The Prussians

[Strike For The South]

Where are these guys? I know some of there land is in modern day Poland so was there some kind of genocide I dont know about? Or have the just assimalted?

[Templar Knight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

That doesn't mention that the fleeing German's were treated like crap and a few million died immediately after WW2.

So...sort of ethnic cleansing, sort of genocide. I'm sure that the fact that Communism was so strong in East Germany and Poland after the war explains why the Eastern European Germans didn't tend to go back.

However, I do understand that some of their descendants have been trying to buy large parts of Poland back which in turn has annoyed the Poles.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Where are these guys? I know some of there land is in modern day Poland so was there some kind of genocide I dont know about? Or have the just assimalted?

.
The Pruss people were completely assimilated by the XVIIIth century, by chivalric orders and later Dukes of Brandenburg. Before they were made into Germans, they used to be a people speaking a West Baltic language, relatives of the Lithuanians and Lethonians.
.

[Samurai Waki]

Former Baltic Country extending from Lithuania to the East to Brandenburg in the West. Conquered much of Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.

[Watchman]

Pretty much united Germany with their military-political clout, I seem to recall. For quite a while (from somewhere like mid-1700s onwards, if not earlier) some of the best trained and organized soldiers in Europe - pundits observe that where most nations have militaries, Prussia was much more of a military that had a nation...

[Byzantine Prince]

Prussia was the state that united the German principates together by military means. Their war to anex Austria was a failure and that is why Austria is indepedent even though they speak German. The descendets of the Prussians were deported from Poland after WWII in a form of ethnic cleansing.

The short story anyways.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Kaniningrad, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Russia is where I'd guess them to be.

(Yes, I know Kaniningrad is part of Russia)

[Franconicus]

Prussia was the state that united the German principates together by military means. Their war to anex Austria was a failure and that is why Austria is indepedent even though they speak German. The descendets of the Prussians were deported from Poland after WWII in a form of ethnic cleansing.

The short story anyways.

Short story is not always the right one.

Austria was one of the German countries. Like Prussia it had also non German areas, even bigger. The Emperor of Austria was the former Emperor of the German empire, too (until the Napoleon wars).
After the Congress of Vienna most Germans wanted a united nation. The goal of Bismarck was to get Austria out of the German Confed, so Prussia could dominate. That was the resultt of the Prussian-Austrian war. So in fact Austria is not part of Germany because it lost the war.

Atilius, excellent summary!

Let me add some things: Germany and Prussia lost big parts after WW1. Many Germans still lived there though and that was one reason for WW2 (at least A.H. used it as cause!).

The name Prussia is misleading. The leader of Germany was the emperor, though he had not much to say. The leader of Brandenburg wanted to become King. He had some parts of Prussia, the main parts belonged to the King of Poland. So he called himself King in Prussia while he was still subject of the Emperor. When the King of Poland lost the rest of Prussia the Prussian King called himself King of Prussia. Of cause people called all of his territory Prussia soon, even though there were other areas too.

Prussia was not always militaristic. It became during Bismarck.

[Franconicus]

I think we have different definitions. To me 'militarism' is when you 'militarize' society, theyt you tranfer properties and virtues from military to civil society. For example obedience, discipline courage. If you use military structures in civil administration. If the political leaders always wear uniforms. If children say the soldiers are their idols. If the president makes his speeches always in front of soldiers ... .
Militarism does not mean that you are agressive or that you have so much military.

Prussia had always a lot of military because it was rather small and wanted to play with the big boys. But Frederick was really an exception (he was cracy) and military was hated by the population then.
The Napoleon Wars showed that Prussia had a very weak army then.
The militarizing of society only happened during Bismarck. He did it by purpose to protect the king against liberalism.

[Kraxis]

I would say that the Napoleonic Wars showed that Prussia in fact had a strong army. Like Austria i managed to rebound from severe losses, but with a much smaller base of resources. The system proved that it could win.

[Franconicus]

No. It showed clearly that the old model with a professional army could not compete with the French people's army. The complete state had to be reformed. In the end it was the people's army - the landwehr and the Freikorps - that defeated the Russians (and a couple of Russians too).

[Kraxis]

The Prussians were outmaneuvered in their battles, but each and every time the regular proved themselves to be superior to their French adversaries. But what does it help if you are tactically outfought? Nothing really.

In the end the people's army won because the regulars were dead.

[Franconicus]

I should not argue with someone who probably took part at the Napoleon Wars
"The Prussians were outmaneuvered in their battles" ... so their army was not very good,, maybe the soldiers: "...regular proved themselves to be superior to their French adversaries"

[Kraxis]

Haha... No I took part in WWII remember.

Anyway, outmaneuvered has more to do with the generals than the structure of the army, the troops or the equipment.
Was the Roman army at Cannae bad because they got outmaneuvered? No, they proved their worth several times in that war.

Had it not been for Napoleon I doubt the Prussians would have suffered a severe defeat. Maybe still a defeat but it would have been an 'honourable' defeat in that case.

Napoleon was the factor that made the most important changes.
Besides when he won at Jena the French troops weren't exactly conscripts anymore (technically they were, but by then they were seasoned veterans with more experience than the Prussian troops could ever hope to get, and quite willing to live the soldier's life).

[King Henry V]

The Prussian army at the start of the Napoleonic Wars was not the feared military machine it had been fifty years before. The Prussian was old and decayed after several decades of neglect (especially among the officer corps) and was in desperate need of reform. This was the main reason why Prussian armies were unsuccesful during the Revolutionary Wars and until 1812. It was only until Prussia was reduced to a client kingdom that the military was sorted out properly. The energetic General Scharnhorst was appointed Chief of Staff and he reformed the Prussian Army, finding a loophole in the French decree that the Prussian army could be no more than 40,000 (IIRC) men strong. 20,000 men would be dismissed from the army, another 20,000 would be recruited and trained, and so on until Prussia had enough trained men to throw off Napoleon's shackles.