Jung Fritz vs. Alte Fritz: Change over Time in Frederick the Great's Style

Frederick the Great, painted during the Seven Years War

Dear Reader,

Today, the image of Frederick the Great of Prussia has been indelibly burned into our collective consciousness as "Old Fritz", a wizened skinny old man on a small horse, directing the troops with flourishes of his cane. This image of Frederick stays with us for a number of reasons: it is the last one present in living memory, it is the image of Frederick immortalized in the Nazi-era films starring actor Otto Gebuhr, and it is the face of Frederick we see in his death mask. This view of Frederick has even led to fame for prominent reenactors who capture this version of the King. Importantly, this is not the only version of Frederick the Great, nor the style that the King seems to have been wearing during the Seven Years War. Before 1763, Frederick II was almost always painted in his dress uniform for the 1st Battalion of Guards. After 1763, Frederick seems to have preferred his undress uniform, and this is the image of Frederick that has come down to us. 

This post will examine the preferred clothing of Frederick the Great throughout this life: first examining the surviving uniforms of Frederick II, and then examining period artwork from two phases in Frederick's life. Obviously, for researching the martial material culture of this period, there is no substitute for the two volume study of Daniel Hohrath, and the many volume studies of Hans Bleckwenn. For this project, though, I was inspired my the recent dissertation of Adam Storring, and his suggestion that especially early in his life, Frederick was fond of flashy uniforms and baroque finery.

What Remains: Surviving Uniforms of Frederick II

There are a number of surviving uniforms worn by Frederick II. The Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin contains both the dress and undress uniforms of Frederick the Great. The undress uniform dates from 1786, the dress uniform is undated. Burg Hohenzollern in Baden-Württemberg likewise contains an undress uniform dating from the later portion of the reign.  Below, I have included three images of coats attributed to Frederick the Great, and one which is not attributed to him, for comparison.

(Undress) Uniform of Frederick the Great (DHM) 

(Undress) Uniform of Frederick II of Prussia (Burg Hohenzollern)

Velvet dress uniform of Frederick II (faded, no date)

1st Battalion of Guards Officer's dress coat, unfaded (1786, not attributed
to Frederick)

The Devil We Know: Old Fritz
Old Fritz. This is the image of Frederick that we are most comfortable with. This version of Frederick spawned innumerable paintings in the nineteenth century, where a thin, hook-nosed Frederick stares at us with a wizened and wrinkled face. This image of Frederick the Great was immortalized in the paintings of Daniel Chodowiecki, who drew the king in the 1780s, at the end of his life.

A painting after Chodowiecki's famous woodcut

 This image of Frederick is a useful one, and the iconic one: the plain, buttoned over coat, the simple ornamentation of his order of the Black Eagle, the cane and unlaced cocked hat. This is also the Frederick we see in the portraits of J.H.C. Franke, who was certainly working after the Seven Years War, possibly as early as 1763.

Franke's portrait.

Young Fritz: The Frederick the Seven Years War and earlier
This older, wizened, plain Frederick is not the Frederick who fought in the War of Austrian Succession, or the Seven Years War. For that Frederick, we must turn to an earlier series of paintings. This Frederick is younger, his uniform is more ostentatious, he wears the orange sash of the Order of the Black Eagle, in addition to the star of that order. The orange color symbolizes the familial connection between Frederick's grandfather (King Frederick I of Prussia) and the leader of Protestant Europe: William of Orange. Frederick's hat in these images is not unlaced, it is decked with fine silvered lace which complements the white hat feathers that continue into his later reign.

Antoine Pense, (pre-1740) The Royal Brood: Frederick the Great and his brothers

Antoine Pense, Frederick the Great as King (1740-1745)

Antoine Pense, Frederick the Great as Commanding General, (1745)

Antoine Pense, Painting of Frederick II, Neues Palais 

Antione Pense, Frederick about 1750 

Fischer, portrait of Frederick the Great drawn during the Seven Years War (1758)

Frederick II of Prussia, by David Morier circa 1763

Somewhat frustratingly for wargamers, this Frederick, the orange sashed, hat laced, silver brandenbourged, Frederick, is the man who entered the Seven Years War. We can discern this from the fact that 1) all of the portraits from the early portion of Frederick's reign display him like this, and 2) that the only portrait of Frederick which comes specifically from the years of the Seven Years War (the second to last image above), shows Frederick in this uniform.

What does this mean for Wargamers and Reenactors? 

As you set out to portray Frederick in the setting of living history or wargaming , and you wish your portrayal to be accurate, it is vital to tailor your depiction of the king to the year/era you seek to portray. If you wish to portray Frederick in the later portions of his reign, many wargaming figures will work, as most manufacturers portray Frederick in this portion of his reign in undress uniform, no sash, and with an unlaced hat. This is perfect for Frederick during the 1770s and 1780s maneuvers, the War of Bavarian Succession, and perhaps even the last year of the Seven Years War.

"Old Fritz" in 15mm from Old Glory 15s

If you wish you portray Frederick during most of the Seven Years War, as well as the War of Austrian Succession, painting the King in a dress uniform, with the sash of the order of the Black Eagle, and silvered lace on his cocked hat is perhaps more appropriate for this period.

A 15mm Prussian officer miniature from Essex, promoted to Young Frederick

Reenactors who portray such as the excellent Rolf Zahren, seem to focus on the last years of his reign. Zahren perfectly captured the essence of "Old Frederick" and he will be missed.

Rolf Zahren, dearly departed reenactor

Likewise, the Berlin tour guide Dr. Olaf Kappelt, who I had the great good fortune to meet by chance in 2004, portrays an older Frederick: perhaps from the late 1760s or 1770s. When a fourteen-year-old me addressed Dr. Kappelt as "Great Frederick", he gently reminded me, "Berliners say Old Frederick." For good or ill, the image of "der Alte Fritz" has triumphed in historical imagery and memory.

Dr. Olaf Kappelt as Frederick

I am unaware of anyone who has an impression of younger Frederick from the War of Austrian Succession or the Seven Years War. Perhaps some of my dedicated readers can point one out?

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Consider checking out our exclusive content on Patreon. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading, 

Alex Burns

Is the Military History of Frederick the Great and George Washington still relevant in the 21st Century?

The excellent reenactors of Prussian IR12, Erbprinz Hessen-Darmstadt

Dear Reader,

In the course of completing my Ph.D, I have the distinct pleasure of teaching the Modern Military History course at West Virginia University. Students always sign up for the class in large numbers, expecting to hear primarily about the Second World War, or even the Vietnam War. They are almost always disappointed to hear that to historians, "Modern" Military History includes much of Military History after 1500.

As I believe that students learn better when their instructor is passionate about the subject under study, I spend approximately two and a half weeks (of a sixteen week course) covering the Kabinettskriege era, with particular reference to the era between the War of Austrian Succession to the American War of Independence. Every semester, I ask students to write a paper, comparing two of the great military leaders of the eighteenth century. (It's not Frederick II and Washington every semester, in fact, I prefer reading essays about Charles XII and Maurice de Saxe). However, students are always surprised that I spend so much time on an era of limited war, where (at least in their mind) tactics and technology were relatively static. As a result, I am writing this post, attempting to defend what I see as an incredibly relevant period in military history for our own time. So, why is the era of Frederick II and George Washington still relevant in the 21st Century?

Washington by Peale, 1779

1. The conflicts of Frederick II and Washington form part of the "canon" of modern military thought, and the Military-Civil relationship in our own time. In order to understand that, we need to understand them. 

If you read On War, you will be astonished by the easy familiarity which Clausewitz possesses with the campaigns of Frederick II. To understand the mind which produced On War, we need to understand the conflicts of Frederick II as he did. The debates about the relationship between armies and societies which continue into our own time were happening albeit in a slightly different form, during the eighteenth century. In my observation, there is a gulf today in the United States between many soldiers and many civilians, and neither seem to understand the other, or even have a desire to do so. A reading of Charles Royster's A Revolutionary People at War, will reveal that the exact same debates were occurring in the fledgling United States during the American War of Independence. The army and the society became disconnected from one another during the course of the conflict, and began to actively dislike each other in cases.  In essence, an understanding of eighteenth-century warfare allows for a greater understanding of our own world.

2. Studying Eighteenth-Century Warfare demonstrates that while technology is important, adaptability is more important. 

There were a number of military technological improvements during the Kabinettskriege era,  including the French development of cooper-bottomed pontoon-bridges in the 1670s, the refinement of mortars, the artillery systems of Shuvalov and Gribeauval, the rifles of Isaac de la Chaumette and Patrick Ferguson, to name but a few. However, with the possible exception of the pontoon bridges, none of these technological inventions fundamentally changed the shape of warfare.

In the Seven Years War, Frederick II was faced by enemies with vastly superior artillery systems. The British, not the Americans, experimented with breechloading rifles under Ferguson. Indeed, technological experimentation does not always lead to decisive results. In the 1749, John Muller wrote to the Duke of Cumberland, arguing that

"The French, who are continually aiming at improvements [in their small arms] have succeeded no better than others; One should be surprised to find in their last establishments several things changed which were better before, and Mr. Belidor who takes great pains in making experiments has been very much mistaken in his account of the Chambers in Mortars[.]"[1]

Napoleonic Prussian Generals made much the same observation, after seeing the results of tests which showed that the older Frederician musket was more accurate than their modern replacement.

Though Frederick II was in many ways technologically inferior to his opponents, his willingness to adapt and learn from them proved one of his strengths, as the result of the Battle of Burkersdorf shows. Technology is not always the silver bullet, especially in an era of limited warfare. As the development of light troops shows us during this era, innovation was often more important than invention.

Frederick II, later 18th century, by J.H.C. Franke

3. In both the case of Frederick II and George Washington, greater material and manpower did not necessarily equate victory. 

Both the allies arrayed against Frederick II in the Seven Years War, and the British forces confronting George Washington the early American War of Independence put many more soldiers into the field, and had greater supporting and logistical forces at their disposal. This did not prevent both Frederick and Washington from achieving their political goals in the final outcome of the conflict (though Frederick's success is much more qualified than Washington's.) Both generals marched quickly, unexpectedly took the offensive and initiative from their opponents, knew when to dig in, and when to retreat, and learned from their many mistakes.

This is not a lesson that the American Civil War, or the First and Second World Wars teach particularly well. In these wars, powers with more resources had time to learn from their mistakes and eventually crush their opposition. Obviously, none of this was achieved superior resources alone. Russian operational maneuvering on the Eastern Front was quite good, particularly in the later stages of the Second World War, while the victories achieve by the Union army in the middle-western theater of the American Civil War were fairly consistent throughout the conflict.

Superior resources mattered in the eighteenth century as well, of course, but the successes of George Washington and other American leaders brought powerful allies (the French, Spanish, and Dutch), into the war, not the other way around. Likewise, successes which Frederick II achieved early in the Seven Years War allowed him breathing space to continue the fight as long as he did, until eventually, as a result of chance, the enemy alliance collapsed.

4. Studying an era where the "rules of engagement" were limited compared to the 20th Century encourages thought about the nature of warfare. 

We live in an age where compared with the mid-twentieth century, violence against civilians by regular forces is frowned upon, and at least officially discouraged. Civilians still suffer in war today, obviously, as they did in the eighteenth century, but compared with the mass blood letting of World Wars 1 and 2, and even Vietnam, modern standing armies attempt to cause less civilian casualties, or at the very least, claim that they attempt to cause less casualties. In that way, the eighteenth century may offer a window into our own time.

This point always causes controversy when brought up in the classroom, as many students prefer the thinking of William Tecumseh Sherman ("You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it") and Bomber Harris to the more seemingly more gentle nature of eighteenth-century war. Indeed, compare Sherman's statement above to Austrian Marshall Daun's: "The purpose of war is to push back the unrighteous enemy, not to exterminate the human race."

Frederick II of Prussia, a truly prickly and acidic man at times, delighted in the ransacking of Saxon noblemen's homes during the Seven Years War. Wars with British could turn particularly ugly when rebellion was involved, whether that rebellion was in Scotland in 1745 or in North America in 1775. However, none of the atrocities of the eighteenth century approach the sustained scale and magnitude of the Thirty Years War or the Napoleonic Wars, to say nothing of the industrialized death of the twentieth century.

 In recent years, as a result of the excellent work of historians such as John Childs, John Lynn, Erica Charters, Hannah Smith, Eva Rosenhaft, and others, there has been a vigorous debate about the exact nature of this "limitation" (if it can even be called that), but I would argue that the numbers tell a clear story. Fewer civilians died from conflict related causes during the 150 odd years of the Kabinettskriege era than died in the 50 odd years of the Thirty Years War and Napoleonic Wars. I don't think that we necessarily have a specific answer as to why that was the case. 

Reenactors portray British Forces in the American War of Independence

5. Studying the Eighteenth-Century Warfare is relevant, because, in a popular sense, it is still very badly understood. 

The misinformation abounds. You see false ideas everywhere regarding this era of history. People believe that uniforms were dangerous and impractical, that soldiers were only the dregs of society, that they were incredibly short, that soldiers did not aim, that firefights only occurred at 50 yards or less, that hand-to-hand combat was frequent,  that soldiers were unable to take cover, or fight independently outside linear formations. 

 6. In many ways, the conflicts of the Kabinettskriege era decisively shaped the course of modern history, the history of the era in which we live. 

It is impossible to understand the course of nineteenth and twentieth-century European History without understanding the wars of the eighteenth century. The Kabinettskriege era saw the beginning of so many stories which continued into our own time, or at the very least, continued into the twentieth century. It is impossible to understand the power of Napoleon's Empire without the stories of Vauban and Louis XVI, and the foreign policy disasters which caused the French Revolution.  It is impossible to understand the creation of the nineteenth-century nations of Germany and Italy without the success which Prussia and Savoy enjoyed in the eighteenth century. It is impossible to understand the rise of the British Empire as a global phenomenon without understanding the Seven Years War. It is impossible to understand the modern United States as a global power without the American War of Independence, and equally impossible to understand the story of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation without the reforms of Peter the Great, to say nothing of the generalship of Suvorov. It is impossible to understand the tragic history of Poland and the Polish people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries without understanding the partitions of the late-eighteenth century. All of these are only reasons related to military history, to say nothing of the enlightenment and industrial revolution.

To some extent, this is true of every era. It is impossible to fully understand the eighteenth century without understanding the seventeenth century, etc. But, I must say, I am prejudiced and conceited enough towards my own field of study to argue that the eighteenth century deserves more of a share of attention than it currently enjoys in the public consciousness as we move into the third decade of the 21st century.

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook,  or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Letter from John Muller at Woolrich to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, June 28th 1749.

Generallandschulreglement, August 12, 1763

A Landschule in the early nineteenth century 

Dear Reader,


Usually, Kabinettskriege focuses on the military history of the its namesake era. Today, however, we are going to examine a bit of Prussian administrative history, which had important consequences for the western tradition. On this day, in 1763, Prussia circulated the Generallandschulreglement, or the General Rural School Regulations. According to this regulation, authored by Prussian civil servant Johann Julius Hecker:

"We desire that all of our subjects, whether parents or guardians... to send there children to school, from age five, and continue until age thirteen or fourteen. They are to receive the basic elements of Christianity, reading and writing, and should also be able to read and answer for whatever is contained in our approved textbooks."

While public education had been growing in German speaking lands since the 1600s, education lacked vital necessary resources. Schools, particularly rural schools, lacked both the monetary resources to provide for their students, and the ability to compel parents, who used their children as a labor source, to send their children to school. The Generallandschulreglement did not solve these problems completely: but was an important step on the road to compulsory public education. Although rural Prussian teachers continued to struggle with cash flow problems, the Prussian government did marginally increase its investment in education after 1763. The regulation was perhaps most important in that it gave encouragement to a number of private individuals, who continued to make steady improvements to the educational system.

Frederick inspecting a harvest after the Seven Year War 

As a minor figure of the Enlightenment in his own right, Frederick II of Prussia supported this initiative, and as his father had done before him, used it to employ former soldiers in public service. For Frederick, a more educated population meant a more prosperous Prussian state, which was his primary goal after the Seven Years' War. This regulation was one of the many reforms which Frederick took on after the Seven Years' War, in order to promote the growth and prosperity of the Prussian state and economy.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Dogs in the Kabinettskriege Period

Charles Lee with one of his numerous dogs 

 Dear Reader,

Whether you are a good, loyal, dog loving person, or an evil, faithless, degenerate cat lover, you still want to hear more about animals in the Kabinettskriege period, right?

The fact of the matter is, dogs were loved in this period of history, much like they are today. At the Battle of Germantown, a fierce battle in the 1777 Philadelphia campaign, the American soldiers actually captured one of General William Howe's dogs, a fox terrier, (name, alas, unknown). The dog had followed Howe into battle, and in the confusion, retreated with the Americans instead of the British. Caroline Tiger has written a fascinating study of this incident. 

A recent study of dogs, gentlemanly conduct, and warfare

 Many Americans soldiers advocated taking the dog as a prize of war, or even charging it with being a spy. General Washington soon became aware of what was happening, and returned the pooch to his owner, with a friendly note, stating:

"General Washington's compliments to General Howe. He does himself the pleasure to return him a dog, which accidentally fell into his hands, and by the inscription on the Collar appears to belong to General Howe." [1]

Thus, Washington proved that he was a gentleman, and this incident left a profound effect on General Howe. Howe was far from the only dog lover in the Kabinettskriege period. General Charles Lee, a British and American soldier, was seldom seen without at least six dogs. General Washington had many dogs, and after the war, named one of them Cornwallis after the British general!

Frederick II of Prussia, working with his dogs

Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia also loved his greyhounds and whippets very much. While often spiky and unkind in human relationships, he always had a soft spot in his heart for animals. This might be a result of his childhood, where often pets were his only consolation when dealing with his menacing father. His favorite dog was Biche, a whippet who was given to him early in life. Much like General Howe's dog, she was captured by the Austrians during a battle. At the end of the war, the Austrians returned Biche to Frederick, and he cried tears of joy.

Later, when Biche passed away, Frederick wrote the following:

“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 

One of our modern-day "dog's of war"

However, like James Herriot, Frederick believed that it was important to always have animals in his life, and went on to have many other dogs. He loved dogs until the end of his days, as evidenced by his last words, “cover the dog, he is shivering.” Frederick’s love for dogs, (and other animals) shows us another side of his character, often missed by historians. Much like today, dogs were an essential part of life during the Kabinettskriege period.

If you enjoyed the post, feel free to share it.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns 

[1] Washington Papers, Washington to Howe, Oct. 6, 1777. 

Battle of Rossbach: 5th November, 1757

Map of Rossbach from-Rossbach and Leuthen: Prussia's Eagle Resurgent

Dear Readers,

When we last left our heroes, the Prussian army was shadowing a larger French and Reichsarmee force. (The Reichsarmee was made up of troops from a motley collection of small German states.) While the French and Reichsarmee had the advantage in terms of number of soldiers, (about 40,000 to 22,000) the Prussians indisputably outmatched the allies in terms of quality.

On the morning of November 5th,  the allies began a wide flanking move in an effort to get around the Prussian army, and potentially destroy it with a flank attack. The supposedly "Great" king, Frederick, failed to notice this movement on the part of the enemy, he was busy having lunch.  The first Prussian to notice the movements of the enemy was Frederick's young Flügeladjutant, Captain Friedrich Wilhelm Ersnt von Gaudi. According to historian Christopher Duffy, Gaudi reported to the king, "who was lunching with Prince Henry (his royal brother) Seydlitz, and a number of officers in the chamber below. If there was anything Frederick disliked more than having his monologues interrupted, it was signs of panic in a junior officer." Frederick told Gaudi that he was wrong about the flanking movement. Later, when the commander of a Frei-Battalion charged with watching the French, (the same Frei-Battalion a certain young Baron von Steuben was serving in...) reported the same, he was met with similar disdain from the great king.

Frederick dismisses Gaudi's (on right) report

However, Frederick is not, as historian Franz Szabo claims, totally at fault. After all, he had created a system in which these younger officers could report to him, and encouraged initiative among his advisers.  While I agree with Szabo that Frederick was in the wrong in this instance, I can not share his opinion on the Prussian military, which encouraged initiative, so that the army would not be destroyed if the king was at fault.

In time, when the movements of the enemy became more clear, subordinate Prussian officers made plans for movement in spite of the king's indifference, a move which undoubtedly saved the Prussian army. Frederick, finally awakening to the danger, moved prepared his infantry to move, and instructed General Seydlitz to take command of the Prussian cavalry.

The map of the Battle of Rossbach, from Christopher Duffy's: Prussia's Glory, pg 67.

Seydlitz immediately sprang into action, and his cavalry attack shattered the allies advanced guard. Young Fahnen-Cadet von Barsewisch, who we heard from in the last post, described the battle from his place with Prussian Regiment von Meyerinck (IR 26), on the map, von Meyerinck is right by the box which reads, "Final Attack."  Barsewisch describes the battle:

"To that end, His Majesty had re-positioned eight Battalions, of which our regiment was one, because of the re-positioning of the enemy.  There we stood, calmly, and went about our lunch, while awaiting further orders.  At roughly 2 O’clock in the afternoon, the enemy suddenly shifted their march left towards Rossbach, in an effort to turn our left flank, and began to march up. The speed with which we broke down the camp, formed battle array, and began to march up was indescribable. About 3 O’clock in the afternoon, a cannonade began, and the army stood in battle order. Our cavalry on the left wing, under the command of General Seydlitz crashed into the enemy cavalry, and on the second shock, the enemy cavalry took flight, and threw many of the infantry behind them wholly into ruin.
 Our infantry battalions from the left wing appeared from under our cannon, and engaged the French Swiss corps in such a way that they were still in columns. These columns were in the form of an ancient Phalanx, and through want of time and space to deploy, they were situated in rows of men a hundred deep. In this manner, they attempt to charge. This unstoppable Swiss Phalanx of left thousands of dead behind, and the whole of the French army was in such confusion, that they attempted to escape and flee, and by nightfall, they had left their cannons behind and were totally defeated by our left wing."

In essence, the Prussian cavalry attacked, defeated the enemy cavalry, and then reformed. The Prussian infantry regiments advanced on the allies, who were still in marching columns. Desperately, these marching columns attempted to charge and break the Prussian infantry through force of shock. The incredible firepower of the Prussian infantry and artillery stopped this attack, which developed into a firefight. This phase of the battle is artistically represented below:

Painting from- Rossbach and Leuthen: Prussia's Eagle Resurgent 

 However, by this point in the battle, General Seydlitz had reformed the Prussian cavalry, and they attacked the flank of the allies, throwing their army into a total rout.  The Prussian's lost 548 men, while the allies lost 5,000 dead and wounded, and 5,000 prisoners. Franz Szabo deliberately misrepresents these casualty figures, stating that the allies only lost 5,000 total men.

 While Frederick may have been slow to recognize the danger, and even slower to accept the advice of his subordinates, his handling of the main infantry line enabled the allies to be caught between the anvil of the Prussian infantry, and the hammer of Seydlitz and Prussian cavalry.

Why is Rossbach important? Why should we "remember remember," THIS 5th of November?

Remember in the last post when I was talking about how the English had been basically knocked out of the war, and the French were going to be able to send more troops to North America? Rossbach changed all that. This Prussian victory gave the British an excuse to get back into the war in Europe, where they were able to prevent French expansion into western Germany. It also tied down French forces in Europe, which allowed the British to conquer Canada, which retains ties with the British to this day. If this battle had not happened, the Seven Years' War would have been much shorter than seven years, with a different victor.

If this 5th of November had not occurred, the whole geopolitics of the Atlantic world could be radically different than it is today. That is why you should remember the 5th of November, 1757.

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.