From The Mad Monarchist (18 August 2011)
The new blog Lost in the Myths of History recently posted on some of the common misconceptions regarding The Myths of the First World War. The myths and misconceptions involving that disastrous conflict could fill a volume. However, one of the often-repeated lies that has always bothered me the most is the idea that royals were often given high rank in the armies of the monarchial nations solely because of their blue blood and despite the fact that they were absolutely incompetent as military commanders. To some degree this is also often related to the idea that the top commanders in the Great War sat back in luxurious chateaus or safe in underground bunkers while the common soldiers were being massacred by machine gun and artillery fire. In fact, during World War I a greater number of generals were killed in the fighting than in most other conflicts. However, I want to stick to the tired lie that the royal commanders in the Great War were all a bunch of idiots who needlessly got men killed by their ineptitude but who owed their rank solely to being royal born. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Other, less well known examples include Prince Henry of Prussia, younger brother of the Kaiser, Grand Admiral of the German Baltic fleet. Despite having fewer resources at his disposal he successfully defended the German north coast from Russian attack and kept Russian naval forces on the defensive throughout the conflict. There was Duke Albrecht of Württemberg who won the battle of the Ardennes in 1914 and, again, while not a miracle-worker, he was known as a very competent and reliable general who won promotion to field marshal and command of his own army group. Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria was widely admired in his own time and even today he stands out as one royal commander about whom one does not find much criticism. Many historians consider him to have been the best of the German royals to hold major army commands. On the Eastern Front, Prince Leopold of Bavaria led German forces to some of their greatest victories such as the capture of Warsaw, Poland and the eventual defeat of Russia as command of all Central Powers forces in the eastern theatre of war.
Royals did not tend to hold many major commands in the Allied armies (probably a side-effect of democracy) but royals proved themselves in a number of capacities below the level of top command. As a gunnery officer on HMS Collingwood the future King George VI was noted for his skillful performance at the Battle of Jutland. Even in the French army the future Prince Louis II of Monaco earned high praise for his courage and determination, earning the Military Medal, the Legion of Honor and eventually promotion to major general. All of the Kaiser’s sons served in the army or navy, Prince Oskar was noted several times for his courage and daring attacks. He earned the Iron Cross and was wounded several times during the war, always leading his grenadier regiment from the front.
Obviously, some of these royal figures were more gifted than others in terms of martial talent. None of them rose to the level of Friedrich the Great, Marlborough or Napoleon but it is utterly absurd to think that every royal who served in the Great War was a spoiled incompetent. In fact, from all I have read, it seems that given how few royals there were compared to non-royal commanders, their record comes out quite above average in terms of overall talent. People scoffingly dismiss anyone with a royal title in a command position, assuming that they must be inferior and owe their position only to their ancestry. This is prejudice pure and simple and those who do so should be challenged to back up their condescending attitude with a few examples to prove their point. Hopefully, monarchists can now have a ready list of facts to throw back at them. The royals who led forces in the Great War were almost to a man capable and competent. Some were even exceptional but even for those who were not, they were certainly worthy of their rank and their medals.
