"Hessian Grenadier Battalions" Topic

Another "serious" question.
Why did Hesse Cassel continue to follow the practice of naming their regiments, and battalions, after the current Colonel?
They were modeled after the Prussian army, which numbered its regiments.

Yet Hesse Cassel continued to follow the confusing, almost medieval practice.

Ah, you mean Chef. I believe the grenadier battalions were named after Lieutenant Colonels. If I recall that is, my mind is a little rusty on the matter.

It was not uncommon in the British army still to refer informally to a regiment by the name of its current colonel, 20-odd years after the introduction of numerical titles.

Were Hessian regiments actually numbered, but generally known by the name of their Chef?

@historygamer

1. Ah, 'significant in a battle' rather than "in a significant battle.' That would put a different complexion on-

2. Oh, Hessian grenadiers…

3. Hessians, not "Hessians" My mistake.

4. I'll get my coat.

My memory was better then I thought. I remember thinking "Chef" was comical at the time as well, and why it stuck in my head.
Below is an excerpt from:
The Hessians and the other German auxiliaries of Great Britain in the revolutionary war. By EJ Lowell.

I don't recall anything on numbered regiments other than companies. Perhaps someone on TbS can help out?

THE HESSIAN REGIMENTS AND THEIR NAMES.

"A Hessian regiment was usually named after its "Chef." This "Chef" was sometimes the colonel of the regiment, but more frequently a prince or superior officer. As the "Chefs" were frequently changed or transferred, it is often difficult to identify a regiment. The battalions of grenadiers in America were named after their lieutenant-colonels. The following list of the regiments and battalions that served in America."

Hmmmm, I didn't recall being named for Lt. Colonels only in America though.

I really like how British Grenadier models the German troops – as second rate, more prone to be slow and always fussing about their formations (via the DPs they accumulate and how they have to get rid of them before engaging in combat).

Why? Who has time to game a forgone conclusion? Is this what wargaming has really come to or is it that a certain type of gamer tends to post on the board?

Among other issues, an over concern with troop rating is going to degrade game experience and condemn it to a predictable result. A gaming period should be a kit bag of period universals and standard abilities for a player to learn and exercise some tactical creativity. If you want to recreate the result of a battle you can do it once as a test I suppose) but otherwise, just read the history book. Incidentally, this is exactly what wargaming rules should not do because you really dont need a set of rules to reenact what happened and further, this sort of niche experience is probably a huge turn off to new entrants.

I have seen this on the Napoleonic boards too. "Well, the French lost, so they really weren't very good." Or making sure Spanish and Neapolitan troops are never useful by detracting from their fire, movement and morale.

Yes, there were lots of British and German units standing around in the major battles of the AWI. But at least up to 1778, the spear point for the Crown seemed to be the elite units – which admittedly often included the Hessian Grenadier battalions – though they did not seem to see much action.

The brunt of most of the fighting for 1776 through 1778 seemed to be on the British Lights, Grenadiers, and Guards.

That said, the Hessian grenadier battalions had a place on the battlefield – but because of their lack of significant involvement in said battles, it is hard to rate them, let alone as elite. I want to correct what i said early about British Grenadiers – it might rate the Hessian grenadier battalions as first line, not second, though most of the rest of the Hessians are rated as second line, with attendent drawbacks – except the Jaegers, which are rated as elite skirmishers.

But even with the Jaegers, there were IIRC, something like 400 (more???) of them at Brimingham Hill, on the British left flank. What did they do? There is no account of them in the battle (Ewald was on detached service) that I am awre of.

Speaking of rating troops I am interested in what you think the Brigade of Guards would be rated while down south. Guilford Courthouse especially.

The Guards were as you say one of the units on Howe's point of the spear in 1776-78. But by 1780 were they worn out and just basically a line unit? Curious about your opinion.

At Brandywine Creek, I believe there were jäger on the left flank, IIRC, but also a mixed force of infantry and mounted jagers under Ewald in the centre of Howe's first line, acting as vanguard, advancing straight up the Birmingham road with the light coys of the 17th and 42nd (RH) Regts (Abercromby's 1st LI Bn) in support. Ewald describes the action as well as several officers of the 1st LI Bn.

"Why? Who has time to game a forgone conclusion?"

I've played and run a lot of Rev War games. Don't recall too many being a foregone conclusion. You seem to be jumping to conclusions yourself here.

"Is this what wargaming has really come to or is it that a certain type of gamer tends to post on the board?"

Hm. I was just wondering the same thing after reading your response.

"Among other issues, an over concern with troop rating is going to degrade game experience and condemn it to a predictable result."

So I assume the rules you use (which apparently you don't have any) rate all the troops the same? So your rules rate militia as equal to grenadiers? Interesting. Not very historical, but interesting.

"A gaming period should be a kit bag of period universals and standard abilities for a player to learn and exercise some tactical creativity."

I can't comment on the rules you (don't) use, but British Grenadier (which I have no financial interest in) does just that, and does it very well. So do the ACW rules I play, and my WWII rules as well.

"If you want to recreate the result of a battle you can do it once as a test I suppose) but otherwise, just read the history book."

I can't comment on the AWI games you (don't) run, but I have run the same games multipe times, ofteh with differing results. That said, when you play historical scenarios they aren't always even or fair, and the game is about seeing how the player would do under historical circumstances. I am pretty sure that no matter how many times you might play the battle of Little Big Horn, Custer isn't going to win, but it can still be a fun game. Lot's of people play the Alamo too.

"Incidentally, this is exactly what wargaming rules should not do because you really dont need a set of rules to reenact what happened and further, this sort of niche experience is probably a huge turn off to new entrants."

Then might I suggest you play the rules set Charge! They are ahistorical, do not represent any real countries, only period flavor. Sounds like that is the type of rules and the type of game you are looking for, not ones based upon historical armies. I know that when I play WWII, a Sherman isn't as good a tank as a Tiger, though the crew training/morale may vary.

"I have seen this on the Napoleonic boards too. "Well, the French lost, so they really weren't very good." Or making sure Spanish and Neapolitan troops are never useful by detracting from their fire, movement and morale."

I have no experience with the Napoleonic period, so I can't comment on rules I don't know about. Unlike some others. :-)

"Speaking of rating troops I am interested in what you think the Brigade of Guards would be rated while down south. Guilford Courthouse especially.

The Guards were as you say one of the units on Howe's point of the spear in 1776-78. But by 1780 were they worn out and just basically a line unit? Curious about your opinion."

Good question. I can only offer my opinion, based upon books read, etc. The Guards, on average, would usually be rated as elite troops. So too would other units in that small army, based upon previous battles (even though reduced). For instance, it was remarked at the time that the 33rd, Lord Conrwallis was the Colonel, was the best unit in the army. It should be noted too that that assessment by period officers would keep in mind that technically, the Guards were not part of the army.

So to your question – when I put on GCH, I rate the Guards as elite. They are only one battalion, plus separate Light and Grenadier companies (oversized). Historically, the Guards went through two lines of Americans, through the woods, became disorganized because of the terrain and combat (which degenerated into lots of smaller battles at the second line), beat them, and then emerged to take on a third line – only to be repulsed, then reformed and went again (IIRC). The Americans retreated. You tell me how you'd rate that?

BG models the fatigue/disorganization with disruption points (DPs). The Guards almost always arrive dragging two or three (max you can get, which affects firing, morale, and charging) DPs with them. If they have three, they cannot charge. They can end up with three while charging too, which handicaps them greatly – usually seeing the pushed back in melee. But not fleeing, unless you roll a crappy morale role.

So really, the rating, given the circumstances, does not seem to be too high as elite. The entire force was fatigued, and IIRC, the 23rd was commanded by a captain (the Lt Col Webster acting as brigadier general of the 23rd and 33rd).

"At Brandywine Creek, I believe there were jäger on the left flank, IIRC, but also a mixed force of infantry and mounted jagers under Ewald in the centre of Howe's first line, acting as vanguard, advancing straight up the Birmingham road with the light coys of the 17th and 42nd (RH) Regts (Abercromby's 1st LI Bn) in support. Ewald describes the action as well as several officers of the 1st LI Bn."

I'm sorry if my point was not clear. There is no account, that I have seen, of the Jaeger battalion commanded by Col.Wurmb, which was off to the left of the two Light British battalions. Also, IIRC, Ewald was only mounted as he had hurt his foot. I believe the mounted Jaegers (about 50?) were only created later in the war (South?), but I would not swear to that without checking first. If you recall, the Britih forces had lost most of their horses during the voyage. While they may have required some horses after landing, I can assure you that they had no time to train them for combat. Having ridden a horse many times at re-enactments, you do not want to be on a horse that isn't combat trained. That might explain why the Light Dragoons were so far back in the march column.

Of course the Jaegers were not mounted to fight so much as to move. I would assume (dangerous that) that when dismounted, some would hold horses while others fought, futher reducing their combat power – unless they just set the horses loose – which I would doubt.

"Why? Who has time to game a forgone conclusion?"

Gamers do this all the time. Some battles were "forgone conclusions," so you see if you can do better than history. You don't overrate a unit (Neapolitans a good example from the Nappy era) so the battle is more "balanced" or Spanish troops, which tended to be quite poor, sometimes training, othertimes leadership. As with AWI, the Continentals are most of the time going to be at a qualitative disadvantage to the Crown Forces. Not always. So you do what you can. Sometimes your second rate force will surprise you.

HG has covered the deployment of Hessian battalions quite well. Needless to say, with a few exceptions they were not heavily engaged in a lot of the bigger battles. If you read McGuire's book he discusses at length how the British attack on Birmingham Hill basically left them in the dust, marching slowly in close order.

Don't like BG? Don't play them. They are very good rules, very historically accurate (a must in a game for me). I was turned off AWI minis for years because too many rules basically modelled 7YW bloodbaths--something that rarely, if ever, occurred during an AWI engagement.

@historygamer

Ewald recorded that while the army rested after crossing Brandywine Creek, he marched on with vanguard force of jäger and the light infantry coys from 17th and 42nd Regts. On seeing enemy ahead, after conferring with the LI coy commanders, he resolves to attack:

"I drew up at once and deployed the jägers, asking Mcpherson and Scott to support me on both flanks, and ordered the mounted jägers to follow the foot jägers in the centre."

Ewald's accompanying sketch shows a curved screen of foot jägers in skirmish order supported by a company of LI, in more compact formation, on either side of the road, with the horse jägers between them, coming up the road itself.

An officer of the 1st LI Battalion recorded ""….Upon the Troops getting again in motion the advanced guard was composed of the 17th and 42nd Light companies and Capt. Evalts troop of mounted yagers…. having advanced less than a mile Capt. Evalt [sic] proposed charging a party of dragoons on the road, provided we secured his left flank.

-this was assented to, and the two companies quitted the road for this purpose to gain an orchard on the left flank"

The mounted troops would appear to have been considered reasonably effective, at least.

A unit performs credibly in 3 or 4 actions. Maybe it even performs exceptionally well in one. Then the unit goes to pot in an action. Was the unit an elite formation that just had an off day or was confronted by unusually difficult circumstances? Was the unit always questionable and finally ran into a situation or opponent that revealed it? Did the 71st perform better than the light battalion, the British Legion foot and the 17th in the late stages of Cowpens because it was an inherently better formation, or was it just because of how the the unit was used in the battle. This is why I shy away from classifying units as elite, regular or substandard.

Sorry. Typo. It should have been the 7th, not 17th

The 7th was right off the boat and marched right to the battle. They had no time to get acclimated or to train.
I guess they could be called sub-standard.

Bill N:

Isn't that what the uncertainty of dice rolling for firing, morale, etc. already put into a game> Just because a unit is rated elite in a game is no guarantee how they will perform. If you are unsure, watch me the next time I play and roll consistently low numbers for firing and morale. LoL

Yes, historically, if there is enough information, we can emphatically say that some units performed consistently better than others – though never 100% of the time. They were only humnan, after all.

For the Guards at GCH – they marched exhaustively during the campaign, marched the morning of the battle, had little to nothing to eat prior, go into battle against three lines in wooded terrain, and win. Yeah, I'd say that was a pretty good unit. But to steal a phrase from my friend Rich H's games, they were spent after that. It should be noted too that the Guard rotated troops and officers in and out during the war – not unlike some of the troops rotations happening in modern day.

The problem with the Hessian Grenadier battalions is that there is that they rarely ever engagaed en masse during the war. Likely scary has heck to see this slow, dense, imposing line coming at you – but plenty of time to get away – which is what the American army did consistently during the war. That proved to be a pretty good strategy as it turned out. :-)

The 7th Regt of Foote had to be the single unluckiest unit in the British Army during the AWI.

It is interesting that their final demize at Cowpens was under a pumped up cavalry officer – who had just been a Cornet a few years prior – that was 20-some years old, and had no infantry combat experience. Gee. What could go wrong with that plan? LoL

You mentioned that the Guards at Guildford Courthouse, "They are only one battalion, plus separate Light and Grenadier companies (oversized)."

The returns for Cornwallis army had the Brigade if Guards at two line battalions and a light and Grenadier company. Checking with material sent to me by my old friend Jay Callahan of the 4th company of Guards he confirms this.
I suspect auto correct changed that on you.

Hey, I know Jay. I was just PMing with him on FB yesterday. Great guy. :-)

I'm at work, so I'd have to check the OB. I want to say that the Guards were down to one battalion at that point through attrition, or perhaps shown as one for game purposes (depending on the scale you are playing). Again, I'd have to check my materials.

The Guards already had grenadier companies, but they formed a Light company for service in N America. BG scenario lets you play the two flank companies separately, or combined into a flank battalion.

(post post edit) Upon further reflection, you may be right. I might have been confusing the Guards with the 71st, who was down to one battalion at GCH.

I really need to get a blog post up so I can cross-post photos of some my games here. I did a GCH set up at one of the HMGS cons a while ago and got some high praise for the game from a former NPS ranger who worked at GCH National Park. I made game specific trees (March – no leaves), and fields proportioned to the units placed on the game board.

One shouldn't compare Rall's regiment with a converged battalion.

One shouldn't use incorrect terms to describe a composite or provisional unit.

Why? Is the grammer police lurking on these pages? LoL

Next time you talk with Jay please say hello to him from Mark. Thank you!

"Why? Is the grammer police lurking on these pages? LoL"

Well said sir!

I will. :-)

One shouldn't compare Rall's regiment with a converged battalion.

One shouldn't use incorrect terms to describe a composite or provisional unit.

Do you mean to say that every single book I've read (I admit I don't have as many as you do) that used the word "converged" is WRONG??? Surely you can't be serious?
Shaken, I Googled "converged Grenadier battalion", and I found more links than a could shake a stick at. And none of them were (spit on floor three times while rotating widdershins) Wikipedia!

Would you care to elaborate?

"Oh boy, I shouldn't have had that second cup of coffee"

At least to me, they all seem modern shorthand to describe period ad hoc units. Their period names were completely different. I am not aware of any period writings referring to them as converged, composite, or provisional – though I'd have to check on that.

The converged/composite/provisional Light and Grenadier battalions were simply referred to as the 1st, 2nd, etc. The Hessian grenadier battalions were referred to by their commander's name at the time (which often changed during the war).

So what really is the point of dickering over modern jargon to describe these units?

If it's just a one-ups man game, then count me out. You published a book on the period. Well done. But I am pretty sure if you went around to well know period authors (Hagist, Urwin, Troiani, McGuire, Schnitzer, etc.), museums and battlefield parks they would know my name before yours. That said, that and $5 USD gets us both a cup of coffee at Starbucks. :-)

I think that John is on the right track bout the Rall regiment and its origins. He got me thinking, and reaching for some books this morning. Here is what I found:

"The landgrenadier Regiment Rall, by contrast, was formed not of hardened deserters but callow farm Mars. Although the soldiers wore Grenadier caps and there were six axemen per company as in the grenadier battalions, Rall's was not formed of elite flank companies. Rather, it had originated in 1703 when the best men of the landmiliz regiments were drawn together and called, rather logically, A land Grenadier battalion. In 1760 when the landmiliz became garrison regiments, the Landgrenadier became in effect one of the field regiments. It still betrayed its origins in the militia: for accounting, its finances were reckoned with those of the garrison regiments: more of its men were furloughed than in the other field regiments: and the Hannoverians reported that its men were the smallest of the first division, …."

Although they also made a very favorable impression.
"they are however in surprising forwardness: which is owing to the activity and cleverness of their Colonel, who is one of the best officers of his rank, in the Landgrave's army."

Atwood, Rodney. The Hessian: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution.

So good for you John and thank you for posting. You add a lot here. Thank you.
Cambridge University press, 1980.

"Jim never has a second cup of coffee at home."

>The 7th was right off the boat and marched right to the battle. They had no time to get acclimated or to train.
I guess they could be called sub-standard.

Guy who has done a lot of study on this and belongs to the living history unit said this is a bit of a misnomer--the battalion was made up of experienced soldiers, many of whom had been exchanged from earlier captures. It was more how Tarleton handled them that got them screwed up.

Is the grammer police lurking on these pages?

No-it isn't about grammar. It is using an incorrect term to denote a military unit.

It is the same as denoting dragoons as 'medium cavalry. Neither term existed.

Ah, Atwood…. Another on TbS agrees on it being the go to for most questions concerning Hessians.

"leg 'er down a smack 'em yak 'em!"

Why did I get so many hits when I googled "converged Grenadier battalion"?

From Kronoskaf:
link
Are you implying that Kronoskaf doesn't know what it's talking about?

Isn't that what the uncertainty of dice rolling for firing, morale, etc. already put into a game> Just because a unit is rated elite in a game is no guarantee how they will perform.

You are absolutely correct Historygamer. I guess the way I would put it is this. It is not unreasonable for the worst unit on its best day to outperform the best unit on its worst day. It comes down to identifying which units should start out getting a bump up in their starting point and how much of a bump up should they get. In my experience this can generate a great deal of debate.

Ah, Kronoskaf…. Another fine site for information.

"Pray to J I did the same-ol', same-ol'!"

John, I am reluctant to go far in discussing the 7th without access to all sources. The 7th was rebuilt after Canada in 1775, served with Clinton in 1777 and came south with Clinton in 1780. When Clinton went back to New York the regiment stayed in South Carolina where it was worn down mostly by disease while in garrison duty. It got some replacements around the end of 1780. How many of those replacements were with the half of the regiment that fought at Cowpens is something I don't know.

Well, Bill N, like Samwell Tarly "I read it in a book."

From your post on 28 October 2020
"French converged Grenadier units question." Topic

The military term is 'provisional' unless anyone can find the term 'converged' in any publication on the subject.

I don't know here is a piece from an esteemed military author and historian, George Nafziger with a Phd.

"Converged Grenadier Division: General de division Oudinot (21,388 men)"

Borrowed from the following site:

link

The Nafziger Collection, Inc. is a publishing company that specializes in military history. It has been in business since 1990 and currently produces about 450 titles ranging from general military history, army organizations, tactics, military memoirs, and operational analysis.

Cant trust Nafziger, can't trust Kronoskaf.
Who can you trust? (He asked rhetorically.)

I knew I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue…

HG, I would love to see your blog. I'd probably get to see some folks I don't get to see anymore.

I agree, on TbS it's well understood, the terms "provisional" and "converged". I'm not sure where the lack of understanding comes into play here. Neither are improperly classifying a temporary or ad hoc organization.

If a "converged" unit remains permanently so configured, then that doesn't mean that the subunits that comprise it no longer have any affiliation to their parent unit.

Rall's Regiment was neither provisional nor converged.

The other battalions of Hessian grenadiers were.

Perhaps someone has had too much exposure to banana oil or Humbrol paints?

Eric

Eric, with me it's Dullcote.
I love the smell of Dullcote in the morning. It smells like Completed Figures! (Except for the flocking.)

7th VA;
Please submit a warning note before posting such a portrait.

I spit up my tea (the stuff Les Bostonais didn't pitch into the Harbour) when I saw that.

Brilliant.

Eric

Either this place got more fun or those 20 hour work days are starting to catch up with me.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

MiniPigs said: "Why? Who has time to game a forgone conclusion?"

Historygamer said: I've played and run a lot of Rev War games. Don't recall too many being a foregone conclusion. You seem to be jumping to conclusions yourself here.

Historygamer had just said before: I really like how British Grenadier models the German troops – as second rate, more prone to be slow and always fussing about their formations (via the DPs they accumulate and how they have to get rid of them before engaging in combat).

No, I am not jumping to conclusions but, astonishingly, it looks like there is a struggle with what a "foregone conclusion" might be. I take responsibility for what I say and think before I say it; Standard practice for me but sadly not for everyone.

I have no experience with the Napoleonic period, so I can't comment on rules I don't know about. Unlike some others. :-)

I agree completely. Having read BG rules several times over, knowing what they are derived from, how they operate and the sort of petty classifications the author was obsessed with, I can deduce that the game boils down to a dreary grocery list and provides an experience akin to watching paint dry.

I admitted that that might very well be a historical reenactment but that it wasn't calculated, outside of dedicated enthusiasts, to get people with little free time to also get enthusiastic about the period. If that isn't a concern of someone, god bless 'em but if they are going to gt defensive when someone challenges their tenets, they have to ask themselves how solid is their faith in what BG rules provide? Apparently, to ask questions is to attack the ego.

As a possible new entrant to the rules and in the interest of keeping an open mind, I thought I was giving British Grenadier rules proponents a chance to express positive aspects of the rules. Apparently, aside from the suggestion that someone really isn't an intellectual unless they submit themselves to repetitive tedium there really aren't any.

Certainly, the most glossed over issue is the almost utter lack of reviews for the rules including by the author himself. But, if there is one thing Ive learned on here, it's that when inconvenient, data isn't data.

MiniPigs said: "Among other issues, an over concern with troop rating is going to degrade game experience and condemn it to a predictable result."

Historygamer said: So I assume the rules you use (which apparently you don't have any) rate all the troops the same? So your rules rate militia as equal to grenadiers? Interesting. Not very historical, but interesting.

Is this is your approach to the role of "teacher"? It may or may not be interesting but it isn't what I said.

Then might I suggest you play the rules set Charge! They are ahistorical, do not represent any real countries, only period flavor. Sounds like that is the type of rules and the type of game you are looking for, not ones based upon historical armies.

I think I will pass on your recommendation, thanks. Over a week or more you have been protective of these BG rules but unable to explain what its merits are beyond a reenactment experience which doesn't really cover what all wargamers want; only the ones that like to believe they aren't using toy soldiers but are engaging in something far more serious.

I can't comment on the AWI games you (don't) run

Riiiight. This seems a recurring theme. Your idea that the intellectual is deeply mired in the physical is interesting in and of itself.

Lot's of people play the Alamo too.

Undoubtedly. However, the true question is whether lots of people play the Alamo every time they meet, game after game, year after year?

I think I will pass on your recommendation, thanks. Over a week or more you have been protective of these BG rules but unable to explain what its merits are beyond a reenactment experience which doesn't really cover what all wargamers want; only the ones that like to believe they aren't using toy soldiers but are engaging in something far more serious.

I can play the cut and paste game too.
Protective? To me, they're saying they like to play it. No more. And I see no need to demand that they explain themselves.

Not all wargamers want what I play either. I play a modified TSATF. Some may say it has no "AWI flavor". That doesn't bother me at all. To me it does. Look at all the tricornes!

You seem determined to attack BG merely to attack those who like to play it. Although I like it simple, I would play it. I'd rather have an experienced player run the game instead of me. I'm terrible at running new rules. An unexpected situation freezes me. Let someone else, patiently, do the heavy lifting.

So. What DO you play? Are you prepared to die on that hill defending it? Then don't expect others to die for theirs. Play what you want. Be happy in your work.