Thomas BaileyA Well-Ordered Police State: Monarchical Prussia’s Rise to Power

The autocratic rulers of Prussia, beginning with the Great Elector (1640-1688),

contributed to the development of Brandenburg-Prussia into an hegemonic power in the

Germanic kingdoms. A principal component leading to this development was the internal

policies, which created what historians have labeled a “well-ordered police state.” Unlike other

princely states that often focused on the aggrandizement of the ruling family, the Hohenzollern

regime acted to centralize power in order to exult the armed forces.

Frederick II wrote in Essay Concerning the Form of Government that the king should not

strive for sycophant supporters and luxury, but as a servant of the state himself, the king is the

unifying force that directs all elements of the state for a common purpose – what he termed “the

common advantage.”1 He believed in a form of collectivism that saw the highest good in the

advancement of the state. Each member of society had a proper role to fulfill and social,

economic, and religious policies enacted/enforced by the ruler or the governmental bureaucracy

needed to be directed towards this purpose. Regardless of the source of reform, if it was capable

of enhancing the state, elements were adapted and used for the greater honor and glory of

Prussia.

An early step toward a more efficient government began two centuries earlier in the

Electorate of Saxony. The religious reforms of Martin Luther helped to translate from a

passive/contemplative form of life to a more active and engaged model that focused on the

earthly kingdom. In addition, the more localized form of religious control allowed the ruler to

exercise greater freedom in religious matters, but it also heightened the secular rulers’

1 Frederick II, “Essay Concerning the Form of Government,” in The Foundations of Germany: A Documentary Account Revealing the Causes of Her Strength, Wealth, and Efficiency, ed. and trans. by J. Ellis Barker (New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, 1918), 22.

Bailey 2

understanding of the princely role in the spiritual advancement of the kingdom. Given the

princes’ secular mentality, a union of the sacred and profane occurred. Coupled with the rising

influence of pietism beginning in the late seventeenth century, the spiritual advancement of a

prince’s subjects was seen to directly correlate with the individual’s prosperity. And since the

subject was an appendage of the state, it invariably led to its prosperity.2 It was in the interests

therefore of the “well-ordered police state” to regulate religious affairs under the auspices of the

growing bureaucracies.3

Again, prior to the late eighteenth century, actions had been taken that facilitated the

growth of Hohenzollern power. Following the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), Frederick

William I positioned himself as a mercenary force; and by so doing, he liberated himself from

the struggles other princes had concerning the “power of the purse.” The Estate of Brandenburg

levied a tax, at Frederick William’s request, to raise substantial funds for the construction of an

eight thousand-man army (including a general staff and the construction of military academies).

The loyalty of the new standing army was to Frederick William alone, not the junkers. As time

passed the new military oligarchy wielded greater influence, as successive princes assigned

additional responsibilities of the government to military officers.

Frederick the Great (1740-1786) built on the foundations laid by his predecessors. With

his military juggernaut, Frederick II engaged in multiple wars on the continent. Great Britain

financed these wars, enabling the growth of the Prussian military – eventually he created a

fighting force of over eighty thousand soldiers. He did not simply add people to the armed

forces, but also engaged in reform efforts that modernized the army and worked to enhance

2 Marc Raeff, “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Europe: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach,” The American Historical Review 80 (December 1975): 1225.3 Raeff, 1231. Raeff used the example of a Hessen ordinance that regulated the order of reception of Holy Communion based on proximity to the altar and not social class.

Bailey 3

retention of personnel. To support the ever-expanding military, the state was co-opted and

centralized to provide the most efficient way to supply it with resources and technology.4 The

military’s supremacy was a principle cause for the creation of the Prussian form of government

with its bureaucratic structures.

The military officers charged with the maintenance of governmental departments often

employed the processes of military efficiency and discipline to the new posts. In doing so, the

principle of loyalty in the army was transferred to the bureaucrats. Employing Frederick’s

maxim that all must serve the state, the allegiance was to the Prussian state and the maintenance

of law and order.5 The loyalty to the state, which in praxis often meant loyalty to the

bureaucracy, created a counter-balance to any anti-reform efforts of the junkers.6 For the benefit

of the state, the policies began to touch multiple facets of Prussian life: economic, social, and

religious. The rationale for exerting minute control over the liberties of Prussian subjects was

the potentiality of the individual person performing his/her craft; productivity must not be

wasted. The possibility existed for wasting those beneficial effects if not directed; and if they

were not used, it deprived the state of the benefits. It therefore was incumbent upon the state to

provide the necessary environment to achieve human potential.7 Unprecedented control was the

result.

Another outside influence that affected Prussia’s emergence as a “well-ordered police

state” was the Enlightenment. The ideas of the Enlightenment such as liberty, separation of

powers, equality, and etcetera found their way to Sanssouci – Frederick II corresponded

4 Eberhard Weis, “Enlightenment and Absolutism in the Holy Roman Empire: Thoughts on Enlightened Absolutism in Germany,” The Journal of Modern History 58 (December 1986): S188.5 T.C.W. Blanning, “The French Revolution and the Modernization of Germany,” Central European History 22 (June 1989): 121; Raeff, 1230.6 Weis, S182, S196.7 Raeff, 1237, 1240.

Bailey 4

frequently with the leading figure of the Enlightenment, Voltaire (1694-1778). The use of

reason, the development of an educated populace, and various liberties were seen as a means to

allow the human person to fulfill his/her potential. Given the Prussian mentality to harness the

potential of its subjects, it is easy to see Frederick II’s interest in Enlightenment ideas. Yet, those

same ideas were also dangerous – evidenced by the Reign of Terror in France – and he did not

desire simply to transplant them to Prussia.

The Thirty Years’ War brought a semblance of religious stability to the Germanic States;

however, the same was not true in other areas of Europe. For instance, King Louis XIV’s

Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 created an exodus of Huguenots and some settled in

Prussian territories. The same was true in Spain as the persecution of Jews and Muslims forced

them to find safer places, again some Jews found sanctuary in Prussia. Prussia was a destination

for religious refugees because of its toleration toward non-Calvinist faiths. They were welcomed

in Prussia as long as they adhered to the principle of subservience to the state. Highly skilled

Huguenots and Jews were seen as adding greater resources to the state, and by extension

contributing to the expansion of Prussia as a world power. In this example, Prussia adopted the

Enlightenment principle of religious toleration, and yet it was also tempered to by cameralist

policies. It can be argued that this example is a benign one, but Prussia’s rejection of absolute

equality of all people despite its support of the freedom of serfs may illustrate the rationale for

“Cafeteria Enlightenment.”

Austria, in 1781, was the first earnest attempt to abolish serfdom in the Teutonic lands.

Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II’s (1765-1790) efforts were problematic. The wholesale

abolition of serfdom and the secularization of Church lands was chaotic; many newly

emancipated serfs not on imperial territories were left penniless and homeless with no certain

Bailey 5

means to sustain themselves. In addition, it also created enmity between the emperor and his

nobles as they were left without a significant source of revenue. Frederick II did not see the

issue of serfdom relating to equality, but to the well ordering of Prussia’s agricultural production.

The inherent problem was potential disruptions to food production caused by the hardships of the

robot and inadequate farming techniques entrenched in serfdom. Frederick II therefore insisted

on the application of current statutes protecting the rights of serfs and an improvement in their

state of life, i.e. lesser-mandated robot obligations. These reforms were not accomplished by

simple fiat; instead the reforms were orchestrated to be least disruptive to the junkers and

compensatory when necessary. By doing it in this manner, he was able to maintain a balance

that ensured continued agricultural production – necessary for the army – and noble support, who

were the officer corps of the military.8

The attention that Frederick II paid to the concerns of the military aristocracy, in what at

first sight does not seem to be a military matter, highlights the importance the armed forces

played in Prussian life. The Prussian state’s various other direct involvements in the economics

of the kingdom was done for its benefit. The simplification and codification of tax law eased

economic expansion both internally and externally, having removed prohibitive barriers.9 The

success of these endeavors created a surplus of seventeen million thalers at the time of Frederick

II’s death. The military was provided with whatever was necessary. The improvements directed

by the bureaucratic apparatus aided not only agriculture and trade, but also worked to improve

the educational system at all-levels. Not always successful, they laid the groundwork for the

future expansion of the Prussian economy into the industrialized age.10

8 Weis, S185; Blanning, 122.9 Raeff, 1239.10 Weis, S193.

Bailey 6

There were multiple instruments that helped to usher in the Prussian autocratic system,

but they were not usually homegrown solutions. Prussia was opportunistic; its leaders watched

its enemies and adapted their tactics to provide the most benefit to Prussia. It was also a work in

progress that utilized events from multiple generations. The key for the Prussian Princes was

their insistence on everyone’s subservience to the state. In essence, it began to give birth to a

sense of Prussian nationalism. As the Napoleonic Wars were to demonstrate, the approach was

not always successful, but its adaptability enabled Prussia to position itself to be the leading state

around which German nationalism coalesced at the end of the nineteenth century.

Bailey 7

Bibliography

Primary Source:

Frederick II. “Essay Concerning the Form of Government.” In The Foundations of Germany: A Documentary Account Revealing the Causes of Her Strength, Wealth, and Efficiency, edited and translated by J. Ellis Barker, 21-23. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, 1918.

Secondary Sources:

Blanning, T.C.W. “The French Revolution and the Modernization of Germany.” Central European History 22, No. 2 (June 1989): 109-129.

Herwig, Holger. Hammer or Anvil?: Modern Germany: 1648-Present. 5th ed. Boston: D.C. Heath, 1993.

Raeff, Marc. “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Europe: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach.” The American Historical Review 80, No. 5 (December 1975): 1221-1243.

Weis, Eberhard. “Enlightenment and Absolutism in the Holy Roman Empire: Thoughts on Enlightened Absolutism in Germany.” The Journal of Modern History 58, Supplement (December 1986): S181-S197.