@buenosdiers Die Deutschen im 3.Reich haben ja vieles nach dem Vorbild Preußens gemacht. Die ganzen "Nazi-Märsche" sind eigentlich alle aus preußischer Zeit und deswegen auch nicht als Nazi-Märsche zu bezeichnen.
Ja Programmatisches im Sinne multi-rassischer Zersetzung und Rassenvermischung ist auch dabei gewesen, schon 1962: Der Schwarz-Afrikaner vorne, worauf die Kamera mit Nachdruck verweist.Alles andere ist Kosmetik. Jetzt gibt es 100 Millionen judeo-afro-turco-islamisten-Schmarotzer in der EU, und die ebenfalls jüdisch angetriebenen Abtreibungsfabriken, die Weltweit, jedoch hauptsächlich in der Weissen Welt, 55 Millionen Menschen jährlich töten. In D 300.000 seit 1949;von 44-49 sind es 23 M gewesen.
Incorrect, blacks were extremely prized and were given to the most prestigious regiments as musicians. Their was also the Bosniaks of sometimes mixed and full Turkish and Slavic descent who served in the cavalry.
@EvilKorbinDallas that was very rare and since we all know that aryan politics is very white and anti semitic it was not common for blacks to be in german military.aryan politics promoted anti muslim campaign and yet ther was hanjar division.one black guy who lived in germany during nazi regime tried to join the army,but was rejected because he was not white. he even wrote a book about it.he believed in nazism.there was ss prison guard of australian aborijin descendant trialed for war crimes WW2
@Vladdy95THS Prussians were not Aryans,no one is in Europe.
One thing was this Europe of royalty,chivalry,morality,and patriotism,other was the Europe of nationalism,from Napoleon forward,of ignorance,huge xenophobia,and racism,even towards very similar peoples,just because of a border.
Not saying that a vision of a black men was common,and all would be indifferent to it,a vision that in those times aroused curiosity,not artificially inputed,hysteria,rejection and hate.
@Vladdy95THS Hitler had Africans in his armys you goose. He had African soldiers in his "Afrika Korps" led by Rommel, they were treated as equals. Hitler had Asians, Arabs, Slavs, even jews in his armies. The only groups of people he hated were the Zionists jews (Jewish extremists, hence why he wanted all jews deported out of Europe to their original homeland)
@oxis77gas To understand why they wear such equipment and clothing and the lack of armour you must understand the technological developments and culture of the period. There were no showers of arrows on the 18th Century battlefields of Europe; bows and crossbows had been phased out long before. Due to advancements in armour technology in the Late Midieval period arrows were unable to penetrate and kill; whereas in the past they had only to punch through leather and chainmail. Hence
You're right. But if you see, this soldier soldiers not wear armor. Imagine: So, a little surprise with archers and next battle could be a disaster for prussian grenadiers...
@ginjaninja1988 Sortof errorneous. The muskets had such a notoriously bad time firing straight that the bullets almost always went off into nowhere. They had to be practically right in front of the person to hit them. It could kill easier, but not by much.
@magical11 There is a lot of myth around this fact but treatises and writings of the times reveal that the smoothbore musket was quite a formidable weapon. It was certainly accurate enough for induvidual soldiers to mark induvidual targets and hit them. Accuracy was encouraged and often rewarded with premiums and soldiers were trained to ensure their shots were not wasted and to ensure they were aiming not just pointing. Even when firing in volleys they were trained to aim at marks
@magical11 and ensure they hit them. While not accurate by today's standard they still could hit a man out around 100-150m. There are many myths in history... I come across them all the time as a ww2 reenactor who studies indepth and often just like how I learn't the truth about muskets you have to cut through the BS documentaries and read the writings from the people who were actually there.
@oxis77gas hey, alittle something called "civilization" and evoloution has outdone bows, do you think everyone threw away their bows for firearms without a reason? also theres a little something called cannon and cavalry, all are sufficant to crush the living daylight out of your archers
@dividednation44 actually, they threw away bows for a reason, yes. but it was not strength in weapons but that bows are more costy than muskets and the armys were so big that nor armor could be given out to the individual soldier.
also, training an archer takes much longer than training a musketier. the muskets in that time were by far inferior to firearms - but they came in huge numbers
so, u cant afford enough archers to be effective is the problem for such a tactic ;D
@dividednation44 In the 17th and 18th centuries battles were won by morale and bravery, not technology. Whichever general still had guys standing around the battle field was the winner. It wasn't really about killing of proving supremacy. Which is why the best trained armies won, and why the grenadiers existed in the first place. Grenadiers were useful because they thought they were the best of the best. It is a psychological game. Morale. Hence the silly hats and uniforms.
@oxis77gas weapons like bows became ineffective. At the same time the advancement of firearms meant that soldiers could be trained to kill from distance in a few days rather than a life time of melee or bow training. Thus bows disapeared and so did armour because firearms could defeat even the best armour of the time. So there was no threat from arrows and firearms could defeat armour so there was no point in wearing it on the 18th Century battlefield. As for the clothing that can
@oxis77gas also be logically explained. In the early days of Firearms etc..matchlocks. Firearms were often quite dangerous to their users if not loaded correctly and used carefully hence the armies of Europe developed drills that soldiers followed to the letter to ensure that correct use of the firearms was observed and saftey maintained. At the same time due to the primitive nature of the firearms and their smooth barrels which meant they were not that accurate to effectively kill
@oxis77gas your enemy in significant numbers soldiers had to fire their weapons en masse. Thus soldiers marched and drilled in formations to ensure that the largest amount of firepower was brought to bear. Thats why soldiers marched and fought in lines; not because some pompus twit thought it would look good which most people seem to think is what happened but because it was pratical for the use of those contemporary weapons. Thus bright colours were always worn to identify your own
@oxis77gas soldiers so your commander could actually see you and control you especially through thick clouds of gunpowder smoke. Armies were also a object of pride for civilized nations so their uniforms were suitably decorated and adorned. Don't let appearences fool you; these soldiers were tough, disciplined and skilled. They wore whigs and would still kick your ass. So it doesn't seem all that ridiculous when you understand the context of the period that the equipment was used in.
@ginjaninja1988 I really hate how stupid and uninformed people think that these soldiers were silly for wearing bright colored uniforms and fighting shoulder to shoulder without understanding the need for such tactics. Good to see that you're setting them straight! Salutes!
@blueboy921 Military bands of high prestige often had black musicians, because they were the masters of rhythm. They were even paid more then regular soldiers ;-)
some blacks into the army, where everyone sees they are as good as the Whites, but at the same time, FUCKING SELLING them as slaves in the carribean..
@blueboy921 Opinion on slavery was very different per state. Prussia, for example, didn't have slavery. As far as I know, britian never had black musicians. Same in the US, were some slaves worked on the plants, when others became teachers and secretaries.
@blueboy921 he is, though I might change that to something else in the future. I'm in fact fully Dutch and yeah, well, I just like military history and Prussians took quite a big part in that ^^
@blueboy921 Hmmm, de zwitsers hadden meestal de status van garde, maar Holland had niet zo'n groot leger en geen koningshuis, dus een garde was eigelijk niet zo nodig.
@UdallIn72 Well, clothing those days was a fair bit tighter then now, so it wasn't just the pants. Re-enactors mostly sweat completly after a battle ^^. Add the wigs to it, and you've got a heat-stroke in 15 degrees Celcius ;-)
What colonies? There were actually no German colonies in the 18th century. The Prussian colony Gross Friedrichsburg (Ghana) was only existing until 1717, when the Prussian king Friedrich the Great was still a small child, but the roots of black people may go to that period under his grandfather Friedrich I (1657-1713), who was in contrast to his son Friedrich Wilhelm I (the Soldier-King) interested in building a colonial empire. Afterwards, it deteriorated and was sold
I will not comment the term "nigger", but basically you are wrong. In the 18th and early 19th century every fashionable European regiment tried to have an African drummer, trumpeter or tambour-major. It was some kind of military fashion at that time. Often these musicians were "imported" from Africa as childs, growing up and getting trained in Europe. Other Africans became servants of European nobles. Many of them were well educated, serving even at royal courts.
@TheCliffhanger1970 More likely they were Arabs or Berbers or Turks. In any case I haven't heard of this and I read a LOT of history. Do you have sources?
Germans came from the Russian Slavs, Slavic Aryan empire, but russophobes rewrite our history.Look for the origins of history, even the Germans have brought most of the words of Russian, Slavic Russia today for the calendar years 7518, Russia's oldest state plan.pRussia , p-Russian , All Europeans are descended from the RussianSlavs).
@Exile499 Black musicians were the very masters of rhythm and were only given to the most prestige regiments, to add even more prestige ^^. They were free and paid.
@unfukkkmee and you look at all germans with your problem. you say all germans are bastards, but why? because of war more than 60 years ago? stupid jerk.
" both sides of the historical coin want to drum up historical support by having well-known figures on THEIR side." Couldn't have put it better myself. Its all these creationists trying to put greats on their side. Plus even if napoleon was religious the only thing he'd believe is in himself as god.
@ModellMeister "Its all these creationists trying to put greats on their side" - Its both theist AND atheist that attempt to strengthen their argumenets with the accomplishments of great men of the past, as well as linking the infamous to the opposite side. To say that BOTH sides dont do it would be incorrect. Personally, I look for the historical truth. It really doesnt matter ultimately is Napoleon or Frederick were deists, agnositcs, or Christians. That doesnt prove any of them.
@GermanConquistador08 There are 2 things that prove that Napoleon and Frederick were atheists- 1)history and 2)themselves. And I never link the infamous to the opposite side. I'll give you the habsburgs, they were awesome. However, you just sound desperate now. "They were christians" no at least agnostics no at least deist
@ModellMeister "There are 2 things that prove that Napoleon and Frederick were atheists- 1)history and 2)themselves" -...that is one of the most meaningless statements I've ever heard. First of all, those two are actually the same thing. Secondly, you bring up nothing of history which would account them to be atheist, NOT just deists, agnostics or non-religious Christians but actually ATHEISTS. Frederick you've probably got a better chance with however I'll agree,
@ModellMeister History, meaninging their political and social actions as rulers of states I'd assume you mean. Well from Napoleon we see the centralization of religious power to himself, and general religious toleration for Protestants in the Confederation of the Rhine, and opposing to the Pope when he stood in his way of domination of Italy. However, he reversed the dechristianization policies of the revolution and generally safeguarded religious freedoms, generally but not perfectly.
@ModellMeister Personally, Napoleon was a conflicting person on religion. He believed that it was essential for keeping control, and commented on the cult of the supreme being and other secular religions spawned out of the revolution. But, he also commented heavily on religious influences. Frederick was one of the most religiously tolerent men in Europe, who brought all manner of Christians to his kingdom and reformed Prussian law into a freer, fairer, and more tolerent society.
@GermanConquistador08 And Napoleon- how could he believe in a god when he himself said if he were to choose a god he'd choose the sun as a universal life -giver? Both men DID understand the power of religion, but they themselves personally were not religious. I'd like to ask for your source on how you know about their personal lives? I can give you books and articles/websites where I get my info
@ModellMeister By that I mean that the CULTURE and pratice of the pre-Enlightenment era were moreso responsible for things like the Inquisition, Witch burnings etc. etc. than any actual following of CHRISTIAN doctrine. In fact, the forerunner to the enlightenment was almost completely dominated by Christian theology. Erasmus, Thomas Moore, d'Etaples the list goes on. "if he were to choose a god" - Because the quote doesnt make any sense in its present state. Theres no context whatsoever.
@ModellMeister People use quotes to prove their point but unless you give the context for the quote, the narrative can become anything. For example why does he said "IF IF he were to choose" The context of this quote interests me, do you know it? "I'd like to ask for your source on how you know about their personal lives?"-Personally, I dont give out sources, I feel they're a waste of time becaue they're dismissed outright by my usual opponents but I dont feel as if I'm wasting my time this time
@ModellMeister Frederick's personal religious life was wrecked with conflict from his father's desire to restrict calvinism to his son and Fredericks hatred of the Catholic austrians who essentially ruined his early adult life. He considered religion to be insubstancial as a result but never openly condeemed the idea of God, or went so far as to call himself an atheist. ""They were christians" no at least agnostics no at least deist" - Actually I SAID they were at best Christians, at worse...
@GermanConquistador08 at BEST christian? what? you mean at WORST christian; worst case scenario, right? Plus Frederick 1) introduced a revolutionary education system 2) abolished SLAVERY AND TORTURE, 3)tolerated judaism and atheism (where everywhere else they were being killed) . I don't think that sounds very christian like (for a person back then)
@ModellMeister "worst case scenario, right?" -Reletively speaking. I'm not saying that its best to be Chrisitan and worst to be a deist, I'm just speaking in reletive terms later and former you know. "tolerated judaism" -Eh, more so than most monarchs but he wasnt as friendly to them as say the British were. "I don't think that sounds very christian like (for a person back then)" -Actually that sounds EXACTLY Christian, but historical revision gets the better of atheists I guess.
@GermanConquistador08 also "Theologians are all alike, of whatever religion or country they may be; their aim is always to wield despotic authority over men's consciences; they therefore persecute all of us who have the temerity to tell the truth." < In truth, i think Frederick meant the fact that god didn't exist. One more thing, another source says that Frederick did a lot to make himself seem religious to mask his innate atheist person; however his loathe of christianity is clearly evident
@ModellMeister Alright then, on what issue would you like a source then? I'm sorry for your last quote, but when more atheist websites than historical websites bring up a quote, thats usually a sign that the quotes either been faked or simply misgiven. My apologies. Again, I dont see anywhere in actual sources or quotations that Frederick was an atheist. Even if he was I still would love the chance to get to talk to the man regardless of his religion, I think we can both agree.
@GermanConquistador08 Well, despite his personal beliefs, he DID accept all religions; from his note to the religions department in 1740 that all religions must be tolerated- he probably didn't want to be seen as the intolerant creationist who was basically your average Christian/Catholic back in the day
@ModellMeister "he probably didn't want to be seen as the intolerant creationist who was basically your average Christian/Catholic back in the day" - Yes clearly, intolerant creationist. Much like a modern day atheist, ignoring all reletivity to the argument and making assumption which allude to the modern day. Seriously, is this a historical debate at this point? The average Christian probably didnt CARE about other religions, they were too busy working to survive.
@GermanConquistador08 Well, going back to the original argument; Friedrich II was an atheist. He publicly became a Calvinist to spite his father but he was extremely irreligious. End of argument.
@ModellMeister "End of argument" -Well, I can see that you have no interest in making an arguement out of this on the basis of historical truth so I should just let this go, but thats too sporting. "Friedrich II was an atheist" -By what grounds? Being hostile to the organized religions of his father and Austria who both made his life horrific during his formative years? Truely though, a man's religion beliefs can never be fully understood because there will always be outside forces conflicting.
@ModellMeister By which I mean to say that, one often adapts to the setting of which he finds himself, and where he WANTED to find himself was in the elite of the enlightenment which considered atheism as brighter than religious in the manners that would late define religion tothe elites of the French Revolution. Privately Frederick's view on religion was probably more complex than simple titles like theist or atheist could manage to convey.
@GermanConquistador08 I said end of argument because I saw that you were blind to the evidence; often creating your own sophisticated imagery and interpreting history rather than seeing it. Friedrich II was an atheist in the grounds that he did not believe in a deity. That is the only definition for atheist. A- theist. Not believing in a god
@ModellMeister "I saw that you were blind to the evidence" - Oh come on blind to what evidence? Just because I dont agree with you I'm blind to the evidence? I havnt even made a point, I've made a neutral statement that its impossible to tell the private religion of a such a complex man such as Frederick, I believe thats fair enough, but its you who continues to attempt to subvert historical unknowns in order to strengthen your viewpoint.
@ModellMeister "nah, your original point was that he was a creationist." -....all I can say is..no I never said anything of that manner. You must mistaken.
@ModellMeister "Friedrich II was an atheist in the grounds that he did not believe in a deity" -CLEARLY YOU know that right? Clearly, you have met the man, been in his head and known from the strongest convictions that he didnt believe in a deity? The problem here is that you're trying to strengthen atheistic viewpoints by adding a man such as Frederick to your side. I believe this is a fair statement: Its impossible to know for sure the religion of a man as complex as Frederick. Agree or dont?
The Prussian uniform seems to use the same coat color as the American revolutionaries. Sometimes they both wear tricorn hats. Is there a decent way to tell the difference between them?
Frederick the Great was strongly against slavery.....he was friends with Voltaire and did not believe in preposterous fantasies like Christianity. He was a great free thinker
@ModellMeister Friedrich the Great was a Calvinistic deist, he didnt despise Christianity, he simply aruged agaisnt strict religious conventions of intolerence is all. To say that he didnt believe in Christianity would be a falsehood and calling it a preposterous fantasy would cause Frederick himself to question your sanity. He was one of the greatest englightenment minds of his day, but you could hardly call him a religiously educated man in the conventional sense.
@GermanConquistador08 lolno..if you have ever read Friedrich's letters to Voltaire it can be seen he is vehemently irreligious. Allow me to share an excerpt from his Political Testament: "Christianity is an old,metaphysical fiction,stuffed with miracles,contradictions,and absurdities,which was spawned in the fevered imaginations of the Orientals and then spread to our Europe,where some fanatics espoused it,some intriguers pretended to be convinced by it and some imbeciles actually believed it."
@ModellMeister "if you have ever read Friedrich's letters to Voltaire it can be seen he is vehemently irreligious" -To be fair, part of that was to gain favor with Voltaire. Whover courted Voltaire the best was known as the most enlightened of the enlightenment era afterall. And even Voltaire was a deist in his own right. Secondly, his personal religious beliefs are often ellusive because he took up the Calvinist faith of previous Electors of Brandenburg yet was not religious educated.
@ModellMeister Saying that Frederick was an atheist would be the same right as saying he was a homosexual: Mostly based on interactions with Voltaire and often misrepresented.
@GermanConquistador08 I would agree that often things associated with Voltaire are misrepresented, yes, however Friedrich writes on many occasions how insane Religion is, like in his Political Testament of 1762. Have you no respect for the man? If you did you wouldn't be insulting his intelligence saying he believed in fairy tale.
@ModellMeister "Have you no respect for the man?" -He's personally my favorite Enlightenment era monarch, I've read several books on him and even have his book Anti-Machiavel. I know close to everything about the life of the man, including the reason for his alienination from religion being his father and many would call atheism the "religion" of the fatherless. "like in his Political Testament of 1762" Actually it was written in 1752 so..yeah.
@ModellMeister To be fair, he says that RELIGIONS are "founded on supersitutious systems" Frederick never claimed that the idea of God was absurd and he never claimed to be an atheist or that he didnt believe in God. Again at best he was a deist in the mold of Voltaire and at worse he was an agnostic anti-religious person most likely detesting religion from a point of personal experiences. If you look at the way and tone on which he died you'll notice inkling of regrets of all parts of his life
@ModellMeister "If you did you wouldn't be insulting his intelligence saying he believed in fairy tale." -If you're assuming that religious people are stupid than I'm sorry, you'd be wrong. And regardless, If I had the chance I would love to speak with a man as great as Frederick on the subject of religion but unfortunately I cant. What he believed is between him and God to be honest but to say that religious people arent intelligent than THAT would be an insult all in itself I would challenge.
@GermanConquistador08 Between him and god? You're argument is invalid because it assumes that God exists. Now I dont want to get into a religious debate here, and I agree that religious people did great things, like the list of monarchs you listed, and they made great advacnes (Newton) but on the most part they were intolerant and ignorant, and weren't THAT great in scientific knowledge. But its ok, because they didn't have the technology then to disprove religion.
@ModellMeister "You're argument is invalid because it assumes that God exists" - Yes it does, regardless it is the truth. His vocation would be between him and God so to speak on the matter, with such murky information on a man who lived over 200 years ago would be ultimately not worthwhile. "but on the most part they were intolerant and ignorant" - By what grounds do you make such a baseless claim?
@ModellMeister "weren't THAT great in scientific knowledge" - So what? Mendelssohn, the mathemiticians and astronomers of the Muslim world, Leibniz, Newton, Euler, Mendel in the next century. To say that those who were religious were mostly ignorant and intolerent is simply incorrect. And if we're speaking about monarchs, the Great Elector, the forerunner of Friedrich's religious tolerence policy?
@ModellMeister "But its ok, because they didn't have the technology then to disprove religion" - You're speaking as though religion HAS been disproven by modern technology. Religion hasnt been disproven, in fact modern technology has more illuminated humanity to a deeper understanding of religion than ever. Like Wernher von Braun said "Must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
@GermanConquistador08 No;the only thing technology did was disprove religion.The only reason its not official is that the religious would get insulted and cling to their beliefs like a barnacle on a ship. It wouldn't work. But for those of us who are educated, it is clear as crystal that religion is false.Still, some just use the Bible as a moral guidance.If that is so then they are using a book,that supports slavery,sexism,killing of people with different beliefs and gays as a moral guidance.
@ModellMeister " only thing technology did was disprove religion" -Again, how so? You never explain that even though I asked. "like a barnacle on a ship. It wouldn't work" -Well technically you'd need to dock a ship on land and scrap them off but regardless. "But for those of us who are educated, it is clear as crystal that religion is false" -Again, what is with this constant insulting and ignorant, bigoted generalization of religious people?
@ModellMeister You're calling all religious people uneducated? Seriously, that is a pretty bigoted generalization. "If that is so then they are using a book,that supports slavery,sexism,killing of people with different beliefs and gays as a moral guidance." -Well theres you're problem, you have a completely warped view of the bible. it does NOT support ANY of those things whatsoever. No wonder you're view of Christians is so wrong, you're view of the BIBLE is horribly warped and ignorant.
@GermanConquistador08 *Sigh* I can name detailed and very specific examples of how science can disprove god and everything that happened in the bible. But some parts we dont even need science. Really? Clay figures turned into us? A talking snake? A curse from an apple? Sounds like some disney fairy tale. Plus, my view of the bible is not horribly warped, theyre from excerpts from THE BIBLE.
@ModellMeister "theyre from excerpts from THE BIBLE." - No they're not. I'm going to make a bold, true statement: There is no support for slavery, genocide, sexism, thoughtless murder, or immorality in the bible whatsoever. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that matter on a purely scripture basis. The bible is a historical document, is worth considering and things considered, considered mind you, nonsense or fairy tales is ignoring everything else written in the bible.
@ModellMeister Look heres what I'm trying to say: Religious people are not stupid. Not by a long shot. HOWEVER, PEOPLE tend to be very stupid and that is across the board, all peoples everyone. You and I look look stupid to many people I'm sure, even though neither of us are. Its just the way humans think. But I challenge you on your presumption that religious people are ignorant, uneducated, or stupid.Religion is NOT devoid of logic, on the contrary its useful and it can be used intellectually.
@GermanConquistador08 It can be used intellectually, like Napoleon said, religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Or did Frederick II say that. Idk, both of them said something similar. The stuff is just nonsensical to me. Thats just my view, but I still have great respect for the Prussian, Habsburg and Austria Hungarian empire.
@ModellMeister "It can be used intellectually, like Napoleon said, religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet" - Your snark is starting to annoy me but otherwise you're fine in discussion. "The stuff is just nonsensical to me" - Well it isnt to a great many other people, educated and intelligent so I think you'd come across as more respectful if you would to..well show respect for the faithful.
@ModellMeister Also the quote you're looking for is "Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich." He was speaking about how the Catholic Church in France was essentially under the power of the French monarchy under such things as the Concordat of Bologna. Napoleon wasnt known for his love of organized religion, given his experiences in the French Revolution but to call him an atheist or agnostic, or anything less than a Christian would be incorrect.
@ModellMeister "Napoleon once said "You can do without God,but you can't do without Religion"" - I have never seen that quote attributed to napoleon in anything I've read about the man nor can I find it by simple search, I'm sorry you are wrong. Youre second quote, I found but I couldnt found the context for, and without context there is no truth, only narrative "Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love" - And confused when presented with contradictory quotes such as this one.
@ModellMeister Where Napoleon contrasted his power to that of Christ. Wheither that makes him an atheist? I dont know, he probably was influenced by the cult of the supreme being and the de-Christianization of the early French Revolutionary government so I'm not doubting that he was a skeptic or even an agnostic, but from his earlier years he does seem to be more atheistic, while in his later years he speaks more fondly of religion.
@ModellMeister "What's certain is he placed the interests of the French state and good public order above piety and subservience to Rome" -As did every King of France past Francis I, it doesnt make them any less religious. Napoleon's religion, like the religion of many greats famous or imfamous, is left up to discussion both for the sake of historical truth and because both sides of the historical coin want to drum up historical support by having well-known figures on THEIR side.
Daher hatte die militaristische DDR ihre Art zu marschieren. Ich dachte immer, sie imitierten ihre militärischen Vorbilder, die Nazis!
buenosdiers 15 hours ago
@buenosdiers Die Deutschen im 3.Reich haben ja vieles nach dem Vorbild Preußens gemacht. Die ganzen "Nazi-Märsche" sind eigentlich alle aus preußischer Zeit und deswegen auch nicht als Nazi-Märsche zu bezeichnen.
TheSnow77 6 hours ago
What is the name of the Marching Song?
SirJohnSmithPOTCO 4 days ago
Ja Programmatisches im Sinne multi-rassischer Zersetzung und Rassenvermischung ist auch dabei gewesen, schon 1962: Der Schwarz-Afrikaner vorne, worauf die Kamera mit Nachdruck verweist.Alles andere ist Kosmetik. Jetzt gibt es 100 Millionen judeo-afro-turco-islamisten-Schmarotzer in der EU, und die ebenfalls jüdisch angetriebenen Abtreibungsfabriken, die Weltweit, jedoch hauptsächlich in der Weissen Welt, 55 Millionen Menschen jährlich töten. In D 300.000 seit 1949;von 44-49 sind es 23 M gewesen.
marzipann777 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the hangarian grenadiers is the best
abdel9731 2 weeks ago
@Karpaneen
Incorrect, blacks were extremely prized and were given to the most prestigious regiments as musicians. Their was also the Bosniaks of sometimes mixed and full Turkish and Slavic descent who served in the cavalry.
TJPinoy 2 weeks ago
Donth be rasist,he cod have traveld to Prussia from africa or america
russianempire1000 2 weeks ago
ist das aus einem Film?wenn ja welcher?
Preussen1914 2 weeks ago
typisch made in gdr
videohai02 3 weeks ago
I am proud to be Prussian!
Windsor1able 4 weeks ago
@Windsor1able Proud to be Silesian here, I hear you brother!
mysongsend 3 weeks ago
@EvilKorbinDallas that was very rare and since we all know that aryan politics is very white and anti semitic it was not common for blacks to be in german military.aryan politics promoted anti muslim campaign and yet ther was hanjar division.one black guy who lived in germany during nazi regime tried to join the army,but was rejected because he was not white. he even wrote a book about it.he believed in nazism.there was ss prison guard of australian aborijin descendant trialed for war crimes WW2
Vladdy95THS 1 month ago
@Vladdy95THS Prussians were not Aryans,no one is in Europe.
One thing was this Europe of royalty,chivalry,morality,and patriotism,other was the Europe of nationalism,from Napoleon forward,of ignorance,huge xenophobia,and racism,even towards very similar peoples,just because of a border.
Not saying that a vision of a black men was common,and all would be indifferent to it,a vision that in those times aroused curiosity,not artificially inputed,hysteria,rejection and hate.
StellandBlood 4 days ago
I assume it was filmed in front of the Neues Palais in Potsdam?
Boerenfox 1 month ago
i like this hats :)
berke657 1 month ago
Wow!
Thanks for the video
As an amatuer military historian I was pleased to see this clip.
Of course being in new Zealand I had never heard of this movie.
Digmen1 1 month ago
there were black guys in prussian military? hitler must have been upset about that...
Vladdy95THS 1 month ago
@Vladdy95THS
Only a few dozen but they were mostly given to them most prestigious of regiments as musicians.
TJPinoy 1 month ago
@Vladdy95THS Hitler had Africans in his armys you goose. He had African soldiers in his "Afrika Korps" led by Rommel, they were treated as equals. Hitler had Asians, Arabs, Slavs, even jews in his armies. The only groups of people he hated were the Zionists jews (Jewish extremists, hence why he wanted all jews deported out of Europe to their original homeland)
EvilKorbinDallas 1 month ago
@EvilKorbinDallas Damn! A new twist in history.
garciagar64 1 month ago
@Vladdy95THS its just left propaganda
meProudToBeCaucasian 3 weeks ago
0:15 boris johnson
menacinghat 1 month ago
Preußens Gloria!
Piratenflagge1 1 month ago
Ridiculous equipment and army fashion.
Where is helmet, shield and breast armor ? Shower of arrows and this unit will be quckly dead...
oxis77gas 1 month ago
@oxis77gas Your either stupid or have no clue about history.
Teufelsnachbar667 1 month ago 9
@Teufelsnachbar667 Why ? I just say, what i think.
oxis77gas 1 month ago
@oxis77gas LOL if they had suits of armor how could they run away from the nazis!!??
SpringCube 1 month ago
@oxis77gas To understand why they wear such equipment and clothing and the lack of armour you must understand the technological developments and culture of the period. There were no showers of arrows on the 18th Century battlefields of Europe; bows and crossbows had been phased out long before. Due to advancements in armour technology in the Late Midieval period arrows were unable to penetrate and kill; whereas in the past they had only to punch through leather and chainmail. Hence
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@ginjaninja1988
You're right. But if you see, this soldier soldiers not wear armor. Imagine: So, a little surprise with archers and next battle could be a disaster for prussian grenadiers...
oxis77gas 1 month ago
Why would you use bows when you could just shoot them with firearms? A musket ball with kill easier than an arrow.
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@ginjaninja1988 Sortof errorneous. The muskets had such a notoriously bad time firing straight that the bullets almost always went off into nowhere. They had to be practically right in front of the person to hit them. It could kill easier, but not by much.
magical11 1 month ago
@magical11 There is a lot of myth around this fact but treatises and writings of the times reveal that the smoothbore musket was quite a formidable weapon. It was certainly accurate enough for induvidual soldiers to mark induvidual targets and hit them. Accuracy was encouraged and often rewarded with premiums and soldiers were trained to ensure their shots were not wasted and to ensure they were aiming not just pointing. Even when firing in volleys they were trained to aim at marks
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@magical11 and ensure they hit them. While not accurate by today's standard they still could hit a man out around 100-150m. There are many myths in history... I come across them all the time as a ww2 reenactor who studies indepth and often just like how I learn't the truth about muskets you have to cut through the BS documentaries and read the writings from the people who were actually there.
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@oxis77gas hey, alittle something called "civilization" and evoloution has outdone bows, do you think everyone threw away their bows for firearms without a reason? also theres a little something called cannon and cavalry, all are sufficant to crush the living daylight out of your archers
dividednation44 1 month ago
@dividednation44 actually, they threw away bows for a reason, yes. but it was not strength in weapons but that bows are more costy than muskets and the armys were so big that nor armor could be given out to the individual soldier.
also, training an archer takes much longer than training a musketier. the muskets in that time were by far inferior to firearms - but they came in huge numbers
so, u cant afford enough archers to be effective is the problem for such a tactic ;D
wingolf22 1 month ago
@dividednation44 In the 17th and 18th centuries battles were won by morale and bravery, not technology. Whichever general still had guys standing around the battle field was the winner. It wasn't really about killing of proving supremacy. Which is why the best trained armies won, and why the grenadiers existed in the first place. Grenadiers were useful because they thought they were the best of the best. It is a psychological game. Morale. Hence the silly hats and uniforms.
Melthornal 1 month ago 23
@Melthornal whene the war was art
MrThePsychologist 1 month ago
@Melthornal my hat is bigger than YOURS!!! :P
theliberator1 1 month ago
@oxis77gas weapons like bows became ineffective. At the same time the advancement of firearms meant that soldiers could be trained to kill from distance in a few days rather than a life time of melee or bow training. Thus bows disapeared and so did armour because firearms could defeat even the best armour of the time. So there was no threat from arrows and firearms could defeat armour so there was no point in wearing it on the 18th Century battlefield. As for the clothing that can
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@oxis77gas also be logically explained. In the early days of Firearms etc..matchlocks. Firearms were often quite dangerous to their users if not loaded correctly and used carefully hence the armies of Europe developed drills that soldiers followed to the letter to ensure that correct use of the firearms was observed and saftey maintained. At the same time due to the primitive nature of the firearms and their smooth barrels which meant they were not that accurate to effectively kill
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@oxis77gas your enemy in significant numbers soldiers had to fire their weapons en masse. Thus soldiers marched and drilled in formations to ensure that the largest amount of firepower was brought to bear. Thats why soldiers marched and fought in lines; not because some pompus twit thought it would look good which most people seem to think is what happened but because it was pratical for the use of those contemporary weapons. Thus bright colours were always worn to identify your own
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@oxis77gas soldiers so your commander could actually see you and control you especially through thick clouds of gunpowder smoke. Armies were also a object of pride for civilized nations so their uniforms were suitably decorated and adorned. Don't let appearences fool you; these soldiers were tough, disciplined and skilled. They wore whigs and would still kick your ass. So it doesn't seem all that ridiculous when you understand the context of the period that the equipment was used in.
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago
@ginjaninja1988 I really hate how stupid and uninformed people think that these soldiers were silly for wearing bright colored uniforms and fighting shoulder to shoulder without understanding the need for such tactics. Good to see that you're setting them straight! Salutes!
Norrington516 1 month ago
I like Prussians and Austrians, my favourite two Germanic states.
PhilAFire93 1 month ago
Random Black guy at 0:15 FTW
TheImperialistStates 1 month ago
@TheImperialistStates Prussia employed black drummers in their military.
Bmanstudios101 1 month ago
Whats the marching music in the background?
Schwertization 1 month ago
ja klar 0:15 ein Afrikaner.. natüüüürlich
blueboy921 1 month ago
@blueboy921 Military bands of high prestige often had black musicians, because they were the masters of rhythm. They were even paid more then regular soldiers ;-)
ViccardXViccc 1 month ago
@ViccardXViccc
Really ?
Thats bullshit right ?
some blacks into the army, where everyone sees they are as good as the Whites, but at the same time, FUCKING SELLING them as slaves in the carribean..
strange right ?
blueboy921 1 month ago
@blueboy921 Opinion on slavery was very different per state. Prussia, for example, didn't have slavery. As far as I know, britian never had black musicians. Same in the US, were some slaves worked on the plants, when others became teachers and secretaries.
ViccardXViccc 1 month ago
@ViccardXViccc
is that de Ruyter in your profile pic ?
so are you kinda dutch but like the prussians ?
strange ^^
blueboy921 1 month ago
@blueboy921 he is, though I might change that to something else in the future. I'm in fact fully Dutch and yeah, well, I just like military history and Prussians took quite a big part in that ^^
ViccardXViccc 1 month ago
@ViccardXViccc
ja ik hou ook erg van militaire geschiedenis, ik ben onder anderen ook en spel ant maaken (Mod) : colonialism total war
en pruisen heeft wel de beste militair in de 18de eeuw, dus ja, tamelijk belangerijk ^^
Had Nederland in de 18de eeuw eigenlijk nog meer Gardes dan aleemaar de Hollandse Gaarde en de Blauwe Gaarde ?
ik ken er geen andere meer, maar vraag ik me steets al af.
blueboy921 1 month ago
@blueboy921 Hmmm, de zwitsers hadden meestal de status van garde, maar Holland had niet zo'n groot leger en geen koningshuis, dus een garde was eigelijk niet zo nodig.
ViccardXViccc 1 month ago
VERY GOOD
hva1967 1 month ago
and where is that black african comes from? does he loyals to prussia?
DiscothecaImperialis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INDEPEDENCE FOR EASTERN GERMANY
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
P - RUSSIANS Grenadiers
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee: What are you getting at? Are you implying that Prussians are Russians?
Schmidtah 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Schmidtah NO, THE GERMANS ARE THE CREATORS OF SLAVS
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
I can't imagine what it must have been like to walk all over Europe in pants like that. These guys probably DID NOT smell very good.
UdallIn72 2 months ago
@UdallIn72 Well, clothing those days was a fair bit tighter then now, so it wasn't just the pants. Re-enactors mostly sweat completly after a battle ^^. Add the wigs to it, and you've got a heat-stroke in 15 degrees Celcius ;-)
ViccardXViccc 1 month ago
What's a black guy doing in 18th century Prussia?
breezeman199 2 months ago
@breezeman199
Maybe a mercenary - like most of teh 17th century soldiers of all nations.
MaximKretsch 2 months ago
@breezeman199 maybe he is from the colonies
Maxinator20 2 months ago
@Maxinator20
What colonies? There were actually no German colonies in the 18th century. The Prussian colony Gross Friedrichsburg (Ghana) was only existing until 1717, when the Prussian king Friedrich the Great was still a small child, but the roots of black people may go to that period under his grandfather Friedrich I (1657-1713), who was in contrast to his son Friedrich Wilhelm I (the Soldier-King) interested in building a colonial empire. Afterwards, it deteriorated and was sold
Lugalanda 1 month ago
nice Instrumental only Version ! Greetings from East Germany! =)
HipHopNobby 2 months ago
lol. Tolkien black dude @ 0:15. That surprised me a bit
dr1Voss48 2 months ago
Don't think you'd have a nigger in your military force in the 1700's..
BlackSGMan 2 months ago
@BlackSGMan
I will not comment the term "nigger", but basically you are wrong. In the 18th and early 19th century every fashionable European regiment tried to have an African drummer, trumpeter or tambour-major. It was some kind of military fashion at that time. Often these musicians were "imported" from Africa as childs, growing up and getting trained in Europe. Other Africans became servants of European nobles. Many of them were well educated, serving even at royal courts.
TheCliffhanger1970 2 months ago
@TheCliffhanger1970 More likely they were Arabs or Berbers or Turks. In any case I haven't heard of this and I read a LOT of history. Do you have sources?
breezeman199 2 months ago
@breezeman199
Check the "Brandenburger Gold Coast" in Wikipedia and learn about Prussias early colonial experimets.
MaximKretsch 2 months ago
@MaximKretsch Interesting. Thanks. Still I have to believe the black population would be extremely small
breezeman199 2 months ago
@timmeoe Hört sich an, wie der Anfang vom Hohenfrieberger Marsch...
Jonnymur 2 months ago
SUCKS IN BARBARIC GermaNY
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee go fuck yourself :)
thanks
dividednation44 2 months ago
----
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
---
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
----
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
----
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
----
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
---
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
---
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
---
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
----
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germans came from the Russian Slavs, Slavic Aryan empire, but russophobes rewrite our history.Look for the origins of history, even the Germans have brought most of the words of Russian, Slavic Russia today for the calendar years 7518, Russia's oldest state plan.pRussia , p-Russian , All Europeans are descended from the RussianSlavs).
mishka902 2 months ago
East german film XD roflmfao!!!!!
SPQR35715 2 months ago
Oh never mind
SPQR35715 2 months ago
Ich bin Amerikanischer.
SPQR35715 2 months ago
Wie heisst dieser Film?
SPQR35715 2 months ago
kann mir jemand sagen wie das lied von 00:09 bis 00:11 heisst?
timmeoe 2 months ago
could someone please tell me why there is a black musician?
Exile499 2 months ago
@Exile499 Black musicians were the very masters of rhythm and were only given to the most prestige regiments, to add even more prestige ^^. They were free and paid.
ViccardXViccc 2 months ago
Where was it filmed? It can't be the orignal Castle at potsdam.
Bixforever 2 months ago
@Bixforever
Sure, why not?
MaximKretsch 2 months ago
GERMANO-BARBARIANS
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee you can't let it be, right?
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar MY WORDS IS TRUTH
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee ...and still not know how to write correct english?
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar WHO CARES
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee me, and let it be to write with capital letters, thats annoying.
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar IF U HAS PROBLEM , DONT LOOK AT ME
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee and you look at all germans with your problem. you say all germans are bastards, but why? because of war more than 60 years ago? stupid jerk.
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar HEY BARBAROID I WANNA SENT U BACK IN SIBERIA
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee oh yes I am responsible for what others did 60 years ago.
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar SHUT UP
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee so thats all what you know to insult me? nothing with, ehm....reasons, why I am a bastard? ..only shut up? very enterprisingly.....
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar ARE U WOMAN OR MALE ?
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee male, but who cares? give me reasons why you are allowed to insult me.
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
@amEricaneurOstar I NOT INSULT U AS PERSON, I INSULT THE GERMAN ENEMY
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee but why? are we enemys? don't we help you in your crisis? we spend money because your country is too stupid to work with the euro.
amEricaneurOstar 2 months ago
" both sides of the historical coin want to drum up historical support by having well-known figures on THEIR side." Couldn't have put it better myself. Its all these creationists trying to put greats on their side. Plus even if napoleon was religious the only thing he'd believe is in himself as god.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "Its all these creationists trying to put greats on their side" - Its both theist AND atheist that attempt to strengthen their argumenets with the accomplishments of great men of the past, as well as linking the infamous to the opposite side. To say that BOTH sides dont do it would be incorrect. Personally, I look for the historical truth. It really doesnt matter ultimately is Napoleon or Frederick were deists, agnositcs, or Christians. That doesnt prove any of them.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 There are 2 things that prove that Napoleon and Frederick were atheists- 1)history and 2)themselves. And I never link the infamous to the opposite side. I'll give you the habsburgs, they were awesome. However, you just sound desperate now. "They were christians" no at least agnostics no at least deist
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "There are 2 things that prove that Napoleon and Frederick were atheists- 1)history and 2)themselves" -...that is one of the most meaningless statements I've ever heard. First of all, those two are actually the same thing. Secondly, you bring up nothing of history which would account them to be atheist, NOT just deists, agnostics or non-religious Christians but actually ATHEISTS. Frederick you've probably got a better chance with however I'll agree,
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister History, meaninging their political and social actions as rulers of states I'd assume you mean. Well from Napoleon we see the centralization of religious power to himself, and general religious toleration for Protestants in the Confederation of the Rhine, and opposing to the Pope when he stood in his way of domination of Italy. However, he reversed the dechristianization policies of the revolution and generally safeguarded religious freedoms, generally but not perfectly.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Personally, Napoleon was a conflicting person on religion. He believed that it was essential for keeping control, and commented on the cult of the supreme being and other secular religions spawned out of the revolution. But, he also commented heavily on religious influences. Frederick was one of the most religiously tolerent men in Europe, who brought all manner of Christians to his kingdom and reformed Prussian law into a freer, fairer, and more tolerent society.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 And Napoleon- how could he believe in a god when he himself said if he were to choose a god he'd choose the sun as a universal life -giver? Both men DID understand the power of religion, but they themselves personally were not religious. I'd like to ask for your source on how you know about their personal lives? I can give you books and articles/websites where I get my info
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister By that I mean that the CULTURE and pratice of the pre-Enlightenment era were moreso responsible for things like the Inquisition, Witch burnings etc. etc. than any actual following of CHRISTIAN doctrine. In fact, the forerunner to the enlightenment was almost completely dominated by Christian theology. Erasmus, Thomas Moore, d'Etaples the list goes on. "if he were to choose a god" - Because the quote doesnt make any sense in its present state. Theres no context whatsoever.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister People use quotes to prove their point but unless you give the context for the quote, the narrative can become anything. For example why does he said "IF IF he were to choose" The context of this quote interests me, do you know it? "I'd like to ask for your source on how you know about their personal lives?"-Personally, I dont give out sources, I feel they're a waste of time becaue they're dismissed outright by my usual opponents but I dont feel as if I'm wasting my time this time
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Frederick's personal religious life was wrecked with conflict from his father's desire to restrict calvinism to his son and Fredericks hatred of the Catholic austrians who essentially ruined his early adult life. He considered religion to be insubstancial as a result but never openly condeemed the idea of God, or went so far as to call himself an atheist. ""They were christians" no at least agnostics no at least deist" - Actually I SAID they were at best Christians, at worse...
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 at BEST christian? what? you mean at WORST christian; worst case scenario, right? Plus Frederick 1) introduced a revolutionary education system 2) abolished SLAVERY AND TORTURE, 3)tolerated judaism and atheism (where everywhere else they were being killed) . I don't think that sounds very christian like (for a person back then)
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "worst case scenario, right?" -Reletively speaking. I'm not saying that its best to be Chrisitan and worst to be a deist, I'm just speaking in reletive terms later and former you know. "tolerated judaism" -Eh, more so than most monarchs but he wasnt as friendly to them as say the British were. "I don't think that sounds very christian like (for a person back then)" -Actually that sounds EXACTLY Christian, but historical revision gets the better of atheists I guess.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 also "Theologians are all alike, of whatever religion or country they may be; their aim is always to wield despotic authority over men's consciences; they therefore persecute all of us who have the temerity to tell the truth." < In truth, i think Frederick meant the fact that god didn't exist. One more thing, another source says that Frederick did a lot to make himself seem religious to mask his innate atheist person; however his loathe of christianity is clearly evident
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Alright then, on what issue would you like a source then? I'm sorry for your last quote, but when more atheist websites than historical websites bring up a quote, thats usually a sign that the quotes either been faked or simply misgiven. My apologies. Again, I dont see anywhere in actual sources or quotations that Frederick was an atheist. Even if he was I still would love the chance to get to talk to the man regardless of his religion, I think we can both agree.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Well, despite his personal beliefs, he DID accept all religions; from his note to the religions department in 1740 that all religions must be tolerated- he probably didn't want to be seen as the intolerant creationist who was basically your average Christian/Catholic back in the day
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "he probably didn't want to be seen as the intolerant creationist who was basically your average Christian/Catholic back in the day" - Yes clearly, intolerant creationist. Much like a modern day atheist, ignoring all reletivity to the argument and making assumption which allude to the modern day. Seriously, is this a historical debate at this point? The average Christian probably didnt CARE about other religions, they were too busy working to survive.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Well, going back to the original argument; Friedrich II was an atheist. He publicly became a Calvinist to spite his father but he was extremely irreligious. End of argument.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "End of argument" -Well, I can see that you have no interest in making an arguement out of this on the basis of historical truth so I should just let this go, but thats too sporting. "Friedrich II was an atheist" -By what grounds? Being hostile to the organized religions of his father and Austria who both made his life horrific during his formative years? Truely though, a man's religion beliefs can never be fully understood because there will always be outside forces conflicting.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister By which I mean to say that, one often adapts to the setting of which he finds himself, and where he WANTED to find himself was in the elite of the enlightenment which considered atheism as brighter than religious in the manners that would late define religion tothe elites of the French Revolution. Privately Frederick's view on religion was probably more complex than simple titles like theist or atheist could manage to convey.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 I said end of argument because I saw that you were blind to the evidence; often creating your own sophisticated imagery and interpreting history rather than seeing it. Friedrich II was an atheist in the grounds that he did not believe in a deity. That is the only definition for atheist. A- theist. Not believing in a god
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "I saw that you were blind to the evidence" - Oh come on blind to what evidence? Just because I dont agree with you I'm blind to the evidence? I havnt even made a point, I've made a neutral statement that its impossible to tell the private religion of a such a complex man such as Frederick, I believe thats fair enough, but its you who continues to attempt to subvert historical unknowns in order to strengthen your viewpoint.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 nah, your original point was that he was a creationist.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "nah, your original point was that he was a creationist." -....all I can say is..no I never said anything of that manner. You must mistaken.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "Friedrich II was an atheist in the grounds that he did not believe in a deity" -CLEARLY YOU know that right? Clearly, you have met the man, been in his head and known from the strongest convictions that he didnt believe in a deity? The problem here is that you're trying to strengthen atheistic viewpoints by adding a man such as Frederick to your side. I believe this is a fair statement: Its impossible to know for sure the religion of a man as complex as Frederick. Agree or dont?
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
The Prussian uniform seems to use the same coat color as the American revolutionaries. Sometimes they both wear tricorn hats. Is there a decent way to tell the difference between them?
Lamashtar 2 months ago
Frederick the Great was strongly against slavery.....he was friends with Voltaire and did not believe in preposterous fantasies like Christianity. He was a great free thinker
ModellMeister 3 months ago
@ModellMeister Friedrich the Great was a Calvinistic deist, he didnt despise Christianity, he simply aruged agaisnt strict religious conventions of intolerence is all. To say that he didnt believe in Christianity would be a falsehood and calling it a preposterous fantasy would cause Frederick himself to question your sanity. He was one of the greatest englightenment minds of his day, but you could hardly call him a religiously educated man in the conventional sense.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 lolno..if you have ever read Friedrich's letters to Voltaire it can be seen he is vehemently irreligious. Allow me to share an excerpt from his Political Testament: "Christianity is an old,metaphysical fiction,stuffed with miracles,contradictions,and absurdities,which was spawned in the fevered imaginations of the Orientals and then spread to our Europe,where some fanatics espoused it,some intriguers pretended to be convinced by it and some imbeciles actually believed it."
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "if you have ever read Friedrich's letters to Voltaire it can be seen he is vehemently irreligious" -To be fair, part of that was to gain favor with Voltaire. Whover courted Voltaire the best was known as the most enlightened of the enlightenment era afterall. And even Voltaire was a deist in his own right. Secondly, his personal religious beliefs are often ellusive because he took up the Calvinist faith of previous Electors of Brandenburg yet was not religious educated.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Saying that Frederick was an atheist would be the same right as saying he was a homosexual: Mostly based on interactions with Voltaire and often misrepresented.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 I would agree that often things associated with Voltaire are misrepresented, yes, however Friedrich writes on many occasions how insane Religion is, like in his Political Testament of 1762. Have you no respect for the man? If you did you wouldn't be insulting his intelligence saying he believed in fairy tale.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "Have you no respect for the man?" -He's personally my favorite Enlightenment era monarch, I've read several books on him and even have his book Anti-Machiavel. I know close to everything about the life of the man, including the reason for his alienination from religion being his father and many would call atheism the "religion" of the fatherless. "like in his Political Testament of 1762" Actually it was written in 1752 so..yeah.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister To be fair, he says that RELIGIONS are "founded on supersitutious systems" Frederick never claimed that the idea of God was absurd and he never claimed to be an atheist or that he didnt believe in God. Again at best he was a deist in the mold of Voltaire and at worse he was an agnostic anti-religious person most likely detesting religion from a point of personal experiences. If you look at the way and tone on which he died you'll notice inkling of regrets of all parts of his life
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "If you did you wouldn't be insulting his intelligence saying he believed in fairy tale." -If you're assuming that religious people are stupid than I'm sorry, you'd be wrong. And regardless, If I had the chance I would love to speak with a man as great as Frederick on the subject of religion but unfortunately I cant. What he believed is between him and God to be honest but to say that religious people arent intelligent than THAT would be an insult all in itself I would challenge.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Between him and god? You're argument is invalid because it assumes that God exists. Now I dont want to get into a religious debate here, and I agree that religious people did great things, like the list of monarchs you listed, and they made great advacnes (Newton) but on the most part they were intolerant and ignorant, and weren't THAT great in scientific knowledge. But its ok, because they didn't have the technology then to disprove religion.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "You're argument is invalid because it assumes that God exists" - Yes it does, regardless it is the truth. His vocation would be between him and God so to speak on the matter, with such murky information on a man who lived over 200 years ago would be ultimately not worthwhile. "but on the most part they were intolerant and ignorant" - By what grounds do you make such a baseless claim?
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "weren't THAT great in scientific knowledge" - So what? Mendelssohn, the mathemiticians and astronomers of the Muslim world, Leibniz, Newton, Euler, Mendel in the next century. To say that those who were religious were mostly ignorant and intolerent is simply incorrect. And if we're speaking about monarchs, the Great Elector, the forerunner of Friedrich's religious tolerence policy?
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "But its ok, because they didn't have the technology then to disprove religion" - You're speaking as though religion HAS been disproven by modern technology. Religion hasnt been disproven, in fact modern technology has more illuminated humanity to a deeper understanding of religion than ever. Like Wernher von Braun said "Must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 No;the only thing technology did was disprove religion.The only reason its not official is that the religious would get insulted and cling to their beliefs like a barnacle on a ship. It wouldn't work. But for those of us who are educated, it is clear as crystal that religion is false.Still, some just use the Bible as a moral guidance.If that is so then they are using a book,that supports slavery,sexism,killing of people with different beliefs and gays as a moral guidance.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister " only thing technology did was disprove religion" -Again, how so? You never explain that even though I asked. "like a barnacle on a ship. It wouldn't work" -Well technically you'd need to dock a ship on land and scrap them off but regardless. "But for those of us who are educated, it is clear as crystal that religion is false" -Again, what is with this constant insulting and ignorant, bigoted generalization of religious people?
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister You're calling all religious people uneducated? Seriously, that is a pretty bigoted generalization. "If that is so then they are using a book,that supports slavery,sexism,killing of people with different beliefs and gays as a moral guidance." -Well theres you're problem, you have a completely warped view of the bible. it does NOT support ANY of those things whatsoever. No wonder you're view of Christians is so wrong, you're view of the BIBLE is horribly warped and ignorant.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 *Sigh* I can name detailed and very specific examples of how science can disprove god and everything that happened in the bible. But some parts we dont even need science. Really? Clay figures turned into us? A talking snake? A curse from an apple? Sounds like some disney fairy tale. Plus, my view of the bible is not horribly warped, theyre from excerpts from THE BIBLE.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "theyre from excerpts from THE BIBLE." - No they're not. I'm going to make a bold, true statement: There is no support for slavery, genocide, sexism, thoughtless murder, or immorality in the bible whatsoever. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that matter on a purely scripture basis. The bible is a historical document, is worth considering and things considered, considered mind you, nonsense or fairy tales is ignoring everything else written in the bible.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Look heres what I'm trying to say: Religious people are not stupid. Not by a long shot. HOWEVER, PEOPLE tend to be very stupid and that is across the board, all peoples everyone. You and I look look stupid to many people I'm sure, even though neither of us are. Its just the way humans think. But I challenge you on your presumption that religious people are ignorant, uneducated, or stupid.Religion is NOT devoid of logic, on the contrary its useful and it can be used intellectually.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 It can be used intellectually, like Napoleon said, religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Or did Frederick II say that. Idk, both of them said something similar. The stuff is just nonsensical to me. Thats just my view, but I still have great respect for the Prussian, Habsburg and Austria Hungarian empire.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "It can be used intellectually, like Napoleon said, religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet" - Your snark is starting to annoy me but otherwise you're fine in discussion. "The stuff is just nonsensical to me" - Well it isnt to a great many other people, educated and intelligent so I think you'd come across as more respectful if you would to..well show respect for the faithful.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Also the quote you're looking for is "Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich." He was speaking about how the Catholic Church in France was essentially under the power of the French monarchy under such things as the Concordat of Bologna. Napoleon wasnt known for his love of organized religion, given his experiences in the French Revolution but to call him an atheist or agnostic, or anything less than a Christian would be incorrect.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Napoleon once said "You can do without God,but you can't do without Religion"
"All religions have been made by men"
"If I had to choose a religion,the Sun as the universal giver of life would be my god"
What's certain is he placed the interests of the French state and good public order above piety and subservience to Rome.
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ModellMeister "Napoleon once said "You can do without God,but you can't do without Religion"" - I have never seen that quote attributed to napoleon in anything I've read about the man nor can I find it by simple search, I'm sorry you are wrong. Youre second quote, I found but I couldnt found the context for, and without context there is no truth, only narrative "Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love" - And confused when presented with contradictory quotes such as this one.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister Where Napoleon contrasted his power to that of Christ. Wheither that makes him an atheist? I dont know, he probably was influenced by the cult of the supreme being and the de-Christianization of the early French Revolutionary government so I'm not doubting that he was a skeptic or even an agnostic, but from his earlier years he does seem to be more atheistic, while in his later years he speaks more fondly of religion.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@ModellMeister "What's certain is he placed the interests of the French state and good public order above piety and subservience to Rome" -As did every King of France past Francis I, it doesnt make them any less religious. Napoleon's religion, like the religion of many greats famous or imfamous, is left up to discussion both for the sake of historical truth and because both sides of the historical coin want to drum up historical support by having well-known figures on THEIR side.
GermanConquistador08 2 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 so thanks for stating the argument that i have been making for so long that you did not get
ModellMeister 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam