"Why did Hessian regiments in AWI have only one battalion?" Topic

If, as is generally accepted, they were armed, uniformed and organized "on the Prussian model", why and when did they abandon the 2 battalion per regiment organization the Prussians used?
Or am I wrong on all assumptions?

And of course The Brunswick contingent.

Hesse-Kassel appears to have only switched to the Prussian model of two battalions per regiment in 1760, with a comprehensive reform of the army. Brunswick, on the other hand seems to have two battalions per regiment from the outset of the SYW. Detailed info by army here; link

I don't know for sure (currently away from my books) but I imagine that one battalion was sent to America and one battalion stayed at home for defence; it would be foolish to send the whole armed force overseas I guess.

The Hessians were there as mercenaries.

Maybe only one battalion was hired at a time.

No, there were not "mercenaries".
They were rented standing regiments from the state that supplied them.

It would be interesting to know if that was written into their contracts or if it was just standard practice for hiring mercenaries out.

THEY WERE NOT "MERCENARIES".
They were soldiers in the army of the "nation". The ruler rented out the various regiments and the soldiers had no say in the matter.
Certainly no "mercenary contract". They were enlisted, pressed, recruited, released from prison to join, etc, just as soldiers in other nations' regiments were.
The soldiers were not consulted over their being sent to fight in America. The regiment was rented out and they were sent where the regiments were ordered to go.
Contract? Seriously? They were the property of their regiment.

THEY WERE NOT MERCENARIES!
Sheesh.

So, back to my original question.

Thank you clibanarium. That's kind of what I'm looking for.

Speaking as a distant descendant of German soldiers from the revolution, have to agree that in terms of being hired, the local princeling got the cash and great-great grandpa just got the shaft

If someone has Berg's Encyclopedia of British, Provincial and German Army Units within reach, we could all stop guessing. My recollection is that Hesse-Kassel at least reorganized post-SYW into single-battalion regiments. Operating as two-battalion regiments was something the Prussians normally did, but it wasn't critical to the system the way close-fitting uniforms and rapid volleys were.
As for why, I've never heard it said, but usually when you see something like that, I suspect it means the Elector got to appoint more imhabers than there would have been otherwise. (Don't laugh. Does anyone else remember the US "Roundout" Divisions?)

Oh,so there was no written agreement between ministers as to who owed what and for how long? I guess everybody just took it on faith back in that day. Not that paper was really worth anything.:)

I thought you were talking about individual soldiers signing mercenary contracts. My mistake.
See Fischer's Washington's Crossing for some insight into contracts between Britain and the German principalities.

The Hessian army was reorganized in 1760. Each existing battalion/regiment was divided into two battalions of half the strength of the original battalion. According to Westphalen, this was done to induce the French to thnk thatnthe Hessian army had been greatly increased.

Presumably the Hessian army was reorganized again after the conclusion of the SYW back to single battalion regiments.

To the point of 'They were not mercenaries' rant, this is a good overview of the Hessian soldier rented out by their Landgrave: link

Reading this post and the comments that follow, it looks like 3,000–5,000 deserted. We offered each soldier 50 acres, and eventual citizenship once we had won a country to citizen in.

Thanks, Jim.
But I do like the idea that it was to make more jobs for nobility.

@ miniMo, Up to 5,000 Germans remained in America after the war, but they were not all deserters; many were simply left in America when their regiments went home in 1783 (either through their own choice, or by design, as the princes did not want them back).

Whilst Americans like to make a lot of "Hessian desertion", for most of the war, their desertion rates were actually far less than those of the Continental Army. The French sent the Deux-Ponts regiment to America in the hope that it (and Lauzun's Legion) would attract German deserters; again, the very small number of recruits it attracted never matched their own number who deserted in America.

"THEY WERE NOT "MERCENARIES"

Not to hijack your thread Winston, but… I would say it depends on the definition of 'mercenary'. At this time, until at least the mid-19th century, Americans considered anyone who fought for money to be a mercenary. Prior to the final assault on John Brown's 'fort', (the fire engine house). Colonel Robert E. Lee offered the local militia the honor of leading the attack. The response he got was no, let your mercenaries do it, referring to Lt. Greene and the US Marines who were present. So, by that, now antiquated, definition, the Hessians were mercenaries.

To answer the original question, I think the Hessians maintained their two battalion strength after the reforms of 1760 but that they only sent one battalion, probably at close to full strength by drawing from the other battalion, while the weaker remained at home. By studying their flags it would appear that at times they sent the 2nd battalion and on other occasions they chose to send the 1st battalion.
This explains the bewildering choice of Hessian flags.

As for calling them mercenaries this is absurd because these soldiers were not paid. The Landgraf of Hessen-Cassel was paid by the British Government but there was no contract with individual soldiers. Furthermore this was a conventional practice in 18th century Europe.

According to the article here link

the Brunswickers actually were in two-battalion regiments and the British redesignated them as individual regiments.

de Ligne, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Hessian soldiers continued to be paid by the Landgraff who was, in turn, paid by the British government?

Either way, they were not mercenaries in the modern sense. If we apply the archaic definition from above, everybody would be a mercenary – British regulars, the French and, significantly, the Continentals so why the term is only used with respect to the Hessians, and then pejoratively, is a mystery. And nonsense.

whether the 'Hessians' were mercenaries depends on whose definition you use. Not everyone accepted the mid 18th century European technical distinction between rented standing regiments and mercenaries. The Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence called them mercenaries. Since the Americans had no problem hiring foreigners to fight on their side I guess being a mercenary wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

Does the presence of only one battalion per regiment in the Americas necessarily mean that the second battalion was retained in Hesse Kassel? I am not so sure. The contingents that the Landgrave sent over included supposedly inferior garrison regiments. If you were the British paymaster why would you accept inferior troops when there were better ones available? If you were the Landgrave and thought the British were indifferent as to which troops you sent, why not send both battalions of the garrison regiments and keep your better troops at home?

Because the Landgrave cared deeply about how "his" troops performed. So much so that he convened a Court of Inquiry over what happened at Trenton to explain the disaster. Which court of course blamed only dead officers, but that's beside the point.
He cared so much, he micromanaged from Hess, declaring that the more open formations being used by the British were not for his Lads. I've often wondered if lone regiments like von Bose at Guilford Courthouse followed the mandated march time and close order.

But my point is that he would not deliberately send over inferior troops. Garrison troops have a purpose, and that is to be a garrison.

Hesse Cassel has been called the most militarized state in " Germany", even more than Prussia.

Suffice it to say that I have had at least 3 mutually exclusive answers to my OP, all of which make sense.
I'm just glad it doesn't matter with any of the rules I use.

Hessian (as in Hesse Cassel) troops had been allies of the British from the Jacobite Rebellions, through the WAS and SYW, in fact Riedesel (born a Hessian, despite commanding the Brunswick contingent) had served in Scotland during the '45. Three of the rulers were blood relatives of George III.

I did an extensive study on German Allies for an Osprey style book proposal.
The Hessian Desertion at high rates was a myth. Seems that several hessian men and officers transferred to the Provential establishment to get promotions and more pay. One unit in particular was Stackoff or Stackhoff who9 was a Lt. in a hessian Battalion in South Carolina and transferred to the Provincial establishment and received a promotion to Captain. He brought enough Germans along to raise a Troop of Cavalry or Mounted Infantry. The men got higher pay because they were no longer only infantry. So this is only one example of a transfer that reduced the number on men in a Hessian unit which had to be filled. Annual rolls also do not reflect mass desertions nor does the end of war tally.
One battalion for Home service and another battalion for Foreign or overseas service was common in that era. Any units raised had to be clothed and financed by the Colonel. So excessive companies ended up being a high bill. Just something to consider.

Sending either the first or second battalion over is something I will use in the future as an explanation I will use as an excuse for the flags of my first two regiments being dead wrong.
I hand painted mine for von Bose and Erbprinz back in the 80s, before those fancy schmancy printed ones were available commercially.
No false modesty here, I think I did a good job. I just got the colors of the field and flames completely wrong. But the lads have fought well beneath them, and I would be risking mutiny to take them away.

I have read above perfectly plausible explanations that Hessian regiments had two battalions and sent one overseas.
I have also read perfectly plausible explanations that they were reorganized into one battalion regiments.
I shall choose to believe both.
If anyone asks me "Did Hessian regiments have one or two battalions?", I will answer "Yes."

How many musketeer/fusilier companies did each battalion have? Some sources say four, some say five. I believe five companies is correct for the AWI. These companies would be reorganized into 10 platoons in battle – am I correct?

Good question but start a new thread this one is several years old.

Good question but start a new thread this one is several years old.

LOL, yeah, a bit like the myth of Hessian mercenaries, it just won't go away, no matter how many years old it is.

Definitely NOT mercenaries. In fact, memoirs of the troops joining Burgoyne's force talk about taking the oath to the British Crown on their way overseas.

Yet, the idea they were some sort of mercenaries like the guys in the 1960s in the Congo just won't go away even though there is no historical basis for it.

LOL, yeah, a bit like the myth of Hessian mercenaries, it just won't go away, no matter how many years old it is.

Definitely NOT mercenaries. In fact, memoirs of the troops joining Burgoyne's force talk about taking the oath to the British Crown on their way overseas.

Yet, the idea they were some sort of mercenaries like the guys in the 1960s in the Congo just won't go away even though there is no historical basis for it.

Hessians as mercenaries seems to come from this document called the Declaration of Independence:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

It's a matter of perception and the fact that foreigners were being used as soldiers to harass the colonials. Although I don't concede that they weren't mercenaries, the technicality over whether they were or not isn't as important as the perception by the population that they were mercenaries.

Curious to consider what constituted a foreigner in colonies composed of settlers all of whom had to have come from somewhere over the water- (including the Germans recruited into His Majesty's Royal American Regiment, and the Swiss who composed a proportion of their officer corps)- a community that would later would later include some of those "foreign Mercenaries" who were persuaded to stay and become 'Americans.'

A question: by the same token in what way were the French troops sent to assist Washington not/i> "Foreign mercenaries"- albeit fighting on the right side?

A question: by the same token in what way were the French troops sent to assist Washington not/i> "Foreign mercenaries"- albeit fighting on the right side?

Great Britain declared war on France. France used her own army. America was France's ally.

Meanwhile, Great Britain never recognized the USA, considered them a rebellion and used foreign mercenaries or soldiers not part of their national army to push the natives around.

If they could've, the British would've also used Russian troops in the colonies.

To the colonists, especially those involved in the War of Independence, large numbers of foreign speakers in alien uniforms must've seemed like mercenaries. I dont think there were enough sciolists back then to point out the technical difference between mercenaries and private contractors.

Perhaps the crown should've sent TJ an errata and asked him to amend the Declaration of Independence?

"Great Britain declared war on France." Four days after being informed of the Treaty of Alliance between France and Congress, signed in February 6th 1778

"America was France's ally"- and, more importantly perhaps, vice versa- (As were, de facto, the landgraves of Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Brunswick, et al, allies of the British Crown).

"Great Britain never recognized the USA, considered them a rebellion" – possibly because it was?

I believe the majority of Germans were subjects of George III or his uncle.

@42 Flanker

Not sure what your comeback is about. You asked why the French werent considered mercenaries and the answer is because they were at war with Great Britain and used their own army which they financed themselves (America didnt pay for them).

The Hessians werent at war with the colonies, they rented their soldiers out to the British Crown. Check it out:

link

During the 17th and 18th centuries, it was a fairly widespread practice for smaller principalities to rent out troops to other princes. However, the practise was carried to excess in Hesse-Kassel, which maintained 7% of its entire population under arms throughout the eighteenth century.[2] Frederick hired out so many troops to his nephew, King George III of Great Britain, for use in the American War of Independence, that "Hessian" has become an American term for all German soldiers deployed by the British in the War.

"Great Britain never recognized the USA, considered them a rebellion" – possibly because it was?

This weakens your position because it demonstrates that the British considered this a rebellious police action rather than a proper war and felt fit to mistreat the colonial military; which they did. In addition, the Hessians treated the colonials like "rebel scum" too which feeling they got from the British soldiers.

That sort of misbehavior qualifies them as mercenaries in the popular opinion.

That and the fact that both the British and the colonists considered them "foreign bodies" and resented their presence.

Notwithstanding their reputation as skilled and disciplined fighters, many British soldiers shared the American distrust of Hessians, who often spoke little or no English and were perceived as crude and barbaric.

The chaplain then recounts the case of a Jaeger subaltern who was assailed "by an Englishman in his cups" with the declaration: " you, Frenchy, you take our pay!" The outraged Hessian replied: "I am a German and you are a " This was followed by an impromptu duel with hangers, in which the Englishman received a fatal wound. The chaplain records that General Howe pardoned the Jaeger officer and issued an order that "the English should treat the Germans as brothers." This order began to have influence only when "our Germans, teachable as they are" had learned to "stammer a little English." Apparently, this was a prerequisite for the English to show them any affection.[27]

link

I believe the majority of Germans were subjects of George III or his uncle.

Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel was George III's uncle but not his subject.

The bottom line is that the British hired assorted Germans to fight for them. Their respective heads of state hired out their subjects in order to make money.

That being the case, the German troops hired by the British were mercenaries.

On the other hand, the French who fought in North America and in the Caribbean against the British were allies of the Americans, as were the Spanish and Dutch, who more or less cooperated with their American allies and were not part of the Continental Army.

The German mercenaries were part of and subject to the British Army in North America.

APDC- my mistake.

No worries.