Who was the Best?

The Battle of Zorndorf

Dear Reader,

For centuries, military historians had one task: identify who won battles, who gained the most honor, and which states created the best militaries. In essence: who was the best? Fortunately, with the advent of the New Military History, historians have begun to examine other factors, such as social, religious, and economic factors relating to war. However, many non-academic readers are still very much concerned with the question, "who was the best?" or, "why were they the best?" Today we are going to engage with those questions in a popular way, designed to spur conversation on this topic.

 This search for military exceptionalism would doubtless make my professors a bit queasy, not doubt, but its a Thursday, I'm tired after a long couple of weeks on the road, (researching New Military History type topics in Washington DC,) and my brain could use a fun and engaging break.

So, of the armies of the eighteenth century, who was the best?

Feel free to reference this map while reading

Let's identify some states who were obviously not the best:

Spain:
Despite a resurgence of military effectiveness in the late-eighteenth century (during the American War of Independence) Spain made a poor showing in most of the other eighteenth century wars. Though it has turned into an over-romanticized myth as a result of the paintings of Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau, and Alatriste, the end of the Tercio-era did present a serious challenge to Spanish military power. The Spanish military humiliated during the Seven Years War, when British and Portuguese forces defeated the Spanish army in Iberia, and challenged them from Havanna to Manila around the world.

The Republic of the Netherlands:

Much like Sweden after the Great Northern War, the Netherlands went into a long slow decline after the War of Spanish Succession in the 1710s. Suffering in the early wars of Louis XIV, during the so-called, "Rampjaar" or "year of disaster" in 1672, the Dutch recovered to produce an excellent military commanded by a competent great captain: Stadtholder Willem (William of Orange). Under William, Dutch troops managed to firmly secure England for the Protestant cause, won a civil war against the rival Stuart monarchy in Ireland, and gained considerable success in the Nine Years War and War of Spanish Succession, even after William's death.

The Dutch began to lose influence as their economic power waned, but fought successfully as part of a coalition during the War of the Quadruple Alliance, but were badly defeated during the War of Austrian Succession. The Dutch, Austrian, British, and Hessian forces were unable to stop the French from overrunning a number of fortresses in the Austrian Netherlands and Brabant. Political unrest and the so-called, Orangist Revolution of 1747 followed military disasters in this war.

After the 1750s, they were never again a serious military contender.  Neutral during the Seven Years War, the Dutch were one of the few anti-British powers to suffer in the global eight years war surrounding the American War of Independence. Unable to compete with the British for maritime trade, the end of this "Fourth Anglo-Dutch War" led to the loss of trade monopolies and territorial losses in India.

Denmark:

The Danes never really got off the ground as a power in the eighteenth century. After their failure to reclaim Skåne from Sweden during the Scanian War, they were repeatedly and soundly beaten by the Swedes again in the Great Northern War. After the thrashing they received in the Great Northern War, the Danes largely remained at peace for the rest of the eighteenth century. War briefly threatened again in 1762, when the Tsar Peter III declared war on Denmark. Fortunately for the Danes, he was assassinated before the war truly began. Avoiding serious military conflicts such as the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War, Denmark instead spent the eighteenth century putting down Norwegian peasant rebels, fighting a war against the Algerians, and engaging the farcical
"Theatre War" against Gustav III's Sweden.

The Commonwealth:

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had the extreme misfortune to be a relatively weak surrounded by larger, predatory powers. Famously coming to the assistance of the Viennese in 1683, the Polish state suffered during the Great Northern War, as Swedish forces repeatedly crossed the Commonwealth. Despite excellent cavalry potential, the Polish state was slowly devoured by Russia, Austria and Prussia, until its revival by Napoleon in the early nineteenth century. Thaddeus Kosciuszko made a brave attempt at a war of independence in 1794, but this was crushed by the Russian army under Suvorov. Casimir Pulaski, a soldier of indeterminate gender, is widely considered to be the father the American Cavalry.

Bavaria:
Like Saxony, historians are left to wonder "what could have been" regarding a successful Bavarian state in the eighteenth century. Though the Bavarian army performed well enough in the War of Spanish Succession and War of Austrian Succession, Bavaria never really was able to capitalize politically on its few military successes. The Bavarians had a knack for choosing to attack Austria (often as allies of the French) when the Austrian Empire appeared much weaker than it actually was. Charles VII was able to break-up an otherwise unbroken string of Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperors, for that at least, he deserves our gratitude. Between 1745 and 1778, Bavaria clung to the status of a second-rate power. Finally, after the death of Maxmillian Joseph in 1778, Prussia and Austria fought over the inheritance of the Bavarian state, clear proof that Bavaria had lost control of its own destiny.  Like Poland, Bavaria would be briefly revived as a military power during the early-nineteenth century.

Saxony:
The Saxons performed well enough during the early wars of the eighteenth century, but had the singular misfortune of standing in-between Prussia and Austria between 1740-1786. The Saxon military never performed exceptionally, and was snapped up wholesale by the Prussians at the outset of the Seven Years' War. A number ex-patriot regiments fought in French and Austrian service during the war, but they were unable to prevent the occupation and despoliation of their homeland. With the personal union of Saxony and Poland early the eighteenth century, Saxony could have risen to the rank of the first power in Northern Germany, but did not strike at the crucial moment in 1740.

The United States: 

This fledgling nation made a poor military showing in the American War of Independence, and lost many major battlefield encounters. While the Americans showed a talent for light infantry work, they lacked the staying power required win large-scale battles in the European style. One of the reasons the Americans were able to achieve the success they did was the relative ineffectiveness of cavalry in North America. Thus, although the American forces performed quite well in convincing the British to abandon the United States, they are rather out of place on this list. Indeed, it seems to me that if the Americans were placed in Europe, against a traditional European field army, they would have quickly folded in the face of superior combined arms tactics.

Now, some states who fall in the middle of the pack: 

Sweden:
Ahhh Sverige. The noble Swedes made an excellent showing in the Great Northern War, but were overwhelmed through a mixture of opposing forces, and the tactical blunders of their King at Poltava. If we were only examining the period from 1700-1721, the Swedes would far and away win this line-up. Their cavalry and infantry were absolutely exceptional at shock attacks, despite being outnumbered in every battle. The infantry also showed an excellent ability fight with firepower in the later war. However, after the defeats in the Great Northern War, the Swedes went into a long slow decline. They did not recover until the late 1780s, when they won several battles against the Russians, delaying the loss of Finland for another decade. This early panache combined with late recovery places them in the middle of the pack.

France:

The French saved the Americans during the American War of Independence, they effectively reformed their army halfway through the Seven Years' War, and they were truly terrifying opponents during the War of Spanish Succession and French Revolutionary Wars. Sadly, they were soundly defeated by the British in the  Seven Years' War. The French focus on continental Europe forced the loss of the colonies in North America, for no discernible European trade-off. Despite their strategic short comings, the French were formidable on the battlefield, possessing excellent cavalry, infantry with a penchant for shock action, and by the late eighteenth century a formidable artillery train.

British:

The British possessed excellent infantry, but fair to middling cavalry and artillery. I know this placement will shock some of you, but Britain did not have a spectacular military record in the 18th century. They fought the French tooth and nail in the western Seven Years' War, but most of their spectacular victories occurred on sea, not on land. The Battle of Minden was a spectacular field victory, but those who remember Minden and Quebec should also keep in mind Fontenoy, Roucox, and Lauffeld. One of the sticky facts of British success in the eighteenth century is that the British only succeeded in North America because they were tying down the French on the continent, and they only were able to tie down the French on the continent through German help. The fact of the matter is, that in every great European battle which the British won, the actual British forces made up a minority of overall army, German soldiers from various states were in the majority. This is not suggesting that the British were poor soldiers in any way, merely that they always had help.

Western Germans (Hanover, Brunswick, Hesse-Kassel):

The unsung heroes of the eighteenth century. These troops were responsible for many of the "British" victories of the eighteenth century. During the Seven Years' War, these troops made up the majority of the army opposing the French in western Germany. Brunswick and Hesse-Kassel would go on to lend forces to Britain during the Seven Years' War. While most American readers remember the Battle at Trenton during the American War of Independence, where the Hessians were surprised and captured, their were a number of battles where the Germans saved the British or won on their own, including:  Fort Washington, Hubbardton, and Freeman's Farm. Thus, a large portion of the credit for British battlefield success in the eighteenth century needs to be given to Britain's German allies.


The Top Three: 


And the number 3 spot goes to: 

Austria:

Austria gets the number three spot for most improvement during the course of the eighteenth century. Christopher Duffy's massive two volume work on the Austrian military charts the difficult process of restoring the army to a place of prominence. By the end of the Seven Years' War, the Austrian army had built up respectable infantry, good cavalry, and exceptional artillery forces. They would recover from their defeat in the War of Austrian Succession, and give the Prussians a run for their money in the Seven Years' War. By the War of Bavarian Succession, it was obvious that the Prussians could no longer compete with the Austrians. Austria would go on to play a pivotal role in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and lead the way in continually opposing Napoleon.

and the number 2 spot goes to:

Prussia:

And the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In all seriousness, Prussia's meteoric rise from relative obscurity to a European great power was achieved by the Prussian army. The War of Austrian Succession gain Prussia the attention of the European powers, and the Seven Years' War assured that it was there to stay. Prussia possessed the best infantry of the eighteenth century, good cavalry, and good artillery, (at least in terms of attached guns.) The Prussian military was acknowledged by most military authorities as being the best in Europe. Oh- Frederick the Great helped a little too.

then who could be number 1??? 

Russia:

Russia had everything required for eighteenth century success: stalwart, tenacious infantry, excellent heavy cavalry (and light cavalry in the form of Cossacks), as well as an impressive artillery arm. Throughout the course of the eighteenth century, the Russians proved almost impossible to defeat on the battlefield. Frederick the Great was certainly never able to soundly beat them. As far as generals, Peter the Great was not spectacular, but Suvorov and Bagration were both sound military men. Russia's true genius was the ability to build a spectacular military tradition Ex Nihlo. The modern Russian military was formed in the lifetime of Peter the Great. The Russian armies instant success (despite the lack of a prior military western military tradition) give it the right to claim the number 1 spot in our line-up.


Do you agree? Who do you think had the best 18th century army?

Thanks for reading

Alex Burns

If you liked this post, let me know in the comments below! Feel free to follow the blog. Its free, and lets me know that you enjoy what I'm doing-basically the only reason I write this thing.