lso affected how wars were fought. There was little connection between the rulers and the ruled in Europe at that time. Patriotism and nationalism were weak concepts and the common people did not readily identify themselves as citizens of a particular country. A government demanded little of its people besides taxes and loyalty; in wartime, it attempted to limit damage to civilian interests. This was a reaction to the religious wars of the previous century, when much of Europe was devastated by virtually unlimited warfare (Palmer 92).
The soldiers who comprised most of the European armies did not come from a "cross-section" of the citizenry in the modern sense. Instead, they were professionals who fought for a living. Many were undesirables who did not fit in to civilian society; others were foreign mercenaries, fighting for whoever paid them. They were not motivated by patriotism or nationalism; their loyalties lay largely with their units and their leaders. The resulting weak bond between the soldiers and the state meant that commanders had to be wary of desertions during campaigns and had to ensure that supplies were always available (Palmer 92-93).
As a result of all these factors, the wars fought by Frederick were not wars of annihilation, where one country sought to completely subjugate another. Although battles were brutal, they rarely resulted in the complete destruction of one of the armies. Similarly, battles were not fought to force a quick victory in a war; rather, campaigns were conducted with the intention of forcing an enemy into conceding victory (Duffy, 12-13; Keegan 344-45; Palmer, 103; Weigley, The Age of Battles 193-95).
At the end of the Eighteenth Century, however, major changes took place which altered the nature of warfare. These changes were largely brought about by Napoleon, whose ambition far outstripped that of Frederick the Great. The limited warfare of Frederick's time gave way to to...