The Prussian Army under Frederick William I (1713 - 40) - Chapter 15 - Military Economy, Armaments Industry and Clothing Industry

In the instruction for his successor from that year the king also commented on his economic policy goals and emphasized that “a country without manufactures ... a human body without life, therefore a dead country which is constantly poor (powerless) and miserable and cannot attain prosperity. Therefore I beg you, my dear successor, conserve the manufactures, protect them and plant them, promote them and spread them further in your lands, especially in Prussia, and adhere to the edicts I have issued that no foreign woolen goods be introduced into our lands and that the noble and common inhabitants of our country should not dress in foreign woolen goods ...”¹.

The provinces of the Prussian state were predominantly agricultural²; the only significant raw material in the provinces east of the Elbe was sheep’s wool. This was intended to be processed domestically in the future. Up to then, production and marketing at home and abroad had not been the primary concern; rather, transit and middlemen trade dominated. The king therefore founded the wool industry³. In 1713 the Lagerhaus (warehouse) was founded as a first step and Johann Andreas v. Kraut was appointed its director⁴. In 1715 the operation was opened: “Originally conceived as a putting-out enterprise that was to advance the necessary wool to Berlin’s producers and hold the finished products in stock, the enterprise developed under Kraut into a manufactory. The finer types of cloth, whose manufacturing processes were still largely unknown in Brandenburg and for which the entrepreneur therefore brought specialists from abroad, were produced in the rooms of the Lagerhaus in Klosterstraße itself. Here, apart from spinning, colored kersey was manufactured, and for this the homeworkers delivered the ordinary coarse cloths and boyes for final finishing. In type, the Lagerhaus was therefore a hybrid form of a centralized and a decentralized manufactory. Centralized because all processes for producing a product were carried out in a division of labor under one roof, decentralized because it had important partial processes carried out off-site by formally independent craftsmen and only refined the products. Initially there were sixteen looms for fine cloth production. By 1719 their number had increased to twenty. But to the extent that the Lagerhaus, whose actual management was soon taken over by Severin Schindler, also oriented itself to civilian demand, the enterprise increased its stock of production equipment and its workforce. Between 1719 and 1724 some 450 to 550 workers are said to have been active in the workshops of the Lagerhaus. In addition, an estimated 5,000 contracted spinners were involved“⁵. As early as 1716 the Lagerhaus was able to fully meet the army’s need for cloth, for the constantly growing army first and foremost played a key role as consumer in the development of the domestic wool industry. This also kept the large sums of money for the annually occurring reoutfitting of the soldiers from 1725 onwards within the country. This corresponded to the principles of mercantilism. Mercantilism was the state economic policy and the doctrine of state economic administration in the age of absolutism and aimed above all at increasing state revenues. Effective means were considered to be increasing the population, industrial production and exports. Money was to be kept in the country or drawn into the country by means of export surpluses⁶.

The promotion of population growth and the establishment and expansion of a domestic (wool) industry were also marked cornerstones of Frederick William I’s economic policy. Strict state regulations were to ensure economic revival. From 1713 onward the regiments were only allowed to use domestic cloth, the court and the civilian population were to follow this example, and in 1718 (05.05.) a wool export ban was even enacted. Domestic wool was subsidized and shielded from foreign competing products by protective tariff policy. For an economic upswing, however, the internal productive forces had to be promoted and the (middle) provinces of the Prussian state had to be regarded as a unit. This meant a departure from the previous territorially oriented economic policy. With the Lagerhaus the king had created an efficient industrial center; it soon even succeeded in supplying cloth to the Russian army. However, due to foreign-policy turmoil there followed an economic crisis in the 1730s, and Prussia also lacked a risk-taking and capital-strong entrepreneurship. The overburdened Kraut died already in 1723, and the Lagerhaus was subsequently nationalized (1726). Further wool manufactories arose only sporadically, for example in Luckenwalde and Königsberg. From 1733 various wool magazines were founded in response to the economic crisis, for example in Königsberg and Berlin. Overall, however, the Lagerhaus was also associated with a considerable employment program, especially for spinners from the lower social strata. These were, not least, military personnel. Only under Frederick the Great (1764) was the Lagerhaus privatized again. Frederick William I’s efforts did not, however, remain without consequences: the production of various textile products from domestic raw materials experienced such a boom that in the second half of the 18th century already more than 80% of all those employed in industrial production worked in the textile industry.

One of, or even the most important branches of the domestic Prussian economy was the (military) clothing industry. The replacement of clothing and equipment, as well as the replenishment of the horse stock, was in the age of mercenary armies primarily left to the respective units. This fundamentally remained unchanged with the emergence of standing armies. Under Frederick William I, however, the army economy was standardized and subordinated to strict economic considerations. Despite detailed state planning, the individual formations retained a remainder of self-provisioning, the so-called company economy.

From the year 1725 an annual reoutfitting of the regiments took place⁷; the Infantry Regulation of 1714 had still envisaged a two-year wearing period for uniforms (pp. 242 ff.). The regiments were now to reoutfit themselves every year on May 1 (Infantry Regulation of 1726, p. 616), but if the king visited the review the new uniforms were to be issued one day before the royal visit. Occasionally regiments skipped the annual reuniforming for reasons of economy; an order of 14.12.1738 expressly opposed this, pointing out that “the regiments are to be newly uniformed every year and therefore having a reserve uniform still in the chamber, as has slipped in up to now, is not necessary and only gets eaten by moths”⁸. From the old coats the non-commissioned officers and the rank and file were to make chest cloths and nightcaps (Infantry Regulation of 1726, p. 617). Every serviceman was entitled to the annual issue of the following so-called small clothing items: 2 pairs of shoes, 2 pairs of shoe soles, 2 shirts, 1 over-shirt, 1 pair of gaiters, 1 pair of linen trousers, 2 red neckcloths, 2 hair bands, and every second year one pair of knee straps. The small clothing items together cost 5 thalers, 6 groschen, 2 pfennigs, whereby the soldier saved the bulk of the sum through a monthly soldier deduction of 8 groschen. A soldier on leave was entitled to only 1 pair of shoes, 2 red neckcloths, 1 hair band and, every second year, one pair of knee straps as small clothing items (plus 2 groschen company expenses, total: 1 thaler, 10 groschen, 10 pfennigs, Infantry Regulation of 1726, pp. 599, 600). Apart from the aforementioned costs for the small clothing items, nothing was to be charged to any soldier. The Infantry Regulation of 1726 (p. 602) therefore stipulated: “When the regiments come together for drill in the month of March, the soldiers shall, in the presence of a staff officer, be questioned according to their account books whether they are in good small clothing items and lack nothing, and whether they have ever been forced by their captains to procure small clothing items. But this shall not apply to those who always have leave; these receive from the company only a pair of shoes, a hair band and 2 red neckcloths, while the boots, half-shirts, under-shirts and linen trousers shall be brought from home. Those, however, who never have leave and constantly serve with the company, shall have the captains give them, when they demand and need it, more clothing items, and it shall not be expected that they procure anything for themselves.” Soldiers could sell their old uniforms (Infantry Regulation of 1726, pp. 525 ff.), but the buttons had to be removed beforehand “and delivered to the companies in good condition” (Infantry Regulation of 1726, p. 617).

The details of wearing periods and cost structure etc. shall be illustrated by the example of the dragoon uniform. The wearing period and the price of the uniform and equipment items of a dragoon officer (D III) were fixed as follows: annually: 1 hat (6 thalers, 22 groschen, 5 pfennigs), 1 white coatee with gold loops (37 thalers, 1 groschen), 1 pair of gloves (1 thaler, 8 groschen), 1 field sign (2 thalers); every 2 years: 1 sword hanger, edged with gold braid: (7 thalers, 18 groschen, 9 pfennigs), 1 pair of (buckskin) trousers: (4 thalers); every 3 years: 1 pair of boots with spurs: (5 thalers, 10 groschen); every 4 years: 1 greatcoat: (18 thalers, 13 groschen); every 5 years: 1 saddle with accessories: (5 thalers, 10 groschen), 1 sash (30 thalers), 1 saber (14 thalers) and every 8 years: 1 saddlecloth (80 thalers), total 212 thalers, 11 groschen, 2 pfennigs. Every 10 years each officer was also required to procure 2 horses; for this a sum of 230 thalers was calculated. The wearing period and costs for the uniform and equipment items of a private were: annually: 1 white greatcoat (4 thalers, 10 groschen, 4 ½ pfennigs), 1 white coatee (2 thalers, 14 groschen, 3 pfennigs), 1 white waistcoat (1 thaler, 7 groschen, 3 pfennigs), 1 (buckskin) waistcoat (4 thalers, 22 groschen, 3 pfennigs), 1 hat (1 thaler, 21 groschen, 8 pfennigs), 1 pair of (buckskin) trousers (2 thalers, 10 groschen, 6 pfennigs); every 2 years: 1 smock made of linen (19 groschen, 3 pfennigs); every 3 years: 1 pair of stockings (8 groschen); every year: 1 forage cap (6 groschen, 3 pfennigs); every 6 years: 1 pair of boots including knee straps (4 thalers, 10 groschen); additionally, every 8 years: 1 sword hanger (22 groschen), 1 saddlecloth (3 thalers, 21 groschen); every 10 years: 1 cartridge pouch (1 thaler, 4 groschen), 1 cartridge pouch strap (1 thaler, 4 groschen), 1 gun strap (7 groschen); and every 12 years: 1 saddle and bridle (6 thalers, 21 groschen), total 37 thalers, 16 groschen, 9 ½ pfennigs. To these clothing items were added a number of field implements, such as stakes, ropes for tying horses, field mangers, axes, kettles, bottles, etc.⁹.

Cut and fabric consumption for the individual uniform parts were precisely specified for the regiments and the regulation emphasized: “The regiments can get by sufficiently with the ell-measure according to the clothing regulation, therefore the clothing shall also be made exactly, neither longer nor shorter than the sample” (pp. 521 ff. and p. 624). The regulation of 1726 also demanded that “each non-commissioned officer, hautbois, piper, drummer, grenadier and musketeer uniform ... shall cost no more and no less than is specified in the account in the clothing regulation” (p. 616). The separately issued clothing or economy regulations for each regiment governed the quality, wearing period and cost of the individual clothing parts. The infantry received corresponding regulations in the years 1724, 1725, 1733, 1736 and 1739, the cavalry in 1727, 1733, 1737 and 1740; in addition, various provisions on uniforming and equipment are also found in the general service regulations. Early clothing regulations have only been handed down sporadically, e.g. for No. 1 (1725), No. 3 (1725), No. 14 (1725), No. 15 (1733, 1736, 1739), K 2 (1733), K 4 (1727), K 5 (1737), D II (1733), D VII (1733)¹⁰. For the infantry coat in the year 1714 still 5 ells of blue cloth were allotted, in 1718 still 4, in 1724 still 3 ells, but in 1725 only 2 ¾ ells. The tight fit of the uniform subsequently became characteristic of the Prussian soldier, though it was still far from the extreme fashionable developments of the post-Frederician era.