these coalitions fell apart after Frederick's death and led to renewed war and the rise of Napoleon.
Overall, this is an impressive piece. Blanning removes the opaque covers of Frederick to reveal a skilled but very flawed ruler. Frederick may have been very liberal, especially when given the opportunity to reverse his father's policies; but he remained an enlightened monarch. As such he had difficulty in delegating tasks and supporting his subordinates. His charisma and demands maintained his reputation at the sake of everyone else in Prussia. The fact that his brother published a revised history of the Silesian Wars after Frederick's death to exculpate many of the Prussian commanders and relegate Frederick to spectator status speaks volumes about Frederick's personality. Overall, this is a fascinating book.
Blanning's treatment of Frederick is possibly balanced. I have only read some brief biographies that praise him. Blanning acknowledges that Frederick had great charisma and something of a cult following; but he also shows his nastiness, arrogance, narcissism, hedonism, and greed, and selfishness. Blanning's subject is not a hero; but a very fallible man.
Blanning spends a lot of time arguing that Frederick's father oppressed the boy and forced him to live a Spartan, or at least manly - masculine life. The father aggressively controlled Frederick's education, clothing, associates, hobbies, and life. Blanning makes a strong argument that Frederick was a homosexual; and that fact alone accounts for much of his father's severity. Frederick Wilhelm I did not want a feminine homosexual succeeding him. During his father's life time, Frederick did not show much interest in administration or military matters. However, the strict paternal interference clearly had an impact on the boy.
When Frederick became king, the world was crumbling around him. Austria was falling into the War of Austrian Succession. This left the HRE without an emperor. Russia was going through political upheavals. Sweden still controlled parts of Pomerania; but everyone knew their time was over. Great Britain, France, and Spain were all focused on each other and their colonies. By contrast, Prussia was stable, wealthy, and ably prepared for war. Frederick decided he would seize Silesia from Austria without any pretext or claims. He spent the better part of his life keeping it.
Silesia was a very wealthy province. It was also very stable making it one of Austria's most valuable provinces. Maria Theresa did build an army to expel Prussia; but had to concede in the short term. However, within a decade, Maria had built an alliance of Austria, France, Sweden, Russia, and the HRE focused against Prussia. Blanning makes a strong case that Frederick helped her form the alliance because he was so hostile to female rulers (Russia, Austria, and Madame Pompadeur). His antagonism to female influence at court was such that he broke Prussia's long-standing ties to France and pushed them into an alliance with their traditional enemy, Austria.
The following war led to Frederick's (and Prussia's) reputation. Although Frederick lost as many battles as he won, he bled Prussia and his greed over Silesia led to the loss of many veterans and commanders. At one point he asked here members of on distinguished family were, and was informed they were all dead from the wars. It appears that luck saved Prussia. Frederick's charisma kept Prussia fighting and building more armies. However, he was quick to blame his commanders and take credit for their success. Blanning is not totally committed to that idea. However, when the czarina died, a young man who loved the militaristic Prussian camp and ethos took over Russia and removed them from the war. The peace let Prussia keep Silesia.
Frederick may have learned his lesson. The rest of his life appears to be devoted to diplomacy and building coalitions to prevent such wars. He brilliantly boxed in Joseph II of Austria; and then the Russians who kept fighting Turkey and Poland. Blanning argues that Frederick was the brainchild behind the partition of Poland in 1772 wherein Austria, Prussia, and Russia took large pieces of Poland so that Russia would not take large pieces of Turkey. Blanning argues that these coalitions fell apart after Frederick's death and led to renewed war and the rise of Napoleon.
Overall, this is an impressive piece. Blanning removes the opaque covers of Frederick to reveal a skilled but very flawed ruler. Frederick may have been very liberal, especially when given the opportunity to reverse his father's policies; but he remained an enlightened monarch. As such he had difficulty in delegating tasks and supporting his subordinates. His charisma and demands maintained his reputation at the sake of everyone else in Prussia. The fact that his brother published a revised history of the Silesian Wars after Frederick's death to exculpate many of the Prussian commanders and relegate Frederick to spectator status speaks volumes about Frederick's personality. Overall, this is a fascinating book.
March 25, 2025
Excellent glimpse into the reign of one of Europe’s most crucial figures. An insightful and entertaining look at his life and the events that shaped him. Strikes a very neat balance between evaluating the political life of Frederick and the man himself.
April 11, 2025
Never before has a historical figure been so different to how I imagined them. I knew Frederick was gay, the product of an overbearing father and a fan of the finer things. However, the bullying, outright misogynistic, secretive and micromanaging elements of his personality were of great surprise to me; having previously read that he was an enlightened monarch, he seems in fact closer to a member of the North Korean Kim dynasty in some aspects his style of rule, not least closely inspecting the conductor’s score as the orchestra played. He was also notoriously snobbish, even deriding the German language and suggesting that German infinitives add an -a to be come more pleasing to the ear, for example sagena (p. 343). Nonetheless, Old Fritz was not without his good qualities and makes for one of the most interesting figures in European history.
Blanning himself weaves excellently between the personal and the political, clearly explaining how Prussia’s sudden seizure of Silesia from Austria and their changing relationship with Saxony set the stage for reallignment of European alliances (not least Austria dumping Britain for their arch-nemesis France) and the subsequent Seven Years’ War.
…the rival Wettins of Saxony, Wittelsbachs of Bavaria or Habsburgs of Austria… (p. xxiii)
It was no accident that the most efficient local government in Europe was to be found in England and Prussia, for in both it was based on partnership between the sovereign at the centre and the notables in the localities. If the English Justices of the Peace were 'partners in oligarchy',* the Prussian Landräte were 'partners in autocracy'. (p. 9)
Frederick William's notorious obsession with very large soldiers meant that very large - and slow - horses had to be found for them: 'giants on elephants' was his son's dismissive comment… …the Austrian cavalry found it all too easy to immobilize their
opponents' gigantic but ponderous horses with one sabre slash to the head. (p. 14)
…Elector Frederick III announced that henceforth he would be Frederick I King in Prussia': 'in Prussia' rather than 'of Prussia' because West Prussia remained under Polish suzerainty. Prussia rather than Brandenburg was chosen for the title because it lay outside the Holy Roman Empire and was unquestionably a sovereign possession. (p. 22)
…Frederick's anti-machiavellism penetrated only the intellectual side of his nature, whereas his machiavellism was a natural force. (p. 78)
There is just too much evidence from both public and private life to avoid the conclusion that Frederick's relations with other people were authoritarian to the point of being dictatorial. This can be seen with special clarity in the cultural sphere to which he devoted so much time and money. In his opera house Frederick chose not to sit in the royal box but preferred a seat immediately in front of the orchestra pit, so that he could keep a sharp eye on both the stage and the musical director's score. (p. 132)
On the one hand, the rise of Prussia and Russia to great-power status had been mutually supportive. It was Peter the Great who had dealt with the two great rivals of the House of Hohenzollern, by defeating Charles XII of Sweden and Augustus the Strong of Saxony-Poland in the Great Northern War. The victory made Russia the dominant power in the eastern Baltic but also created a vacuum in north-eastern Germany, into which Prussia gratefully moved. It has even been argued that Prussia was the real victor of the war, despite its modest and intermittent military contribution. It bears repeating that the 'hereditary enemy' of Prussia was not so much Austria as Saxony-Poland. (p. 191)
Together, Russia and Prussia were able to frustrate French attempts to create an 'Eastern Barrier’ comprising Sweden, Poland and Turkey and to get Louis XV's father-in-law, Stanislas Leszczynski, elected as King of Poland when Augustus Il ('the Strong') died in 1733. (p. 192)
With the advantage of hindsight, we can see that both the British and the Austrians were fumbling their way to a recognition that their interests were now essentially different - not necessarily opposed, but definitely different. The British had no interest in Silesia; the Austrians had no interest in the world outside Europe. The Austrians could not send an army to America; the British could not send a fleet up the river Oder. (p. 197)
He added that the young Württembergers detailed to march off in support of the French were told in no uncertain fashion that they could not fight with a clear conscience against Frederick, the protector of the Protestant faith. (p. 220)
The example was set right at the top. As we have seen, at home at Sanssouci or in the Potsdam Town Palace, Frederick was positively self-indulgent. But once he took the campaigning trail, or even went on peacetime exercises, quite a different regime was followed. Anticipating Napoleon, he went out of his way to impress on all ranks that he was one of them, that they were all in it together, sharing the dan-gers, the discomforts and the triumphs. This meant riding with the men, talking to them in dialect, visiting them as they sat around the campfire, laughing at their jokes, however crude, sleeping under canvas at the centre of the camp, remembering their names, and so on. (p. 273)
If Frederick had been killed at Kunersdorf or had committed suicide afterwards (which he seems to have contemplated), Henry would have made a peace that returned Silesia to Austria and Prussia to second-rank status. And that, ultimately, was Frederick's greatest contribution to his success: his indomitable will and ruthless determination to keep going, no matter how desperate the situation looked. In short, he was an indifferent general but a brilliant warlord. (p. 281)
…he estimated that in a state with a population of Io million, the peasants, labourers, artisans and soldiers would be beyond reach of the educator. Of the 50,000 remaining, half could also be excluded because they were women. Of the remaining nobles and educated bourgeois, the shiftless, the imbecilic, the faint-hearted and the debauched would have to be weeded out, leaving no more than 1,000 well-read people. Even among that residue there would be a great variety of talent…
…This crushing verdict on the general public came in a private letter and it was only when he knew he would not be overheard that Frederick gave full vent to his jaundiced view of humanity, as the following brief but representative selection reveals:
- How often has one seen clever charlatans confirm the errors of the stupid public!
- Three quarters of the world are ignorant and stupid.
- The public is blind and born to be misled.
- The idiot public is enslaved for life to its vacuous prejudices. (p. 336)
His declared aversion to their culture was paradoxically 'highly beneficial' for German writers, because it spurred them on by provoking a reaction. Goethe continued: More-over, in the same way, Frederick's aversion to the German language as the medium for literature was a good thing for German writers. They did everything they could to make the King take notice of them.’ That Frederick's remarks about German literature were ill-informed, one-sided and even at times absurd, did not matter. What was important was the entry of the King of Prussia to the public domain to take on all-comers. (p. 352)
…those who stole because of folly or poverty were not to be punished with full rigour, especially if there was hope of rehabilitation and no violence had been involved. Robbery with violence, however, especially if planned in advance and committed by a gang should be penalized by death or life imprisonment. (p. 390-391)
This particular prejudice was shared of course with all but a small minority of contemporaries, but in Frederick's case it may well have been strengthened by his admiration of the notoriously anti-Semitic Voltaire… …His declared willingness to build mosques and temples to attract Turkish and pagan immigrants did not extend to synagogues. (p. 380)
Frederick cared. There are too many examples of his concern to get justice for the peasants for it to be dismissed as a pose. (p. 401)
…the Dutch (so slow-witted that it takes them an hour to get out two words), the English (corrupt, suicidal, sport-mad, millionaires down to the beggars, syphilitic), the Portuguese (whose king is so devout that he takes a nun as his mistress), the Russians (who had only been walking upright on two legs since Peter the Great)… (p. 447)
Blanning himself weaves excellently between the personal and the political, clearly explaining how Prussia’s sudden seizure of Silesia from Austria and their changing relationship with Saxony set the stage for reallignment of European alliances (not least Austria dumping Britain for their arch-nemesis France) and the subsequent Seven Years’ War.
…the rival Wettins of Saxony, Wittelsbachs of Bavaria or Habsburgs of Austria… (p. xxiii)
It was no accident that the most efficient local government in Europe was to be found in England and Prussia, for in both it was based on partnership between the sovereign at the centre and the notables in the localities. If the English Justices of the Peace were 'partners in oligarchy',* the Prussian Landräte were 'partners in autocracy'. (p. 9)
Frederick William's notorious obsession with very large soldiers meant that very large - and slow - horses had to be found for them: 'giants on elephants' was his son's dismissive comment… …the Austrian cavalry found it all too easy to immobilize their
opponents' gigantic but ponderous horses with one sabre slash to the head. (p. 14)
…Elector Frederick III announced that henceforth he would be Frederick I King in Prussia': 'in Prussia' rather than 'of Prussia' because West Prussia remained under Polish suzerainty. Prussia rather than Brandenburg was chosen for the title because it lay outside the Holy Roman Empire and was unquestionably a sovereign possession. (p. 22)
…Frederick's anti-machiavellism penetrated only the intellectual side of his nature, whereas his machiavellism was a natural force. (p. 78)
There is just too much evidence from both public and private life to avoid the conclusion that Frederick's relations with other people were authoritarian to the point of being dictatorial. This can be seen with special clarity in the cultural sphere to which he devoted so much time and money. In his opera house Frederick chose not to sit in the royal box but preferred a seat immediately in front of the orchestra pit, so that he could keep a sharp eye on both the stage and the musical director's score. (p. 132)
On the one hand, the rise of Prussia and Russia to great-power status had been mutually supportive. It was Peter the Great who had dealt with the two great rivals of the House of Hohenzollern, by defeating Charles XII of Sweden and Augustus the Strong of Saxony-Poland in the Great Northern War. The victory made Russia the dominant power in the eastern Baltic but also created a vacuum in north-eastern Germany, into which Prussia gratefully moved. It has even been argued that Prussia was the real victor of the war, despite its modest and intermittent military contribution. It bears repeating that the 'hereditary enemy' of Prussia was not so much Austria as Saxony-Poland. (p. 191)
Together, Russia and Prussia were able to frustrate French attempts to create an 'Eastern Barrier’ comprising Sweden, Poland and Turkey and to get Louis XV's father-in-law, Stanislas Leszczynski, elected as King of Poland when Augustus Il ('the Strong') died in 1733. (p. 192)
With the advantage of hindsight, we can see that both the British and the Austrians were fumbling their way to a recognition that their interests were now essentially different - not necessarily opposed, but definitely different. The British had no interest in Silesia; the Austrians had no interest in the world outside Europe. The Austrians could not send an army to America; the British could not send a fleet up the river Oder. (p. 197)
He added that the young Württembergers detailed to march off in support of the French were told in no uncertain fashion that they could not fight with a clear conscience against Frederick, the protector of the Protestant faith. (p. 220)
The example was set right at the top. As we have seen, at home at Sanssouci or in the Potsdam Town Palace, Frederick was positively self-indulgent. But once he took the campaigning trail, or even went on peacetime exercises, quite a different regime was followed. Anticipating Napoleon, he went out of his way to impress on all ranks that he was one of them, that they were all in it together, sharing the dan-gers, the discomforts and the triumphs. This meant riding with the men, talking to them in dialect, visiting them as they sat around the campfire, laughing at their jokes, however crude, sleeping under canvas at the centre of the camp, remembering their names, and so on. (p. 273)
If Frederick had been killed at Kunersdorf or had committed suicide afterwards (which he seems to have contemplated), Henry would have made a peace that returned Silesia to Austria and Prussia to second-rank status. And that, ultimately, was Frederick's greatest contribution to his success: his indomitable will and ruthless determination to keep going, no matter how desperate the situation looked. In short, he was an indifferent general but a brilliant warlord. (p. 281)
…he estimated that in a state with a population of Io million, the peasants, labourers, artisans and soldiers would be beyond reach of the educator. Of the 50,000 remaining, half could also be excluded because they were women. Of the remaining nobles and educated bourgeois, the shiftless, the imbecilic, the faint-hearted and the debauched would have to be weeded out, leaving no more than 1,000 well-read people. Even among that residue there would be a great variety of talent…
…This crushing verdict on the general public came in a private letter and it was only when he knew he would not be overheard that Frederick gave full vent to his jaundiced view of humanity, as the following brief but representative selection reveals:
- How often has one seen clever charlatans confirm the errors of the stupid public!
- Three quarters of the world are ignorant and stupid.
- The public is blind and born to be misled.
- The idiot public is enslaved for life to its vacuous prejudices. (p. 336)
His declared aversion to their culture was paradoxically 'highly beneficial' for German writers, because it spurred them on by provoking a reaction. Goethe continued: More-over, in the same way, Frederick's aversion to the German language as the medium for literature was a good thing for German writers. They did everything they could to make the King take notice of them.’ That Frederick's remarks about German literature were ill-informed, one-sided and even at times absurd, did not matter. What was important was the entry of the King of Prussia to the public domain to take on all-comers. (p. 352)
…those who stole because of folly or poverty were not to be punished with full rigour, especially if there was hope of rehabilitation and no violence had been involved. Robbery with violence, however, especially if planned in advance and committed by a gang should be penalized by death or life imprisonment. (p. 390-391)
This particular prejudice was shared of course with all but a small minority of contemporaries, but in Frederick's case it may well have been strengthened by his admiration of the notoriously anti-Semitic Voltaire… …His declared willingness to build mosques and temples to attract Turkish and pagan immigrants did not extend to synagogues. (p. 380)
Frederick cared. There are too many examples of his concern to get justice for the peasants for it to be dismissed as a pose. (p. 401)
…the Dutch (so slow-witted that it takes them an hour to get out two words), the English (corrupt, suicidal, sport-mad, millionaires down to the beggars, syphilitic), the Portuguese (whose king is so devout that he takes a nun as his mistress), the Russians (who had only been walking upright on two legs since Peter the Great)… (p. 447)
May 29, 2017
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention two things. The first is that I purchased this biography in the gift shop immediately outside the Neues Palais in Potsdam after a full day of being visually gobsmacked by Frederick II's architectural legacy. The second is that I purchased this specific biography because, while touring Charlottenburg the day before, several of the details of Frederick's life mentioned on the audio guide had me surreptitiously googling "Was Frederick II gay?", and the second hit was Allen Lane's glowing review of this book in The Spectator. All of which is to say that I was not only predisposed to be fascinated by Blanning's work, but to agree with the conclusions he draws about his subject's life. It's not every read that gets such a priming.
Blanning, an emeritus professor of history at Cambridge who apparently never met an 18th century archive he didn't love, divides his book into three parts: the Sufferings and Greatness of Frederick, War and Peace, and On the Home Front - or, as I like to think of them, the Montage, the Military, and the Miscellanea. The first third provides a social, historical, and familial background in which Frederick can be understood, focusing on how his relationship with his abusive father shaped him. The second, which is not the longest section of the book but sure feels like it to someone as uninterested in military history as I am, details Frederick's many campaigns. The third is an Everything But the Kitchen Sink grab-bag which touches on subjects from agriculture to censorship to the treatment of the Jews under Frederick's reign.
If I have a complaint to make about this book -which is fascinating, full of detail, and footnoted within an inch of its life - it relates to that structure, which separates concurrent events to deal with them in either the personal or political context rather than treating them as a whole. From a narrative standpoint of relating the progression of the various wars Frederick fought I suppose that makes sense, as it's hard enough to follow why and how all these intermarried and related people were trying to kill each other, but it does tend to make it feel like Frederick went off to war for thirty years in the middle of his reign and that all his other projects were squeezed in at the beginning and the end. Given that said projects and the monarch's personal life (gay atheist!) were the subject of greatest interest for me, that was a little frustrating.
Lest you start casting academic stones, I should point out that Blanning is clear that the conclusions he draws about Frederick's sexuality are unconfirmed, as there are no primary documents that establish the monarch's preferences beyond a shadow of the doubt, and that different social and sexual mores make reading anything into 18th century behavior a tricky prospect. (That atheism thing, though? Rock solid.) For my part, I tend to think that history could use a few more badass gay atheists, so I'm willing to stipulate it.
Overall, Frederick the Great is a thorough and informative read that offers real insight into its subject, whose personal memoirs are quoted extensively therein. While the middle section's focus on military history may be off-putting to those (like me) who are less interested in armed encounters than in their political results, Blanning's clear writing and excellent research make for a compelling read.
Blanning, an emeritus professor of history at Cambridge who apparently never met an 18th century archive he didn't love, divides his book into three parts: the Sufferings and Greatness of Frederick, War and Peace, and On the Home Front - or, as I like to think of them, the Montage, the Military, and the Miscellanea. The first third provides a social, historical, and familial background in which Frederick can be understood, focusing on how his relationship with his abusive father shaped him. The second, which is not the longest section of the book but sure feels like it to someone as uninterested in military history as I am, details Frederick's many campaigns. The third is an Everything But the Kitchen Sink grab-bag which touches on subjects from agriculture to censorship to the treatment of the Jews under Frederick's reign.
If I have a complaint to make about this book -which is fascinating, full of detail, and footnoted within an inch of its life - it relates to that structure, which separates concurrent events to deal with them in either the personal or political context rather than treating them as a whole. From a narrative standpoint of relating the progression of the various wars Frederick fought I suppose that makes sense, as it's hard enough to follow why and how all these intermarried and related people were trying to kill each other, but it does tend to make it feel like Frederick went off to war for thirty years in the middle of his reign and that all his other projects were squeezed in at the beginning and the end. Given that said projects and the monarch's personal life (gay atheist!) were the subject of greatest interest for me, that was a little frustrating.
Lest you start casting academic stones, I should point out that Blanning is clear that the conclusions he draws about Frederick's sexuality are unconfirmed, as there are no primary documents that establish the monarch's preferences beyond a shadow of the doubt, and that different social and sexual mores make reading anything into 18th century behavior a tricky prospect. (That atheism thing, though? Rock solid.) For my part, I tend to think that history could use a few more badass gay atheists, so I'm willing to stipulate it.
Overall, Frederick the Great is a thorough and informative read that offers real insight into its subject, whose personal memoirs are quoted extensively therein. While the middle section's focus on military history may be off-putting to those (like me) who are less interested in armed encounters than in their political results, Blanning's clear writing and excellent research make for a compelling read.
September 6, 2021
Frederick the Great lived two lives. From 1712 until his father's death in 1740, he was physically and psychologically tortured by his father, the King. Frederick was not really interested in the
"manly" activities his father endorsed: fighting, hunting, military drilling; instead he loved reading and music. But his father was so adamant that these were "unmanly" that he had to hide his extensive library at a sympathetic bookseller's and hide his flute whenever his father was around.
His father tried to break Frederick's resistance. When Frederick tried to escape his father's tyranny with two friends, his plot was foiled. One friend escaped to England, the other was beheaded with Frederick forced to watch from his prison window.
After his father's death and his own accession to the throne, he lived a very different life for his remaining 46 years. He shut the wife his father made him marry into her own small palace. He designed and built his own palace, Sans Souci, where he was surrounded by musicians, philosophers, and an assortment of men that he fancied. Foremost among his philosopher friends was Voltaire, with whom he had a lifetime correspondence and who lived with Frederick for about three years.
Frederick's forced military training came in handy when he decided to bolster the Prussian kingdom by forcibly annexing neighboring territories. He was ultimately successful, but spent 25 years in wars with Austria, France, and Russia. The toll in these bloody battles was terrible for all parties involved.
Blanning has done an enormous amount of research, surveying the vast number of previous biographies and the recently more accessible 60+ volumes of Frederick's letters and records. Blanning assesses his predecessors' work and draws his own conclusions. His writing is blissfully less formal than many academics' work.
Given Frederick's incessant war-making, there is a lot of battle description, but it is succinct and to the point. Blanning's conclusion is that Frederick was a bold visionary, but a mediocre, at best, field commander.
Frederick's greatest accomplishment was his fostering of religious tolerance in a time still rife with Protestant-Catholic turmoil. He welcomed and protected Christians of all stripes. Unhappily, he was more in tune with his times in his treatment of Jews, whom he tolerated to an extent but upon whom he imposed many restrictions and burdens.
I was spurred to read about Frederick by my upcoming trip to Germany, including Frederick's palaces at Potsdam.
"manly" activities his father endorsed: fighting, hunting, military drilling; instead he loved reading and music. But his father was so adamant that these were "unmanly" that he had to hide his extensive library at a sympathetic bookseller's and hide his flute whenever his father was around.
His father tried to break Frederick's resistance. When Frederick tried to escape his father's tyranny with two friends, his plot was foiled. One friend escaped to England, the other was beheaded with Frederick forced to watch from his prison window.
After his father's death and his own accession to the throne, he lived a very different life for his remaining 46 years. He shut the wife his father made him marry into her own small palace. He designed and built his own palace, Sans Souci, where he was surrounded by musicians, philosophers, and an assortment of men that he fancied. Foremost among his philosopher friends was Voltaire, with whom he had a lifetime correspondence and who lived with Frederick for about three years.
Frederick's forced military training came in handy when he decided to bolster the Prussian kingdom by forcibly annexing neighboring territories. He was ultimately successful, but spent 25 years in wars with Austria, France, and Russia. The toll in these bloody battles was terrible for all parties involved.
Blanning has done an enormous amount of research, surveying the vast number of previous biographies and the recently more accessible 60+ volumes of Frederick's letters and records. Blanning assesses his predecessors' work and draws his own conclusions. His writing is blissfully less formal than many academics' work.
Given Frederick's incessant war-making, there is a lot of battle description, but it is succinct and to the point. Blanning's conclusion is that Frederick was a bold visionary, but a mediocre, at best, field commander.
Frederick's greatest accomplishment was his fostering of religious tolerance in a time still rife with Protestant-Catholic turmoil. He welcomed and protected Christians of all stripes. Unhappily, he was more in tune with his times in his treatment of Jews, whom he tolerated to an extent but upon whom he imposed many restrictions and burdens.
I was spurred to read about Frederick by my upcoming trip to Germany, including Frederick's palaces at Potsdam.
November 12, 2017
I am a general reader who came to this with almost no knowledge about Frederick or Prussian history and is as such a reader that I say that this is what I read biography for. In the first place, despite what some of the raters who admitted they never finished the book, I loved Blanning's writing. I found it lively and still informative. Frederick's character came alive through the author's prose. Secondly, Frederick is was a fascinating subject, full of contradictions. He was one the one hand, one of the most intellectual and forward thinking monarchs of his age but on the other hand, he was a cruel despot who treated people appallingly. He was hostile to received religion but permitted his subjects to worship as they would so long as they didn't harm others. This open mindedness however did not extend to Jews. He asserted all people should be treated equally but was misogonistic to an extreme that was outrageous even for his times. He is considered a great military leader but as Blanning points out, committed enormous blunders from which he survived only by sheer luck.
Blanning explores all of these contradictions fully and with an open mind. The structure of the book furthers this exploration. The first half of the chapters tells the story of Frederick's childhood and chronological life focusing on his military career and his building programs. He then goes back and discusses in a non-chronological manner other subjects: culture, intellectual life, the nature of his court, his relationship with his family and friends, and the economic life of Prussia during his reign. Because of Frederick's nature, this structure works especially well in this biography. All in all, I recommend this highly to anyone interested in European history.
Blanning explores all of these contradictions fully and with an open mind. The structure of the book furthers this exploration. The first half of the chapters tells the story of Frederick's childhood and chronological life focusing on his military career and his building programs. He then goes back and discusses in a non-chronological manner other subjects: culture, intellectual life, the nature of his court, his relationship with his family and friends, and the economic life of Prussia during his reign. Because of Frederick's nature, this structure works especially well in this biography. All in all, I recommend this highly to anyone interested in European history.
September 10, 2020
NOTE: I got bogged down in the middle of the book, war weary and ready for a break. I read probably 4-5 other books and then returned to finish this comprehensive book. Hey, you can't expect to read a book about Frederick the Great with a lot of battle plans and foreign intrigue!
Tim Blanning's account of Frederick II's life seems even-handed. According to some historians, as well as his brother, Prince Henry, Frederick II often took credit for the achievements of his soldiers and often blamed his generals when things went wrong. Nothing unique about that. But when you consider that Prussia was often surrounded by foes (France, Austria, Poland and Russia), he kept his people fairly safe from outside.
Most interesting to me was his domestic life. He hated the German language, preferring the language of the arts and philosophers of his day, French. He wasn't alone, for at the time, the royalty and upper-class of many nations favored French as a sign of "class".
While not as flashy as many of his peers (He was on the battlefield a lot!), he did enjoy collecting porcelain and silk to the point that he financed the creation of local porcelain and silk factories.
Frederick the Great had at least two sides to him: the military leader as well as a supporter of the fine arts. Perhaps more than any of the kings of his time, Frederick II concerned himself with the lives of his subjects.
For more details, read this informative yet very readable biography.
Tim Blanning's account of Frederick II's life seems even-handed. According to some historians, as well as his brother, Prince Henry, Frederick II often took credit for the achievements of his soldiers and often blamed his generals when things went wrong. Nothing unique about that. But when you consider that Prussia was often surrounded by foes (France, Austria, Poland and Russia), he kept his people fairly safe from outside.
Most interesting to me was his domestic life. He hated the German language, preferring the language of the arts and philosophers of his day, French. He wasn't alone, for at the time, the royalty and upper-class of many nations favored French as a sign of "class".
While not as flashy as many of his peers (He was on the battlefield a lot!), he did enjoy collecting porcelain and silk to the point that he financed the creation of local porcelain and silk factories.
Frederick the Great had at least two sides to him: the military leader as well as a supporter of the fine arts. Perhaps more than any of the kings of his time, Frederick II concerned himself with the lives of his subjects.
For more details, read this informative yet very readable biography.
March 27, 2021
Frederick the Great was (to me) one of those figures who despite being one of the "Greats" was pretty obscure as to why: What he accomplished and what he was like. Actually, he was not a very appealing figure. His first war was basically just predatory and glory-seeking, he was awful to his wife, rather openly mocked the church and the Christian faith (and all faiths), etc. Granted, it seems fair to say that his upbringing was abusive, and that certainly had its impact on how Frederick turned out. He gets to be called "the Great," I guess, for things like raising Prussia to top-tier status on the European continent, for his extensive building projects and promotion of the arts, his long reign, and his legal modernizations and commitment to impartial justice for peasants as well as the elites. But still, there was a lot to dislike about him.
This biography is well-written and there is a lot of interesting stuff in it, and I gave it four stars because it's clearly quite good coverage of its subject. But honestly I found some of it tedious also, and ultimately I finished it mostly just to finish it, so if rating how much I actually liked it, I'd probably give it three.
This biography is well-written and there is a lot of interesting stuff in it, and I gave it four stars because it's clearly quite good coverage of its subject. But honestly I found some of it tedious also, and ultimately I finished it mostly just to finish it, so if rating how much I actually liked it, I'd probably give it three.
September 4, 2017
What Blanning lacks in writing style in comparison to great history writers like Massie and Montefiore, he makes up with meticulous research and insightful commentary. Frederick does the rest; he's a very interesting figure. He waged war for glory early in his reign and was on defensive from the events his war to take Silesia triggered for the rest of his life. He was ultra confident in himself and he was a bit of a prodigy, as he was very well educated and a leading figure in the Enlightenment. He was also very gay and created a kind of uber gay mini state in Prussia. He was pro immigration, because he needed to repopulate Prussia but also for loftier ideals as well. He tolerated all religion tho he was an open anti-semite. But Jews actually prospered overall in Berlin during his reign.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews