"Hessian Troop Quality during AWI" Topic

Any opinions on the quality of the battlefield Hessian troops during the AWI? They appeared to have fought well except perhaps Trenton.

Were they as good as the British elite regiments or line regiments or not quite up to the level of Brit regiments?

Any thoughts?

Well Hessians were full time professional soldiers who generally fought well--They could be slower moving than the British but were very disciplined in battle…
The other thing to remember is that they were usually larger than the normal British line regiments (500-600 compared to 300+) and so would have been 'better' for that reason..

Don't forget that many regiments were nearly all converged Grenadiers and so would have been a cut above the musketeer regiments with bigger and more experienced men…

I know their quality went down as the war dragged on.

From what I've read about the Hessians and the other German troops, they seem to have fought reasonably well. Some authors been pointed out that the Germans never won an action when fighting by themselves, such as Trenton, Bennington, or Fort Mercer. In my opinion, these battles are more a reflection of bad strategic situations and the abilities of a couple commanders, rather what the German soldiers and units were generally capable of.

I'm currently reading "Fusiliers" by Mark Urban, and am currently reading about Howe gave his British units special training for war in America between the time of Boston and the New York campaigns. I have read that the Hessians didn't move as quickly on the battlefield as did the British. I wondered if the Hessians received that same training and tactical indoctrination as did the British; I seem to recall one author saying that they did.

Sorry for the bad grammar and redundancy in my last post. I was hurrying.

The German troops (one of whom was my very distant great-great-great grandpappy) were disciplined, reliable and tough soldiers – probably not as capable, in the case of the line troops, of irregular warfare and skirmishing as they were at linear warfare, but I would say probably at the level of the average British line regiment – and, as noted, often with larger units

Its interesting to note that Howe used the German troops as his second line of battle when possible – a steady reserve to fall back on – but not what was needed to carry the fight to the Americans

For gaming purposes I rate them the same as British troops for combat abilities – but give most of them a slower movement rate – exceptions to the slower movement are the Brunswick troops and von Bose.

Their size compared to the average British or Continental unit gives them an edge in toe to toe combat.

For games against American militia in 1776 I give the Crown players a special FoG (Fog of War) card which gives rwquires a special morale check when Hessians advance on their positions

My .02

SM should post soon with more definitive answers since we both have been working on this subject.

It is a myth that the Enlisted ranks were full of professional trained troops. The officers were but the enlisted ranks were full of hastily gatherered men from drafts from many local principalities. These men were untrained when enlisted or drafted based on local community requirments to the Prince.

They would have received intense training but musketry training was more limited than we imagine today.

Regular drafts of men were shipped to America and expected to be trained in America. American warfare was not one of continous campaigns. So there was plenty of garrison time to conduct additional training.

The Von bose preformed just as well as the 23rd and 33rd and even the guards at Guilford court house, they tok one hell of a beating but kept going, in the end fighting back to back

All regiments accepted untrained rabble for recruits. I think the key to the quality and performance of a regiment would be the NCO's and officers. Good command would ensure well trained troops that perform. I suspect the greatest difficulty for the American army was the lack of good NCOs and officers.

The Hessians had good NCOs/officers and established training procedures. I would expect them to be as good as any Brit line regiment. Those with better than average command probably could be as efficient as the elite Brit regiments. Although I do not know which, if any, Hessian regiments performed at that higher level.

Rudy – true story about the training – great-great-great grandpa got grabbed up from the farm because the local autocrat wanted to make some quick cash – that being said. like most German farmers, he was tough, reliable and did what we was told – good material to use to make a high quality line infantryman

I think SM will tell you they were slow, and that after Redbank (Fort Mercer) the British really looked down their nose at the Germans – not including the Jagers in that assessment. Not sure that was fair, but they did anyway.

Overall I think they were pretty good, though their quality flucuated.

I also think SM has stated that many of their officers were older, making them less mobile too.

Jagger,

1) You need to qualify which "Hessians" you are talking about, as their quality varied considerably, not just compared to each other, but at different times during the war. The Brunswick and Hesse Hanau units in the Northern theatres performed very well and generally seem to have copied British tactics and formations; the Hesse Cassel units in the Middle and Southern theatres gave a varied performance, but there were often mitigating factors and they used two ranks, but kept close order and the slower marching pace of 75/minute; the Anspach-Bayreuth troops were originally considered unreliable (they were sent home from Philly in 1778 by ship, rather than marching cross-country), but considered good enough by 1781 to be sent to the South; the Waldeckers did ok on their rare outings, but spent most of the war in garrison; the Anhalt-Zerbst guys seem to be a total mystery and never saw combat. The larger contingents (Hesse Cassel and Brunswick) generally served under their own generals, and this may have been a part of their problem – Riedesel apart, these men were older than their allies and opponents, and this was often reflected in their performance – and the ruler of Hesse Cassel retained quite a lot of control over tactical and other issues (eg refusing permission to use "loose files" and move at the double, or for officers to "dress down" to make themselves less of a target).

2) As historygamer says, regimental officers in the Hesse Cassel contingent were very old and this led to a high rate of sickness and consequent absence. This in turn created a lack of control over formations in the field – Trenton is a fine example of this – and this was further exacerbated by the size of the units (2x the size of a British line battalion). That said, some officers were very good in action (Rall was a far better commander than is generally suggested) and the few units that served directly next to their British allies performed well – Gunfreak's example of von Bose at GCH is a case in point: the unit formed back-to-back and fought off simultaneous attacks from front and rear and their performance on the day was every bit as good as that of their allies.

3) With the exception of the second batch of Hesse Hanau riflemen (who were raw recruits with no relevant civilian backgrounds) the jaegers of all the German contingents seem to have been very good troops, and attracted the younger and more active officers. Ewald's journal is an excellent read, and Bruce Burgoyne has also published the diaries of two Anspach jaeger officers.

4) Another problem with the Hesse Cassel units is that some of them were not long-established and "esprit de corps" had to be developed "on the hoof". The same was true, to some extent, of the Brunswickers: their four line regiments were formed from two original units but they had more training time in Canada before their first engagements, and the Light Battalion was formed specifically for the war (IIRC out of "volunteers" from the units left in Brunswick, but this may have meant they got the "cast-offs" and the unit was conspicuously not used in its eponymous role in Canada and New York, its attached jaeger company more usually being supported by platoons of grenadiers).

5) Rodney Atwood's "The Hessians" and Edward Lowell's "The Hessians and the Other German Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War" are very good works on the German troops. If you can find it, Ernst Kipping's "Hessian View of America" is a fascinating read, and Heritage Books in the US has a whole raft of translated diaries and journals edited by Bruce Burgoyne:-

link

I hope that helps. A good contact for more basic stuff on day-to-day life, and for the activities of German troops in North America as a whole, is Robert Sulentic ("Hessian Bob") at the recreated Regiment von Donop website. Always helpful.

vondonop.org