1866 Battle of Königgrätz
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2012
- ENGLISH: Trailer for the annual memorial event of Battle of Königgrätz 3rd July 1866. Record shot at 145th anniversary of the battle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ČESKY: Upoutávka na výroční vzpomínkovou akci bitvy u Hradce Králové 3. 7. 1866. Záznam byl pořízen při 145. výročí bitvy.
© 2012 MOVING PICTURES s.r.o.
www.movingpictures.cz
Its crazy how in less than 50 years, the tactics of warfare would completely change.
omg yes. 50 years later we are in ww1. Try to imagine WW3 in the 2032 NATO versus China Prosperity Pact. I can not.
I don't know about anyone else, but the tactics and uniforms of the Wars of German Unification seem way more Napoleonic than the Civil War was. The Prussians famously thought that the more modern post-Gettysburg tactics used in the Civil War was just the Americans being noobs at warfare, but 50 years later they realized they were wrong.
@@SStupendous Utter nonsense. The Prussians rewrote the rulebook for warfare in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. There they used their modern "Bewegungskrieg" (Maneuver warfare) to defeat a larger and better equipped army (France). By moving fast and surrounding or bypassing French strongpoints they could destroy them in "Kesselschlacht (Cauldron battle). Aside from this their officer corps displayed a previously unseen level of tactical flexibility which broke with the previously so rigid and hierarchical order of command. This made them a dynamic army able to adapt fast.
The French were well aware that this is what had made them lose the war and therefore studied this warfare model - as did all the other major powers of that time. By WWI all armies had vast plans of how to defeat the enemy with "fast, mobile warfare in which superior use of concentrated artillery would break the enemy's lines". So this "but 50 years later they realized they were wrong." is utter codswallop taken out of the blue.
Now for the realities of the German army in WWI. Its ideas of maneuver warfare were a lot easier to implement in 1914 than any army in the world could have in the 1860's. Why is this? *Because railway building only really started to occur en masse in the 1870's when cheap mass produced steel became readily available* . You see thanks to mass produced steel and the electric machine the industrial age really got going, this is what is called the 2nd Industrial Revolution. In the 40 plus years leading to WWI an insane amount of railway had been laid and railways even went to small towns on the countryside. During the American Civil War the economy of the "more industrialized" Union states was *predominantly agrarian* since most people still worked in agriculture. What railways there were few and solely tied to major cities.
You seem utterly oblivious as to what monumental change in society took place from 1870 to 1914. Thanks to the 2nd industrial revolution people could now build steel factories anywhere and power them with electric machines. You no longer had to build steam machines were there was an abundance of coal readily available (usually near coal mines or cities in which there was a large port where they could ship in coal). For the war industry this also meant a revolution in the mass production of arms and ammo/shells. The invention of the internal combustion engine also meant that there were mechanized road transport too in 1914. Suddenly you had trucks that could carry ammo and equipment to troops fighting in the outskirts of a village.
Germany's entire war plan for 1914 relied upon them being fast and defeating France equally fast. The Schlieffen Plan relied upon using the several good railways going through the lowlands to bypass the French border defense in a huge outflanking maneuver. After France was defeated they could turn to defeat Russia (historically never an easy task if drags on...).
Their maneuver warfare worked really well at first and it really *did* appear as if France would be defeated as fast as in 1870. However there was this "small detail" in that France too had an extensive railway network and also happened to be country in which mass production of cars really started in. This can be found on the net. 1903 - France remains the world's leading automaker, producing 30,124 cars (nearly 49% of the world total) as against 11,235 cars produced in the USA.
Thanks to this the French could also transport masses of troops either by rail or directly to the battlefield with car (as happened at Marne) and this stopped the German offensive. It was also clear the Schlieffen relied upon outdated information when he calculated how fast the Russians would mobilize their army. Btw, the Russian alliance with France was tied in part to French loans and expertise in railway building in Russia the decades prior to WWI.
There was absolutely nothing from the American Civil War which could have won Germany anything in 1914. Germany did incredibly well but as is often the case with a rapid offensive it ran out of steam.
Their Bewegungskrieg was in fact mostly used in 1939 in Poland and in 1940 in France as well. Only Von Manstein and Guderian propagated for the use of "Blitzkrieg" (never officially called that in the German high command) whereas field marshals like Gerd von Rundstedt considered them "risky and vulnerable to flanking" and maintained the proven Bewegungskrieg. *He* was in charge when France fell in 1940 (although the bypass through the Ardeness was Von Rundstedt's plan).
Not sure what the Americans learned from this "post-Gettysburg tactic" (never heard of such a thing) but it sure did them no good when they first arrived en masse in France in 1918. You see general Pershing still believed he was chasing Mexican bandits and refused to take any lessons from the almost four year long fighting the French, British and other Commonwealth forces had learned. He wrongly believed he'd threw his American troops into battle and they'd achieve their objective in no time. It turned out to be insanely optimistic once it turned out he couldn't apply his old education to the realities of the Western Front in 1918. Pershing was also a man who sought glory and believed he could defeat the Germans in no time. Hence he believed there could be a "fast bout". In fact this desire of his to end the war in one decisive attack made him send many American soldiers to their deaths. In fact the death rate of American soldiers in France in the early months were unproportionally high. This meant that at first the reputation of the American soldier was low among their allies in 1918 and this also meant that the reports to the German high command lead them to believe that the influx of American soldiers wouldn't make much of a difference and that Germany could still slug out the war by superior will (their pride was their undoing in both world wars).
Eventually the Americans learned the rules of a modern war but that was learned from experience and what they found out then and there. Certainly not from some "Civil War tactics".
"but 50 years later they realized they were wrong."
You've got that completely backwards.
Long story short: The Franco-Prussian War rewrote the rulebook of war. The Prussian victory was such a surprise and shock it's no wonder their type of warfare was studied by all others.
You also forgot how much defensive warfare had improved by 1914 too. This is what forced the development of the tank...
@@paulallen8109 I'm aware of the Franco-Prussian war... I'm referring to how the German nation reacted to the Civil War. Tactics changed drastically in the Franco-Prussian war, I know that. I didn't mention that because, unlike you, who seems to just be here to remind me I didn't make an essay, I am stating something small. In WW1, THAT was the first time in history that the ACW was referred to as the first modern war. It was that generation that argued it was.
@@paulallen8109 " 'post-Gettysburg tactic' (never heard of such a thing)" Holy crap you need help. Obviously I'm referring to the tactics in the Civil War POST-GETTYSBURG.
Think battle of Franklin, Nashville, Cold Harbor, Petersburg etc. that emerged. You seem to have left your brain on the planet you came from.
DID the Prussians think ACW warfare was simply the US being bad at warfare? Yes. So what about what I said was utter nonsense? Other than YOU angry about the fact I wrote 2 sentences as opposed to going into depth with 20 paragraphs? You're the one getting mad.
1800s Military budget:
80% Uniform
20% Weapons and horses,
Not if you were Prussian.
The Prussians always had the latest in military technology. They led the way in rifle advances. In fact, the 1840s they already had the needle gun, which gave them a significant advantage. That's also what scared lots of countries, was Prussia unifying the German people because later on, ww1 and 2 being great examples of how it took many nations to defeat the Germans. They had great military theory, and advanced engineering, leaving politics aside.
@@dolgy3762 Well, the British also considered bringing a breech-loading rifle into service in the 1840 but they thought the men would waste the ammunition in rapid fire.
@@dolgy3762 Also because of the steel fabricant Krupp, who made the best weapons of these time
@@dolgy3762 Franco- prussian war, French had better rifles (Germans had better guns and better tactiks)
I loved the German/Prussian uniforms and helmets
Funny how they 40 years later still used the same helmet :D
Right? Those were badass.
Dakdeke dak I know right! Those are so awesome!😄
Dakdeke dak that’s Called a Pickelhaube
@@saxo9266i think they were made out of leather
i know the koniggratzer marsch was written after this battle, but that fact that it is not the music in the trailer saddens me
The re-enactments are awesome wish I was in one
wow. bravo. even explosions! best reenactment footage I've ever seen
Great works of reenactment!!!! Greetings from Italy!
It's a movie lad
@@fabolousnature3873No, it's a reenacment, it's written in the description, and also there are too few men to be a movie and there' pov visuals, wich are very rare for a war movie
This is around the same time as the American Civil War, yet it somehow looks much more Napoleonic.
Wheres the guy yelling "Time out" after he drops a contact lense?
Great footage ..but the shortest war doco I've every watched !
As a 90s kid and an OG Empire Earth player I definitely recognize those sound effects xD
Ich werde mich nicht um Begriffe streiten, aber ja ich finde Preußen einfach genial und vorbildlich.
Ich verwende euch und ihr, weil jeder ein Teil des Landes in einer langen Ahnenreihe ist, man ist verbunden mit seinen Vorfahren, ob man will oder nicht.
Ich wollte ihm nur klar machen, dass er nicht Staaten beleidigen braucht, die nun mal einfach besser waren, Punkt.
Great work, fellas.
0:27 dat mosin-nagant tho. I think they didn't have enough dreyse gun fot the reenactment :D
You can also see 2 K98s and a Finnish Mosin. Don't think Dreyse rifles are very easy to get.
Guess so
Dreyse Vilogan
Hey! You got Russian in my Prussian! XD
No one produces Dreyse anymore?
this video was so prussian that my phone invaded austria
"ANNEXED"
Bravo
Замечательная передача о битву при Кенигрреце (Садова) 3 июля 1866 г. разгром 215 000 австрийской армии Людовика фон Бенедека армией пруссаков 221 000 Гельмута фон Мольтке
ja,
große Schlacht.
Movie?
Kostýmy nebyly půjčené. Všichni fachmani co zde účinkují jsou členové vojenských spolků a každý má vesměs svoji uniformu a zbraně také.
0:06 I'm not sure a common foot soldier would have had glasses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those things only really became affordable near the end of the 19th century, and soldier pay has never been great.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Prussian soldiers were paid much more than other armies at the time. Don't quote me lol.
Well it wouldn't be far-fetched considering by that time the prussian soldiers were considered to be among the best and they were a militarized people then considering they saw military service to be a great career option for any young man so I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid more with good benefits(for the time).
Though your assumption is correct - the Prussian conscripts were paid better that those of other European armies - the Prussian army never would simply have decommissioned such a recruit from the beginning.
@@BonejanglesTV don't forget that a lot of the rank and file Prussian were short -term draftees and then were members of the reserve for a number of years afterwards, a lot of them had civilian careers in a rapidly industrializing society.
Reading Glasses were reasonably available by the mid 1700's, however, not that many needed them.
Eyeglasses for shooting would be someone who was nearsighted. Eyeglasses for such people were available for common people from at least the 1770's. However, then 70-80% of people were farmers.
Probably 2 to 3% of men needed Eyeglasses, among age 30 or younger, "Infantry age" soldiers.
As someone else mentioned, many of the soldiers in the 1866 Brother War were mobilized Reservists.
Plausible that if a soldier needed Glasses, he could get them.
1:10 what cavalry regiments did the Prussian hussars face off against? Are those like volunteers?
alles originalaufnahmen, nachkoloriert! chapeau :-)
Und neu vertont!
Oh, my god! Were those gentlemen allowed to shoot so noisily?
das finde ich auch :)
Welche Schlacht ist fas?🤨
What production? Czech, or polish?
Oh, mein Gott! Durften denn die Herren überhaupt so wild schießen?
Why were they using paper cartriges when in 1966 the winchster lever action was using fully incased in metal cartriges?
1966?
@@pter7531 Typo, 1866
so every prussian footsoldier dressed like a high ranking German oficer of WW1
Máte nějaké sponzory nebo jste jsi sami zafinancovali zapůjčení všech těch pušek a kostýmů ?
Každý voják má svojí uniformu a zbraň.
Are there any good czech medieval-historical films?
idk
@@replynttomyrightntcomments7976 Then why are you even answering bruh
Lol, that wasn't a Kar, it was a gwehr.
Dobrý den,
prosím kdo je autorem tohoto videa. Je volně šiřitelné k propagaci vzpomínkových akci k bitvě 1866 ?? Díky za info
Dobrý den i Vám, autorem je naše studio MOVING PICTURES s.r.o. Moc děkuji za to, že se vůbec ptáte, a proto video určitě volně šířit můžete. Vše dobré. Martinec
Zkusím vás kontaktovat na e-mail.
Prussians still fought in formation even with the new weapons?
I think yes
CZcams is laggy
Back when the Monarchy was cool
@Hoàng Nguyên Would make the drone operator's job much easier.
but that still isn't very historicaly accurate is it
where are the zündnadelgewehr's
Their grandkids would join together in 50 years to fight the usury hounds whose ferocious mercantile system was imploding.
0:28 ah kar98k in Victorian era battle
Maybe it's a needle rifle ?
Grievo Needle Rifles are NOT easy to acquire. Likely used a K98 because those are far more common and can (At a glance) be looked over in a formation.
@@idontexist1184 That excuse would never be accepted in a Napoleonic re-enactment, so why is it tolerated here?
Z NAKEJ MNESIC VYJDE TRAILER NA PRIPOJENI DO RAKOUSKY / PRUSKY ARMADY MUZE SE PRIPOJIT KAZDY!
Why no 12-30 pounders, these cannons are little 0.1 pounders
Cannons are expensive and there is only 1-3 accurate Austrian artillery replica I know about in the country and possibly only 1 Prussian cannon, rest are either replicas from different periods or made up cannons that are only supposed to look similar like the historical ones. Also btw, the Prussian artillery would be made up of 12 pd smoothbores and 4-6pd rifled breechloaders, Saxon artillery would be similar to Prussian one and Austrians had 4-8 pd rifled muzzleloaders (that were actually better than the Prussian cannons) at the time, so nothing bigger than a 12pd.
@@lordyaromir6407 I'm guessing the Civil War channels I keep seeing, made by reenactment groups are filthy rich then? I mean, you'll never see a Civil War reenactment without the right equipment and cannons. And they were using the same ones as is here.
@@lordyaromir6407 thanks, though
Con esta victoria de los prusianos ante los austriacos en 1866
The Prussian army was so hot in this period. They were unstoppable on how they over came the much larger Austria and did away with poor France with the quickness. Now if the Union army had their kind of rifles during the Civil War, victory would've came much quicker. Cowboys in the old west absolutely had nothing compared to these men who would be the backbone of what we call Germany today.
the battle was really close, Austria had strongest artillery in Europe and their fire made really big problem for Prussians. Leader of Austrian army Benedek was really good general, but he lost, because Prussians send some of their forces to forest Swieb, which wasn't really important, but one of commander of Austrian army send two corps to fight that force (Benedek didn't know about that), they won, but they also opened their right flank. Then Prussian 2nd army arrived and attacked the unprotected right flank and defeated Austrians, but Benedek was really good general and he organizated a big and succsesfull retreat, so most of his force (except artillery) survived.
@@lordyaromir6407 king and generals 🤗🤗
the white Thing in the mirror of the lead-in Photo irritated me realy in the first moment 😂
Sadly to see amuser kar98k at 0:28
but excellent work.
@SovietBall Wow, 7 years already. It seems logical to me that the only realistic options for Dreyse rifles are replica's.
Shaky cam is a disease.
I work in muzeum whit prussia astrolia war on archeology I give to muzeum rocket whit war a faind whit metal detektor
And Veneto become italy
The Mosin 91/30s and K98s just kind of ruined it for me.
Те кто одет в зелёный мундир это саксонцы? Они на стороне Австрии? Или на стороне Пруссии?
Nevim,mě to přijde divný,jak tam běhaj a střílej,takový nepřirozený :D
To je pravda, ale vypadá to na nějakou rekonstrukci bitvy
@@DePreso To asi bude ale nějak se nepovedla :D
😊 was für ein Durcheinander. So kämpfen wir Preußen nicht. Außerdem lagen die preußischen Soldaten auf dem Boden in Deckung. Wenn ich sowas schon mache, dann bitte historisch korrekt! Das macht mehr Eindruck und sieht auch profimäßig aus!
Война. Война. А когда же настанет в мире мир?
Consider that the Austrians had to stand up after each shot to reload their Lorenz rifles. Not so with the Prussians who had the so-called 'needle rifle' which was breech loading. It had vastly higher rate of fire than the Lorenz and could be fired from a prone position. Compare this war with the American Civil War that lasted 4 years, and you get the impression that Austrian and Prussian officers were superior to the American officers in ever conceivable way. The Americans fought like armed mobs led by idiots.
Using napoleonic tactics designed for smoothbore muskets whilst using rifled muskets was never a good Idea. The Americans learned in the War of Independence that small groups of marksmen setting ambushes worked better than ranks in open field, I suppose they were trying to be more "proper" like the europeans tactically. Some southern Generals were pretty cunning though. But the Germanic people have always been very war-like though, much like us Scots, when Germans set they're mind into war they get very innovative and evolve tactically very quickly.
Simply put, the battle of Königgrätz was a massacre. The Austrian Ministry of Defese had overslept both in the technological innovation (e.g. Sylvester Krnka was declined with his invention of breech-loading weapon in Austria while not in Prussia and Russia - nobody is a prophet at home) and organisation of the military forces. After 1866 were the military forces reformed: archive.org/stream/diewehrreformin00jurngoog#page/n7/mode/2up but in the political level this debacle led to Austrian - Hungarian compromise (creation of Austria-Hungary in 1867) and the Hapsburg monarchy became dependent on Prussia. WWI was it's consequence.
I will say one thing; For the first year of the US civil war, that assessment is true. For the rest of it? Rubbish. That quote is misattributed to General Moltke, who I might add denied ever saying it.
European officers from Prussia, France, Britain and Austria who observed the American Civil war were impressed by the skill of American commanders like Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman and Longstreet, and by the tremendous ability of American soldiers to withstand horrific casualties.
The Armies of the US civil war did indeed start out as armed mobs led by idiots, but by 1863 they were world class fighting forces. You don't fight battle after battle without learning anything.
Mostly the confederacy but I agree Prussia and Austria were very superior
+mujaku Austrians could reload rifles when they were lying or kneeling (source: Abrichtungs-Reglement für die kaiserlich-königlichen Fuss-Truppen), but they didn't do it very often. Prussian rifles had higher rate of fire, but not vastly. It was about 2.5 times faster.
Wait...imagine Austria had a war with Russia prior to ww1. How confusing will their regimental flags be from a distance considering they both had the double-headed eagle. Artillery team killing?????
we knew our boys.
.
Dort schossen Deutsche auf Deutsche - daher eigentlich kein Tag der Freude und des Ruhms für eine der beiden Seiten.
19GDeutschG87 Ich würde sie nicht mehr Deutsche nennen weil der begriff für diese heuchlerischen Dreckschweine (Österreicher) viel zu gut ist.
Der Friese Und genau solche pauschalisierenden Aussagen sind INZWISCHEN AUCH EIN ECHTER GRUND für den HASS von "Österreichern" auf "Deutsche".
Überlege dir mal, was so ein Tiroler oder Salzburger denken muß, wenn er sowas liest?
Marcel Bork Was sollen die den schon denken? Sie wollen keine Deutsche sein sondern Österreicher.Wen du mal lesen tust was für eine scheiß Einstellungen diese Heuchler gegenüber Deutsche und unserer gemeinsamen Geschichte haben kann einem wirklich schlecht werden.Und der Hass den du nennst ist eindeutig nur einseitig der Österreicher uns gegenüber.Die Österreicher an sich verleugnen ihre Geschichte sowie ihre Abstammung und nicht wir.Die sollen nicht immer so tun als ob es etwas schlechtes ist Deutscher zu sein weil das haben wir definitiv nicht verdient.Diese Ösis (Habsburg) haben uns Historisch schon genug angetan und haben meiner Meinung für ihre Scheiß Politik uns gegenüber eine interkulturelle deutsche Bannung verdient.Sie lehnen doch alles was Deutsch ist ab also sollten unsere Firmen von dort abhauen und sie sollten auch nicht mehr hier arbeiten können.Warum sollen wir ihnen ständig Wirtschaftlich (Arbeitsplätze) helfen und wir kriegen von ihnen nur den Mittelfinger?Wir haben ihnen immer geholfen und das hat uns Millionen von Deutschen leben gekostet (WW1)(HRR) und die haben nichts besseres zu tun als über uns Piefken her zuziehen.Eine Bannung und endlich ein beschissenen Schlussstrich unter dieses jämmerliche Kapitel ziehen weil das hin und her geht schon seit 1945 so.Das haben WIR nicht verdient und sie brauchen uns mehr als wie wir sie.Wir sind nur gut wen sie etwas brauchen ansonsten sollen wir bloß wegbleiben.Die Deutschen reden sich den Mund fusselig und die Ösis haben nichts besseres zu tun als sich darüber Lustig zu machen.Stelle dir mal vor eine andere große Nation würde dir ständig den Hof machen und dich als kleiner unbedeutender Zwerg (Nur als beispiel ;) ) als gleichberechtigt betrachten und du hast nichts besseres zu tun als ihn auszulachen und auszunutzen.Nicht mit uns mein lieber.Rechtschreibung permanent off ;)
Der Friese Erst einmal: ich glaube nicht, daß "die Österreicher" ALLE so denken. Sondern das ist eine kleine, überschaubarae Gruppe von Verbohrten und zum Teil bezahlten Hetzern. Die Masse des Volkes meckert halt, das ist doch normal und bei uns auch so. Wenn Du wirklich ein Friese bist, dann wirst Du ja am besten wissen wie "die Deutschen" über "die Friesen" reden und umgekehrt. Das soll man nicht aufbauschen.
Das Ferkel ist Kanzler. Und? Bin ICH deswegen ein Schwein? Weil ich in einem Saustall lebe? Ich wurde halt hier geboren, und als ich geboren wurde, tja da war es noch nicht dermaßen versaut. Aber streng genommen ist es auch meine Schuld, denn ich habe zuwenig, VIEL ZU WENIG dagegen getan, daß es so wird wie es jetzt ist. Warum? Weil der Mensch faul ist und immer denkt: Es wird schon nicht so schlimm werden! Doch, es wird so schlimm und sogar noch schlimmer.
Übrigens, um auf das Thema zurückzukommen: bei Königgrätz haben nicht nur "Österreicher" gegen die Preußen gekämpft, sondern auch Sachsen. Es haben in diesem Krieg überhaupt DIE MEISTEN deutschen Staaten im Deutschen Bund GEGEN Preußen gekämpft und nur eine Minderheit an der Seite Preußens. Und? Sollen wir "Deutschen" deswegen jetzt heute auch noch die Sachsen, die Bayern, die Würtemberger, die Hessen, die Badener, die Hannoveraner verheißen? Bei den Hannoveranern waren die Friesen damals dabei. ALSO AUCH DEINE VORFAHREN KÄMPFTEN GEGEN DIE PREUSSEN.
Marcel Bork Meine Vorfahren kämpften nicht nur gegen Preußen ;) Ich bin mir der Deutschen Geschichte schon bewusst aber glaube mir die Ösis haben es nicht mehr verdient.Außerdem bin ich schon immer von der Einstellung her pro-Preußisch gewesen.Ohne Preußen würde ein Deutschland nie möglich gewesen und die Großdeutsche Lösung mit Österreich wäre wahrscheinlich der größte Fehler überhaupt.Ich bin für ein föderalen Staat aller sich zu bekennen Deutschen aber das ist halt nur ein Wunschtraum.Es ist zwar deine Sache aber das Kinderbild von Addi ist echt nicht mehr der bringer.Und ein so großes Deutsches Reich wie auf deinem Bild wird es eh nicht mehr geben obwohl mir die ganzen vertriebenen extrem leid tun.Mir geht es nicht um Ländereien oder gebiete sondern nur um die finale Einheit der Deutschen Kulturen.Ein Deutschland aller Deutschen.Aber nicht unter zwang sondern nur die die sich freiwillig bekennen und es wert schätzen und stolz sind Deutsche zu sein.
Wage es nicht Preußen zu beleidigen, Österreich hätte der Anführer Deutschlands werden können, aber euch waren ja all die nichtdeutschen Gebiete, die ihr dann später eh verloren habt wichtiger als der Rest der deutschen Staaten.
Preußen war mit Abstand der beste und anbetungswürdigste aller deutschen Staaten!
Naunaunau! Nur ned übatreibm, liaba Herr! Die Verantwortlichen sind ausserdem scho olle längst gstorbn. Hobe die Ehre da Herr!
Du musst nicht meiner Meinung sein, jeder hat das Recht etwas anders zu sehen. Wäre doch auch langweilig, wenn man nur mit Ja-Sagern diskutiert :)
Ich meine besser im Sinne für die deutsche Nation besser, denn schau mal, Österreich hätte durchaus der Anführer und Vereiniger von Deutschland werden können, aber wegen Gebieten, die es dann eh verloren hat, hat es das nicht geschafft. 1848 war die Chance da.
Und daher bewundere ich Preußen als Katalysator für die deutsche Einigung.
auch wenn ich nicht deiner meinung bin, ich hätte dir ehrlich gesagt, so eine vernünftige antwort nicht zugetraugt.
ich möchte noch anmerken, dass du begriffe wie "besser" ebenfalls nicht benutzen solltest. warum besser, weil preussen einen krieg gewann? das kaisertum österreich war auch nicht besser als das königreich italien, obwohl es mehre schlachten gewann.
ciao
Who was fighting who? Is this fake history and a fake battle?
du bist also jemand, der staaten anbetungswürdig findet?
lustig ist ausserdem noch, wie du mit "euch" und "ihr" irgendwelche schuld zuweisen versuchst. als ob hier jemand die geschehnisse von 1866 beeinflußt hätte, geschweige denn damals gelebt hat.
hör lieber zu beten auf und fang zu denken an.