Talk:Hessian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Can someone merge the two articles I pasted? Thanks, Greenmountainboy 18:30, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about some more about the actual tibe asside from their role in the us war?

Contents

[edit] Hessian Mercenaries

I think this article should be retitled Hessian mercienaries since it is most definiately NOT about the tribe.

Agreed. As it stands one imagines club-wielding Goths in the American War of Independence. Was there in fact ever a tribe? Jameswilson 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that, but I have no idea about the (re-)naming policy here. As for the tribe... since I'm not a native speaker: What would you call people from different states (in America) or a counties (in England)? Since 1945, Hessen is a German Bundesland. As far as I know (and the German wikipedia article tells me), the name "Hessen" derives from the Chatten/Katten, which where a tribe that existed during Roman times. Tierlieb 08:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
People from different counties/states? I cant think of any particular general word in English for that - just "people", "inhabitants". Anyway, what you write about Chatten/Katten confirms that "tribe" is definitely the wrong word here. Jameswilson 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Why would "tribe" be the wrong word? German uses the same word Stamm (pl Stämme) for the various German tribes and for American Indian tribes as well, for instance. Chatten, Franks, Merovingians, Frisians aren't seen as "nations", but as "tribes". Also, the article should keep the title "Hessians", since every American connects this word with the German auxilliaries in the Revolutionary War...which this article is aboutKar98 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Because Europeans stopped being described as "tribes" around 800-1000AD. Hessians in the context of the eighteenth century just means "people from Hesse" - they hadnt been living in a tribal set-up for 800 years/1000 years(?). By then, the word tribe was only used to describe so-called primitive peoples in Africa, North America, the hill country of India, etc. So yes the Chatten were a tribe, but not their descendants, the Hessians of the eighteenth or twentieth centuries.
Except the preface to the Weimar constitution (that would be 1919) begins with "The German nation, united in her tribes..." (Das Deutsche Volk, einig in seinen Stämmen...)Kar98 13:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In the case of the Frisians, the word has not changed. But "people from Friesland" would be very surprised to be described as a tribe nowadays (or in the 18th century), even though their ancestors fifteen hundred years ago certainly were. Jameswilson 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
What about 'German Mercenaries' with an inclusion of reference to Hessian? The problem is that Hessian is time-specific and this article only deals with one time period and group of a much larger topic. What about the KGL during the Napoleonic Wars, for instance? Or Germanic troops in the service of France, Britain, Spain, etc. Nick Kerr 13:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean but it was probably inevitable that the Hessians would be the first to get an article to fulfil a link from the American War of Independence. Strangely the Mercenaries page ignores this period altogether. Jameswilson 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we move the article over then to a new section (agreeing on a name first) and modify it to include a greater sense of historic context. Also, should we include the Swiss, since they provided a large number of Germanic regiments for foreign service, especially with France. Nick Kerr 15:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the changing of names might be apropriate. But were these troops mercenaries or (as the text suggest) conscripts? Seems like a contradiction in terms: conscript-serving for duty, mercenary-serving for pay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Objectication

This article needs to seriously objectified and information available after 1913 needs to be used. German troops seem to be portrayed in a slave mentality, while the Americans are 'revolutionaries'. The reality of the situation was that German troops were hired for £7 per capita from a prince, and would then be kept at the expense of HM Government. This arrangement was beneficial to both parties, and while it may not be understood in modern times, it was an established way of doing things during the Age of Reason and beyond. I'll try to get around to this when I can. Nick Kerr 10:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The German troops described in the article have been slaves, in the sense that their lives and their bodies belonged to their princes and could be sold as their various princes saw fit. And by the way, the sum of seven Pound Sterling was paid by the British crown to the German princes and counts for every Hessian killed or every 3 wounded.Kar98
This does not contradict issue of objectivity. If conscription is defined as slavery, then US and British troops who have served as conscripts in the 20th Century should be classified as slaves. Military service as a form of punishment (either voluntarily to avoid prison or through specific court order) should be considered slavery. Similarly, German soldiers now are slaves, unless they are volunteers in the Bundesheer. This all may be true, but the normative definition is not relevent, the point is that the term slavery and the use of modern ethics is inappropriate. Nick Kerr 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Except that potential Bundeswehr recruits can refuse to serve in the armed forces, recruiters aren't roaming the countryside to press-gang young males into the army and the German government doesn't hire out regiments to the highest foreign bidder to increase their revenue. The point is that the term slavery is indeed appropriate; and why is the use of modern ethics appropriate for black slavery, but not when whites are the subject of involuntary servitude? Also, I don't see why you'd call that a biased American view. Kar98 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Germans can join another form of national service (not just the armed forces), but a Bundesheer soldier is still subject to military requirements and has not volunteered to be subject to national service. You are missing the point. Slavery is involuntary and confers a concept of property on the individual, without any concept of voluntary service or the ability to retire after such service. Similarly, slaves produce transferable labour with their children and their wives would be owned if they were slaves. You are trying to say that involuntary service is slavery, whereas British soldiers during WWII were mostly conscripts, but they were not 'slaves'. The British Army throughout the Age of Reason used non-PC methods of recruitment, including enforced service (such as through magistrate ordered service), but it was not an 'army of slaves'. Further, regiments were transferable through the purchase system, yet the men in the regiments were not being sold as slaves, but rather the unit was transferable under the purchase system. As for biased American views, that is the case if every time something that conflicts with American ideology is put into an American perspective. The purchase system and mercenaries, as well as 'volunteers', existed in the Age of Reason and Napoleonic period. The purchase system lasted in Britain until the late Victorian period, the concept of using foreigners and involuntary soldiers became less frequent, but still continued in varying forms into the 20th Century. The point is that there is a NPOV way to state this, and there is a way of just saying it's 'slavery' and talking about how bad everything was.Nick Kerr 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point entirely. We're not talking about Brits in WW2, we're talking about Germans during the Revolutionary War. Different period, different circumstances. And yes, German Leibeigene did "produce transferable labour with their children and their wives would be owned if they were slaves". That's what Leibeigene means, literally. They were property. A recruit of the German Bundeswehr (Austria has a Bundesheer) can look forward to an end of his service after 9 months. A German Leibeigener knew he, and his descendants would remain property of their count, baron, duke, prince. In some areas of the German-speaking world, this practice continued well into the 1950s! Read on! How were those people not slaves? Kar98 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have not missed the point, you're definition of a slave did not discard other forms of compulsion. Similarly, you're placing modern values onto a situation that is better described by use of the German (body-owned is a better translation than slave, should you even wish to translate it). Using a Swiss example that does not directly pertain to the issue is...interesting, but the children in question I presume got their rights at the age of maturity, otherwise Switzerland would have serious social problems indeed. I'm also aware what Austria has, as well as what Germany has, in fact, Germany also has a Bundesheer, as a sub-branch of the Bundeswehr. The point still remains that German auxiliaries were not Sklave, but Leibeigene, and while the old system of ownership may seem somewhat strange by modern comparison, it does not do justice to such times to just go on about them as if everything was bad and slavery pervailed.Nick Kerr 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What about we transfer the topic to a 'German auxiliaries' article, where we can provide a more detailed history and understanding of such forces, beyond just the American War of Independence, as well as have more information about both the achievements of such forces and their prediciments in life? I am not trying to delist their plight, but I do not think such a narrow section, nor one that attempts only to show their misery, does justice to a much more complicated topic.Nick Kerr 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
On the issue of Germany having a Bundesheer: No, sorry. The Bundeswehr divida est in partes tres, yes. These are called Heer, Marine and Luftwaffe (Army, Navy, Airforce), yes. But no, the Heer is never called Bundesheer (to avoid confusion the the Austrians, probably). Tierlieb 08:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note. One should definitelly not confuse slavery and servitude. Even with slavery one has to distinguish between the ancient form and african slavery. Simply put, african slavery was race based and children were indeed born into slavery. Ancient slavery on the other hand was not transmitted at birth and a slave could buy his own freedom (in theory the later period of african slavery also allowed this, in fact it was very rare). But back to the topic, I very much doubt the Hessians in question were serfs, certainly not exclusively serfs. The term mercenary is not ideal either (at least not in it's modern english sense), in modern terms they'd be soldiers (as in paid men). So yes, this sounds very much like a non-neutral POV. Lastly, I'd really like to hear which German state maintainned servitude till 1950, most I expect discarded this system between the french revolution and 1815.Caranorn --85.93.202.176 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hesse hessen

hello

im from germany/Hessen an i read some sentences

one person from hessian state is called Hesse die state is called Hessen

bye

[edit] Hessian captives

Could someone try and correct that note? Currently it says that 10,000 Hessians out of a force of 1,400 were captured. Obviously that cannot be correct. Unfortunately I have no idea what the correct numbers are.--Caranorn 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, so many numbers are faulty, that it's almost impossible not to laugh. Years are wrong. Out of a force of some 12.000 around 15.000 die!!! I'll edit some of the most obvious, but I have little info on many of the other numbers.--Nwinther 09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Numbers seemed okay a while back when I last read the entire article, I only noticed that entry on 10,000 captured out of 1,400. Maybe there is some massive buried vandalism.--Caranorn 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another number that appears to be wrong is the dates for the Convention Army and their release from Lancaster, PA. It says they where released in 1873? They where released 90 or so years after the war was over? Gitmo 19th century style?~~

That looks like a typo that was fixed a few days ago.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/s/Talk%7EHessian_8bc5.html"