Special Thanks to Peter W. Schramm for his article: The Great Machiavellian Deed - Reconsideration of Frederick IIs Invasion of Silesia.
Introduction
There is a common misconception concerning Philosopher Kings that they are people blinded with theory, interested only in book-knowledge, and are unable to be men of action. A true man of action must be a thinKing man, or else he is perpetually busy, but going nowhere. It is difficult, however, to visualize a Philosopher King in action, however. Therefore, using the analysis from Mr. Schramm for his fine article, this article will look briefly at how Frederick II of Prussia was a successful Philosopher King, as well as what lessons we can learn today from his actions to ensure the safety and well being of his people, the object of all leade rs.
Biblical Lessons
Before we look specifically at Frederick IIs action to ensure the well-being of Prussia, it would be useful to look in general at lessons from the bible that are applicable to all people in all times concerning leadership. If someone is a truly wise Philosopher King, they will have the interests of their people at heart. First, let us look at scriptures that detail the responsibilities of leaders, and then we will look at some of the sacrifices those leaders had to undergo in order to be good leaders, looKing at the life of David as an example, since he was a Political leader after Gods own heart.
The Bible details very specific instruction as to what is required, permitted, and not allowed for leaders if they wish to follow Gods instructions. However, many leaders would like to place themselves above where God places them. This is idolatry, and it is tyranny, and the Bible forbids it. First, the Bible commands service of its leade rs, not management, not leadership, but service. This is important to distinguish. The point is sufficiently obvious and important to demand full length treatment, but that will be given elsewhere. The case will only be briefly defined here. Second, leaders are forbidden from placing themselves above those they serve. Many leaders, religious and Political, forget this and would seek to place themselves above humanity. Whether this person is a pope, a president, or a pastor general, is irrelevant. The Bible is clear and unmistakable.
First, the Bible commands those who would lead to serve. Jesus Christ Himself did not come to be served, but to serve (see Matthew 20:28). If Christ did not come to be served, no human leader can rightfully place themselves above others. After all, Matthew 20:25-27 points out very clearly: You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so amon g you; but whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave. How many people leading anything would want to be a slave to those they lead? But that is what a true Philosopher King does, serve the interests of the people rather than his own. Christians are to submit to one another (see Ephesians 5:21), which means that ministers submit to members and members submit to ministers. Everyone in the body of Christ is accountable to everyone else to make sure everyone is performing their function correctly. There is no room for pride, for leaders, just like everyone else, must esteem others above themselves, regardless of what position they have. We are accountable to those whom we serve. This is true in religious organizations, as it is true Politically. The same truth is true in both worlds, even if this may be difficult to realize.
We have already seen that the Bible forbids leaders fr om viewing themselves too highly. While this is readily agreed to in the general sense, it is often neglected in particulars. Fortunately, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 sets some very strict standards concerning Kings: When you come to the land which Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, I will set a King over me like all the nations that are around me, you shall surely set a King over you whom the Lord your God chooses [note: not one who would set himself as King; one from among your brethren you shall set as King over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, You shall not return that way again. Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his Kingd om, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statues, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his Kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. To summarize this passage, a leader should be raised up from among the people (not from outside), he shouldnt multiply wealth for himself (cars, jets, houses), he should keep the law in mind constantly, and he is forbidden from considering himself above those he serves. Sounds a lot more like service and sacrifice than management to me.
Frederick II As A Philosopher King
Frederick II has earned in many eyes lasting censure for supposedly betra ying his philosophical and humanitarian princely life for a Machiavellian career as the King of Prussia. In this section I will look first at his princely life, and his problems with his father in particular. Then I will look at his actions as the King of Prussia, in particular his seizure of Silesia, and finally I will analyze his actions as a Philosopher King for the benefit of his people. This will demonstrate, briefly, that Frederick II acted in the best interests of his people, which is the expectation of a Philosopher King, and did not act out of callous disregard for his people as is often supposed.
Before coming to the throne in 1742, Frederick II was the heir to the throne of the recently elevated Kingdom of Prussia. His father was a bully, and threatened to kill Frederick for treason, imprisoning him on notable occasions and forcing him into acts of extreme secrecy in order to obtain his beloved reading materials. Shortly before the invasion of Silesia in late 1742, Frederick II published a book known as the Anti-Machiavel, positing that Kings had moral duties to their people that Machiavelli cynically dismissed. Many have, falsely, looked at Frederick II as yet another cynical King in the vein of Machiavellis Prince. However, before one judges Frederick II too harshly, one has to look at the state of Prussia before he ascended to the throne.
Prussia was a odd mishmash of domains held by the Hohenzollern family, ranging from the small lands of Mark and Cleve in Western Germany to the Electorate of Brandenburg and the Duchy (later Kingdom) of Prussia, which was in Poland. This Kingdom was not contiguous, had no defensible borders, and was surrounded by hostile nations, ranging from Sweeden to Austria to Saxony (which also ruled over Poland at this time, another hostile power). Ever threatened by wars and the rapacity of its neighbors, Prussia was forced out of self-defense to have a disproportionally large army (the 4th largest in all of Europe). However, Frederick IIs father and grandfather largely followed the whims of Austria and refused to use this army to give Prussia a better shape and give it defensible borders and some chance of stability in the geoPolitical scene of 18th Century Europe.
Frederick II was determined to change all of this. Fortuitously for him, and Prussia, the death of the Austrian Emperor Charles VII and the ascension of his daughter Maria Theresa to the throne of the Hapsburgs gave Frederick II the chance to double his domains and seize the wealthiest (and only largely Protestant) area of the Hapsburg domain, Silesia, which he did. Not only did Frederick II manage to take this area, but he held it through the War of Austrian Succession (1742-1745) as well as through the Seven Years War (1756-1763) against a coalition of France, Austria, Russia, and Saxony. By the end of Fredericks life, Prussia had grown from a small nation in the north of Germany to one of the recognized powers of Europe, despite the heavy cost in manpower to his armies during the Seven Years War. Frederick II had made Prussia into a great power, and in doing so had given greater wealth and security to his people.
How then should Frederick II be judged? After all, despite the fact that all of the monarchs of Europe (including Fredericks father) had signed the Pragmatic Sanction, which guaranteed Maria Theresa her throne, Frederick II was not the only one interested in seizing some of her domains. However, he was the only one to receive lasting censure, probably due to his improbable success. For some reason the Prussian monarchs always suffered from bad press, probably because they did a better job than most monarchs at increasing their domains. Frederick IIs bad press is especially undeserved, because he had a genuine concern for his people, seeKing consistently to improve industry, trade, and agriculture in his domains, as well as showing religious toleration and a lifelong interest in justice. Few monarchs have as good a record as he when it came to a genuine and productive concern in the welfare of his people in all facets of life.
Lessons For Us Today
While there may be few Kings left, there are still opportunities for leadership for all of us. Some lessons from the Bible and the life of Frederick II may be useful to us as leaders. We will (briefly) explore these now. Among these lessons is the need to sacrifice ones own luxury and desires for the good of the people. Another one is the knowledge that good deeds do not always translate into good press. Finally, leaders must take responsibility for their actions, as well as as the ultimate fate of what they lead, and must be accountable to both God and man for those actions. There are more lessons that could be taken, but these are sufficient for this brief survey.
First, leaders must sacrifice their own luxury and even well-being for the good of their people. It is to be remembered that leaders are the servants of those they lead and not the masters. This confusion is the source of a great deal of problems in the behavior of leadership. Remembering who serves whom is a key issue in leadership. It is the leader who, as a result of the power he has in order to serve his people, has to sacrifice his interests for the betterment of the whole. This means that if the company or group or nation is doing badly, it is his salary and benefits that are to be cut, not those of the common folk. Furthermore, it is he who must sacrifice his health and time, rather than the common people, in order to right the ship. The people should be asked to make no sacrifices that the leaders themselves do not make. Those who do not follow this are not true servant leaders, and are mere tyrants.
Second, ones actions and reputation may differ, as is the case of Frederick II. Just because one does good deeds does not mean that others will recognize that. In fact, if we live our lives trying to have a good reputation, we will be disappointed when others do not give us the respect we have tried so hard to earn. It is better, rather, to do what is right, and if other people give us credit, all the better. A leader has to be able to be at peace with himself (or herself) regardless of what other people think of him. Sometimes we must all suffer the slings and arrows of outrageo us fortune, as part of the price of leadership.
Third, leaders must take responsibility for their actions both in the eyes of man and in the eyes of God. Accountability is foremost among requirements of leaders. After all, that is the way to separate those leaders who are true servants from those whose hearts are above the people, which God forbids. Accountability need not be a strict requirement of majoritarian rule, but at the very least it provides for a check for leaders, and it forces them to recognize their service to others. That is a painful reminder for leaders, but is more than necessary.
Conclusion
I hope that this short essay has given both a brief defense of Frederick II as a Philosopher King as well as the biblical obligations on Kings, which forces them to (if they wish to obey God) to serve their people rather than seek the people to serve them. The Bible places strict limitations on leaders, and before leaders go around demanding respe ct they need to act according to Gods law and not provoke righteous rebellion. Frederick II, who was a rare example of an enlightened despot, has received a poor reputation, and thus the lessons from his monarchy have not been learned by those in leadership position. Hopefully, for those of us who are or aspire to be leaders, we can learn the right leadership lessons from the Bible and from Frederick II, the Philosopher King.
Nathan Albright is a civil engineer in Tampa, FL who reviews building plans for a living. He is an internationally published author of plays and articles in English and Spanish. Besides his civil engineering education from the University of Southern California (in Los Angeles, CA) he minored in history in college and graduated from the Ambassador Bible Center in Milford Ohio.
Author:: Nathan Albright
Keywords:: Frederick, Political, Philosophy, Philosopher, King, Prussia, Silesia
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips
No comments:
Post a Comment