"Hessian Unit attributes" Topic

Well, I sort of only cared about the Hessian grenadier battalions and a handful of the others such as Lossberg etc. Also, I only care about a general forum members' opinions for the troop types on the wargaming table.

This other morass endlessly cramming unexamined primary sources and historians' accounts doesnt really reflect on a given troops battle worthiness. Further, they are irrelevant because primary sources and author analyses can be every bit as misguided as any modern observation.

The Hessian's admitted that they were too slow on the battlefield, as compared to the British and the Americans. They requested that the Landgraf allow them to train and fight at open order, but he declined that request. Says it all.

So if primary sources are irrelevant, what do we use? Ouija Board?

@Virginia Tory

So if primary sources are irrelevant, what do we use? Ouija Board?

Ah, but that isn't what I said. Kindly, re-read what I wrote.

This other morass endlessly cramming unexamined primary sources and historians' accounts doesnt really reflect on a given troops battle worthiness. Further, they are irrelevant because primary sources and author analyses can be every bit as misguided as any modern observation.

Primary source material, credible secondary material and historians' viewpoints on units and their overall reputation and reliability most certainly do reflect on a units' battle worthiness.

And if we didn't have that material how do you believe we would be able to figure out historical questions?

"Ah, but that isn't what I said. Kindly, re-read what I wrote."

Oops…so you did. I blame late night, hurried reading. Apologies!

The point isn't that primary sources should not be considered. It is that primary and contemporary sources can be biased or flat out wrong, so like all other sources they should be approached with a degree of skepticism.

Case in point: After Rall's former regiment was redeployed southward favorable reports of its performance were sent back to the Landgrave. One claim is that they recaptured trophies lost at Trenton. Anyone with a knowledge of American geography would know it was unlikely that items captured in New Jersey would have made their way to South Carolina by 1779. Plus at Stono Ferry they broke in the fact of a charge by North Carolina forces, although they did rally and return to the fight when support arrived. Most likely the favorable reports were an effort to get the regiment's status restored and new flags issued.

It is that primary and contemporary sources can be biased or flat out wrong,

Indeed. The citing of a primary source need not of itself consitute a statement of fact.

Bill and 42nd, yes. Agree completely. And a very good summation. First hand material must be taken with caution and think about biased view point.

And there is fact vs opinion or interpretation. The most difficult thing in the park service I had to teach my seasonals were the difference between the two. Shots were fired on Lexington green on the morning of April 19, 1775 and men were killed is a fact. What happened and why were interpretations or opinions. These were based on material reviewed.

Sooo….. what we are saying is that some guys came over from where we now call "Germany"…. and they fought for some guys we now call "British"… and they generally didn't do well…

Right. Nothing to see here.

Move along.

My two shillings worth, but I'll defer to Historygamer.

Eric

The idea that the German auxiliaries from whatever principality 'didn't do too well' is not supported by the available evidence.

Like most of life, the answer is more complicated and has a lot of shades of grey.

The German troops proved more than adequate up until Trenton. But the Trenton fiasco had a lot of fingerprints on it – Major General Grant's (overall commander for New Jersey), old and sick senior leadership within the Hessians (Rall was never meant to command so many troops), failure to dig works. Red Bank was a failure of updated intelligence. More than enough troops and guns were taken – based on the old intelligence.

Von Bose certainly performed wonderfully at GCH. The Jagers, overall, were very well thought of and in demand.

The war was never envisioned going longer than two years by the Crown, thus the use of trained troops vs recruiting their own new ones.

The main fault of the German units would be that their Prince's did not allow them to adopt looser formations to meet the circumstances (Brunswickers excepted). Their officers, to their credit, did ask, but were denied. Oddly enough they adopted such formations in future wars. The Hessians did go from three to two lines as early as 1776.

One of their other short-comings were the age of many of their officers. They were careerists, and there was not much opportunity for advancement. Their age affected their ability to stand up to rigorous campaigning. Both von Heiser and Kynphausen were in their 60s.

Sensibly, their princes refused to let their troops serve in the Caribbean – which was a graveyard of disease, especially for soldiers of that period.

The British did not include the German senior officers in any planning, as apparently they did not think the hired help was worth it. Given some of the poor decision-making of said officers, they may have been right.

Overall, I think the German soldiers did all that was asked of them. I like how British Grenadiers models them for games – as second line troops that are fussy about keeping their lines in order.

Given that the OP question asked specifically "Do the Hessian have any special qualities that set them apart from other troops in the AWI," the answer would surely have to be:

"Other than the jäger companies, no."

Agreed. They were solid soldiers on the European model.

I can form my ratings of Hessians in the games I run based on my opinion of how they performed at Trenton, Redbank, Springfield etc.
And I can rate Jaegers highly, and some British units poorly.
That's the only reason I'm here. The gaming.
I'm not trying to wear anyone out citing obscure books that line my extensive shelves.

Oh, heck. Give it a shot. LoL

Well, I wanted to know what made the Hessians different for purposes of wargaming. If you didnt have some in your AWI games, I wondered what exactly was missing, was it just that you didnt have Hessians and they were necessary for variety? Or was there inherent differences to the units?

Now, someone said they moved more slowly and perhaps were more fearsome in the bayonet charge. I think someone else said their morale might've been more brittle?

It's like with Italian Wars games. The French have gendarmes and they have Archers too. Are the Archers necessary in separate units or can one just have more gendarmes and pretend the archers are mixed into the unit but obscured by the splendor of the gendarmes?

Same with the Hessians, are they just nice to have as an option or can they provide a gamer with different qualities in a given game?

Like all/any troops, they couldn't help the dire straits they were led into by poor commanders

The differences between British and Hessians depends on the complexity of the rules you want to play.
Do you want to be bothered "simulating" that Hessians were not allowed to open up their formations? Do you want to have a set of rules that do that?
Do you want to show them being slower?
For real deep grass in the outfield, do you want to show Jaegers backed up by bayonet armed Grenadiers?
Do you want to be bothered showing whether or not the Jaegers' hunting sword mattered in melee?
As said above, were the differences due to bad leadership?

I can't think of any reason to make them superior to average dependable British Line troops in gaming terms.
And if you're using rifle armed Jaegers, and you definitely should be, don't use them as a Napoleonic skirmish screen.

Using Loose Files, Hessians (in the broadest sense) fight no differently to other units of their class; they are just slower (and don't get the +2 British regulars get in combat). As far as class is concerned, I've found little to disagree with those suggested by DJ Lambert in his Military Modelling articles circa 1983: so that's jaegers A class, garrison troops D class and the rest mostly C with a few crack B regiments.

It sounds trivial, but in my experience it does make a difference on the table. Many years ago I fought a short campaign using Loose Files and the sluggishness became a real pain. As better quality loyalists became available, I switched the Hessians to garrison duty as they were better for defensive actions, keeping them in fixed positions while more mobile troops were used in the counter attack/fire brigade role.