Talk:Hessian (soldier)

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

NPOV

Is this a serious article or a propaganda piece?

Merged articles

Can someone merge the two articles I pasted? Thanks, Greenmountainboy 18:30, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hessian Mercenaries

I think this article should be retitled Hessian mercenaries since it is most definitely NOT about the tribe.

Agreed. As it stands one imagines club-wielding Goths in the American War of Independence. Was there in fact ever a tribe? Jameswilson 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that, but I have no idea about the (re-)naming policy here. As for the tribe... since I'm not a native speaker: What would you call people from different states (in America) or a counties (in England)? Since 1945, Hessen is a German Bundesland. As far as I know (and the German wikipedia article tells me), the name "Hessen" derives from the Chatten/Katten, which where a tribe that existed during Roman times. Tierlieb 08:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

People from different counties/states? I cant think of any particular general word in English for that - just "people", "inhabitants". Anyway, what you write about Chatten/Katten confirms that "tribe" is definitely the wrong word here. Jameswilson 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would "tribe" be the wrong word? German uses the same word Stamm (pl Stämme) for the various German tribes and for American Indian tribes as well, for instance. Chatten, Franks, Merovingians, Frisians aren't seen as "nations", but as "tribes". Also, the article should keep the title "Hessians", since every American connects this word with the German auxilliaries in the Revolutionary War...which this article is aboutKar98 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Because Europeans stopped being described as "tribes" around 800-1000AD. Hessians in the context of the eighteenth century just means "people from Hesse" - they hadnt been living in a tribal set-up for 800 years/1000 years(?). By then, the word tribe was only used to describe so-called primitive peoples in Africa, North America, the hill country of India, etc. So yes the Chatten were a tribe, but not their descendants, the Hessians of the eighteenth or twentieth centuries.

Except the preface to the Weimar constitution (that would be 1919) begins with "The German nation, united in her tribes..." (Das Deutsche Volk, einig in seinen Stämmen...)Kar98 13:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the Frisians, the word has not changed. But "people from Friesland" would be very surprised to be described as a tribe nowadays (or in the 18th century), even though their ancestors fifteen hundred years ago certainly were. Jameswilson 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What about 'German Mercenaries' with an inclusion of reference to Hessian? The problem is that Hessian is time-specific and this article only deals with one time period and group of a much larger topic. What about the KGL during the Napoleonic Wars, for instance? Or Germanic troops in the service of France, Britain, Spain, etc. Nick Kerr 13:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean but it was probably inevitable that the Hessians would be the first to get an article to fulfil a link from the American War of Independence. Strangely the Mercenaries page ignores this period altogether. Jameswilson 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we move the article over then to a new section (agreeing on a name first) and modify it to include a greater sense of historic context. Also, should we include the Swiss, since they provided a large number of Germanic regiments for foreign service, especially with France. Nick Kerr 15:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the changing of names might be apropriate. But were these troops mercenaries or (as the text suggest) conscripts? Seems like a contradiction in terms: conscript-serving for duty, mercenary-serving for pay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Objectication

This article needs to seriously objectified and information available after 1913 needs to be used. German troops seem to be portrayed in a slave mentality, while the Americans are 'revolutionaries'. The reality of the situation was that German troops were hired for £7 per capita from a prince, and would then be kept at the expense of HM Government. This arrangement was beneficial to both parties, and while it may not be understood in modern times, it was an established way of doing things during the Age of Reason and beyond. I'll try to get around to this when I can. Nick Kerr 10:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The German troops described in the article have been slaves, in the sense that their lives and their bodies belonged to their princes and could be sold as their various princes saw fit. And by the way, the sum of seven Pound Sterling was paid by the British crown to the German princes and counts for every Hessian killed or every 3 wounded.Kar98

This does not contradict issue of objectivity. If conscription is defined as slavery, then US and British troops who have served as conscripts in the 20th Century should be classified as slaves. Military service as a form of punishment (either voluntarily to avoid prison or through specific court order) should be considered slavery. Similarly, German soldiers now are slaves, unless they are volunteers in the Bundesheer. This all may be true, but the normative definition is not relevent, the point is that the term slavery and the use of modern ethics is inappropriate. Nick Kerr 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that potential Bundeswehr recruits can refuse to serve in the armed forces, recruiters aren't roaming the countryside to press-gang young males into the army and the German government doesn't hire out regiments to the highest foreign bidder to increase their revenue. The point is that the term slavery is indeed appropriate; and why is the use of modern ethics appropriate for black slavery, but not when whites are the subject of involuntary servitude? Also, I don't see why you'd call that a biased American view. Kar98 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Germans can join another form of national service (not just the armed forces), but a Bundesheer soldier is still subject to military requirements and has not volunteered to be subject to national service. You are missing the point. Slavery is involuntary and confers a concept of property on the individual, without any concept of voluntary service or the ability to retire after such service. Similarly, slaves produce transferable labour with their children and their wives would be owned if they were slaves. You are trying to say that involuntary service is slavery, whereas British soldiers during WWII were mostly conscripts, but they were not 'slaves'. The British Army throughout the Age of Reason used non-PC methods of recruitment, including enforced service (such as through magistrate ordered service), but it was not an 'army of slaves'. Further, regiments were transferable through the purchase system, yet the men in the regiments were not being sold as slaves, but rather the unit was transferable under the purchase system. As for biased American views, that is the case if every time something that conflicts with American ideology is put into an American perspective. The purchase system and mercenaries, as well as 'volunteers', existed in the Age of Reason and Napoleonic period. The purchase system lasted in Britain until the late Victorian period, the concept of using foreigners and involuntary soldiers became less frequent, but still continued in varying forms into the 20th Century. The point is that there is a NPOV way to state this, and there is a way of just saying it's 'slavery' and talking about how bad everything was.Nick Kerr 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. We're not talking about Brits in WW2, we're talking about Germans during the Revolutionary War. Different period, different circumstances. And yes, German Leibeigene did "produce transferable labour with their children and their wives would be owned if they were slaves". That's what Leibeigene means, literally. They were property. A recruit of the German Bundeswehr (Austria has a Bundesheer) can look forward to an end of his service after 9 months. A German Leibeigener knew he, and his descendants would remain property of their count, baron, duke, prince. In some areas of the German-speaking world, this practice continued well into the 1950s! Read on! How were those people not slaves? Kar98 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not missed the point, you're definition of a slave did not discard other forms of compulsion. Similarly, you're placing modern values onto a situation that is better described by use of the German (body-owned is a better translation than slave, should you even wish to translate it). Using a Swiss example that does not directly pertain to the issue is...interesting, but the children in question I presume got their rights at the age of maturity, otherwise Switzerland would have serious social problems indeed. I'm also aware what Austria has, as well as what Germany has, in fact, Germany also has a Bundesheer, as a sub-branch of the Bundeswehr. The point still remains that German auxiliaries were not Sklave, but Leibeigene, and while the old system of ownership may seem somewhat strange by modern comparison, it does not do justice to such times to just go on about them as if everything was bad and slavery pervailed.Nick Kerr 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What about we transfer the topic to a 'German auxiliaries' article, where we can provide a more detailed history and understanding of such forces, beyond just the American War of Independence, as well as have more information about both the achievements of such forces and their prediciments in life? I am not trying to delist their plight, but I do not think such a narrow section, nor one that attempts only to show their misery, does justice to a much more complicated topic.Nick Kerr 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of Germany having a Bundesheer: No, sorry. The Bundeswehr divida est in partes tres, yes. These are called Heer, Marine and Luftwaffe (Army, Navy, Airforce), yes. But no, the Heer is never called Bundesheer (to avoid confusion the the Austrians, probably). Tierlieb 08:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note. One should definitelly not confuse slavery and servitude. Even with slavery one has to distinguish between the ancient form and african slavery. Simply put, african slavery was race based and children were indeed born into slavery. Ancient slavery on the other hand was not transmitted at birth and a slave could buy his own freedom (in theory the later period of african slavery also allowed this, in fact it was very rare). But back to the topic, I very much doubt the Hessians in question were serfs, certainly not exclusively serfs. The term mercenary is not ideal either (at least not in it's modern english sense), in modern terms they'd be soldiers (as in paid men). So yes, this sounds very much like a non-neutral POV. Lastly, I'd really like to hear which German state maintainned servitude till 1950, most I expect discarded this system between the french revolution and 1815.Caranorn --85.93.202.176 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

hesse hessen

hello

im from germany/Hessen an i read some sentences

one person from hessian state is called Hesse die state is called Hessen

bye

Hessian captives

Could someone try and correct that note? Currently it says that 10,000 Hessians out of a force of 1,400 were captured. Obviously that cannot be correct. Unfortunately I have no idea what the correct numbers are.--Caranorn 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, so many numbers are faulty, that it's almost impossible not to laugh. Years are wrong. Out of a force of some 12.000 around 15.000 die!!! I'll edit some of the most obvious, but I have little info on many of the other numbers.--Nwinther 09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Numbers seemed okay a while back when I last read the entire article, I only noticed that entry on 10,000 captured out of 1,400. Maybe there is some massive buried vandalism.--Caranorn 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another number that appears to be wrong is the dates for the Convention Army and their release from Lancaster, PA. It says they where released in 1873? They where released 90 or so years after the war was over? Gitmo 19th century style?~~

That looks like a typo that was fixed a few days ago.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another one: It says that a letter in 1793 promised 50 acres of land. I'm not an expert, so maybe that's correct, but if so it wasn't during the war. 1783? William Ackerman 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. 1793 is definitely the wrong number. Though, by 1783, the war was pretty much over. So perhaps an offer of land at that point makes sense, when veterans were also receiving land grants for service. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks,

my name in Janecke and, funny enough I'm from Hessen in Germany. There is a Janecke's Frei Corps mentioned on the Hessians page. I did some research on the matter just for shits and giggles, but unfortunately little was found. There might be someone who can share some info on this subject, i guess. Otherwise I'm lost how to proceed in my search, since I do not have the time now, to hit the dusty libraries of, lets say, Kassel.

Thanks in advance, Florian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.253.3.200 (talk) 09:46, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't about Hessian or Hessians

The article neads re-writing or re-naming. Hessian on its own means 'relating to Hesse'(If not capitalised it means the cloth sacks are made of), to mean people it needs to be plural. This page is just about the AWI and has nothing about Hesse or its people. The article is too focus on the USA And is written in a way that appears to reflect badly (In a Subjective way) on German soldiery of the war, It sidelines the fact that King George was elector of Hanover and thus many of the men were his subjects. I personally think this article should be moved to 'German Auxiliaries of the American War of Independece' as it stands and this page should re-direct to the disambiguation page. The article has alot of subjectivism and has applied used modern ethics to a historical setting (Any Historian worth his salt knows this is a heinous thing to do).(Morcus (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The lead of the article addresses the use of the word cloth and the reference to Hesse. Regardless, the common and prevalent term for these soldiers in the American Revolution was "Hessian." It is the term that historians use. Since there only seems to be three different options for "hessian/Hessian" I don't think a disambiguation page is really required. The article directly states that King George was an elector of Hanover, I'm not sure what more you want in that area, but feel free to increase it. While this article is not a perfect example of scholarship, I fail to see any rampant subjective material. The only possible subjective application of morals to this article would be the reference to the Irish section, and that being if it was believed the Hessian activities did not constitute atrocities. If you want to provide information to the contrary, you certainly may. Overall, I see no reason for this article to be renamed or substantially changed or re-written. All it really needs is more citations and more subject material, like all Wiki articles, that should move it along the path of improvement.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Article directly talks of HM's subjects after its spoken of non subjects and to my mind it should be the other way around. I'm sure competent historians don't refer to multiple people with the word Hessian as its singular, the people would be Hessians and an individual would be the/a Hessian. The term Hessian refers to anyone from Hesse and not just soldiers fighting for George III in two wars, the article contains no mention of said people and as such needs a tital to reflect its specific nature or infomation not linked to the AWI and Ireland and really something from a non-military stand point (The article sugest that every Hessian was/is a soldier by saying nothing about non-soldier Hessians, what about Hessian culture or tradition? The greatest element of subjectivism is the failiure to include anything on People from Hesse who didn't fight in the AWI or Ireland, and this is subjectivism because the reason the info isn't there was because the authers didn't care about said people or writing an article which fully encompasses the title, would you be happy if there was a page on USonians that only talked about their role in the 90's Somalia conflict would you see that as a fair depiction?(86.156.207.116 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))(I apologise if USonian isn't the correct term because i only know the correct term in french {Etats Unison} I did not use the term American as I was making a point)

Thanks for replying, Morcus. I've a better understanding of what you're concerned about. I think its fair to argue, were the English Wikipedia supposed to be the only and most predominant Wikipedia, then a better disambiguation might be required concerning the people of Hesse. However, in the English language, Hessian most commonly refers to the Germanic soldiers used by the British in the late 18th Century. Since a link exists leading to the page on Hesse, which covers the subjects you're looking for, then I don't think there's an issue of subjectivity. This article is about the Hessian soldiers. I'll reword the lead, however, and let me know if it better directs towards Hesse and its citizens. Feel free to re-arrange the section concerning George III to make him first before the others.

The word Hessian is somewhat interesting, as I can see it can be singular, "He's a Hessian." As well as an adjective, "He's a Hessian soldier." Perhaps the article should be moved to at least "Hessians" or "Hessian Soldiers." When I get the chance, I can try digging out one of my histories on the American Revolution and see how the authors treat the use of Hessian.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think it would be more appropriate to go with a disambiguation page, after all. I'll look into doing that.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Turns out a disambiguation page already existed! I simply renamed this article to Hessian (soldiers) and redirected Hessian to the disambiguation page. I don't know why this wasn't done sooner.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to appologise for the harshness of my reply an i'm very happy with the result.(Morcus (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

I like the idea of renaming the article German Auxiliaries of the American War of Independece and keep it linked in the disambiguation page for Hessians. I was actually looking for this page, but didn't think to search for Hessians. I was looking for something more like German states in the American Revolution, similar to France in the American Revolutionary War. Along these same lines, I don't like using the term "Hessian" throughout the article when referring to soldiers from states other than Hesse. I realize a lot of American revolutionaries grouped them all together as "Hessians," but NPOV would seem to dictate that they be referred to by their proper principalities when possible. Mingusboodle (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd never think to look for German Auxiliaries of the American War of Independence. More specifically, along the lines of NPOV, most historians on the topic use the term Hessian/Hessians indiscriminately when referring to the German soldiers. Thus, it is the NPOV term widely applied. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 12:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we remove the term "Hessian" altogether. I am suggesting that the article could be made more accurate, starting with the name and throughout the article. If you searched for "Hessians," you could still find the disambiguation page, which could then refer you to the article on German troops in the service of Great Britain during the American Revolution. Any article on the German auxiliaries would, obviously, have to mention that they were all generically called Hessians by the American rebels, but just because the Yankees did it 200 years ago doesn't mean we're forced to do the same on Wikipedia today. There is no similar article on British soldiers called "Lobsters" (although maybe there should be a link to Red coat (British army) on the Lobster disambiguation page...) Mingusboodle (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RebelAt, I was intrigued by your premise that most historians use the term "Hessians" for German soldiers, so when I got home tonight, I looked at three different books that each cover the Battle of Saratoga, which involved soldiers from Hanover, Hesse-Hanau, and Braunschweig-Lüneburg. By absolutely no means do three books indicate an exhaustive overview of historians, but I could only find one instance where an author referred to the Germans as "Hessians," and that was in reference to a letter by a Patriot who used the word with the same meaning. From what I can tell, the Americans (Patriots) were really the only people making this use of the word. Just because they won the war doesn't mean their propaganda becomes NPOV. The British and Germans, by contrast, referred to individual units by their state or by their commander. (To be fair, the Americans couldn't make these distinctions.) When referring generically to the German forces, both British and Germans used the term "German," not "Hessian." Rumors to the contrary, I was not actually in the American Revolution, so if I'm off base, please educate me. As it stands, I think this article makes a fairly insulting use of the term "Hessian." I wouldn't call just anyone from the United States a Cheesehead, and I don't think we should call anyone who speaks German a Hessian.Mingusboodle (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

From Joseph George Rosengarten's The German Soldier in the Wars of the United States, pg 111

So slight was the feeling of German nationality at that time, that the German soldiers in the British army in America were always called by the name of the little district from which they came,- Brunswick, Hesse, Anspach, Waldeck, and Zerbst,- never Germans.

Mingusboodle (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

grunt I read an interesting tidbit in a book tonight and came here to add it to the article... 'cept now I don't know what to do with it, because I'm not even sure what this article is about, anymore. Some of the article seems to be about all the German soldiers in the war, but a good deal of the article is obviously about the soldiers from Hesse (although I can't tell if we're talking about Hesse-Hanau or Hesse-Kassel). I don't know how to fix it, because I'm not sure what I'm reading.

Look, here's my plan to do what I can... I'm going to read up a bit more, then put together an article titled "German States in the American Revolution." To distinguish it, I'll try to focus the article more about the states than the soldiers. Somewhere in the header, I'll say that American rebels referred to German soldiers as Hessians, and I'll link it to this article. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'd been traveling and missed the comment from May. David Hackett Ficher, one of the top historians in American colonial history uses the term Hessian repeatedly in his latest work, Washington's Crossing. Perhaps the most well known historian in the United States, David McCullough uses the term repeatedly in his recent book, 1776. This history of the American Revolution, published by the respectable Oxford Press, The Glorious Cause also uses the term Hessian. Not to mention, after checking the source you provided above, I found out that the book was published 122 years ago. Obviously you have a great interest in the topic, but the mainstream academic use in both the United States and apparently, Britain (Oxford Press), is the usage applied in the article.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about being absent. None of us get paid for this.

There are two separate issues to address, here. One is "Hessians" vs "Germans." In Washington's Crossing, for example, the troops on the other side of the river were, indeed, from Hesse, and it is entirely appropriate to call them "Hessians." Part of the confusion I've had with this article is the subject matter- is it about soldiers from Hesse, or is it about all German soldiers who fought on the side of Great Britain? If it's specifically about Hessian soldiers, then there's no problem, we simply need to clarify the scope of the subject. By contrast, if you read Ketchum's Saratoga (1999), you'll see that he refers to the Brunswick troops not as Hessians, but as "Brunswickers."

The other issue is Wikipedia standards. Calling all Germans "Hessians" might seem correct if you're trying to reflect rebel American ideas at the time, but referring to them as Germans or by their state of origin is more correct. Given the choice between "correct, from a certain point-of-view" and "more correct," I think a Wikipedia article should lean towards the later.

You're right, of course, that we should look to newer sources when available, but I would add two exceptions to that. One is that a book may be about a subject which includes German troops, but it isn't necessarily about the German troops. For example, someone sent me a source that supposedly proved the Betsy Ross flag was at the Battle of Brandywine. It was a very good book specifically about the battle, and had one line in the middle about a flag that the author assumed was a "Betsy." I couldn't use the source; just because the author mentioned the subject I was working on, that doesn't mean he was focused on it. (Sorry, I wrote that poorly. I think you already know what I mean, though.) The other thing to watch for is source material in new books. The reason we look for new sources is because they might have new information that old sources don't have. However, as I looked for newer sources on German soldiers in the Revolutionary War, I found that many of them referenced only a few of the same source materials that were published in the 19th century. Those 19th century publications utilized original sources, so we can't be too hasty in discarding their information just because they're old; we just have to know when they were published so we can discern what biases they might have. That's why we print the publication date when we cite sources.

I'm not going to monkey around with this article, so if you disagree with me on any/everything, don't sweat it. My only real suggestion is to specifically define which soldiers this article is about in the header, and then stick with that throughout the article. Right now, I think this article is about soldiers from Hesse, so I would remove the section on the Brunswick army. Mingusboodle (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been my presumption that the article is about German mercenaries in the American Revolution (which was at some point extended to cover the same mercenaries fighting for the British in other spots). Along those lines, I believe it should follow the Wikipedia naming conventions, which directs to go with the most common and familiar name for the subject. In this case, hessian as a general term, is the most familiar and common. I've been arguing this point for the most part, that when someone goes to the internet to learn more about the topic, they don't type Hessian in thinking purely of Germans from Hesse. As you've pointed out, it might not be the most correct, but it allows readers trying to find the subject find it much easier. The article can then offer a more precise naming convention if desired so folks leave with a sharper idea of what the topic is about.

In terms of old and new sources, new scholarship isn't just about producing new documents or sources, but also in how the original documents are perceived and understood. The evolution of historical scholarship in terms of schools of thought has been quite large since the late 19th century when it was really just beginning (incidentally, in Germany) and today. Thus, you can have two books, one written a hundred years ago and one last year using the exact same primary sources but coming to very different conclusions. I certainly recall being chastised for using a source that was sixty years old in one of my early papers! An old source best serves as a repository for primary documentation, but not necessarily as an interpretation of primary documentation. The Houses of History is a good (if not exciting) introductory read to the different theories of history that come and gone and still exist.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources> My point about sources is that if a newer source does nothing more than reference the older source, then there's nothing wrong with using the older source. If a newer source has something to add or reinterpret, that's a different story. Let's be careful, though, about choosing which "interpretation" of history we plan to side with. Ideally, we should focus on consensus/facts, and leave final interpretations up to the wiki-readers.

Along those lines, I thought of your argument while I was at the library, today, and I went to the section on the American Revolution. As I looked through the indexes and flipped through the pages, I have to concede that you are partially correct. Some modern authors use "Hessian" to mean German. This was far too small a sample to mean anything, but here's what I encountered: 3 books had nothing at all on "Germans" or "Hessians." Quite a comprehensive tome, yes? 3 other books had entries for "Hessians," but not "Germans" or "Brunswickers." These are the authors who seem to support your view that all modern historians use "Hessians" this way. One of the books even referred to the Brunswickers at Saratoga as "Hessians," which is something I had planned on challenging you to find. In my own defense, this book devoted all of a half page to the Saratoga campaign, so I'd rather not count it. 3 books, however, redirected the entry for "Hessians" to "Germans", and a fourth had multiple entries for "Hessians" and "Brunswickers." So this completely unscientific, drive-by research seems to indicate that there is no formal consensus from the book publishers. That means the search for consensus on this article lies with us, the wikipedians. You know my preference and I know yours; I'm not sure many other people care. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After reflecting over the past few days, I've decided that it probably would be better to make this article specifically about the German soldiers from Hesse, rather as a catchall to all German soldiers. As per the merger suggestion, I think an article on the Hessians could stand on it's own feet with a sentence in the lead directing to the German Auxiliaries article.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Over the last 2-3 years, I've read a lot of original documents, diaries, correspondance, etc. I can't recall one good example of an American or British document which referred to a German unit as "Hessian" unless that unit was predominantly from Hessen-Kassel or Hessen-Hanau. Units were sometimes referred to as "German," but most often by their principality (i.e. Waldeckers, Brunswickers). This idea that all Germans were called "Hessians" seems to be another 19th century fantasy. I can't change the article based on my "original research," but I challenge someone to prove me wrong. Mingusboodle (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Rjensen:, I don't want to get into a silly edit war. The statement you keep adding is demonstrably false. "The Patriots called all the hired German soldiers "Hessians" …" (emphasis mine). The main issue is the absolute nature of your statement. Wikipedia users have gone rounds on this in different articles (such as American Revolutionary War and Germans in the American Revolution). It's not too difficult to find examples where continental Americans (there's a previously reported NPOV issue with the term "Patriot" refer to the "good guys") referred to various German units by their specific principality. The problem with absolute statements is that it only takes one exception to make it a lie. The fact that actual Hessians comprised such a large body of the auxiliary forces and that they were concentrated in the center of the fighting contributed to this historical myth that idiotic colonists thought all German-speaking Soldiers were from Hesse. Canute (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

OK a agree about "always called" and changed it. I do not see any ambiguity about "Patriot" --at the time or today. Supporters of the king used it as an insult and for that reason the rebels adopted it. see Oxford English Dictionary. Google Scholar gives over 50,000 scholarly cites to [patriot "american Revolution"]. it's no more POV than rebel, or loyalist. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

King George III, Hanover and Hessians

I'm not sure how long that information has been part of the article but I find it rather confusing. Of the regiments listed later in the article, none seem to be subjects of the Electorat of Hanover. From my past wargame research I don't recall any Hanovrian regiments present either. I think the problem stems from George III being one of a number of dukes of Brunswick (several distinct duchies) at the time, the units present don't seem to have originated in his duchy.

In short, does anyone have sourced material documenting German subjects of George III serving in German regiments (there almost certainly were some in his UK and Colonial regiments. Otherwise I think this should be removed.

Note, I've actually been on wiki-retirement for over a year now, but as I'm working on a major project (three more weeks fully booked for the first stage of that project) for french language wikipedia I've been regularly checking my watchlist the past few weeks. But I'd rather not get involved in another task like verifying and referencing this article right now.--Caranorn (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came across a letter from King George III where he volunteered 400 of his Hanover chaasseurs for the Burgoyne campaign. It's in Commager's The Spirit of Seventy-Six pg 543.

Be careful with our terminology, The UK didn't exist in the 18th century. At the time it was the Kingdom of Great Britain which was in personal union with Irland at the time.(Morcus (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Yep, but we are on the talk page, not the article. And I used UK as I wanted to refer to Regiments from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.--Caranorn (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The British isles would more correctly discribe all those. Most of Ireland isn't in the UK as it is now, and yes we may be on the talk page but Its still worth bearing in mind.(Morcus (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

The Electorate of Hanover did provide military forces for Great Britain during the American Revolution. These forces were deployed to reinforce the Royal Army garrisons stationed at the British colonies of Gibraltar and Minorca. No Hanoverian unit was dispatched to North America during the American Revolution.--Thebigmac100 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Thebigmac100, 19 September 2008

Confusing, uncited sentence in the article

In 1786, the British Government paid the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel a total of £471,000in compensation and celebration of lost horrible troops.

Does anyone have a citation for this quote, or any idea what "lost horrible troops" means? It should be removed if not. Does anyone disagree? Thanks! --smurdah (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its vandalism. Vought109 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Descendants

Is anyone else here a descendant of a deserting Hessian soldier? I'm a descendant of Caspar Spohn, who eventually settled in Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.242.150 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anywhere to check? I happen to be of Hessian origin and am curious myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.168.106 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a fourth-great grandson of Caspar Goebell (Anglicized as Casper Cable) who was part of Johann Rall's troops and was captured at Trenton. He turned-coat and joined the colonials and fought at Guilford Courthouse. Was given a land grant in what is now Johnson County, Tennessee. There is an organization called JOHANNES SCHWALM HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION based in Pennsylvania which is for Hessian descendants. Eric Cable  !  Talk  04:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Split?

Something that struck me when looking at this article was that it almost entirely covers the period 1776-83, yet the practice of the British hiring Hessian and other German soldiers was considerably older - and was continued post 1783. Would it be an idea to split into two articles, one largely consisting of the current contents under an article of Hessians in the American War and one covering their wider existence in the period? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the current contents are a result of editor interest and knowledge. I think it'd better to keep everything in one umbrella at the moment until there's significant content for both areas to warrant a split. Otherwise, while it's weighted heavily toward the American Revolution and that time period, there's no reason that someone can't come in and balance out the article. I'd rather see a longer comprehensive article on Hessians, than several abbreviated ones. My own opinion. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"7 foot tall with two rows of teeth"

I remember hearing this rumor somewhere the colonists at the time were given the impression that the Hessians they were fighting were 7 foot tall and had 2 rows of teeth. I can't seem to find any source material about this and would like see some. Anyone know of any?

thanks 70.104.168.106 (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Confusing section on Ireland 1798"

The section on Ireland 1798 should be revised drastically. The 5th Bn 60th foot was part of a British Line Regiment and Hompesch's Mounted Rifles were raised by an individual for British service - a completely different arrangement from the Hessian contract troops used in America. Hompesch himself was from Wurtemburg by way of Malta, and all that is recorded about the personnel of both units is that most (but by no means all)were ethnic Germans. Mercenaries maybe - on an individual level - but their identification as "Hessians" seems to come entirely from a line in the Irish nationalist ballad "Boolavogue" - which is how I came to this page. This is more likely to have been a deliberate attempt to link their activities in 1798 with those of their fellow-Germans in America than an accurate statement of historical fact. Howey1924 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

'Russian' Hessians?

Someone's added a line claiming 16,000 Hessians were in fact Russian. I have never seen this stated anywhere else. I know the British considered hiring in Russians to bolster numbers, but that never transpired.

No it's absolute rubbish. The British asked the Russians for troops, but the Russian government refused. The word Hessians come from the principality of Hesse-Hanau, where most of the German contingent came from.

Does anyone know of any credible sources for this? Or is this a kind of Russian revisionism (I don't why any proud Russian would want to claim them, with the exception of the Jægers they frankly weren't particularly good (their Fredick the great tactics were totally inappropriate for the American theatre) that's why the British used them mostly for garrison duty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The enemy?

The enemy the Hessians fought in 1776 were called at the time, and by RS today, "Patriots." It's standard and not POV -- indeed it was a pejorative term at the time. The Oxford English Dictionary third definition of "Patriot" is "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence." In Britain at the time, "patriot" had a negative connotation, and was used, says Samuel Johnson to attack "a factious disturber of the government." [ibid OED] Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

History

"Most of the infantry were chasseurs (sharpshooters)." - This is incorrect, Chasseur was a French term, they were French light infantry. The correct term for a Hessian/German sharpshooter is Jäger. Vought109 (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

The article says that more Hessians died of accidents than disease, which would have been very unusual during this period. Disease generally caused more deaths than did war wounds up until WWII, as I recall. Parkwells (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The article contradicts its sourced reference here and is definately incorrect. I have corrected this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.9.130 (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

start class? question

Why is this page still rated start class in the wikiprojects? Looks like it's easily C class. Anyway, I've had this page on my watchlist for years and the amount of activity here has always puzzled me. Out of curiosity, is this really such a hot-button topic? It appears in my changelist so often that watchlist fatigue causes me to neglect checking the edits. The topic itself seems somewhat obscure.... at least to me. I have almost 1000 pages in my watchlist and it's easily in the top 10 most active. Thoughts? Is the IP vandalism okay? The page could be protected if there's a big problem. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this? I think someone is messing with us.

"Hessian soldiers were famous for their feminine gait when marching, often credited with the stealth-like nature of their advance. This characteristic gait is still seen in many Germanic settlers to the United States and is most prevalent in Central Texas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan66223 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Country vs State.

The use of the term "state" when describing Hesse and other German speaking countries at the time, while technically correct, may mislead some people into thinking these were united states under a common country called Germany. Of course there was no Germany until a multitude of tiny German speaking countries united into Germany in 1870. So I recommend using the term "German speaking country" instead of German state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hessian (soldier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202030755/http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb06/fnz/forschung/unabhaengigkeitskrieg to http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb06/fnz/forschung/unabhaengigkeitskrieg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Auxiliaries

The article repeated refers to these Soldiers as Auxiliaries. This is a much better and more NPOV term than "mercenaries," but I wonder if it's really the most appropriate word to use in the introduction and throughout the article. According to the Auxiliaries article, this term is typically used to describe irregular, part-time, or civilian/non-combatant units. The Hessian formations were none of these. It may not be the wrong word to use, necessarily, but I wonder if it's currently over-emphasized. This is less of a statement and more of a question; I'm curious what others think about it. Canute (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good points made but I think that the 18th century Hessians would be covered by the definition of auxiliary as being also "a historical designation given to foreign or allied troops in the service of a nation at war" (see introductory paragraph to Auxiliaries article). I guess that like "militia", "auxiliaries" is a military term having a range of differing meanings. Buistr (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the term auxiliaries is not the best term. The soldiers in question were commonly know as mercenaries for the simple fact that they were hired to fight in a foreign war. Mercenaries is the term used by the greater bulk of sources. This was recently discussed at length on the American Revolutionary War Talk Page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Mercenaries" is a significantly worse term for reasons previously and frequently discussed. It implies things to today's readers that were not true at the time, and was a propaganda term that only represents one perspective. Canute (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree "mercenary" means different things to different people at different times. The article first describes the Hessian soldiers as "regarded, both contemporaneously and historiographically, as mercenaries". My reaction is "by whom?" If that description, then and now, is only from the American point of view, that fact should be made clear. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Legally?

The lede makes the statement that the "Hessians were legally and politically distinguished as auxiliaries", which is a questionable and dubious statement. Legal in whose eyes? I'm sure Hesse-Cassel, who hired these soldiers out, and Britain agreed with that claim. However King Frederick II of Prussia (Northern Germany) didn't recognize any legal status and forbid the transit of any such soldiers to pass through his territory. Certainly the Americans didn't recognize any legal status and commonly referred to them as "foreign mercenaries" for the simple and basic reason that they were hired soldiers sent off to fight in a foreign war they had no stock in. As was done in the ARW article, this article needs to give due weight to both the ideas of auxiliaries and mercenaries. It can be easily demonstrated that the term mercenaries is the common term used by the overwhelming majority of sources on the American War for Independence, so we should lend the most weight to that term. Any legal consideration remains dubious and quite debatable and is secondary to the greater idea that the soldiers in question were hired to fight in a foreign war. It doesn't matter if they had a state sponsored manager or were acting on their own. They remained hired soldiers sent off to fight in a foreign war they had no interest in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This debate comes up frequently. For a start, I'd suggest "A Generous and Merciful Enemy" by Daniel Krebs. The author dedicates the first chapter explaining the European system of professional armies in the 18th century, the term "mercenary" and what it meant at the time, the common practices, and the opposition to German states' participation in the American Revolutionary War from both the American and German perspectives. But the short answer to your question would be that the "legal" status of these Soldiers came from their respective treaties with Great Britain, meaning that they weren't spies or Soldiers-for-Hire as some would like us to believe. As with almost any war, the legalities faced scrutiny from those who disagreed. Forgive the crude comparison, but it's kind of like the difference between a pirate and a privateer. Canute (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Date clarification

This article identifies Jefferson's reference to mercenaries in the Declaration of Independence as a description of Hessians. But later in the article, there is an unsourced factual claim: "The first Hessian troops to arrive in North America landed at Staten Island, New York on August 15, 1776." If this is true, Jefferson could not have been referring to the Hessians explicitly because the Declaration was written more than a month before they arrived. Perhaps you can clarify this? Had Hessians arrived before July 1776, or were there different foreign mercenaries involved? Jtk0462 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jtk0462 I think the two can be easily reconciled - even if troops had not yet landed, Jefferson knew they were expected. The wording used was "He is at this time transporting..." - ie, they were on their way. Treaties to provide the troops were signed in Germany around the start of the year (source) and this would have been well known to the colonists by July. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that the reference to the Declaration did not directly refer to the Hessians as the specific subject of Jefferson's words. I, too, found histories online about the Hessians' involvement in the Revolutionary War that indicated that the invasion of Hessian troops was anticipated by Jefferson due to epistolary warnings from correspondence with Congress. Perhaps another citation, like the one you mention, could be added as a clarification. We would not necessarily have to change article content to make that sensible.Jtk0462 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Good catch on the dates. The first German Soldiers to depart were actually Braunschweigers, who initially sailed at the beginning of 1776. I'm trying to find the date that they would have arrived in Quebec, but it would have been well before July, and word would have travelled fast. Also, here's a relevant paragraph with link, concerning news from Europe to Congress.

In early January 1776 the Philadelphia Staatsbote printed a letter which Henrich Miller, its editor and an ardent supporter of the revolutionary cause, had received from Germany. The writer consoled his countrymen in America about German soldiers to be sent over in the crown's service by asserting that once in America they would throw away their arms and take up the ploughs. It was not until the May 7th issue that Miller informed his readers of the news of the actual hiring of these troops to which he added the question: "Oh George! Are these your messengers of peace?" As soon as copies of the first subsidiary treaties had reached Philadelphia in May, Congress began to debate whether to offer special enticements to Germans willing to desert.

"MILITARY IMMIGRATION FROM GERMAN LANDS 1776-1783" (PDF). p. 34.

- Canute (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)