Battle of Leuthen, 1757
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2011
- For more great battles visit www.TheArtofBattle.com. It's like a museum. Except not boring.
This animation covers the Battle of Leuthen, December 5, 1757.
Red = Prussian Army
Blue = Austrian Army
Animated and narrated by Jonathan Webb.
An EXTREMELY important thing to remember about this battle is battlefield knowledge. The environs around Leuthen happened to be a location where the Prussian army had previously trained extensively. It is almost certain that Frederick knew every village and every significant hill and ridge in the battlefield area. He KNEW that he could march his troops out of sight of the Austrians to the south and then put themselves on the flank without them being any the wiser. He KNEW where to put his big guns for maximum effect. He KNEW where to move his cannons when the Austrians packed themselves in the village (the Austrians packed themselves so deeply in the village that any cannon shot, solid ball or case shot, that hit anywhere near where they were aiming was going to do devastating physical and morale damage).
It seems like something that really doesn't need to be explained nowadays, but battlefield knowledge just was not emphasized back in this era of war. It's largely what contributed to Napoleon's successes. Napoleon was a good tactician, yes, but his great strength was his pouring over maps and the ability to remember them in the heat of battle. When you know the battlefield, you know what paths are available to you and your opponent and, more importantly, which are not. Motion and maneuvers of forces become a lot easier to do and anticipate when you know the terrain.
It's probably why Napoleon took such a liking to this battle: "This Battle is a masterpiece of movement, or maneuvers and of resolution; enough to immortalize Friedrich, and rank him among the greatest Generals. Manifests, in the highest degree, both his moral qualities and his military."
Infantry combat ability +40%
Calvary combat ability +20%
Cannon combat ability +10%
Discipline 137.5%
Army tradition 95.0
Morale 9.5
Give up
The Austrian forces essentially lost their freedom of action. Whenever a military force loses their freedom of action all they can really do is react. Virtually all military doctrines for the last few centuries, excluding the intermittent importance placed on the defensive, have centered around offensive action and forcing the enemy into an unfavorable situation and limiting their options. My favorite example of this was the Schlieffen plan as it was originally conceived. The German forces, by launching a very strong offensive into Northern France and leaving minimal forces to defend the southern portion of the line, left the French with very few options. They could attempt to outflank the German right, but Schlieffen had thought of this. By rapidly advancing to the Channel coast and anchoring his right flank, an outflanking maneuver by the French was impossible. They would not be able to outflank their enemy before they reached the coast due to the fact that this would have taken too much time to organize and execute. Plus, the French were defensively-minded due to their strong fortifications. Another main French option was to remain on the defensive and hope to withstand any German attack. But this was why the German plan involved a huge numerical advantage on the right flank, essentially eliminating the possibility of being bogged down before reaching the coast and eventually surrounding the French forces by driving south and then east. The last option was a French counter-attack in Alsace-Lorraine. This would have been a huge blunder that would have placed French forces even further from the main German threat. The Schlieffen plan was absolutely brilliant. I mention this because of the fact that every French option was thought of and negated, thus they had no freedom of action. This was partly due, as I said, to the importance placed on defensive doctrine, or the "Maginot Line mentality". The only reason Schlieffen's plan did not work is because Moltke the Younger watered it down considerably. First, he moved too many forces east to meet the Russian threat. This would not have been disastrous if he had taken the forces from the western left flank's reserve, but he weakened the right, the flank that was central to the success of the plan. Not only that, but Schieffen's original conception called for a force concentration much greater than originally occurred, dooming the plan from the beginning. Another huge military blunder is to have any level of your military strategy dependent upon the enemy doing a particular thing. Expecting the enemy to do this thing, and hinging your plan on it, will ultimately lead to defeat most of the time. Going back to the Battle of Leuthen, Charles made another mistake in not properly understanding the situation. It is up to the commander to seek out a better understanding of the situation, instead of making assumptions and guesses. The first mistake came from trusting the idea that the Prussian attack was coming on the right. This should have been confirmed as quickly as possible. After the Prussians appeared on the Austrian left, the battle was not decided, but the odds had dramatically increased for the Prussian forces. There were a couple of decent occasions for withdrawing the Austrian forces to fight another day, which should have been considered if not carried out. Instead, Charles decided to still remain in Leuthen, despite the fact that his forces had no way to force their will upon the enemy. Retreating was not necessarily the right thing to do considering there were more than military factors to consider, but the combination of multiple mistakes on the tactical and grand tactical or operational scales was more than enough to ensure an Austrian defeat in my opinion. Given that some of the general officers on the Austrian staff did not agree with Charles' plan to meet Frederick at that time, his state of mind is pretty clear in my opinion. Even though hindsight is 20/20, the burden of command is on the commander, and as such he should do everything in his power to achieve victory at the lowest possible cost. Although I can sit here from the comfort of my chair and say "this or that" should have been done, I have the luxury of all the details of the situation, and I also do not have to contend with the fog of war and the friction present in all military operations. Despite these glaring facts however, again I implore that it is up to the commander of any military force, whether it be an army group, an army, a division, a battalion, or a squad, has a responsibility to make the best decisions possible...and I do not feel that the Austrian commander, or the majority of his general officers, did everything in their power to understand and deal with the situation on the battlefield that day. The Prussians had a good military force with military bearing on the field, but Frederick was always hampered by the fact that he had to keep his forces together most of the time, due to a potential fear of desertion. Having no sense of nationality, and utilizing many foreign soldiers, it was not like the later French Army under Napoleon. The army that came out of The Terror was one with a national identity, the first of its kind given its size. Frederick was severely weakened by the probable desertion of large portions of his forces, and thus unlike Napoleon who would later seperate his forces to live off the land, Frederick was limited by constantly having to maintain a large logistics network. These were factors that plagued other armies in the past, and it should have been realized that this was a weakness. So there were larger strategic options at Austria's disposal, and that is my real point. Anyway, I think more could have and should have been done by Charles in this battle, ESPECIALLY considering his numerical advantage.
+Jiggy Potamus .. and yet the Prussian army did split ;)
I wasn't referring to the tactical division of forces, rather I meant that in general strategic terms the Prussians did not have the freedom to divide their forces that later commanders, such as Napoleon, possessed, and which led to overwhelming victories such as over general Mack at Ulm, due to factors such as logistics, officers who were trained to be positionally-minded, the real possibility of troop desertions, as well as the fact that mercenaries, commonly used during this period, are motivated only by pay and thus do not possess that sense of nationality which fosters that corps spirit and camaraderie. It has been argued, correctly as history has shown, that national armies, permeated with that national pride, have a certain cohesion that greatly increases their battlefield effectiveness. I do not feel that the majority of armies during the time in question possessed such a camaraderie. Soldiers fight for the men next to them, plain and simple, and I firmly believe that moral factors are as essential to victory, if not more so, than strength of arms. Conscripted soldiers have been shown to sometimes possess unity, while at other times they lack this esprit de corps. Thus conscripts themselves are not inherently ineffective, but have been shown to be less effective under these types of conditions. The idea of smaller, professional armies has been shown to be inferior in many cases as well, although this is totally dependent on the particular scenario. A small, professional army is sometimes better than a large, less-well-trained force, although sometimes the larger "citizen army" can defeat a smaller army of professionals. Look at the Battle of Marathon. Military historians like Delbruck have convincingly shown that the Persians were inferior in numbers to the Greeks, and were also better trained, but they still lost. Why? The only possibility is that the Greeks protected their flanks, otherwise the Persian cavalry would have cut down the Greek phalanx, which is a massed body of men that cannot maneuver in any direction but straight ahead. This leads us to conclude that Herodotus' account of the battle taking placing on an open plain to be false, and instead the battle must have taken place in a nearby valley, with the Greek hoplites wedged between two mountains, negating Persian maneuverability. As at Thermopylae, the shield wall counted much more than maneuverability, and the inferiority of Persian numbers at Marathon aided the Greeks when their phalanx suddenly charged forward, breaking the Persian center, by which time the Persians probably could not mount any type of effective defense, and they probably had lost command and control capabilities as these forces were routed in a cascading fashion. A retreat can easily turn into a rout, even among disciplined soldiers, which is probably what occurred. I don't even remember what my point was, although I think I was trying to show that certain conclusions can be drawn about the two opposing forces at the Battle of Leuthen, conclusions which have been taught to us by history.
@@MJKarkoska damn new insight, thanks!
are you alive?
Holy fucking shit, what a God damned fuck up. That was one miserable defeat.
Incredible victory by Frederick The Great
That victory was incredible, but in my opinion Frederic's tactical genius was only a half of success. He wouldn't have done these astonishing manouvers without the outstanding discipline of prussian soldiers. Back then only prussian army was able to pull off moves which required so much speed of march and so much precision. The other thing was that austrians had screwed up really bad. No recon, quick assumptions and lack of knowledge about your enemy...
Well, yes. Obviously the quality of Prussian infantry training - both in maneuver and morale - was necessary and well documented.
He inherited that tradition from his father (though Leuthen was 17 years into Fritz's reign, so maintaining that tradition is still a credit to him). Not that, but Fritz also greatly expanded his Hussar recruitment and training. Same with artillery.
Great work and great narration. Thank you for this video!
I'd like to see the Battle of Quebec, from the 7 Years War, tactically portrayed like this. It was one of the vast number of victories that the British have enjoyed fighting when the French, over the centuries.
It was also one of the shortest battles in history, with both opposing generals (Wolffe & Lafayette) dying from wounds received before the actual battle finished.
Wow, i haven't actually seen the tactics used in this battle before, but damn. It's amazing.
Thanks for putting your text on top of the video. For those who aren't native English-speakers (like me) this comes in very handy :)
That was very helpful, thanks a lot!
Great Job!
Battles are also a war of information.
The attacker has an advantage in that he knows where he is attacking, and the defensive forces are obvious,. In this battle, Charles was given misinformation by Frederick. Frederick knew how he would respond, and took advantage of that. Basically, he played him like a fiddle.
Charles biggest mistake was not have continuous reconnaissance, so he could know the situation, even as it changed.
Great video! Can you tell us where in your presentation Frederick used his famous "oblique order" move?
Not the greatest quality of image on this website but definatly very informative and well stuctured.
10 years old, Dude
@@davidaustin902 Exactly
Learn more from this than school
Wish I had this quality when going to school
Great Job! Can you do one on Austerlitz?
For some reason I have a problem with Prussia not being blue.
Will you guys ever do Battles of Breitenfeld, Blenheim, Narva, and Poltava?
nicely made - like it!
Amazing!
great job
Excellent.
(1:47) Leuthen (today Lutynia) is placed in Silesia not Masovia in Poland. The distance is about 500 km.
Wow this is a cool video
2:15 "Nothing personal kid."
Charles basically got his arse kicked by Frederick.....
That hill is pretty much the MVP of this battle lol.
a museum isn't boring
Clear and efficient presentation
Why are cavalry forces so decisive in this battle? Is the square infantry formation not yet devised during that time?
I've read about lots of battles during the time of Louis XIV of France when his generals had to fight against England's duke of Marlborough and Austria's Eugene of Savoy, but I didn't read anything about infantry squares..cavalry was always the decisive blow, virtually muredering infantry in countless battles.. This makes me wonder if the infantry square was devised only just before the Napoleonic wars? In Napoleon's time, cavalry couldn't decide battles anymore..
Cavalry charges were still very effective during Napoleon's time, it wasn't until ww1 where they became a death sentence. More to your question though, the reason the squares weren't used was because
1.) They are difficult to do mid battle unless already planned out before hand.
2. They were a death sentence for the men inside. They were the bane of cavalry charges sure, but all those men packed into a relatively small area would be blown to shit by artillery. Which, back to my original statement, was why Napoleon was so successful. He understood that cavalry needed the support of infantry and artillary, and vice versa.
Squares in the SYW weren't used very often yet; since they tend to pin infantry down with severely reduced firepower in any one direction, and furthermore in dense formations that artillery can tear to bits. 18th century generals knew their jobs better than Ney, and didn't send in massive unsupported cavalry attacks against steady foot.
where do you get these battle informations step by step?
+Curious Guy They have archives if they are a museme, other wise people look up for the timeline of the battle/war. and it tells you dayt by day/year/hour etc
Doesn't have the polish of BazBattles
do you know where to search Silesia on the map?
Most of the territory of what was Silesia back then is in Poland today (including the city of Wroclaw). The village of Leuthen is nowadays known as Lutynia.
Not "Loothen", but "Loyten"
No lathen but Leuthen
If we complain about native english speakers pronouncing german names wrong, we'd be busy all day. Everybody knows what's meantr so the crying is a bit silly.
Great video and i like it isn't a unbearable computer genrated voice like other similar videos.
Loothen for Loi-Tin is dumb, though.
How long time did the battle take?
The Prussians began marching from their camp toward the Austrian line at 4 AM (considering it was early December, I am not sure how they could even see where they were going). By the time the Prussian deployment to the south was done, it was already past noon, and Frederick basically ordered his forces to attack immediately upon being formed up on the Austrian left flank. The Austrian attempt to stand their ground in Leuthen itself started at about 3:30 PM. By 4 PM, the Prussians had driven the Austrians out of the village. Darkness was not far away after that, so... give or take 13-14 hours from breaking camp to driving the Austrians into a rout.
Seems like an amazing day's work... but then you remember that less than a month earlier, Frederick had routed a French-Holy Roman Empire army of 40,000+ in the space of about 90 minutes.
Friedrich war ein genialer Stratege..... hier wird er als Schwuler heruntergespielt ..... das hat System in unserem Land .... ausserhalb sieht man das anders ....
g00d g00d
actually this is not where leuthen is (map 0:49) its not even near silesia XD
is more like urban warfare, men fighting in buildings trying to clear other men from those buildings. like what you see today in iraq and afghanistan.
0:47 : And then we are looking for a place more than 200 km in the west (51° 8′ 0″ N, 16° 48′ 0″ O ). Then we are right. ;-)
Lutynia jest w innym miejscu niż jest to pokazane na mapce...Lutynia jest na Dolnym Śląsku o ło Wrocławia a nie w Woj. Świętokrzyskim...
What does it mean by guns?
During this period guns usually refered to cannons and heavy pieces.
less monotone would be awesome
Nice animation, however it is pronounced loy-tun not loo-then.
Not "Cal-vary",
"Caval-ree"!!!
Can't trust a guy who cannot pronounce Leuthen.
Or cavalry.
or Lucchessi
No English tongue can,so what?
:)
Oh, dear. Stilted rendering. Poor graphics. Pronunciation of names and places - ridiculous.