"Hessian Unit attributes" Topic
120 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleWar of the Spanish Succession figures for the Spanish theater.
|
Pages: 1 2 3
Brechtel198 | 18 Mar 2019 1:27 p.m. PST |
"They ran at Germantown'…Nice try but, no. See the following, the rout of the British light infantry at Germantown on 4 October 1777 is more-than-adequately described in The Philadelphia Campaign: Germantown and the Roads to Valley Forge by Thomas McGuire, 53-81. link 'For shame, light infantry! I never saw you retreat before. Form! Form! It's only a scouting party. At least the 2d Light Infantry Battalion broke and it was described by a British junior officer who saw it: 'We who were a good distance on the right of the Light Infantry, moved towards them and see them quite broke, flying like Devils.' Interestingly, the Hessian jagers held their ground during the action. The Hessian grenadiers of the Battalion von Linsing were described as being 'though slow, were invincible in battle and hard to beat.'-Jacob Mordecai. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Mar 2019 1:30 p.m. PST |
Isn't that the problem, Brechtel? The rest of us are, and the first few posts sought to provide game-relevant replies to the OP. Put the 'playing games' in context, which was in response to this comment, in part: Instead of playing your favorite game, which is "My sources are better than your sources" Further, the OP asked a historically relevant question. So, perhaps you could revise your posting to the relevant comment? |
Rawdon | 18 Mar 2019 1:34 p.m. PST |
I believe that I have a couple of points to contribute here. (1) The British contract with Hesse-Kassel included a fairly substantial (by the standards of the time) one-time payment for a soldier who died. As the war became global and British resources became strained, the financial cost of Hessian casualties became a factor in deployment decisions. (2) 4 of the Hessian regiments sent to America were called garrison regiments and were indeed used only as such, although I am not aware of any source that indicates whether they were less-fit or otherwise second-rate. Two of these, von Huyne / von Benning and von Knoblauch, were part of the Charleston garrison. (3) The Hessian field regiments that went to the south, both during and after the Charleston campaign, served in the field at least part of the time and there is no evidence to indicate that they performed any worse or better than the British infantry. |
Winston Smith | 18 Mar 2019 2:41 p.m. PST |
Further, the OP asked a historically relevant question. So, perhaps you could revise your posting to the relevant comment?
Indeed he did. Which is why I am asking for the 5th time that you give us your thoughts. What it all boils down to is it is asking for an opinion. My opinion is, from my book reading and valuable contributions from TMP members on this board is that for various reasons, the British were actually better than the Hessians. Leave Brunswick, Hesse Hanau, Anspach, Waldeck etc out of it. Hesse Cassel. Inadequate leadership at Trenton. Stout American resistance at Red Bank. Failure of leadership during the Springfield campaign. Excellent Jaegers. Adequate troops sent down south. British officers complained how slow they were. I concede this could boil down to "Not one of us." I answered the OP many days and posts ago. I think that overall the British were better. But you can't always get what you want, to quote the modern British philosopher M Jagger. The British have always had to rely on Johnnie Foreigner to conduct their wars. Had Rall not screwed up at Trenton, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The war would have been over. Well, not just Rall. The Court of Inquiry quite properly blamed nobody but dead Hessian officers. All the dead guys shared the blame. |
Winston Smith | 18 Mar 2019 2:47 p.m. PST |
'For shame, light infantry! I never saw you retreat before. Form! Form! It's only a scouting party.' But it wasn't "only a scouting party", was it? I don't have McGuire in front of me. I'm at work. Whose BRIGADE were they wisely retreating from? The Jersey Boys? With another brigade behind them, and noisy Wayne on the flank? Correct me if I'm wrong. Kind of outnumbered, they were. Falling back on the reserves. That's what they wisely did the two times I ran a Germantown game. But you have the book in front of you. I don't. Refresh my memory. |
42flanker | 18 Mar 2019 4:09 p.m. PST |
Simply to say 'the Lights ran' is at best a convenient over-simplification in order to resist the claim of their effectiveness as a unit. It is certainly not, I think, a fair or accurate representation of events at Germantown on 4th October 1777. That is to say, there is running and there is running. When Wayne's men first attacked the outpost at Beggars Town, the 2nd LI piquets fell back to warn the main body- in fact, only one 'wing' of the battalion. Those six companies then held their ground against the American brigades to their front. "They broke at first- without waiting to receive us-" as Anthony Wayne recalled "but soon formed again, when a heavy and well-directed fire took place on both sides." Indeed, the 2d LI actually charged the enemy two or three times and forced the Americans to fall back, until, with mounting casualties and about to be outflanked, they were ordered to withdraw. However, "this was the first time we had retreated from the Americans," as Martin Hunter, a young light infantry lieutenant of the 52nd, later reported, and it was with difficulty the officers got their men to obey the bugle call. When they finally did so, it is not remarkable that as light Infantrymen they did so at the double, but in the process what was left of the six companies lost cohesion and were soon retreating through the mist in some disorder: "All broken," as Martin Hunter himself put it. Loftus Cliffe of the 46th who described them "Running like the Devil" saw the men at the end of their retreat. Cliffe admitted that he was struggling to keep his nerve that morning so might be forgiven for thinking the whole line was collapsing. At least some of those light infantry who were left behind or caught by the pursuing Americans were bayonetted out of hand by Pennsylvanians seeking revenge for the attack at Paoli Tavern who by chance had emerged from the fog in front of the hated 'Bloodhounds.' At that moment, the outnumbered light infantry were understandably keen to find their supports. Nonetheless, General Sullivan described them retreating from fence to fence. It was the spectacle of his light bobs scampering back, not by files but individually, as they emerged from the fog that caused General Howe to call out "For shame, Light Infantry! I never saw you retreat before." "Form! Form!" he ordered, adding "It is only a scouting party." At which point a burst of 'grape' from three guns with the approaching columns tore at the branches of a chestnut tree above the General's head. Howe and his staff hurriedly departed, much to the amusement of the light infantry. Clearly they had not been holding off a scouting party and resented the slight. Smiling grimly, they did then 'form' on the line battalions which at that moment were arriving to support them, the stand at Beggarstown having bought sufficient time for these regiments to march up from their encampments, and the light bobs then returned to the fight. Nonetheless the British were forced to pull back some way further till Howe got some sense of the confused battle and a proper grip on his army. As I said, there is running and then there's running. |
Winston Smith | 18 Mar 2019 4:33 p.m. PST |
Thank you for the clarification. I don't have my books in front of me, like some people do. So it's easy to confuse my columns. |
23rdFusilier | 18 Mar 2019 11:39 p.m. PST |
"Regarding the British Light Infantry, I would believe that John Stark might have some interesting comments on them. " I think he would have been impressed by them. Remember, after failing to outflank the rail fence position on the beach (which I am sure you are referring to) the lights reformed and joined a attack on the rail fence. Later they skirmished in front of the fence and held those troops there while Howe over ran the redoubt and breastworks. After that they pursued the retreating Americans off the peninsula. As I said Stark was probably impressed with troops who could take punishment and return to the fight and contribute so much. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Mar 2019 3:30 a.m. PST |
The light infantry companies that attacked along the beach were defeated by Stark and lost heavily. |
Winston Smith | 19 Mar 2019 6:46 a.m. PST |
And that has what to do with what the OP asked?
|
Bill N | 19 Mar 2019 9:20 a.m. PST |
there were some units that fought better than others (Lossberg, von Bose) I am not aware of much after Trenton on which to base an assessment of Lossberg. Rebuilt. Suffered losses at sea when being transferred to Quebec and then mostly service around the city of Quebec. What am I missing? |
Virginia Tory | 19 Mar 2019 9:20 a.m. PST |
The Jaegers at Germantown were also covering the British left flank and I don't recall them being involved in the initial fight with the light infantry. The Jaegers were facing militia who rather half-heartedly tried to attack across Wissahickon Creek. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Mar 2019 9:54 a.m. PST |
And that has what to do with what the OP asked?
I answered the question on the 14th in two postings – one on the German jagers (Hessian, Brunswickers, or Anspachers – take your pick) and on the German artillery. So, asked and answered. And you are the poster who brought up the British light infantry arm… |
42flanker | 19 Mar 2019 10:45 a.m. PST |
The Jaegers at Germantown were also covering the British left flank and I don't recall them being involved in the initial fight with the light infantry. The Jaegers were facing militia who rather half-heartedly tried to attack across Wissahickon Creek Indeed, the creek, cutting a ravine as it dropped to the Schuylkill, offered the jägers a strong defensive position, covering the left flank. Moreover, Ewald had been warned by a local man that an attack was coming, (intelligence that he passed up the line but which was not acted on with sufficient vigour at Army HQ). |
Winston Smith | 19 Mar 2019 11:12 a.m. PST |
Do the Hessian have any special qualities that set them apart from other troops in the AWI. Are they more flexible, stouter under fire or better in melee? Or, are they simply British soldiers in blue face? Hessians. Not Brunswick. Not Anspach. Also, clearly he is asking about how line troops behave under fire and in melee. Not Jaegers. Asked and not answered. Did they have any special qualities that set them apart? We're they more flexible etc etc etc. I brought up British Light Infantry purely in gaming terms. It amuses me that every time you seek to belittle them you get shot down, particularly at Germantown. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Mar 2019 11:21 a.m. PST |
If you read about the German troops in the War of the American Revolution, since the overwhelming majority of them were from Hesse-Kassel, the term most used to name them is 'Hessians.' |
Brechtel198 | 19 Mar 2019 11:25 a.m. PST |
every time you seek to belittle them you get shot down, particularly at Germantown. The British light infantry were badly beaten with heavy losses at Bunker Hill by John Stark and his troops along the beach. They also were defeated at the Hollow Way in the New York campaign. And the evidence that both light infantry battalions were badly beaten at Germantown is noteworthy, the 2d Battalion in particular breaking and running, abandoning their two field pieces. The 1st Battalion was also roughly handled, losing their artillery. It is also noteworthy that the Pennsylvania troops were out for revenge for Paoli at Germantown and they took no prisoners, the British light infantry they fought and killed were largely bayonetted. The information is in McGuire's book-all you have to do is take a look. No military organization is unbeatable and as Wellington once said, all troops run. |
Winston Smith | 19 Mar 2019 12:19 p.m. PST |
Battalions chased away by brigades, and the battalions rally. Each instance you cite, they were outnumbered. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Mar 2019 12:54 p.m. PST |
And…? Battles, skirmishes, and general actions are fought by troops who are outnumbered and win. It depends on the unit, the unit commander, and the opposition. And there is a great difference in withdrawing in order and breaking and running no matter what the circumstances of numbers. |
23rdFusilier | 19 Mar 2019 2:10 p.m. PST |
Well, we appear to be we have gone down a rabbit hole following Kevin. To get back to the original posting about Hessians and their abilities. It appears there were some good troops and some not so good. After the twin disasters of Trenton and Redbank the British appear to have lost confidence in the majority of the line troops and asigned them to garrison or secondary duties. Yes, some regiments fought well but the majority of the line troops spent a relatively quiet existance. Evan quality elite troops, after 1776 had issues. Concerning the quality of recruits, drafts and replacements in 1777 Ewald said: "The NCO's and Jager were composed partly of deserters of all nations, partly of failed officers and aristocrats who had had misfortune, students of all faculties, bankrupts,merchants, and all sorts of adventurous people. " He referred to some as " refuse of mankind. " Lieutenant Colonel Andreas Emmerich reported that those who arrived in the summer, 1777 were "good for nothing." Ewald; "The Prussian style unit is composed of deserters and an ill bred rabble, at which all of us fro. The old stock, having hitherto received into the ranks uprighteous and sought after people, felt our blood turn to water and our spirits sink. Colonel Donop himself, whose plan it was to provide for the strengthening of the Jager corps, was horrified by the rabble…". So the great expansion of the Jager corps might have seen a mixed quality of troops. Concerning the quality of the line troops one Hessian officer had this to say. It was during the fighting around Springfield NJ during the first battle. The Americans remained in the bushes firing from behind them, and the Hessians could not even see them. The Hessians said, "We have not yet learned to meet them the same way." (Bernard A. Uhlendorf ed. and translate. Revolution in American….adjutant General major Baurmeister of the Hessian Forces.) |
23rdFusilier | 19 Mar 2019 2:13 p.m. PST |
Looking at the service of some line and garrison regiments: "The majority of the Hessian battalions passed the war in full garrison duty punctuated by moments of intense action…. The Regiment von Mirbach during seven years was in action for only forty disastrous minutes at Redbank, losing its colonel and ninety five others killed and wounded. Untill the Regiment Erbprinz was besieged at Yorktown, it has sustained six wounded during the whole war. The Regiment Prinz Karl, doing little more then guard duties, had one man wounded in seven years. The garrison Regiment von Stein passed most of the war in Halifax. The Regiment Lossberg and von Knyphausen suffered all their battle losses in 1776. Rall's old regiment was an exception. Aside from its role both glorious and shameful in the 1776 campaign it's men as part of the Combined battalion took part in the expedition against Philadelphia and the withdrawal from it. After the Regiment had been reformed in autumn 1778,it helped Colonel Archibald Campbell capture Savannah, marched against Charleston under Major General Augustine Prevost, and defended Savannah against d'Estaing. At Stono River (20 June 1779) The officers and men fought so well against Benjamin Lincoln's attacking force that they were restored to the Landgraf's 'gracious regime's and on their return to Kassel their sovereign himself presented them with new colours on the Bowling Green. " Atwood, Rodney. The Hessians |
Brechtel198 | 19 Mar 2019 3:50 p.m. PST |
So yes I do think if we are going to evaluate the Hessians I think it should be unit by unit and year by year. Here is a listing of the Hessian units that served during the War of the American Revolution. The listing also includes some of the Hanoverian units that served at Gibraltar during the siege. German Units in the War of the American Revolution Hesse-Kassel: Infantry Regiments: -Du Corps (Lieb Regiment): Fought at Fort Washington, White Plains, Brandywine and Germantown. Thereafter stayed in New York. -Erbprinz: (Crown Prince), fought at Fort Washington and stationed there until going to Virginia in 1781, serving at Yorktown. -Prinz Karl: Musketeer Regiment, fought at White Plains. Sent to Newport in late 1776, and then back to New York in 1777. Sent to Charleston in 1779 and returned to New York in 1782. -Von Ditfurth: Fusilier regiment, fought at Fort Washington and White Plains and was then stationed in New York. Part of the Charleston garrison from 1779-1782 and then returned to New York. -Von Donop: Musketeer regiment, fought at Fort Washington, and in New Jersey in 1777. Fought at both Brandywine and Germantown. Returned to New York with the army in 1778 and remained stationed there until 1783. -Von Lossberg: Fusilier Regiment, served at Fort Washington and White Plains and was part of the Trenton garrison. Survivors put into Combined Regiment von Loos and was later reorganized to its original status. Went to New York, then to Quebec. -Von Knyphausen: Fusilier regiment, fought at Fort Washington and White Plains. Part of the Trenton garrison, surprised and defeated. The survivors returned to New York and were assigned to the Combined Regiment von Loos for the 1777 campaign. Reformed with its old name in late 1777. Sent to Quebec and then back to New York. -Lieb: Fought at Fort Washington and White Plains and then sent to Rhode Island, returning to New York May 1777. Fought at Brandywine and Germantown and returned to New York in 1778, remaining there in the garrison. -Von Turmback: In 1778 became the Musketeer Regiment von Bose. In New York in 1776 and then to east Florida in 1778 and served at the siege of Savannah. Sent to Charleston in late 1779 fought at Stono Ferry, Guilford Courthouse, and Eutaw Springs. Sent to Virginia and surrendered at Yorktown. -Von Mirbach: Musketeer regiment, fought at Brandywine and Red Bank and returned to New York in late 1777. Became the Musketeer Regiment Jung von Lossburg in 1780. -Von Rall: Became Grenadiere Regiment von Wollwarth from 1776-1778, Grenadiere Regiment von Trumback from 1778-1780, and thereafter Grenadiere Regiment d'Angelelli to the end of the war. Fought at Fort Washington and White Plains. Lost heavily at Trenton and the survivors were assigned to the Combined Battalion von Loos for the 1777 campaign. After returning to New York the old designation was restored and the unit split into two battalions. Sent to east Florida in late 1778 and fought in the defense of Savannah. Sent to Charleston in 1780 and returned to New York in 1782. -Von Wutginau: Became the Musketeer Regiment Landgraf after arrival in New York in 1776. Became the Lieb Regiment in 1783. Fought at Fort Washington, and then sent to Newport, returning to New York in 1779 and remained there. Garrison Regiments: -Von Huyn: Became Garrison Regiment von Benning in 1780. Fought at Fort Washington and was then sent to Newport in November 1776. Returned to New York and then sent to Charleston as part of the garrison. Returned to New York in 1780. -Von Stein: Became Garrison Regiment von Seitz in 1778 and then Garrison Regiment von Porbeck in 1783. Fought at Fort Washington and was then sent to Halifax where it spent the rest of the war. -Von Wissenbach: In 1780 became the Garrison Regiment von Knoblach. Fought at Fort Washington. Sent to east Florida and then to Savannah in late 1778. Fought at Stono Ferry and a detachment was sent to St Augustine. The regiment returned to New York in 1782. -Von Bunau: Served at Newport in 1776. Returned to New York and remained there to the end of the war. Grenadier Battalions: -1st Battalion von Linsingen: Made up of two companies of grenadiers from the Hessian Guard Regiments and fought at Brandywine, Germantown, and Red Bank. Returned to New York with the army and was then sent to Charleston in November 1779. Returned to New York in 1782. -2d von Block: Formed from the grenadier companies from the Hesse-Kassel infantry regiments and was sent to Philadelphia in 1777. They fought at Red Bank and returned to New York with the main army in 1778. Sent to Charleston in 1779 they returned to New York in 1782. -2d von Lengerke: Formed from the grenadier companies from the Hesse-Kassel infantry regiments and was sent to Philadelphia in 1777. They fought at Red Bank and returned to New York with the main army in 1778. Sent to Charleston in 1779 they returned to New York in 1782. -3d von Minnigerode: In 1779 became 3d Battalion Grenadiere von Lowenstein. Fought at Fort Washington, Brandywine, Germantown, and Red Bank. Returned to New York with the field army, then to Charleston in 1780 and back to New York in 1782, -4th von Koehler: Name changed to 4th Battalion Grenadiere von Graff in 1777 then to 4th Battalion Grenadiere von Platte in 1782. Fought at Fort Washington and participated in the Amboy, New Jersey raid and the attacks on Fort Clinton and Mongomery. Artillery: -3 Companies: Served in detachments with Hesse-Kassel regiments throughout the war. Hesse-Hanau: Infantry: -Erbprinz Regiment: Served in the Saratoga campaign and was surrendered with the rest of the army. -Light Infantry Frei Korps: Raised for service in North America and was stationed in New York for the war. Artillery: Served with the Erbprinz Regiment and was surrendered with it. -One Company-served with the Hesse-Hanau infantry regiment. Brunswick: Infantry Regiments: -Prinz Frederik: Saratoga campaign. Most of the regiment stayed at Fort Ticonderoga. The small detachment of the regiment which continued on the campaign was surrendered at Saratoga. Those at Ticonderoga returned to Canada. -Von Riedesel: Musketeer regiment surrendered at Saratoga. -Von Specht: Musketeer Regiment surrendered at Saratoga. -Von Rhetz: Sent to Quebec upon arrival in North America and took part in the operations around Lake Champlain. Surrendered at Saratoga and the survivors were sent to the Regiment von Ehrenkrook in the Trois Rivieres are of Canada until 1783. -Von Ehrenkrook: Formed from survivors of the Saratoga campaign and then assigned as garrison troops in the area around Trois Rivieres, Canada. -Von Barner: This regiment was formed from survivors of the Saratoga campaign as well as new recruits. It served in Canada in garrison for the remainder of the war. Grenadier Battalions: -von Breymann: This unit was composed of the grenadier companies of the Brunswick regiments in Canada. Served in the Saratoga campaign and was surrendered. Cavalry: -Dragoon Regiment Prinz Frederik: Served in the Saratoga campaign. A detachment was lost at Bennington, the rest of the regiment was surrendered at Saratoga. Anspach-Bayreuth: Infantry Regiments: -1st Anspach: In Philadelphia and New York 1777-1778. Newport in 1778; returned to New York in 1779. Virginia and Yorktown in 1781. -2d Bayreuth: Same as above. Artillery: -One Company: Served with the two infantry regiments from Anspach-Bayreuth. Anhalt-Zerbst: -Anhalt-Zerbst Infantry Regiment: Spent the war in New York and Canada. Waldeck: Infantry: -3d Waldeck Infantry Regiment: Fort Washington and Staten Island in 1776. Pensacola 1778-1781 and interned when Pensacola was taken by the Spanish. Paroled to New York in 1782. Artillery: -A small two-gun detachment that served with the 3d Waldeck Infantry Regiment. Jagers: Hesse-Cassel: -One Battalion (five foot companies and one mounted company): Served either in detachments or larger units throughout the war. Hesse-Hanau: One Company. Anspach-Bayreuth: -One Battalion of three companies: Brunswick: -One company: see below. -One Battalion: Light Infantry Battalion von Barner which served in the Saratoga campaign and was surrendered at the conclusion of the campaign. Apparently, the battalion was composed of assorted Brunswick light companies as well as the Brunswick jager company. Hanover: Infantry Regiments: -Von Reden: Served at the siege of Gibraltar. -Von Hardenberg: Served at the siege of Gibraltar. -La Motte: Served at the siege of Gibraltar. |
historygamer | 20 Mar 2019 5:50 a.m. PST |
So I have a bit more to add, but am hesitant to add to this thread. 1. Lossberg was cited by Cornwallis after taking the works at Chatterton Hill. 2. During the NY battles, the Jagers were backed up by Hessian Grenadiers providing bayonet support. Grenadiers were expected to be able to act independently in a skirmish type way in the armies of the period. 3. Men from the Hessian hat companies deployed in a loose formation (flankers) going through the woods. Again, this type of action was expected of soldiers of the period. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Mar 2019 7:36 a.m. PST |
Some eyewitness accounts of German units in combat at Freeman's Farm and Germantown: 'The entire line of [the American] regiments faced about…The musket fire was at once renewed, and assumed lively proportions, particularly the platoon fire from Riedesel's left wing. Presently, the enemy's fire, though very lively at first, suddenly ceased. I advanced about sixty paces, sending a few rounds after the flying enemy, and firing from twelve to fifteen shots more into the woods into which they had retreated…about fifteen minutes afterwards darkness set in.' -Georg Pausch, commander of the Hesse-Hanau artillery company in Burgoyne's army remarking on the action of Freeman's Farm. 'I followed them until they reached the Barracks, whence the Hessian Grenadiers had been just marched out, smoking their pipes and marching at a steady pace on their way to Germantown. They were soon passed by the British Grenadiers, who took the Fourth Street road and were out of sight long before the Hessians were out of view…These troops, though slow, were invincible in battle and hard to beat.'-Jacob Mordecai remarking on the German grenadiers of the Battalion von Linsing at Germantown. 'The enemy sent a small detachment across the Wissahickon against out picket, but his artillery and infantry remained on the other side of the rise, from where they shot at us without knowing where we stood, because it was very foggy. After we stood almost completely still for two hours and had heard the cannonballs whiz over our heads, one of General von Knyphausen's adjutants came with the news and the order that the right wing was advancing and the corps was to move up to the Wissahickon and engage the enemy…Our attack was lively and fast; those 200 men that had come over to this side of the creek to engage our picket in the valley were thrown into the water right away, either shot, killed with the hunting sword or taken prisoner; we on the higher ground on the other hand were bombarded with artillery and small arms fire for three-quarters of an hour, because the enemy had posted, besides his riflemen, a corps of 4,000 men against us in the woods. The creek and steep hill prevented us from attacking them head-on at close range; they also had a great advantage on account of their long rifles.' -Lieutenant von Feilitzsch, Anspach Jagers. The Lieb Regiment and the Regiment von Donop 'marched to Germantown with drums beating and attacked the rebels, who took to flight immediately on simply hearing the Hessian drums.'-Journal of the Lieb Regiment. 'Then as furious gunfire enveloped Germantown, the Leib Regiment arrived, the Rebels left many dead behind when they departed.'-Major General Daniel Stirn, commander of the Hessian Brigade. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Mar 2019 12:58 p.m. PST |
See Christopher Ward, The War of the Revolution, Volume I, pages 246-252, and John Gallaher, The Battle of Brooklyn 1776, page 162. The Americans defeated the British light infantry and the Black Watch in this skirmish pursuing them until larger British and Hessian units reached the field and Washington withdrew the American units as he did not wish to become involved in a major engagement. |
42flanker | 21 Mar 2019 5:16 a.m. PST |
See Christopher Ward, The War of the Revolution, Volume I, pages 246-252, and John Gallaher, The Battle of Brooklyn 1776, page 162. The Americans defeated the British light infantry and the Black Watch in this skirmish pursuing them until larger British and Hessian units reached the field and Washington withdrew the American units as he did not wish to become involved in a major engagement. The two authors you mention each in their own way display successive misunderstanding of events of the battle, perpetuating old errors and coining new. Galagher's fanciful riff on the folklore surrounding British bugle calls is particularly noteworthy while Ward's reference to the Black Watch (42nd Royal Highland Regiment) – who were nowwhere near when the LI coys when were they were chasing off Knowlton's party- appears to have led you astray. In addition, Ward's statements from 1952 regarding numbers engaged, distance fought over, casualties, and his own speculation regarding the LI bugle calls, set the seeds of numerous errors which are still being repeated today. The point about the skirmish in the Hollow Way is that the LI evaded defeat, as much by luck as good judgement, and made a successful fighting retreat, thereby countering your wish to discredit their fighting abilities by citing the Harlem Heights fight. Obviously, the commander of the British patrol fouled up (we don't know what rank he held or what his orders were) but, when his ‘want of caution' became clear, the detachment fought their way out of trouble and got back to the main force. Perhaps you think that 200 Light infantrymen on outpost should, while they were about it, have pressed forward to assault Washington's position on Harlem Heights. If you want a balanced and fact-based analysis of the Harlem Heights action, Johnson's 1897 study, with copious source material, remains the most reliable (even if he does refer to ‘us' and ‘the enemy' throughout). |
Brechtel198 | 21 Mar 2019 5:46 a.m. PST |
What is the title of Johnson's book? Perhaps you think that 200 Light infantrymen on outpost should, while they were about it, have pressed forward to assault Washington's position on Harlem Heights. Really? Are you now taking the approach of the 'sublime to the ridiculous'? Did Ward have access or did he use Johnson's book? |
Brechtel198 | 21 Mar 2019 5:50 a.m. PST |
Actually, isn't the author you refer to Henry P Johnston, and the volume is The Battle of Harlem Heights? |
23rdFusilier | 21 Mar 2019 5:54 a.m. PST |
"Actually, isn't the author you refer to Henry P Johnston, and the volume is The Battle of Harlem Heights?" Kevin, Johnson's book is THE authority on the battle. It is considered a masterpiece of historical research and a must have for the campaign of 1776. I am shocked you are unfamiliar with it. And Yes, Ward did use it for his classic work. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Mar 2019 6:13 a.m. PST |
I just read the chapter on Harlem Heights, and it appears that Ward got it right using Johnston as a reference. The book is listed in Ward's bibliography. And the action nearly turned into a general action until Washington called a halt to it. If I'm not mistaken, Johnston states that the British light infantry, which was reinforced, were driven back about a mile and Howe had to send in reinforcements to ensure that they weren't taken. Noteworthy in Johnston's account is the part played by German units coming to support the defeated light infantry. The bottom line is that the Hollow Way was an American success. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Mar 2019 6:46 a.m. PST |
Johnston also wrote a book in 1878, The Campaign of 1776 Around New York and Brooklyn which Gallaher lists in his bibliography. Just for fun, who and where states that Johnston's book is the authority on the battle and 'a masterpiece of historical research'? |
23rdFusilier | 21 Mar 2019 7:06 a.m. PST |
42ndflanker, thank you for your well thought out analysis. From all the reading I have done, and walking what remains of the area where the battle took place I think you got it correct. Harlem Heights is a interesting yet mid ndrrstood a toon of the 1776 campaign. Always a pleasure to read here on this forum someone who understand the time period and is knowledgeable. Thank you. |
42flanker | 21 Mar 2019 9:29 a.m. PST |
I just read the chapter on Harlem Heights, and it appears that Ward got it right using Johnston as a reference. The book is listed in Ward's bibliography.And the action nearly turned into a general action until Washington called a halt to it. If I'm not mistaken, Johnston states that the British light infantry, which was reinforced, were driven back about a mile and Howe had to send in reinforcements to ensure that they weren't taken. Noteworthy in Johnston's account is the part played by German units coming to support the defeated light infantry. The bottom line is that the Hollow Way was an American success. Ah, the old bottom line. If you read Johnson again, perhaps ith less haste, you will be able to identify Ward's careless readings, his exaggerations and inventions. He is not alone. Gallagher's fantasies cannot be based on Johnson at all. The skirmish at the Hollow Way was an American failure. Full marks for taking the fight to the enemy, but the attempted flanking manouevre failed to trap the over-confident British and led to the death of the its two commanders, both able officers Washington could ill-spare at that time. The light infantry patrol having checked the American riflemen on their flank and shot down their commanders, got out while the going was good, abandoning a position they should never have been in the first place; a successful fighting retreat being a mark of wel trained, disciplined troops. The British failure lay in the patrol's anonymous commander provoking an unintended, unplanned encounter that led to needless casualties in a force that could ill-afford the losses, and for no identifiable gain. Once the fat was in the fire, the British shook themselves out and met the unexpected approach of 1800 American troops towards their outpost line. The Highlanders and jägers seemed pretty pleased with themselves. Some officers of the Light Infantry had every reason to feel chastened; they'd kicked over a hornets' nest, been roughed up a little and the rest of the army was making jokes at their expense, but they hadn't been beaten. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Mar 2019 12:55 p.m. PST |
This sounds like nothing more than an excuse for a British failure. The British infantry was driven back for at least a mile. And then the Americans withdrew because Washington did not want to get involved in a general engagement. Making excuses for a British defeat does not negate what Johnston wrote, which was just the opposite. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Mar 2019 1:35 p.m. PST |
Here are two excerpts from Johnston's book which summarize the outcome, stating it as an American victory, along with General Howe chastising the British light infantry: From pages 86-87: ‘Washington sums up the day's work succinctly : " Our troops charged the enemy with great intrepidity, and drove them from the wood into the plain, and were pushing them from thence, having silenced their fire in a great measure, when I judged it prudent to order a retreat, fearing the enemy, as I have since found was really the case,were sending a large body to support their party." Late in the afternoon, the troops returned to camp, rejoicing in a success they had not anticipated, and conscious of having won it at the moment it was most needed, and in a way that would give it the most effect. It was for them the welcome victory of Harlem Heights.' From page 88-89: 'That the British would claim " Harlem Heights " as a victory for themselves was to be expected. The final withdrawal of our troops from the field after the pursuit, they construed into a retreat. Howe reported that " the light infantry and 42d regiment, with the assistance of the chasseurs [Yagers] and field-pieces, repulsed the enemy with considerable loss, and obliged them to retire within their works."' 'He failed to mention that his own troops had first been driven a mile to their own lines. In his orders of the next day he entertains the highest opinion of the corps which beat back " a very superior body of the rebels," but he has cold praise for the Light Companies for pursuing Knowlton in the morning "without proper discretion" or support. Donop, commanding the Hessian Light Troops in the army, modestly reported: "But for my Yagers, two regiments of Highlanders and the British Infantry would have all, perhaps, been captured."' So, it seems that you are incorrect in your assessment or perhaps you are reading a different book? |
23rdFusilier | 21 Mar 2019 7:31 p.m. PST |
Again I think that 42nd has given a dispassionate and accurate account of the fight. I am not surprised that American authors out a spin on it considering how the campaign has to e up to that point. And as for Gallagher's book. It is pure garbage. It was roundly rejected and not sold at the visitor center at the National Park I worked at. |
Brechtel198 | 22 Mar 2019 4:13 a.m. PST |
As you have stated that Johnston's book is 'the' reference for the action, it is quite conclusive by the two paragraphs posted that the British lost, the light infantry ran, and the Americans won. The rest is merely hyperbole on the part of those who don't agree, especially after recommending Johnston's book. |
FlyXwire | 22 Mar 2019 6:10 a.m. PST |
I think that seems a reasonable assumption Brechtel – because if there's a book asserted as 'the' reference, but then the book seems to support another interpretation than forwarded? Well that's odd. Again, TMP is as much a social network as an academic one, so take the discussions with that in mind (which I'm sure you already have). There's plenty of other boards on the forum that have interesting activity being discussed and displayed, maybe see you there? |
42flanker | 22 Mar 2019 7:21 a.m. PST |
23Fusilier, thank you for your kind words- diolch yn fawr; not that I think there's anything radical in my take on the 'Harlem Heights' episode – other than a careful reading of the sources ! I knew nothing of Harlem Heights until a few years ago. I was initially interested in the role of the 42nd but then I became intrigued by the mythology surrounding the action, and the number of erroneous commentaries I was finding, from well-known names, too; seemingly a mix of carelessness, self-indulgence and the allure of the national narrative (although there has been some pretty superficial treatment from the other side of the ocean, as well). I came upon Johnson's study and wondered how writers could keep getting it so badly wrong, even while citing Johnson. One problem, of course, is that the action was only , in the end, an inconclusive skirmish, and many writers tend simply to make a nod at the key events that are flagged- chase in the woods & hunting horns blah blah arrogant english on the run blah blah first victory for Washington blah blah boost to morale- and then move on. History as recycled cliché. I had the opportunity to walk the ground a couple of years ago, not long after the 240th anniversary, and it was intriguing over a couple of visits to walk the upper west side, trying to visualize the natural relief beneath the streets, while running the gauntlet of coffee shops and noodle bars of Morningside Heights- and one very fine Hungarian patisserie. Very enjoyable memories of brilliant autumn days with views of the Hudson and the Palisades as a backcloth. The fact that the entire action- from dawn till dinner- covered barely a mile between 106th St to 125th St- a brisk 20 minute walk- puts into perspective claims of 'British Infantry' being 'driven at least a mile' (The Light Infantry had to pull back a mere 600-650 yards to meet their supports and when the British contingent ran low on ammunition they withdrew about a half mile from the 'buckwheatfield' (from Barnard College to 110th) before Washington cut his losses and disengaged) As you no doubt saw for yourself, the one clear impression that survives is the drop from Claremont in the area of Grant's Tomb down into the trough of 125th St running down the former Hollow Way. It is difficult to gauge what exactly the Light Infantry patrol commander thought was a good idea about sending his men down that slopes to take pot shots at the Americans who appeared there. I took a rooftop tour of St John's Cathedral hoping, in vain, to get an overview of the area. While chatting with the knowledgable, amiable guide, the events of 16th September 1776 came up somehow and he made the mistake of mentioning the old 'insulting bugle call' chestnut and then didn't quite know what hit him when I began to debate the matter. Fortunately, I reined myself in. Too much cake, probably. National characteristics were clearly in play in the descriptions that have survived. British reports, while acknowledging the LI foul up, tended to underplay what a bloody little fight it had been, although as professional soldiers they were naturally more phlegmatic about such things in comments laced with dry humour, while the amateurs on the American side were in a more excitable state and badly needed to mark up a success, hence the exaggerations on their side which gained momentum as the weeks went by. As for Howe's and Washington's reports, both men naturally put the best spin they could on the day's fighting and it would be unwise for historians to base their analysis of an action on the official dispatches of the commanders. Howe's summary was particularly egregious in that regard but Washington also, in describing his troops as "having silenced [the enemy] fire in a great measure," had overlooked or else was ignorant of the fact that the British had expended most of their ammunition. The great merit of Johnson's book, notwithstanding his national bias, which at least has the merit of being honest and open, is that his thoughtful, even-handed analysis and presentation of the sources allows readers to reach their own conclusions. Needless to say, I do not share some of the author's own conclusions, which seem not to derive from what has preceded and appear almost tacked on to the end of an analysis which until that point is much more nuanced. However, he certainly does not veer into the territory of "the British lost, the light infantry ran, and the Americans won," a reductive oversimplification |
Winston Smith | 22 Mar 2019 7:40 a.m. PST |
Good Guy Bias is credible. Bad Guy Bias is not. QED. |
42flanker | 22 Mar 2019 10:54 a.m. PST |
|
23rdFusilier | 22 Mar 2019 1:36 p.m. PST |
42nd, thank you for the kind words. And yes a walk of the battlefield is very rewarding and eye opening. For the first time I understood what the hallow way was. Bias is interesting in most battles during the American Rev Wsr. One thing I was constantly pointing out while at my last National Park (Minure Man). Was that the British were not a battle hardened army in April 18 and yes they were familiar with hiding behind walls and trees. While many authors like to quote officers who were upset about it these were usually young green officers. Those who had been around and seen action (like MacKenzie) were not upset and talked about it matter of fact. Interestingly about half the officers in the battalion companies of the 23rdFusilier had seen service in Europe during the last war and the battalion served very well as rear guard during the first part of the retreat from Lexington back to Boston. The description of the battalion pulling out by companies to cover the brigade is very interesting in " A Brutush Fusulier in Revilutionary Boston." |
Winston Smith | 22 Mar 2019 2:36 p.m. PST |
I'm gearing up to do a game on the Lexington Concord "Campaign". I found a very interesting scenario in "The Whites of their Eyes", published by the Canadian Wargames Group. Events are card driven. That will fit in very well with Flames of Liberty, my TSATF AWI knockoff. Events like "If the British hold Brock Tavern, they find Sam Adams hiding behind a wardrobe. 10 points." And there is random Minuteman arrivals too, again card driven. I just need a few more buildings, and of course you can never have too much Militia. And I have a veritable plethora of LI and Grenadiers. I blame myself for that tidbit showing up in a thread about Hessian capabilities. Silly me, I offered the OPINION that I think British LI are the most capable troops. I should have known better. |
42flanker | 22 Mar 2019 2:56 p.m. PST |
'Capable.' I like that. Good, moderate word. |
23rdFusilier | 22 Mar 2019 3:13 p.m. PST |
I like the April 19 game. Sounds like they captured the spirit of the day and made a very interesting and fun game. |
Winston Smith | 23 Mar 2019 6:13 a.m. PST |
I made a throwaway remark about liking British LI best of all unit types in the AWI. This was in regard to wargaming. Ostensibly this thread is about Hessian unit attributes. The context is almost certainly about comparing them to British IN WARGAMING TERMS. After all this is The "Miniatures" Page. Check it out. It's about gaming. For some reason you have chosen to take the bit about British LI in your teeth and run with it. Why not do us all a favor and start a new thread titled "Why British LI suck" or something like that, and allow a discussion on relative quality of Hessians vs British to continue on THIS thread? Why not contribute some anecdotes about your wargaming experiences with Hessians? In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to The Editor splitting this topic into two separate threads, although that would be a heck of a lot of work. |
Brechtel198 | 23 Mar 2019 10:02 a.m. PST |
Anyone interested in the British Light Infantry arm in particular and the British Army in general during the War of the American Revolution might want to take a look at With Zeal and Bayonets Only by Matthew Spring and Fit for Service by John Houlding. |
Brechtel198 | 27 Mar 2019 6:34 a.m. PST |
Just received two excellent books-Order Book of the Hesse-Cassel von Mirbach Regiment and Journal of the Hesse-Cassel Jager Corps, both translated by Bruce Burgoyne. The latter gives important information on Springfield, including the number of Jager on the expedition and who commanded them. Colonel von Wrumb was the Jager Corps commander and 300 jagers were on the expedition which included the Ansbach company. I am also expecting two more books on the German contingent, both translated by Bruce Burgoyne, and both on the Waldeck contingent. |
Brechtel198 | 27 Mar 2019 8:08 a.m. PST |
I made a throwaway remark about liking British LI best of all unit types in the AWI. This was in regard to wargaming. Apparently not. Here's what you said and wargaming was not mentioned by you in the subject posting: …the best troops to have in the AWI were British Light Infantry. |
Winston Smith | 27 Mar 2019 8:30 a.m. PST |
Fine, Kevin. Fine. You win. I surrender the field. |
Pages: 1 2 3
|