The Freiwächter in the Old Prussian Army

The Old Prussian army, because of its peculiar supplementation system, was composed of natives and foreigners, thus exhibiting a heterogeneous structure with characteristics of both professional and conscript soldiery. The cantonists enlisted into the regiments from the military replacement districts were, in principle, subject to service for an indefinite period, but their active service was interrupted by leaves of absence. The privilege of temporary release from daily military duties was enjoyed not only by natives serving under a general conscription with exemptions, but in certain circumstances parts of the contingent of foreigners also benefited from such relief.

Only during the drill period were the regiments complete with officers, non-commissioned officers and rank-and-file. After the “three terrible days" (Kaltenborn) of the special and general review at the end of the drill period, only part of the soldiers remained in the garrisons and performed the extensive guard and restricted drill duties there. The majority of the native soldiers were furloughed to their home villages or estates until the start of the next drill period; moreover, part of the serving men within the garrison were released for the purpose of commercial activities. The pay of these furloughed ranks remained with the funds of the respective company owner. For this he had to “pay all expenses that occur with the company" 1), before the introduction of the royal recruitment (1764) 2) which complemented the canton system and financed the very costly foreign recruitment, later upon granting a limited number of furloughs during the drill period to pay the over-completes. Furthermore, the soldiers’ sons were clothed from company funds 3) and the subaltern officers of the company were granted either an allowance or a free midday meal.

1) Reglement Vor Die König!. Preußische Infanterie..., Potsdam 1726, p. 588.

2) The royal recruitment replaced the regiments’ own recruitment from 1764, though there were exceptions. Some regiments only lost part of their furlough monies, with differing amounts of deducted pay. Other units retained their own recruitment entirely. In 1787 the royal recruitment was decentralized, i.e. the regiments recruited again themselves. For this they received a fixed lump sum of recruitment money, but the pay of the furloughed remained, except during the drill period, with the royal treasury. In the early years of Frederick William III’s reign the royal recruitment was reintroduced.

3) Mente, W., Von der Pieke auf. Erinnerungen an eine neun und vierzigjährige Dienstzeit in der Königlich Preußischen Artillerie, Berlin 1861, p. 24.

Through this practice the relatively small, sparsely populated, not particularly resource-rich and moreover burdened by an unfortunate geographic dispersion Old Prussian state managed to maintain a manpower-strong army; at the same time the military burden on the native population was reduced and the economy was deprived of urgently needed labor only temporarily.

One element of this pronounced leave system were the city-furloughed men mentioned above, called Freiwächter.

On them Berenhorst remarks as follows: “A city-furloughed man, as opposed to a country-furloughed man, is one who pursues a trade or some means of livelihood, lives in the garrison, at times—if one does not trust him entirely—is not even allowed outside the gate, but receives neither pay nor quarters nor small uniform items. A Freiwächter is one who can earn so much that he leaves his pay to the captain and therefore does no guard duty; otherwise he must be provided for like a serving man, but on every occasion must shoulder the musket." 4).

4) Berenhorst, G. H. v., Betrachtungen über die Kriegskunst, Leipzig 1827, p. 179.

Another contemporary, Archenholz, assesses this institution less critically: “Besides these (note: country-furloughed) others, partly foreigners, called ‘Freiwächter,’ were from time to time furloughed in the garrison towns to improve their maintenance by manual labor and to be useful to their fellow citizens. During this time their pay fell to the company commander, who, like a true paterfamilias, had to provide for all the needs of his soldiers; even their wives and children, whose conduct, means of livelihood and further prospects were recommended to his care." 5).

5) Archenholz, J. W. v., Gemälde der preußischen Armee vor und in dem Siebenjährigen Kriege, Berlin 1791, p. 29 ff.

If the term “Freiwächter" goes back to the time of the Great Elector 6), they became above all under Frederick William I. an essential component of the leave system.

The recruitment regulation of 13.09.1732 stipulated: “If a company, because of many foreigners, could not furlough a sufficient number to the countryside, the captain shall seek to accommodate in the town those men who have a profession, placing craftsmen at work; those who have no profession must be accommodated as cloth makers, wool spinners and otherwise as laborers" 7). The number of furloughs of natives and foreigners to the countryside and into the town was, however, not to exceed a certain limit for reasons of service operation: “From the 1st of April until the 1st of June all shall be by the colours, and no one shall be missing; but if common soldiers wish to have leave, the captains may furlough them in the remaining months, yet so many men must remain with the company that every day 20 musketeers can go on guard, and each soldier may be free from guard 2 to 3 nights" 8). This provision was not to be undermined by “doubling or paid guards" (order of 20.VI.1746 at Infantry Regiment No. 22). The artillerist Mente, however, reports that paid guard duty was customary and it may be assumed that this was practiced in the other arms as well.

6) Jany, C. v., Geschichte der Preußischen Armee vom 15. Jhdt. bis 1914, Berlin 1928, vol. 1., p. 709. The term “Freiwächter" is also used in a report on the muster of Battalion Alt-Dohna (No. 16) of 4 August 1700, Kopka v. Lossow, Geschichte des Grenadier-Regiments König Friedrich I. (4. Ostpreußisches) Nr. 5, Berlin 1901, vol. l., p. 139.

7) Becher, Paul, Der Kronprinz Friedrich als Regiments­-Chef in Neu-Ruppin von 1732-1740, Berlin 1892, p. 119.

8) Reglement Vor Die Königl. Preußische Infanterie..., Berlin 1743, p. 597 (content-identical with the norm of the regulation of 1726, pp. 569/570, only the duration of the drill period is shortened by one month). Similarly the provisions of the regulation of 1714, pp. 239 ff.

A musketeer company that in 1763 counted 62 furloughed had a serving man strength of 60 heads (51 foreigners and 9 natives) 9). After the half augmentation the same counted 67 furloughed and 75 serving men (71 foreigners and 4 natives). According to the KO of 6.XII.1800 a musketeer company now had 65 or 66 furloughed (natives) and 93 serving men (76 foreigners and 17 natives).

Exceptions to this table could be dictated by the particular circumstances of the garrison. Thus the regiments of the Berlin garrison at the beginning of the 19th century furloughed only 468 men, while the other infantry regiments furloughed 588 men per regiment. This restriction was justified by the extensive Berlin guard duty, which required a larger serving-man strength than usual 10). The cavalry was also allowed to release only a small quota outside the drill period, since the care of the horses required a certain number of cavalrymen to remain in the stables; each serving man should have at most two horses to maintain. The guard troops likewise had a limited furlough framework; Scheelen reports in his diary on the situation at the Guard Grenadier Battalion (No. 6, Potsdam) in 1755:

“The Retzow battalion (No. 6) must give its men 5 nights free from guard; a company is strong at 38 squads (note: = 114 men), in 5 days 27 squads come on, 11 squads remain (note: = 33 men), of which per company 3, 4 up to 12 country children are furloughed to Silesia and Prussia by special permission for 2 years, the rest are Freiwächters in Potsdam, they must furthermore keep 10 men apart at the company for the sick and the new men, therefore they can miss only about 30 men per company. The whole battalion has about 30 furloughed, though without the Freiwächters. At Prince Heinrich (No.35) however a captain has furloughed perhaps 60 men and Freiwächters" 11).

10) Großer Generalstab (Ed.), Aus dem Gamisonleben von Berlin und Potsdam, 9th pamphlet of the Documentary Contributions and Research on the History of the Prussian Army, Berlin 1906, p. 4.

11) Großer Generalstab (Ed.), Potsdam Diaries 1740 to 1756, 10th pamphlet of the Documentary Contributions and Research on the History of the Prussian Army, Berlin 1906, p. 40; for the situation at No. 35 see also Taeglichsbeck, Das Füsilier-Regiment Prinz Heinrich von Preußen (No. 35) 1740-86, Berlin 1891, p. 166.

Beyond the authorized limit of furloughs the company commanders exempted a number of soldiers as Freiwächter from service. According to Preuß 12) around 1786, in addition to the “country-furloughed" some 45,000 men were furloughed as Freiwächter, so that “actually only 98,000 men were used for service, 92,000 were furloughed" 13). According to Jany 14) in 1788 the infantry had 50,338 soldiers (36%) furloughed, 11,340 Freiwächter (8%) and 77,310 serving men (56%); in the cavalry, however, 9,900 (32%) were considered furloughed, 2,360 (%) as Freiwächter and 18,622 (60%) as serving men. The infantry counted 8,750 over-completes, the cavalry 1,560.

12) Preuß, J. D. E., Friedrich der Große. Eine Lebensgeschichte, Berlin 1833, vol. IV, p. 317.

13) These figures are based on Boyen's presentation of the principles of the old and the current Prussian military constitution, Berlin 1817, p. 1 ff. Schnackenburg (Peacetime strength of the Frederician army, in: vol. 83 of the Yearbooks for Army and Navy, 1892, p. 183 ff.) has called this number “arbitrary."

14) Jany, op. cit., vol. III, p. 185. Jany here includes the field artillery in the infantry numbers; in the infantry the musicians and in the cavalry the non-commissioned officers and trumpeters are not included.

But who became a Freiwächter? — primarily, of course, those who had a “profession,” i.e. had learned a trade, since among the soldiers were many former journeymen for whom the limited scope of the guilds did not provide a sufficient livelihood. As the “profession lists" 15) of the time document, the occupational origins of the soldiers were extremely diverse. The infantry regiment von Hacke (No. 8; Stettin) had in 1783 a total of 381 tradesmen, potential Freiwächter; 16 to 47 per company. The infantry regiments No. 2 (1777) and No. 5 (1771) counted 327 and 543 respectively (including 28 non-commissioned officers); at No. 10 (1766) and No. 16 (1805) there were 401 and 491. The tradesmen at No. 8 (1783)—almost exclusively foreigners—were divided into 76 professional categories; in essence the entire palette of contemporary occupations was represented.

1) The “profession list" is an original component of all preserved regimental books. The Freiwächter furloughed per company outside the drill period are, in contrast to the country-furloughed, as a rule not numerically listed, at least not within the present compiled regimental lists and tables. According to Jany, op. cit., vol. II, p. 249 they are, however, mentioned in the company reports of No. 19 from the years 1747–53, being 12 to 24 per company.

There were also soldiers to be found who came from intellectual professions. Notable fates are those of Magister Laukhard in Infantry Regiment No. 3 and of the poet Seume. If they fitted into the system, they were indeed treated appropriately and had the opportunity to work as Freiwächter in their field. Laukhard reports: “When I returned from the review I took city leave, that is, I let the pay remain with the captain, did no guards and could therefore give my lessons with more order and convenience. Herr v. Müffling soon entrusted me after my joining his company with the instruction of his eldest son in the French language. He knew that I already taught more cheaply than the usual language masters, and yet, much as I protested, gave me as much as an ordinary privileged university language master and lector is given. Frau v. Müffling, a lady who deserves all respect and who is benevolence and affability itself, treated me particularly kindly. I would be very unjust if I did not publicly praise that the other heads of the company always treated me well and, so to speak, with distinction" 16).

16) Laukhard, F. Ch., Magister F. CH. Laukhards Leben und Schicksale, Stuttgart 1908, vol. 1, p. 256., p. 253

According to Beeger 17) “the more industrious worked as laborers for masons and carpenters; most, however, in the manner of today’s street vendors, stood on the busiest streets of Berlin, particularly near the post office, and were employed to carry things and the like, for which they often received good pay." Bräker, who at the start of the Seven Years’ War served as a musketeer in Infantry Regiment No. 13, observed in the capital Berlin: “Then I walked along the Spree and saw a hundred soldier hands occupied with loading and unloading merchants’ goods, or at the carpentry sites, there everything was full of working soldiers. Another time in the barracks, I found everywhere the same, engaging in the hundredfold handicrafts, from works of art to the spinning distaff..."18). According to Wachholz the barracks resembled factories; in every room stood big wheels and carding-combs on which the soldiers, while not engaged in service, stripped down to their shirts and with bare feet spun and carded wool from morning until night. At every street corner one could find some of these needy ones, uniform on the shoulder and an axe in hand, to split a rick for a small daily wage. They were ready for any heavy work and were used for it. Thus they assumed the character of privileged day laborers and porters." 19). Also according to Mente the barracks (here: artillery barracks in Breslau) were to be regarded as a large factory, and were inhabited not only by tailors, shoemakers and other tradesmen, but gold- and silver-thread were also bobbin-lace worked, fine linen produced, etc. Those who did not possess such skills busied themselves with knitting woolen stockings, or turned the wool spinning wheel (called the morning star) from dawn till dusk" 20).

17) Beeger, F. Yf., Seltsame Schicksale eines alten preußischen Soldaten, Uckermünde 1850, p. 25.

18) Bräker, U., Lebensgeschichte und natürliche Ebent­heuer des Armen Mannes im Tockenburg, ed. H. H. Füßli, Zurich 1789, reprint Stuttgart 1979, pp. 107/108.

19) Wachholz, From the Diary of General Fr. L. v., Braunschweig 1843, p. 63 ff.; Oelsnitz (Geschichte des Königlich Preußischen Ersten Infanterie-Regiments seit seiner Stiftung im Jahre 1619 bis zur Gegenwart, Berlin 1855, p. 517) likewise calls the Freiwächter privileged wage laborers.

20) Mente, op. cit., p. 28.

According to other sources the soldiers went “to the houses to cut old glass," maintained spinning works, made “new gloves and trousers" and traded them, produced “commission shoes," worked in the passementerie trade, slaughtered “cattle" and sold the meat, “manufactured tobacco," worked “in housebuilding" as assistants “under the masons" or earned extra money as “carpenters or day laborers." Soldiers’ wives traded in “merchandise" or ran a small stall. The majority of the soldiers, however, worked in the textile industry; especially in the large cities they had a limited means of subsistence. The soldiers and their dependents found their side occupations particularly in the flourishing stock of factories and manufactories. The warehouse in Berlin employed around 1740 a large number of “soldiers and their wives" who daily sought work. From Halle it was reported around 1770 that the garrison soldiers “spin so much wool that there is no lack of yarn in Halle."

When the Freiwächter carried on genuine “bourgeois livelihood," conflicts with the local guilds were inevitable 21). Numerous complaints and warnings to the relevant governor or regimental commander have been preserved, even direct immediate petitions to the king. Thus on 10.III.1725, 17.XII.1727, 21.X. and 2.XI.1749 corresponding royal edicts or circulars were issued because of soldiers practicing a craft. On 28.VI.1725 a royal order commanded “that no soldier shall practice his profession as a master but only as a journeyman" 22). If a soldier wished to acquire the right of a master, he sometimes needed not only citizenship, which in some places was tied to the peculiar possession of a house or plot of land, but also a concession or permit from the “civil-police authority" 23); however the acquisition of real estate was forbidden to soldiers (the prohibition was partially lifted by order of 5.IV.1787). In view of the complaints of the “guilds” one must bear in mind that the rigid guild system in the 18th century was already in decline and the economic life had already developed new forms through rural handicraft, home work, manufacture and putting-out. The conflict between the guilds and the trade-practicing soldiers therefore belongs to the changed guild-handicraft landscape and promoted its relaxation.

21) see Krause, G., Old Prussian uniform production as a precursor to the clothing industry, Hamburg 1965. The author emphasizes above all the importance of the Freiwächter for uniform production at company level within the clothing economy. Trained tailors among the soldiers were permitted to make new uniforms.

22) see also the parole orders published by v. Witzleben of Infantry Regiment No. 23 (Berlin) from the years 1750-54, 1780-83, Derselbe, A. v., From old parole books of the Berlin garrison at the time of Frederick the Great, Berlin 1851, p. 51 ff.

23) § 37 of the canton regulation of 12.II.1792 and §§ 18-20 ff. of the war or military law by G.W.C. Cavan, 1801.

The government and parole orders, prohibitions and restrictions provoked by the complaints seem likewise to have had little effect; the material interests of the men were too strong. The authorities tried to do justice to both sides, as a Berlin government order of 1804 (27.III.) illustrates: “The local city court has complained that many soldiers in ranks as well as discharged invalids practice civil occupations and thereby weaken the handicrafts masters by their handling, hence it proposes to completely prohibit this to them. Since this cannot be done in view of their livelihood, I have already issued the provisions that from all who practice a civil trade 6 groschen per month shall be paid into the guild chest of the trade in which they work, whereupon they may freely work as before. The company chiefs are instructed that these fees to be paid to each chest by both the invalids and still serving soldiers must be properly delivered each time on the last day of each month, which they must make known to their tradesmen serving with the companies" 24).

24) Großer Generalstab (Ed.), 9th pamphlet, op. cit., p. 26.

But the company owners were also affected by the Freiwächter. Due to the limitation of the official furlough quotas and the introduction of the royal recruitment the company economy had considerably lost attractiveness and therefore the institution of the Freiwächter, formerly only an ancillary variant of the leave system, gained increasing importance for the company owners. Abuses of these circumstances by individual officers are occasionally reported as prosecuted and punished, but that by no means represents the normal case; the Freiwächter system was, however, susceptible in this sense because it operated within the company and was purely financially oriented. The essential measure of the country furlough, on the other hand, was controllable on several levels—regiment, company, canton—and as a decisive part of the struggle between the king and the noble estates was subject to strict royal supervision.

Contemporaries already recognized the degeneration of company economy; authors such as Berenhorst, Klöden and Marwitz knew of its dark sides. The Freiwächter were sometimes appointed at the discretion of the company commanders; those who did not have the possibility (profession), lacked the skill or for status reasons (e.g. as a non-commissioned officer) could not pursue any activity, had a hard lot. Some company owners demanded special contributions from the Freiwächter or compelled them to perform guard duty only to be able to increase the quota of furloughed men and thereby expand their financial scope. The extended furloughs (and the reduced drill periods) undermined the level of training (primarily in the cavalry). Here the substance of the army could be impaired. Frederick the Great repeatedly warned against a “degeneration" of the country and also the city-furloughed. On 13.XII.1782 he admonishes in a letter to the later Generalfeldmarschall von Möllendorff, Governor of Berlin: “You must also see that the regiments do not keep more Frey Wächter than is proper. Otherwise they retain too few men for service and these are then fatigued by ever more frequent guards. Just as the many Frey Wächter also become only half-soldiers. From this arises also the evil that when the army marches, the fellows are accustomed to earn a heap in Berlin, and since that cannot be so in the field, they run away." 25). Similarly Frederick the Great remarks on 9.VI.1779 to Lieutenant General v. Ramin: “That they have Freiwächter is quite good, but they must see to it that they do not earn so much. For if such a Freiwächter earns 7 to 8 thalers a month and sometimes more, he is spoiled and lives too well, and if such a one later comes into the field and must get by on 2 thalers, he does not like it, because he is very accustomed to the good days. This makes him dissatisfied and tempts the men to desertion" 26).

25) Priesdorff, Soldatisches Führertum, Hamburg n.d., vol. I, p. 518.

26) Jany, op. cit., vol. III, p. 47.

The certainly legitimate contemporary criticism of the consequences of the Freiwächter system must not, however, overshadow the macroeconomic significance of this institution. In the agrarian-oriented Old Prussian state industry needed development, but in particular skilled labor was lacking. Among the foreigners in the Old Prussian army were many skilled workers whose specific skills were in demand. Authors like Hinze, Krüger, Schmoller and Skalweit uniformly emphasize the importance of the Freiwächter for this labor issue. Domestic entrepreneurs tried to make the skilled workers who came into the country through recruitment usable for their manufactory by furlough (or even dismissal), sometimes through direct petitions to the king. Thus, for example, the manufacturer Hermann in Lüben (Silesia) engaged in 1764 for his newly established knee-bow factory 3 dragoons from Krokkow’s life squadron. The three soldiers were former cloth makers from Aachen.

The furloughed remained subject to military jurisdiction. According to Hinze this was also advantageous for the entrepreneurs, since the soldiers were used to discipline and lived in an orderly regime. Corresponding parole orders did not leave the soldiers in doubt about the consequences of misconduct: “The companies that have Freiwächter among the masons must tell them not to behave badly towards their masters with whom they work and not to offend them, and otherwise not to begin any noise among themselves, otherwise they will be severely punished" (order of 10.X.1753). On 27.V.1733 the Freiwächter who served with the artillery and worked as journeymen with Berlin masters were instructed to conform to the magistrate’s regulations in craft matters and “to live by them properly," under penalty of running the streets. But not only the company owners and entrepreneurs benefited from the Freiwächter system; the soldiers themselves also profited. Through the additional earnings they improved their standard of living and could sometimes even accumulate a certain amount of property 27).

27) see König, Concise Government and Political History of Frederick William I, King of Prussia. From the Year 1713 to 1740, vol. II, p. 219.

Büsch, O., Military System and Social Life in Old Prussia 1713-1807, Berlin 1962.

Hinze, K., The Labor Question at the Beginning of Modern Capitalism in Brandenburg-Prussia 1685-1806, Berlin 1963.

Krüger, H., On the History of Manufactories and Manufactory Workers in Prussia, Berlin 1958.

Kuczynski, J., History of Everyday Life of the German People, Cologne 1983, vol. II (1650-1810).

Lehmann, Max, Recruitment, Conscription and Furlough in the Army of Frederick William I, in: Historische Zeitschrift, New Series, vol. 31, p. 254 ff.

Schmoller, G., The Emergence of the Prussian Army from 1640 to 1740, in: Same, Outlines and Investigations, Leipzig 1898, p. 247 ff.

Marwitz, From the Estate of Fr. A. L. v. d., Military Essays. - Political Essays, Berlin 1852.

Skalweit, A., The Incorporation of the Frederician Army into the National and Economic Body, in: Yearbooks for National Economy and Statistics, vol. 160, 1944, p. 194 ff. Stürmer, M., Autumn of Old Handicraft. Masters, Journeymen and Authority in the 18th Century, Munich 1986.