"Capabilities of Hessian Regiments vs. Brunswick Regiments" Topic

Gentlemen,
I use Guns of Liberty for rules. In thos rules the Brunswick infantry is rated far below the Hessian infantry(capabilities as bad as militia with slightly higher morale). From my reading I disagree with this. Wasn't the army of Hesse Kassel considered one of the better armies in Europe? Still I should think that the Brunswickers ahould atleat be equal to American forces. What are your thoughts on their combat effectiveness vs. their peers/enemies?

I would say they were just as good, or bad, as any other contingent.
Hessians were slow, and that was because they had standing orders forbidding more open formations. But they fought as well as any and with a ferocious reputation.

The British were quick to blame the mess at Trenton on the Hessians. Well, yes. But it was the British command who dumped them there and conveniently blamed all the dead officers. So did the Hessian Court of Inquiry. Blame the dead guys who can't defend themselves.

A lot of it was the British not wishing to give them any credit, and Yankees having evil foreign mercenaries to castigate.

Full disclosure: I have 7 painted Hessian regiments, not to mention jaegers, an Anspach regiment and 2 Brunswick regiments.

The Hessians picked so much that the Revolutionary French rated them their toughest opponent. Also---and I love this one, they liberated a large number of slaves, many of whom went back to Kassel with the army and some formed a company in the foot guards.

Hessians were slow, and that was because they had standing orders forbidding more open formations.

I believe the Hessian officers would argue that their formations were not slow, they were disciplined and precise, and those English regiments using open formations could learn a thing or two about how to behave on a battlefield.

I publish "clarifications" for all the different troop types in the AWI, and the unit-specific limitations for Hessian line units specify that they are incapable of open formations (in GoL, Closed and March Column only), which limits their march speeds appropriately without special rules or charts. I'm not sure why Eric Burgess rated them capable of Open formations by mid-1776 – AFAICT German officers refused to use open formations throughout the war (except Jägers, of course, who were expected to fight in open formations). I use the Novak books for OOBs and play games with variable unit sizes, so Hessian line units also tend to be large (500+ men), resulting in big, cumbersome, tough, slow units that are hard for militia to defeat, susceptible to defeat only by constant hammering or poor battlefield management.

In other rules I rate my Hessian units as well-trained, well-disciplined, and uninspired (except Jägers and Grenadiers, who have plenty of élan), but those categories don't exist in GoL, they're just "regulars".

I haven't yet gotten far enough into the period to differentiate Hessians from other Germans. I'm not sure how I'd do that in GoL anyway, without introducing extra morale or combat modifiers specific for each national character.

- Ix

I don't know enough about the Brunswick contingent. But I do know that there was quite a lot of variance even between the Hesse Kassel regiments in terms of quality.

The first contingent sent included the Grenadier battalions and most of the field regiments. They passed inspection by the British agents and received pretty effusive praise; the only two Regts to draw negative comment were the Lossberg regiment (who had a problem with desertion partly due to their being largely recruited from earlier deserters from the Prussian forces at Riteln) and the Rall Grenadiers (described as "callow farm lads" and raw recruits/youths). The Grenadiers were especially praised as fit, tall and strong.

The second contingent, containing mainly Garrison regiments, got pretty much slammed however, with far two many young raw recruits and generally smaller men who had been pressed to fill out the rank and file.

It is entirely probable therefore that the Brunswickers contained similar variances between units, meaning a "Hessians were better than Brunswickers" or vice versa statement would be pointless. I believe Quality was more about the type of unit and the method of recruitment when it came to the German troops.

Probably poor rating relates to their performance against Ethan Allen and forgetting their performance at Hubbardton (? the battle after fall of Ticonderoga). Like all troops, depends on the day and the situation they are in. The best of the best can run away and the worst of the worst can be bathed in glory. I'd tailor them to the specific scenario be it historic or hypothetical.

I believe Quality was more about the type of unit and the method of recruitment when it came to the German troops.

Or perhaps about the quality of the paint job on the miniatures. :-)

- Ix

No. That is a bad rule. All my units would end up as geriatric slave-levies if their paint jobs dictated their quality!

When considering both in the 7YW, Hesse has 1 in 16 in the military, while Prussia had 1 in 20. It was the most "militarized" kreis, country, whatever. In mid-war the Landgraf decided to double his army, and cut each single-battalion regiment in half, from one unit of about 600 to 2 of 300! The Duke of Brunswick (Prussian field marshal leading the western allies against the French) seemed to expect the 300 to do what 600 formerly did. Most of what has been written about them above seems to have been true in the 7YW – stolid, professional, uninspired.

Brunswick was the poorest kreis in the Holy Roman Empire. Their uniforms were devoid of lace, poor quality, etc.

I recall reading about the battle of ?Hastembeck? where the Brunswick general led his troops in a counter-attack against the French, but looked back to find himself alone! They were REALLY uninspired.

GdeP

Thanks for all the thoughts guys.

My own sense – from my reading as much as possible, but it is qualitative rather than quantitative – is that (1) there indeed was quite a range of quality among the Hessians; (2) based on the Brunswick performance with Burgoyne, the Brunswicks were as a group inferior to the Hessians as a group; (3) do NOT judge the Hessian on trenton (on that one, read "Washington's Crossing by David Hackett-Fischer).

The regiments von Bose and Erbprinz fought very well in the late war. The English thought well of the converged Grenadiers but were loath to commit them because they had to pay the Prince more for casualties. The garrison regiments by the terms of the agreement were limited to garrison duty (and the English paid less them in return). I think it is true that paradoxically the only "true" Hessian grenadier unit in North America (von Rall to start with) doesn't seem to have been much good.

Just my two cents (OK, maybe less …)

I think the morale my be linked to the fact that they were fighting for money and nothing else. While they may have been the best trained/drilled on the field at the end of the day thy really didn't have a dog in the fight and had a few more reasons not to stick around when things got tough.

I to have a huge Hessian contingent in my AWI army, I love them.

My opinion on the Hessians and other Germans vary from those mentioned here. You can get a copy of my 'German Auxiliaries in the American Revolution' by sending me your email address in a PM.
I never had the funds to get the needed artwork in order to get it ready for publication. I thought I had a popular artist out of Canada to do it but that deal fell through.

Anyway, the Hessians operating in the South were highly regarded. They were given difficult assignments. One group in Charleston were given horses and operated as Mounted Infantry to help patrol the back country areas. This is an example of trust and helps blunts the lies that the germans wanted to desert at the first chance they got.

If you agree with the Brunswick units being rated lower than the Hessians, then they should be rated the same as Hess garrison Regiments. But I think they should be rated the same.

Rudy,
I was unaware of the view of the Hessians in the South that you have mentioned. I am not able to PM, but my email address is pvt64atmail.com. My interpretation of the British view of the Hessians was that they were not hight regarded and especialy after Red Bank not trusted to conduct independent operations(Lagers excepted ofcourse). I have not read anything to indicate a negative view of the Brunswickers on a tactical level as far as battlefield competance. Pretty sure that they were praised for their efforts at Hubbardton and Freemans Farm. Benningtom I feel was more a failure of leadership. They were felt to be slow just as the Hessions were.

The Hessians who were converted to an mounted infantry troop was called dragoons. they were transferred to Loyalist establishment with the LT being given a British commission as a Captain. The Loyalist were higher paid than Hessians so this was a bonus to the regular troops too. They still kept their hessian uniforms.
The Hessians helped defend Savannah and performed well. The German Rgts captured by the Spanish were not hessian. They were regarded as an important cog in the British troop plans against the Spanish.

Like I said my opinion of them differes than others based on my research into Loyalist and German units.
I will try that email but I am not sure it is complete. pvt64@mail.com
should that be gmail?

Rudy,
No atmail.com is correct. No G.

I am not surprised that views of the Hessians in the south would differ from views of their quality in the mid-Atlantic campaign. There were fewer British units in the south, so British commanders had to rely more heavily on Loyalist and Hessian units, and British troops got to more closely witness the performance of Loyalists and Hessians in combat. There was some grumbling about Hessians deserting in the south, but I suspect it wasn't much worse than the British experienced.

I think it says something though that the two Hessian regiments that Campbell took south with him in 1778 were relegated to garrison duty after Charleston fell.

The troops sent to Florida were from Waldeck. I believe before that they had been used to garrison New York.

I agree Bill.

I am having trouble with the transfer but I should have it by tonight. I am going to try the college computer.

I will check my OB list again but I think there were even a few German companies at the British outpost of Baton Rouge which was the Spanish forces first action in their N.A. campaign.

Thanks Rudy!

File sent twice. One bounced and one did not. LOL
I can also send the Loyalist articles as well.
I did include the SPanish Action one due to the actions in Florida.

I am looking at the organization and deployment for German units in the South. Since so many regiments were transferred to the South, they must have had some faith in them.

One thing must be considered and that is British Practices in the South and maybe the north too. it was not uncommon for just Flank companies of British regiments to be taken on field campaigns while Center companies were left in garrison.
That being said, most battles in the South had Jaeger detachment present at the engagement, at least.

201 Waldeck troops were captured at the fall of Baton Rouge.

Thanks Rudy! The loyalsits ones would be interesting too.

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I have to point out that the Hessians on Long Island were throwing out parties of 'volunteers' to beat the woods for Americans--From Lt. Bardeleben's description, I suspect that the third rank was pulled off to do this (I doubt if the battalion wanted to shorten it's front). Also, in 1778 and 1779, the Hessians in New York and Providence, RI, both told off men from the various regiments to provide light infantry companies to support the jagers. Sgt von Krafft from the von Donop regiment talks about his time in out with the Jagers around New York, and Capt Ewald mentions the "infantry" supporting his jagers in a couple of instances.

I don't think there was any great difference in the quality between the Hesse-Cassel and Brunswick contingents that went over in 1776.

Nobody seems to have mentioned speed of manoeuvre or tactical aggression yet.
Ploughing through the letters of British officers these are the criticisms that you often hear voiced. The Hessians are too 'heavy' or 'slow in their movements'. They were reluctant, initially at least, to discard third ranks and open files, or adopt bayonet charges with the same enthusiasm as the Brits.
When you look at sources like Ewald or some of the other Hessian or Brunswick officers who wrote home they describe pretty much the same thing – just with their own spin! The Brits are wild and disordered, they will come out of it badly as soon as they encounter properly trained infantry, their idea of warfare is just skirmishing writ large.
Alas the Brits were in charge and once they'd experienced the 1776 campaign (nb Trenton!) just tended to relegate the Hessians and some other continents to garrison duty. They just felt they were too slow to take the fight to an often elusive, fleet of foot, enemy. The British view of the Brunswick troops was even more negative, and you see many comments about the crimping by whoever raised the troops (pulling in old men and village idiots) as well as their poor quality of uniforms.
By 1778 or 1779 a number of things had happened: there'd been a big subtraction of redcoats to go fight in the Caribbean, there were more loyalist regiments being raised, and some of the German COs had demonstrated a willingness to adapt tactical practice. The Brunswick regiment were largely in the bag by then of course, post-Saratoga.
So then you get the garrison duties often left to the 2nd rate loyalist regiments, and some of the better Hessian ones entrusted once more with mobile operations,
EC