What do we think of "The Patriot"?

by **Pat Holscher** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:11 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by verg
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by verg
 
Jaeger zu Pferd (Hesse Cassel) t
Dragoon Regiment Prinz Luedwig (Bruswick) r
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd be particularly interested in knowing anything about these units as I was unaware that any of the German mercenary outfits in the Revolutionary War were mounted. Here we have a troop and a regiment.

Anybody know anything about these outfits?

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dear Pat,

A few tidbits for you:

Dragoon Regiment Prinz Luedwig (Brunswick) They arrived in Quebec in '76 and served on Gentleman Johnny's (Burgoyne) stroll through New York. They got whacked at Bennington . . . lost over 150 men. Most of the survivors surrendered after Saratoga. The ones that got away made it back to Canada and sent for additional drafts. They had almost reached full strength again by '79. Returned home to Germany in '83. They wore light blue coats faced yellow. The C.O.'s wife wrote about her experiences after the war. (v. Riedesel) She was a real LADY.

Jaeger zu Pferd (Mounted Jaegers) Served throughout most of the Middle and Northern campaigns. Possibly some in the Southern. Very visible in the Phiadelphia and New Jersey campaigns. Ewald (in his memoirs - in and out of print) mentions them quite a bit. Accounts of them also show up in the British Dragoon reports and in some general field reports. Green coats with red (rose) facings.

Yours,

JP

http://www.replications.com/17LD
"The 17th Light Dragoons in North America"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

JP, sorry I managed to miss this post while typing out my last series of questions.

Interesting information. What an interesting topic, and one that you do not see that much information on.

Pat

by **Joseph Sullivan** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 10:04 pm

DOn't know the details, but some stayed for sure. I have a lifelong friend whose Revolutionary War ancestor was a Hessian. For some reason, she does not qualify for the DAR.

Joe

by **Pat Holscher** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:17 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan
 DOn't know the details, but some stayed for sure. I have a lifelong friend whose Revolutionary War ancestor was a Hessian. For some reason, she does not qualify for the DAR.

Joe
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's unfortunate. Seems like a guy ought to get credit, even if he only joined the team belatedly, or after the fact. In some ways, sticking around in those circumstances shows, potentially, quite a bit of courage.

Pat

by **Light Dragoon** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:15 am

Mr. Novicki (verg), I wanted to let you know that after perusing your 17th LD site, I am most impressed with your unit. You and your fellows seem to have done an excellent job with your impression, and I salute you for it. Good Work! And thanks for posting Hinde as well. I have a much-xeroxed copy I made from one I borrowed from Bob Allegretto... nice to see a legible version out there!

Thanks,

Gordon

"After God, we owe our Victory to our Horses"

Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada, 1543

by **Kelton Oliver** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:01 am

This is perhaps an academic point, but I think an important one. The Hessians are often referred to as "mercenaries" which they were not. They were regular troops of the principality of Hesse who were sent to North America to help put down the rebellion at the request of the king of England, who was also the king of Hanover and a cousin of the ruler of Hesse. It is true that the English government paid for the use of the troops, but the money went to the prince of Hesse, not to the soldiers who received only their regular pay.

by **Camp Little** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:45 am

Immigration by desertion was pretty common. I have another ancestor who had a bounty out on his head for deserting the British army during the American Revolution. Imagine that, an Irishman deserting the British army once he gets to America. We have a photocopy of the listing, it's quite a hoot.

by **Pat Holscher** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:07 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kelton Oliver
 This is perhaps an academic point, but I think an important one. The Hessians are often referred to as "mercenaries" which they were not. They were regular troops of the principality of Hesse who were sent to North America to help put down the rebellion at the request of the king of England, who was also the king of Hanover and a cousin of the ruler of Hesse. It is true that the English government paid for the use of the troops, but the money went to the prince of Hesse, not to the soldiers who received only their regular pay.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As the person who used the term mercenary here, I fully agree, and I was in need of correction.

Mercenary really means that a person is a "soldier of fortune", selling his status as a soldier to any cause for personal gain. There have been mercenaries since time in memorial, but troops in a standing army whose nation sends them off to war are not mercenaries. And payment to various nations for the use of troops is not entirely uncommon in any era.

I'm frankly a real novice on the Revolution. I was aware of the family connection, but I was unaware of how it actually worked. I'm glad Kelton came in and corrected me on this point.

On the term "mercenary" as used here, I wonder how far back that goes. In most eras mercenaries have been generally regarded as disreputable, and I wonder if this term was attached to the Hessians early as a means of slandering them, essentially.

What a bummer for the Hessian enlisted man. German speaking, serving is a principality that has no real dog in the fight, and sent off to an English speaking colony on the other side of the world.

Pat

by **Pat Holscher** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:09 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Camp Little
 Immigration by desertion was pretty common. I have another ancestor who had a bounty out on his head for deserting the British army during the American Revolution. Imagine that, an Irishman deserting the British army once he gets to America. We have a photocopy of the listing, it's quite a hoot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Which unit did he desert from?

Pat

by **Camp Little** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:04 pm

I don't have much to go on that. The only reference is the name of the officer that posted the bounty. I'll have to go home to find the photocopy in a family history.

Referring back to the "mercenary" tag, same goes in the particular family history I've referred to (done in the 70's). This ancestor (one Owen Cawlfield) was referred to as a mercenary, but given he was Irish and serving in the British Army, mercenary wouldn't fit at all. The recruiting sergeant would go from town to town offering 3 squares and steady pay to those who would answer the King's call, pretty common means throughout history to recruit an army.

by **Kelton Oliver** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:06 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
What a bummer for the Hessian enlisted man. German speaking, serving is a principality that has no real dog in the fight, and sent off to an English speaking colony on the other side of the world.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I can't remember the source, but I once read that the desertion rate among the Hessians was alarmingly high in the areas populated by German-speaking immigrants. Hmmm...pretty German girls, lots of rich land, relatively few intrusive laws on the one hand and the strict and ascetic life of the Hessian/British army on the other.

by **Pat Holscher** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:29 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kelton Oliver
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
What a bummer for the Hessian enlisted man. German speaking, serving is a principality that has no real dog in the fight, and sent off to an English speaking colony on the other side of the world.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I can't remember the source, but I once read that the desertion rate among the Hessians was alarmingly high in the areas populated by German-speaking immigrants. Hmmm...pretty German girls, lots of rich land, relatively few intrusive laws on the one hand and the strict and ascetic life of the Hessian/British army on the other.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I did a little digging around and was surprised by the results on this. Apparently the desertion rate of Hessian soldiers was huge. It apparently can't be determined with accuracy, but the estimates vary from 5,000 to 6,000 troops, out of 17,000 Hessian ems, deserted. The official history has a much lower rate, but that isn't surprising. Also, this apparently includes troops who were paroled after capture while in the US, or actually had a term of service expire while in the US. Or so the material I was looking at indicated.

Also of interest, there was apparently at least a bit of an effort on the part of the US to encourage Hessian desertion, including some propoganda directed at them. Prisoners were sometimes apparently allowed to work the fields with German speaking Americans, which no doubt emphasized the factors noted by Kelton. The fact that most were probably not well off economically, and were placed with friendly German speaking American farmers, and that they were young, no doubt convinced quite a few that their fortunes were better off in the US than back in Germany.

Here's a list of Hessian descendants which discusses Hessian desertion.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/A ... NS/2001-04

Pat

by **Philip S** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 5:55 pm

I know two local people who had Hessian ancestors. In both cases they (the ancestor) was given land to settle on by the British. In one case it was locally here in central PA in the other the land was in Ohio. Obviously this would have had to been before the British surrender.

by **Pat Holscher** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:27 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Philip S
 I know two local people who had Hessian ancestors. In both cases they (the ancestor) was given land to settle on by the British. In one case it was locally here in central PA in the other the land was in Ohio. Obviously this would have had to been before the British surrender.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

One of the internet items I read indicated that part of the difficulty in determining the number of deserters is that some of the Hessians were discharged in the colonies at he expiration of their term of service. Apparently they could simply take their discharges where they were. This might be the case here.

Interesting how that must have worked, in that they stayed on in a country which they were lately fighting.

All in all, in reviewing this, it would appear that the British may not have gotten that great of a bargain in the Hessian troops. They might not really have been worth the investment, in light of what would appear to be a fairly lackluster, at least in some cases, attitude towards the war.

Pat

by **Lee F. McGee** » Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:47 am

Steve,
I had an ancestor in the Third Dragoons as well. I've been researching them for some time, with a few others specifically interested in the Regiment.
We've done some work on the Massacre.
Feel free to email me.
Lee F. McGee
lmcgee@bee.net

by **Camp Little** » Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:22 am

Thanks, I'll send you an e-mail in a bit. I've had some good contact with the Bergen County, NJ Historical Society and sent them my ancestor's service records and pension requests. They have a Massacre site commemoration planned this fall along with some Revolutionary War events.

Steve

by **Pat Holscher** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:38 am

A rerun, given the season.

Pat

by **Beck** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:12 pm

Kind of off topic but related to Hessians: I wonder if there is any relation between the Hessian Col. Rall who surrendered to Washington at Trenton, then died of wounds received and the German Luftwaffe General Gunther Rall who served Hitler in WWII?

Beck

-I came not to educate but to be educated-

by **Subotai** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:29 pm

Greetings All,

Light Dragoon's post on page one of this thread is right on. The slaughter that occurred in the south during our Revolutionary War was something similar to what we would now expect out of the Balkans. Perhaps it was because the southern countryside then was more rural and seemingly not as "advanced". Another hypothesis is that a large portion of the rural population was Celtic - Scotch Irish - and there was little love lost between the local backwoods population and the British. The Celtic demographics then and now show a higher rate of violence to settle disputes than in the north. Again this holds true up to our present time. It was either Time, Newsweek or US Snooze and World Report that actually did an article on the presence of Celtic people on the North American Continent a number of years ago [if memory serves as to the pub]. One of the proofs offered of the hypothesis was that 50% of the ~ 70 Medals of Honor awarded during the Korean Conflict were awarded to men of Celtic descent. In short then the Revolutionary War in the south was by no means the more gentlemanly war being fought up north.

Furthermore, one of the lessons learned from the recent failure of the movie "The Alamo" is that if people with a specific interest in that particular era of history are hyper critical of the movie because the hats were not quite right or there were a couple of the wrong type muskets that could be seen, the word gets out and others of similar interest decide not to go. This can kill the income of the movie and Hollywood is not inclined to make more of that genre. While not all of the economic failure of the "The Alamo" can be laid to this cause, never the less, it was a significant factor in its lack of success at the box office.

Therefore we need to remember that movies are entertainment and Hollywood will always sacrifice historical accuracy for what the director perceives to be entertainment value. This occurs even in History Channel shows. When I was the historical cavalry advisor for the HC show on Alexander the Great, I had to contend with the director's insistence that the Macedonians would always move from left to right across the screen and the Persians from right to left. This didn't always match up with the flow of the actual battles and as a result, historical accuracy was the casualty. Same same with Macedonian horse equipments. We know what color the Companion Cavalry used for their saddle cloths and cloaks and what color the Thessalian heavy cavalry used for their stuff. Because the Persians perceived the Macedonians to be barbarians, the director insisted that the Macedonians must needs appear more earthy and so we had to use dull monotone colors for the Macedonians.

So in short, if you don't want to see any historical movies made, be very critical of them and discourage people from going to see them. This isn't disrespectful sarcasm, it is simple truth. If a movie makes big money, more of its genre will be made.

As far as the history Channel goes, it is very receptive to letters and emails from viewers. The HC engages various production companies to make it shows. Naturally the production companies want to make a lot of shows so they generally pitch a series - like Wild West Tech, now going into its third season. Once the series is locked on, there is a tendency in the production company to scrimp and save here and there. This results in battle scenes that look a bit contrived or light as to participants. That is because one of the ways they increase profit is to not hire as many reenactors ["talent" in local parlance] - counting on computer graphics and skillful editing to make it appear as if thousands are involved. Your letters and emails to the HC can keep the pressure on the production companies to keep the quality up.

Terroriferi delende est,

Jeffrey S. Wall

by **Pat Holscher** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:48 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Subotai
 [size=3][font=Book Antiqua]Greetings All,

Light Dragoon's post on page one of this thread is right on. The slaughter that occurred in the south during our Revolutionary War was something similar to what we would now expect out of the Balkans. Perhaps it was because the southern countryside then was more rural and seemingly not as "advanced". Another hypothesis is that a large portion of the rural population was Celtic - Scotch Irish - and there was little love lost between the local backwoods population and the British. The Celtic demographics then and now show a higher rate of violence to settle disputes than in the north. Again this holds true up to our present time. It was either Time, Newsweek or US Snooze and World Report that actually did an article on the presence of Celtic people on the North American Continent a number of years ago [if memory serves as to the pub]. One of the proofs offered of the hypothesis was that 50% of the ~ 70 Medals of Honor awarded during the Korean Conflict were awarded to men of Celtic descent. In short then the Revolutionary War in the south was by no means the more gentlemanly war being fought up north.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know that I'd really agree with that. Although up until quite recently, I would have held that this sort of thing was in fact unique to the Southern war. This is why I somewhat dissent.

It is true, of course, that in certain regions of the south the war turned into a near guerilla war of competing groups of Loyaist vs. Rebels. But I think the explanations would be found elsewhere.

I don't think that it would be because the South was more rural than the north at the time of the American Revolution. All 13 colonies, and Canada, were heavily rural at the time. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Americans were rural, and even professionals were often rural.

The industrialization, even the early industrialization, we associate with the North is really something that got rolling after the American Revolution, not before it. Britain had generally kept any sort of significant industry out of the Colonies for that matter, which was one of the many American complaints. This was because Britain wanted to favor, naturally, British industry and use the Colonies prinicipally for materials.

So, at that time, I think the South and North would have been pretty much equally rural. Indeed New York City, which I think was the largest city in the Colonies at that time, had less than 50,000 residents in it. It was considered to be huge, but London at that time already had something like 1,000,000 residents. British troops regarded Americans as real bumpkins, as they were so rural. It would be true, however, that the rural South was already of a different character than the rural North, so perhaps there is something to that.

The historic tendancy of Southerns to use violence to settle disputes is usually attibutable other developments, albeit still early ones, rather than their ancestry. The usual explanation is that as the South remained agrarian after the war, and the North developed, individual Southern farms had to rely more on themselves to protect their interest. But at the time of the American Revolution, and for some time after it, the same exaggerated code of "honor" still existed throughout the entire country. Duelling was still going on everywhere, although it was illegal nearly everywhere. Still, witness that the country's most famous duel was between Hamilton and Burr, who were both, I think, New Yorkers. We probably associate this more with Southerners, however, as after the American Revolution the north began to devlope differently, and so the honor code remained in the very agrarian South. I've seen the claim that it's due to the ancestry in the South, but I sort of doubt it myself. But perhaps the opposite can be maintained. Certainly gang violence in New York, in the 19th Century, was heavily Celtic.

As part of this, however, it really isn't accurate, as we often believe, to imagine that the war in the South was uniquely fratricidal. Actually it was equally so in the Northeast, it is just that the armies had more of a presence so it developed differently. However, many of the displaced Loyalist that ended up in Canada were refugees from New England. In both Boston and New York there were real pockets of intense Loyality to the Crown. In New Jersey British, Hessian, and Loyalist were responsible for real atrocities they all blamed on each other.

So, while I don't know that its the case, I wonder if the focus on this aspect of the war in the South is perhaps inaccurate, but very widespread, and in fact these tendancies were everywhere. Being tendancies, I also wonder if the fact that so much of the significant fighting, and therefore the significant masses of troops, were centered in the Northeast tended to keep private warfare down, or disguise it where it did occur.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Furthermore, one of the lessons learned from the recent failure of the movie "The Alamo" is that if people with a specific interest in that particular era of history are hyper critical of the movie because the hats were not quite right or there were a couple of the wrong type muskets that could be seen, the word gets out and others of similar interest decide not to go. This can kill the income of the movie and Hollywood is not inclined to make more of that genre. While not all of the economic failure of the "The Alamo" can be laid to this cause, never the less, it was a significant factor in its lack of success at the box office.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is that the case? Americans have usually tolerated movies with huge errors of that type. While movies with very high accuracy are often praised, I wonder how much of a differance it makes to most movie goers. Not much, I suspect.

I fear, rather, that the thing that makes a movie like The Alamo fail is that it stuck more or less to what occured, which isn't what people imagine. People imagine the John Wayne version of the battle, and they are so familiar with it that a movie that sticks to the basic story will be dull by comparison.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
When I was the historical cavalry advisor for the HC show on Alexander the Great, I had to contend with the director's insistence that the Macedonians would always move from left to right across the screen and the Persians from right to left. This didn't always match up with the flow of the actual battles and as a result, historical accuracy was the casualty. Same same with Macedonian horse equipments.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As most of us like movies, it would be intersting to know your experiences on that project.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So in short, you don't want to see any historical movies made, be very critical of them and discourage people from going to see them. This isn't disrespectful sarcasm, it is simple truth. If a movie makes big money, more of its genre will be made.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again, I wonder how much of it is criticism, and how much of it is jut competiton for a mostly teenaged audience.

What's remarkable is that there have been some big successes in this area recently. Saving Private Ryan is probably the best example. It did have a high degree of accuracy, a good story, and flowed well. TV's Band of Brothers would be another good example.

It'd be intersting to see if something like that could be done with one of the various cavalry related stories that are out there, but I suspect it's tough. For one thing, most of the 20th Century cavalry topics would not be American ones, and movie producers are very reluctant to take on a 20th Century military topic here if it doesn't involve the US. I think that's an error, as past history shows that an American audience will in fact go to a movie with low or no American connection. And perhaps the Punitive Expedition offers some topics of interest that would make good films.

On that, while it's probably rude of me to say so, if anyone does take on a 20th Century US cavalry topic, I hope it isn't TNT. For some reason, TNT manages to get a lot of really good actors, and really good detail people, to work on a project, and then make it dull. I like some of their productions, but they all tend to suffer from this, making it the case that only somebody really interested in the topic will watch it. And they also feel compelled to interject a moral lesson in everything, which isn't really necessary for the most part either.

Pat

by **Pat Holscher** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:31 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
 
As most of us like movies, it would be intersting to know your experiences on that project.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

On this, I'd note that Gordon did post a thread on this topic once. I was unaware that anyone else did this sort of work here. Working on a movie on ancient history would be quite a project, I'd guess.

Anyhow, a new thread on this and the challenges it presents to the historically minded might be interesting.

Pat


	Board index ‹ Public Discussions ‹ Reviews & Commentary Change font size Print view


	Who is online Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


	Board index The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 6 hours

What do we think of "The Patriot"?

Who is online