Jump to content

Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

Hessians "mercenaries" or "auxiliaries"?

Referred to as "mercenaries" here without qualification, should that be changed in line with Hessian (soldier)#"Mercenaries" versus "auxiliaries"? Your comments please... Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There was discussion about this now in the archives which you might want to consult before proceeding. Certainly auxiliary is the correct term. The term mercenary was used by the American patriots to disparage them. I think neutrality requires us to call them what they were and to mention the popular usage of the term mercenary. Despite the negative coverage they received at the time, many of them would later become productive settlers in the U.S. and Canada. TFD (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Good Lord, what a can of worms! (see Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 24#Mercenaries v Auxiliaries) It seems that there was a majority in favour of keeping "mercenaries", but I still feel that there should be some mention of the other terminology. A bob-proof reference is required. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, this debate has come up frequently, in this and related articles. See also Talk:Germans_in_the_American_Revolution#Allies_or_mercenaries? or Talk:Hessian_(soldier)#Auxiliaries. My question continues to be: what term best represents the complex relationship to modern readers?
I don't think this debate will ever go away, so long as there are U.S. history textbooks. American perspectives on the war will always be over-represented on Wikipedia. Canute (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
We go with the published reliable sources. There is no dispute that the prince of Hesse made it a business to rent out his army to make a profit. The soldiers who enlisted knew what the business they were joining. see Charles W. Ingrao, The Hessian mercenary state: ideas, institutions, and reform under Frederick II, 1760-1785 (Cambridge University Press, 2003) excerpted here. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
If there was "no dispute," then we wouldn't have this never-ending debate on every relevant talk page. For a counter-argument, see Krebs, Daniel (2013) A Generous and Merciful Enemy. See pages 32-35 for an explanation of the term "mercenaries" and contemporary uses of it. Also see entire Chapter 2 for discussions on recruitment, which included mandatory service in the Kanton system, conscription, impressment, etc. In what modern sense are mercenaries (individuals or mercenary groups) forced into service? Canute (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: leave the article as is (i.e. retain all mentions of "mercenaries") but add a short sentence explaining the alternative description of the Germans as "auxilliaries", prehaps using the Krebs 2013 reference cited above. Your comments please. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The argument that we should call them mercenaries because that was what they are called doesn't seem to apply in most cases where the term is used in the article. For example, two mentions are about Great Britain employing mercenaries. In fact they remained in the employment of their monarchs, which is what distinguishes and auxiliary from a mercenary. So we should look at each reference individually. Oddly, the article says that the U.S. recruited French officers but doesn't call them mercenaries. At least two of the generals mentioned in the article, Lafayette and Von Steuben, were mercenaries, but the actual term is not applied to them. TFD (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
A couple points: 1) Mercenary fights for the money not for principle....Lafayette did not take any pay--he fought for the American independence. Steuben had been a mercenary in Europe where his sexuality got him in deep trouble, He was NOT paid in USA, where his sexuality was accepted. he stayed permanently in USA and did not move on to the next war in Europe. 2) from the viewpoint of British generals, it did not matter that Hessian units fought entirely for money (the £££ went to the Hessian ruler). The generals treated them as auxiliary forces (as opposed to men integrated into Btitish army).
If you get a chance to read the Krebs book I cited above, the author spends a bit of time on this distinction. Colonial revolutionaries drew a sharp contrast between the professional Soldiers who fought for money, in contrast to the "patriot" citizen-soldiers who fought for altruistic reasons. This plays largely into their description of German soldiers as "mercenaries," and is a nuance we've lost in most of our histories. Of course, this plays right into any number of jokes about the United States' inability to pay their own Soldiers. Canute (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
To the above proposal, I would recommend using the most neutral and accurate term possible in this article. There's far too much information we need to cover in this article without wasting any print on a neutrality debate. This article has links to both Hessian (soldier) and Germans_in_the_American_Revolution, and the debate can rage forever on those articles.
The text says, "To encourage French participation in the struggle for independence, the US representative in Paris, Silas Deane promised promotion and command positions to any French officer who joined the Continental Army. Although many proved incompetent, one outstanding exception was [dragoon captain] Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, whom Congress appointed a major General." while some of them might have been idealists, the appeal was to mercenaries. There were 12,000 French soldiers and 22,000 seamen.[1] TFD (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
On the question of which term is most neutral and accurate, I vote for "auxiliaries" over "mercenaries" because it more accurately reflects the relationships between the armies from different principalities to that of the United Kingdom. "Mercenary" implies many things to modern readers which can be misleading in the context of this article. I'll wait to see how others vote, but given the number of times we've had this debate, I think I know how this will go. 😉 Canute (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed at length before, and the term "Auxiliaries" smooths over one major definitive point, that the Hessians were hired by the British to fight in a war they had no vested interest in -- as do mercenaries. There are plenty of sources that refer to them as "mercenaries", and indeed the German state of Hesse was commonly referred to as the Mercenary state. That their usage in the war was defined by "international law" doesn't change the central theme to their capacity in that war. i.e.Hired soldiers. The French were volunteers and were happy to help the Americans fight a common enemy - they even made large loans to the Americans - and indeed, the American Revolution gave great impetus to the French Revolution which soon followed. The info box recently, up until May 21, 2021, had both auxiliaries and mercenary listed with a footnote that mentioned that the two terms were often used interchangeably in the sources that cover the Revolution, and it was done so by consensus. Here are a few sources found in the bibliography whose title mentions Mercenaries.

  • Atwood, 2002: The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution
  • Axelrod, 2014: Mercenaries: A guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies
  • Ingrao, 2003: The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform Under Frederick II, 1760-1785
  • Schmidth, 1958: The Hessian mercenaries: the career of a political cliche

Here is a list of sources that use the term mercenaries, also found in our bibliography. The info–box should list these terms in a neutral fashion, i.e. as Mercenaries/Auxiliaries, as it once did for some time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

With respect, whether German (Hessian or otherwise) Soldiers were paid is not the issue. All Soldiers were paid- the United States' inability to pay their Soldiers not withstanding. Yes, German Soldiers were branded as "mercenaries" by those who supported the revolutionaries, but it's very difficult to distinguish between German-speaking Soldiers who allied with the British from Spanish or French speaking Soldiers who allied with the United States, unless we're willing to take a partisan position.
But I think the question at hand is more simple. What is the best term to use to describe their military relationship, which is both accurate and neutral to Wikipedia readers? For example, when Axelrod (2014), which you listed above, writes a book about "Mercenaries," he's talking about private people and businesses that sell their services in war-related and security operations in modern times. He's not trying to explain late 18th century relations between Germanic states and the German kinds of Great Britain, or the role peasants played when they were conscripted by their prince to fight on another continent. Those are two very different topics, and most Wikipedia readers think of the former when they read the word "Mercenary." Canute (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
We've been through, and you're typically smoothing over the idea that the Hessians were not fighting in a war they cared much at all about. Mercenaries: Hired professional soldiers who will go anywhere they are paid to go -- regardless if they were hired by a private party or by a monarchy. To further distinguish the Hessians, they were sometimes hired out to two different countries that were at war with each other -- Hessian against Hessian. Yes, all soldiers are paid nominally -- the French volunteers however did not charge the Americans a gigantic sum of money, as did the Hessians with England. Again, there are numerous sources that use the term mercenary, listed above, and again, the info-box should mention both terms. That is a fair and neutral compromise we hacked out before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's hear the British voice on this matter: (a) In 1776 Edmund Burke wrote: “We disclaim also any sort of share in that other measure which is been used to alienate your affections from this country, namely, the introduction of foreign mercenaries. We saw their employment with shame and regret, especially in numbers so far exceeding the English forces and an as in effect to constitute vassals, who have no sense of freedom, and strangers, will have no common interest or feelings as the arbiters are unhappy domestic quarrel.” Edmund Burke, "Address to the British colonists in North America" (1776) (b) The standard British Annual Register" during the war years called the Hessians "mercenaries" in 70 different news stories. (David Murdoch, ed. Rebellion in America: A Contemporary British Viewpoint" (1977) reprints each story, see list p 1017..for example: "North presented the treaties with Brunswick and Hesse for the hire of 12,000 and 5,000 mercenaries on 29 February. The opposition attacked the treaties." (p 289). (c) later leading British historians called them "mercenaries": William Edward Hartpole Lecky: "The conduct of England in hiring German mercenaries to subdue the essentially English population beyond the Atlantic, made-reconciliation hopeless, and the Declaration of Independence inevitable." (d) Sir George Trevelyan, 2nd Baronet: "German mercenaries in the American war, then and ever since, we're familiarly known as Hessians." The American Revolution (1902) 2:45 . Rjensen (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind calling them mercenaries just as we refer to aboriginal Americans in the War of 1812 as Indians, when in fact they were not from India. I just find it misleading to write, "The employment of German mercenaries and Catholics against people viewed as British citizens was opposed by many in Parliament." A better phrasing would be "The employment of German auxiliaries, referred to as "mercenaries," and Catholics against people viewed as British citizens was opposed by many in Parliament." (Should also change "people viewed as British citiznes" to "British subjects.")
Burke incidentally did not speak for the Crown or for the people of Great Britain and opposed government policy in America.
Gwillhickers, people at the time and reliable sources since have referred to the French soldiers as mercenaries. While I am sure that some of them fought because they believed they were on thr right side, clearly most of them did so for the rewards. That's probably why they mostly turned out to be poor soldiers.
TFD (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hessians continued

Most Hessians were compelled, through conscription, but still hired by their superiors, to fight in the American Revolution for independence — a concept, esp in Germany at that time, that was an abstract concept to their conditioned thinking, and heritage, of hundreds of years of rule by a, royal pinky in the air, monarchy. i.e. Question authority?? The American Revolution sort of shattered that age old stigma. The French Revolution soon followed, largely inspired by Lafayette. Once again, there are too many sources that mention mercenaries, for reasons at this point should be rather obvious. Once again, neutrality is the solution here, where we let the readers make up their own minds, in light of the facts, which are plentiful. A lengthy list of sources that support this idea are listed above. Must we ask for a list of sources contrary to this idea that even compares? Even so, we speak in terms of neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

But again, does the term "Mercenary"- to present day Wikipedia readers- accurately describe the situation these Soldiers found themselves in? You already know that many German Soldiers were conscripted. In what modern context do we refer to conscripts as "mercenaries"? In what modern context does an state provide military forces to an ally through a treaty, and we call them "Mercenaries"? We don't. In common usage, the word "Mercenary" refers to private individuals and businesses. It is misleading to call them such in a Wikipedia article. If we have to explain the use of a word with long descriptions about changing language, historical contexts, and the use of propaganda, then we're using the wrong word. Canute (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
In history articles we use the terms historians use--which have changed meanings after 200+ years. Readers have to learn that words change. For example "king" in 1776 had a lot of different connotations than today (it meant POWER back then and not now). Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Trevelyan uses the term auxiliary more often than mercenary, which he uses when referring to the American perspective. For example, "The first sight of the German auxiliaries aroused an intense interest in all the townships which lay between the Hudson and the Mystic rivers. New England children had hitherto fancied them to be as strong and ferocious as ogres." A footnote follows: "The generation which was still in the nursery during the first years of the Revolutionary war had strange traditions about the bulk and height, the physical conformation, and the prodigious appetite, of George the Third's foreign mercenaries." (p. 201) He then goes on to explain how these children believed the ogre mercenaries had double rows of teeth. My point is that it is perfectly fine to refer to them as mercenaries if it is established that is what the patriots and their allies in England called them, not that they met the legal definition.

Gwillhickers, there's no need to explain your devotion to republicanism. And in fact republics and independent countries had existed long before the U.S. was founded. The obvious reason for using the term mercenary is that was what patriots called them. They also called them Hessians, but we clarify this: "Often generically referred to as "Hessians", they included men from many other states, including Hanover and Brunswick." We don't want to mislead readers, even if we can find lots of cases of the term Hessian being used. Anyway, as I said above, the best approach is to determine which term should be used in each mention. TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The term Mercenaries boils down to a rather basic idea, i.e.hired professional soldiers who will go anywhere they are paid to go, even if they have to fight for opposing countries against one another, which had been done by them before. All else is secondary. i.e.Laws of war, international laws, which country used what term, etc doesn't change that basic idea. Using "auxiliary" by itself glosses over the idea that the soldiers in question were paid to fight in a war they had little to no national interest in, unlike the British, the Americans, the French and Spanish. To refer to the Hessians mercenaries as anything but that would be misleading. We've provided a long list of sources, used in this article, that refer to Hessians as mercenaries. This common term is anything but a fringe or an ambiguous term. All the reader needs to know, foremost, is that the British had to hire uninvolved professional soldiers, commonly known as mercenaries, to help them fight a war. The Hessians were not true allies of the British, as were the French and Spanish were to the Americans -- all fighting a common enemy. Calling these hired professional soldiers "auxiliaries" equates them with the likes of the French and Spanish allies, and again, would be misleading. If anyone would like to better qualify the term mercenaries they are free to do so, but nothing will change the definitive and basic truth of the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The term Mercenaries boils down to a rather basic idea, i.e.hired professional soldiers who will go anywhere they are paid to go -- GW

Gwillhickers, I really do respect your opinion on all things 1780s, but I find this definition to be lacking. Based on your description, any military service member who receives a paycheck is a merc. What is the basic difference between a Hessian conscript forced (but paid) to fight in North America in the 18th century, and an American draftee forced (but paid) to fight in Vietnam in the 20th century? Canute (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, the Hessians did have a bit of a grudge against the King of France and his allies, since French troops had occupied Hesse-Kassel in 1758 and behaved very badly while they were there, only being expelled after the Second Siege of Cassel in 1762. See Szabo, Franz A.J. (2013). The Seven Years War in Europe: 1756–1763. p. 180. Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
And in furtherance of same, the Hessians demanded that a clause be included to mandate that the British aide them in repelling any invasion (by the French or otherwise) in the Treaty of Alliance they signed which initiated their particupation in the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The Hessians did not go to war for money, but because they were told to by their sovereigns. In the war, they obeyed their sovereign's officers not British ones. Furthermore, article 47 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, says a mercenary "Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces." Hence we don't refer to American "advisers" in conflicts where the U.S. is not a party as mercenaries. We don't say for example that Eisenhower sent 700 mercenaries to Vietnam. But then Germaine Greer referred to international troops fighting for Kuwait as mercenaries. It's sarcasm. The real mercenary, if there is one, is the prince or president who sends the troops. TFD (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The German troops deployed were clearly auxiliaries and not mercenaries. As I stated and showed in the previous discussions, the German states partipated in the conflict as part of Treaties of Alliance they signed with Great Britain. Some of these treaties, such as the one with Hesse-Kassel, had benefits to the German principalities other than payments of money. For example the treaty with Hesse-Kassel also bound Great Britain into a defensive alliance with Hesse-Kasselm by which the British were required to send troops to Hesse-Kassel's aide in the event she were invaded by another country (like France or Prussia). Hesse-Hanau initially offered to send troops to help the British for free and Hanover was bound to join the war by a long term mutually defensive treaty it signed with Great Britain as part of its personal union with Great Britain.XavierGreen (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I just read through some of the archived discussions on this topic, as well as the debate in other articles. I haven't seen any new arguments here, and I haven't noticed any opinions that have changed over the years. This is a never-ending debate. Kudos to us for keeping it in the talk pages and not declaring an all-out edit war. That said, I don't think anyone is going to change their mind on this topic. Unless someone has a neutral hypothesis we can test or has new research that we can cite (I've done some, but NOR), I say we find a clean way to table this discussion and focus on other things where progress can be made. Canute (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It would be useful to go over each reference in the article and decide on a case by case basis. No sources exclusively use one term. TFD (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Canute — Canute, common soldiers were fighting for their own cause, the Hessians were not. The state of Hessie was paid a huge some to go fight in a war they had no interested in. Yes, all soldiers get paid a nominal sum, we've been through this, but that by itself doesn't make them mercenaries. The state of Hesse was in the business of hiring out their soldiers, sometimes to different countries at war with one another, and had a long history of doing so. What you seem to be saying is there's no such thing as a mercenary. Yes, I haven't seen any new arguments here either. Just the same old attempts to gloss over and blur the distinction between volunteers and mercenaries, while trying to overly complicate a matter that is quite simple in its essence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • TFD — American advisors, paid or otherwise, are not soldiers, and they give advice because they share the same interests. If you can dig up some exception, that would be it – an exception – i.e.an American advisor helping out for a cause they didn't care about or had any other interest in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • XG — Re your statement: "Hesse-Hanau initially offered to send troops to help the British for free and Hanover was bound to join the war by a long term mutually defensive treaty it signed with Great Britain as part of its personal union with Great Britain.". Still in all the Hessians, etc, were paid professional soldiers fighting only because they were sent by their superiors, unlike the French and the Spanish volunteers. There are dozens of sources that use the term Mercenaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Gwillhickers, but I have to disagree. I find some of the things you just said (above) to be quite inaccurate.
  • "common soldiers were fighting for their own cause, the Hessians were not." This is a blanket statement that shows a clear bias towards the romanticized legends of the American minuteman. What glorious cause brought so many British (including Scottish), French, and Spanish Soldiers to the British colonies? How is that any different than the German-speaking Soldiers who were sent here? (BTW, I think there is a legitimate distinction for colonials on both sides of the war who had a more vested interest in the outcome, but that doesn't suddenly make everyone else the black-hatted villain of this legend.)
  • "you seem to be saying is there's no such thing as a mercenary." I've said nothing of the kind. Above, I defined them as a private person or business which provides support in war or security operations. This is the common meaning of the word. Your earlier definition of mercenaries as "professional soldiers who will go anywhere they are paid to go" would have to include any professional Soldiers, including those sent to (for example) Vietnam or Afghanistan.
  • "American advisors, paid or otherwise, are not soldiers." This is factually inaccurate. Various nations send out military advisors. The U.S. Army has entire brigades of advisors. This is not an exception to the rule, the is the norm.
  • "paid professional soldiers fighting only because they were sent by their superiors, unlike the French and the Spanish volunteers." This is dubious. First, you make it sound as if the Soldiers and Sailors of France or Spain had a choice whether or not to fight the British. In reality, they had to follow orders, just like every other military (including those of the German states). And are you arguing that Hessians should be called "mercenaries" because they were not volunteers? That seems like a contradiction.
I'm not trying to prolong the never-ending debate. But I think you've either made some errors in your argument, or you've inadvertently said some things that were not what you meant to convey. Feel free to straighten me out. Canute (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Continued

  • Canute — clear bias towards the romanticized legends of the American minuteman. "romanticized legends"?? After a statement like that it could easily be said that you harbor an acute anti-bias towards the minute men, and the Americans and their allies who, with good reason, regarded the Hessians as mercenaries. They did not call the Hesse state, The mercenary state for some whimsical or ambiguous reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    No anti-bias, you're reading too much into that. I went out of my way to admit the colonials had a more vested interest in the outcome of the war. This goes back to my explanation above, that the colonials distrusted professional soldiers and standing armies. They thought soldiers should fight for altruism, and that militias were sufficient to show up when needed, and bearing their own arms. Of course, the same colonials had no issue with professional soldiers who sided with their cause, just professional soldiers who sided with the enemy. But if you think American history hasn't been romanticized, then I understand why this debate has lasted multiple years. Canute (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • When you refer to the common term used as "romanticized legends" it comes off as its own sort of bias. The professional soldiers from France and Spain were true allies of the Patriots, unlike the Hessians whose 'alliance' was based on payment to the Princes and other arrangements made between Hesse and British royalty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Oh sure, we all have bias. But let's flip this script. "Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel were true allies of Great Britain due to their previous alliances in the Seven Years War and King George's position as elector of Hanover. France and Spain's 'alliance' with the United States was merely hope that they could grow their empires." Doesn't that smack of a NPOV violation? Canute (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Above, I defined them (mercenaries) as a private person or business which provides support in war or security operations. The Hessians, were not a national army as were the British and American regulars. They were privately funded and trained by e.g.the princes of Hesse-Kassel, where the money paid went into their pockets, not that of the people of that state or some sort of national treasury or bank. They may have not acted as private individuals, but they were effectively a private enterprise of a small state, one among dozens of others, stuck in the middle of what would later become greater Germany. The bottom line still remains quite distinctive from the French and Spanish allies, or auxiliaries. - Hired professional soldiers sent to a war, any war, where they had no real interest other than profit. The Hessians did not volunteer as did the French and Spanish. If the princes didn't received any money they would have kept their soldiers at home. They really cared little if the Americans won or lost the war for independence -- an idea that was abstract to the German people overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Is sounds as though you think Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau were not legitimate states. Is that your position? It might explain the differences between our description of their military service members.
This is an interesting idea and I'd like to read more if you have time to elaborate.
To be transparent, I'm skeptical that we can get to a point where the princes of the German states can be considered as CEOs of private mercenary companies, but this is the first new take I've read in this debate in years. I promise not to be too much of a jerk if you want to develop this argument a bit more. Canute (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, can you please explain your assertion that the French and Spanish forces were made up of volunteers? France and Spain had standing professional armies and navies long before they joined the war against Great Britain. You've stated multiple times that they were volunteers, but I can't understand why you're saying that. Canute (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • And are you arguing that Hessians should be called "mercenaries" because they were not volunteers? That seems like a contradiction. You're asking inappropriate questions and providing your own answers. Volunteer is an idea used for the soldiers who did so because they believed in the objectives they were fighting for, unlike the Hessians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's not an inappropriate question. I'm trying to understand your assertion that French and Spanish volunteers cannot be considered mercenaries, but German conscripts cannot be considered anything but mercenaries. Canute (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Because, once again, the French and Spanish were not in it for personal profit, as were the Hessian princes. All they were interested in was the money paid them, and any other arangemnt they could get from Britian if they needed it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    One: you're reading into the motives of the princes when you say "all they were interested in was the money." Yes, Hanover and Waldeck wanted to participate in the war to boost their depressed economies. By contrast, Brunswick offered support immediately and only hammered out compensation later. They also swore loyalty to King George, although they marched under their own flag during the Saratoga campaign. The motivations were more complex than you make them out to be.
    Two: Even if I accept your assertion about the Germanic princes, you're still giving the Soldiers an inappropriate label based on the motivations of the heads of their state. We don't do that in any other context. American Soldiers, for example, aren't called "mercenaries" even if some believe their commander in chief trades "blood for oil." Canute (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • In reality, they had to follow orders, just like every other military (including those of the German states). A moot point. All soldiers have to follow orders, yet the distinctions still remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    What distinction? A man from Hesse is sent by his prince to fight in New York. A man from Touraine is sent by his king to fight in New York. A man in Connecticut is sent by his governor to fight in New York. How are these different? Canute (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Various nations send out military advisors. The U.S. Army has entire brigades of advisors. Yes, but they did not function as soldiers, they were, as you said, advisors, and only received the same military pay they always did. Again, these advisors were not helping out an enemy of the US, or were complacent to the cause they were giving military advise to. Once again, these are all menial and secondary consideration in terms of defining mercenaries. i.e.Paid professional soldiers who would go to any war their superiors told them to. All that aside, we must abode by Reliable sources: If the sources vary in their accounts, then we mention both in proper context, which is what I've always advocated long before I ever joined this current rehashed debate. You can continue hacking away at these sorts of things but we can not ignore reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    So to be perfectly clear, are you saying that an Army Soldier who is sent to serve in a foreign nation from his/her own is no longer considered a Soldier? Canute (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    In a monarchy, the sovereign is the state. IOW a government is carried out by a private person rather than the public. Note the treaty ending the war was between the former colonies and the King, not the United Kingdom. Of course as we discussed, the King's personal and public property were treated as separate, but that was not the case with absolute monarchies. In fact even today, the language of absolute monarchy is used in the Queen's realms. Government lands are referred to as Crown lands, the treasury is called HM Treasury, the mint is called the Royal mint, Money owed to the government is termed money owed to the Crown.
U.S."military adivsers" incidentally do often function as soldiers. And of course they do not help out enemies of the U.S., they help out allies, just as the Hessians did.
TFD (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the crown is answerable to the English people, via the Parliament, and any monies made are that of the English people, not of any private prince. The Hessian state was in the business of renting out its private armies to anyone who would pay for them, again, even to countries at war with one another. Did the French or Spanish ever send their people to fight in opposing wars, simply for money or political convenience? As such, the Hessians functioned as mercenaries, regardless of any international law. If an individual embezzles funds from a treasury for personal gain, is he any different than an individual who was hired by some foreign state to do so? They rightly are both referred to as thieves, or embezzlers, regardless of any arrangements they had made with whomever. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The only "alliance" that existed between Britain and the Hessian state was a monetary one, not one based on any moral or social principle, or concern for their respective national freedoms. The US was not an enemy of the Hessians, but that state had no qualms about sending their hired private armies to America. If the colonists had the money at the onset of the war they could have hired some Hessians for themselves. Mercenaries are like that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
While you are correct that in practice monarchs including George III and Elizabeth II are answerable to their subjects, in law subjects are answerable to their sovereigns. In absolute monarchies, it is not just in law but in fact. Surely that's your beef with monarchism. And Hesse-Kassel and the other German states that provided auxiliaries were allies of George III. Your yourself pointed out his relationship with them.
I don't understand your comment that the Hessian monarchs "embezzled funds from a treasury for personal gain." If you withdraw money from your personal bank account, is that embezzlement? The treasury was their personal property. Whether or not that was a good thing could be debated of course. TFD (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
TFD, if you're going to quote me try to get it right and not twist the meaning. No one said the Hessian monarchs were embezzling. Embezzling was an analogy regarding terms used to describe someone. Again, an embezzler is an embezzler, whether for personal profit or at the behest of the state. The Hessian state hired out their soldiers to anyone who would pay their price, regardless of the objectives. America was not an enemy of the Hesse states, yet they still hired out their soldiers to go clear across the Atlantic and engage in an all out war with them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, in an absolute monarchy, the state and the monarch are one in the same. The ruler of Ansback-Bayrueth literally sold his country to the Prussians in 1791 and pocketed the cash, since the entire country was literally his personal property as an absolute monarch, which was completely legal and acceptable at the time.XavierGreen (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
That's nice, but the actual 1776 treaty between Hesse-Kassel and Great Britain literally states otherwise. See here [2]. In particular, Paragraphs X and XI specifically bind each state into a mutually defensive alliance where each was bound to defend each other in the instance they were attacked. Thus, the treaty was designed in part to ensure Hesse-Kassel's "freedom" to exist as a state. As user:Alansplodge had mentioned and sourced to above, Hesse-Kassel was particular kean on obtaining such a mutual defense pact to ensure it had British support in the event of another invasion of Hesse Kassel by France.XavierGreen (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The basic premise remains, that the Hessians were hired out to anyone who would pay for them, where they fought in wars which they had little to no interest, regardless if their use in America gave the Hessian princes a political arrangement with Britain. I really fail to see why calling them mercenaries is such a big deal. It was war. Countries did what they felt was necessary to win it. We can use the term while also qualifying it in terms of the political arrangement made between the two parties in question. Referring to the Hesssians as simple auxiliaries glosses over the idea that the Hessians and Americans were not enemies, but they were still were hired out to anyone. It also equates them with the French and Spanish volunteers who shared a common enemy with the Americans. My objection for suppressing the term also rests on the idea that it ignores (very) many of the sources, while disregarding the way the Americans, many scholars and others viewed these soldiers, as if the American view wasn't significant in a war for American independence. Once again we strike a compromise, which is what we've done before and are doing now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that we don't mislead readers into thinking that the Hessians were individually recruited and served in British regiments. They in fact were mostly conscripted and served in the armies of their sovereigns. They also did not receive unusually high pay or promotions for their efforts, which is typical of mercenaries. Furthermore, their legal status under international law was that of auxiliaries, not mercenaries. Upon capture therefore they were entitled to, and received, treatment as prisoners of war. TFD (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Second what TFD said, thank you for bringing us back to the main issue. We've gotten into some pretty thick weeds about 18th century geo-political military arrangements, but it really comes down to writing a good article that readers will understand. Gwillhickers, I understand your concern about "auxiliaries," but I don't share it. Calling them auxiliary forces already implies that there's a different type of relationship. When modern readers think about war, they think WWII. When the United States finally joined the fight, they were not "auxiliaries," they were "allies." In this article, by merely distinguishing the German armies as auxiliary forces, we're making a distinction between them and the other forces. As I've mentioned in other discussions on this same topic, I don't think "auxiliary" is the perfect term, either, but it's less bad than "mercenary." Like we keep saying, "mercenary" carries a lot of meaning- both literal and connotative- that simply isn't factual for the various Germanic forces aligned with Great Britain during the Revolution. Authors of long books can call them "Hessian mercenaries" and then go on for several pages to explain that they weren't really mercenaries in the modern sense, nor were they all Hessians. We don't have that luxury. This is an encyclopedia; we need to choose the most appropriate (least inaccurate?) words we can and keep it simple. Canute (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I too agree with what TDF said. The distinction between auxilliaries and mercenaries has been separately defined for centuries, as can be seen in Machiavelli's The Prince.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Continued2

  • Canute, thanks for not being completely one sided about matters. Yes, "mercenary carries a lot of meaning...", but the major consideration is that they were hired to fight in any war, with little, if any, consideration as to why. Legal definitions and any political arrangements made are secondary considerations compared to that central idea --esp in light of the fact that the Americans and Hessians were not enemies in the beginning.
  • TFD and XG, I have more faith in the average reader than that, and don't assume they're naive or otherwise won't get it, to prop up a questionable point made here. Mercenary is a common term, i.e.soldiers for hire who care little about why they are fighting. Auxiliary, otoh, is a term that will not be recognized near as much. We have a footnote that states that both terms are often used interchangeably. I think, hope, we all can agree that the Hessians were not your average auxiliary, like the French and Spanish allies who shared a common enemy. They either were not your average mercenary, private individuals, but the major distinction has always stood. They were professional soldiers for hire that fought in any war they were told to, again, sometimes for countries at war with one another. Again, referring to them as auxiliaries only equates them with the likes of the French and Spanish volunteers, and they were distinctly different from them in terms of why they were fighting. Once again, we can't ignore all those sources and those particular views that don't happen to fit our liking. This is why a compromise is and has been in order. We can always add more footnotes or make other comments of clarity in the narrative if need be, but with discussion first, as this issue is obviously a controversial one that has resurfaced here more times than I care to count. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
So again my recommendation was that we look at each reference to make sure it is accurate. For example, the first reference says, "The employment of German mercenaries and Catholics against people viewed as British citizens." We could say, "The employment of foreign, Catholic soldiers, who were termed mercenaries by opponents of the British government, against British subjects...." We would then avoid creating the misconception that GB hired freelance soldiers into British regiments. I agree btw that the term auxiliary is rarely used today. Few if any states hire out their soldiers. However, where soldiers are seconded to allies, they are never referred to as mercenaries. Canadian soldiers sent abroad for example are always under the control of a British or foreign commander, whether from the UK, UN or U.S., but are never referred to as mercenaries. TFD (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
You're lumping in Catholics with mercenaries. While many mercenaries were perhaps Catholic, all Catholics were not mercenaries. Far from it. German mercenaries and Catholics need to remain separately mentioned. We can mention the idea of auxiliaries, so long as we don't obscure the idea that they were hired soldiers fighting in a war they didn't have much interest in, other than the money and political arrangements that were afforded the Hessian princes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not lumping them in, I am just quoting the article's text as it exists. The original claim btw was against "Scotch and other foreign mercenaries." So the reason for calling them mercenaries may be that they were perceived as inferior to English subjects. TFD (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This was your suggestion: "The employment of foreign, Catholic soldiers, who were termed mercenaries by opponents ..." That only further confounds the issue. Most if not all of the French were Catholics. Do we start calling them French Catholic allies? Also, it wasn't just the opponents of Britain who used the term mercenaries. The Hessian soldiers had a rather nasty reputation in parts of Europe, also, for the capacity in which they were used, how they too often conducted themselves as soldiers, for their lack of allegiance to anything but their own interests, and for fighting in virtually any war if the price was paid. Various princes in Germany would not permit the passage of Hessian recruits on their way to the North Sea to be shipped off in British ships to the war. Often times they had to take round about roads to get to their port of departure and were charged heavy tolls for their passage through a given province or state. Of course not all Hessians were of such nature, and were sometimes conscripted or otherwise forced to serve, while the Hessian princes collected their money. Significant numbers of them deserted once they reached America, esp during the latter part of the war. Regardless they were often referred to as mercenaries, and with obvious good reasons, and not just by the Americans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: We remove the term auxiliaries and mercenaries anywhere it occurs in the article and replace it with Hessian soldiers. Currently both these terms are used in the narrative, seven times each. Somewhere near the beginning of the article in an appropriate location it can be explained that the Hessians were often regarded as both mercenaries and auxiliaries for reasons that support both terms. It would seem this would be the only way to put this issue to rest and finally bring a better measure of lasting stability to the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Please read the text that is already in the article: "The employment of German mercenaries and Catholics against people viewed as British citizens was opposed by many in Parliament...." I am merely suggesting that we change the term mercenaries. While I was at it I suggested changing the term citizen to subject because there wouldn't be any British citizens for another 170 years. TFD (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
'"mercenary carries a lot of meaning...", but the major consideration is that they were hired to fight in any war, with little, if any, consideration as to why.'
I don't find this to be an acceptable definition of "mercenary," because it doesn't distinguish itself from non-mercenaries. Professional Soldiers of any nation are "hired to fight in any war, with little, if any, consideration as to why." Military service members generally do not have a say in which wars they will fight in. And in the case of foces from Hesse-Kassel, they were either recruited or impressed to fight in a specific war. Canute (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Canute — For some reason you're not responding to my latest comment about removing both contentious terms. Re your statement: Professional Soldiers of any nation are "hired to fight in any war, with little, if any, consideration as to why.
    Not true.. Perhaps some of the British rank and file didn't care much about American independence, but this was not at all true with the Americans, French and Spanish volunteers – esp France and the likes of Lafayette, who came out of the Revolution with great inspiration for their own revolution, which soon followed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The reason most countries enter wars today is that their allies are at war. That was true with the two Gulf wars, Afghanistan and could occur if a NATO country is attacked. That's how most countries entered the first two world wars. The UK declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. Australia and Canada declared war on Germany because the UK had. The U.S. declared war on Germany because it had been attacked by a German ally. In 1776, several German states were allies of the UK. Maybe it's like contentious labels where the description is based on the position of the person using it. TFD (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
TFD — NATO is an organization of allies who don't rent out their soldiers to just anyone as did the Hesse princes. The Hessians were not enemies of the Americans and had little concern about American independence. Their princes hired their soldier for the money and their own political arrangements with England. They did not represent the greater German people, only a couple of small Hesse states. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand the distinction you're drawing, there, but I don't think it's our place to make moral judgments about who should and should not have gotten involved in the American Revolution. The Gnadenhutten Indians were not enemies of the United States, either, and look what good that did them. Or more recently, the North Vietnamese were not enemies of the United States, and yet the U.S. was willing to conscript citizens against their will to fight in Vietnam. Canute (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ideas for neutrality

The conjecture and the opinions about what a mercenary or auxiliary is, or isn't, is only continuing in the same fruitless circle. Apparently there doesn't seem to be much of a desire to render the narrative in neutral and objective terms. I suggested that we simply refer to the Hessians as Hessian soldiers, while removing both controversial adjectives, with a well sourced historical note that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and that there are reasons that lend themselves to both terms. There was not one comment made about that idea. No other suggestions about how to arrive at an all-round compromise has been made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we're not going to agree on a term. We've been having this debate on different articles for years, so there's no reason to think we're all suddenly going to change our perspectives. It would be fine to simply refer to them as Hessian soldiers. Of course, that could bleed over into another never-ending argument about whether we should call all the German soldiers "Hessians" regardless of their flag. 😉 Still, I think there's more room for those discussions on the multiple Wikipedia articles that deal with German soldiers in this war. I think trying to settle such things here risks Wikipedia:UNDUE. Canute (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Canute, Thanks. Since nearly all the Hessian soldiers came from two different Hesse states, Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Hanau, they are commonly referred to as Hessians. This can easily be backed up by multiple sources, so there shouldn't be a problem - at least not one that has dragged on for as long as this one has, over and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC).
Oh, ha ha, well I don't want to re-initiate another long-standing argument. I was referring to the fact that there were other German states besides Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau. In other words, they weren't all "Hessians." That's another sore topic that's best avoided here; let readers click the links to more specific articles if they want to get into that mess. I like your suggestion for this article, keep the language plain. Canute (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
We can simply add a footnote after the first usage of Hessian that explains this. Don't see it as anything that will have the lot of us doing cart-wheels again. :-)   Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I guess it's back to the same question of how much space we ought to spend trying to explain such things in this article. I'm not going to argue this one, it wasn't my intention to start another debate. Canute (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
We can simply devote a couple of sentences to the idea, either in a footnote or in an appropriate location in the narrative. I'll look into it further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that since this issue is about political and historical views, not one of the actual war, clarification would be best placed in a footnote, which refers to existing sources used in the Bibliography of this article:

Footnote :

Hessian soldiers were mostly from two states within the greater German region, Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Hanau, and are commonly referred to as Hessians, though some where from a German Duchy like Brunswick. There has been ongoing political controversy about whether the Hessians were mercenaries or auxiliaries. Numerous historians have presented facts and ideas that lend support to both views.[1][2][3]
  1. ^ Atwood, 2002, pp. 1, 6, 9
  2. ^ Lowell, 1884, pp. 6, 22
  3. ^ Schmidt, 1958, pp. 207-212
Sources used


That seems adequate. I think there are multiple ways to approach this. Personally, I don't think you should feel obligated to address it at all. Just say something generic about Great Britain negotiating forces from German states, especially from Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau, and maybe add something about how it bolstered Great Britain's numbers but angered the colonists. There are two other articles (linked in previous sentence) that deal with the topic, so Wikipedia readers already have a path to more information. Canute (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
As I said above, this should be done on a case by case basis, rather than one size fits all. That's what the sources do. TFD (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
"Case by case" meaning each state individually? Canute (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Each reference individually. TFD (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can. I think we've spent too much time debating one word, already. I don't think this article is the place to solve it. There are at least 4 other articles that deal with this directly, not counting the articles about specific German units in the war. I think it's best to use generic language here and let other articles delve into the semantics and minutiae. Canute (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
TFD — "...rather than one size fits all"?  Are you now saying that using the term mercenaries is appropriate in some cases? The term mercenaries is used seven times in this article. This is now okay with you? The whole idea of avoiding either mercenaries or auxiliaries is so that we  don't  use one size to fit all. We avoid either 'size" and simply use the common proper noun, completely neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Canute — I agree, we've already spent far too much time debating this. Discussing this "case by case", as we should know, is a recipe for never ending debate. Every case can simply say Hessian soldier without changing any meaning. We're being dragged into the same never ending discussion once again. If we were to stand over every sentence that uses the terms auxiliaries or mercenaries we will be here forever going around in the same circle. We can't have a narrative going back and forth with two different, controversial, terms. This is the best article to put this issue to rest. It's a major subject high traffic article about a major war that the Hessians played a major role in.
We let the readers know that historians differ in the adjective they use, and that they all cover the subject that supports both ideas as the case may be. The issue has resurfaced here numerous times over the last few years, and more than in any other article, so this is the place to resolve it. At this point we should realize that this is the only way to achieve neutrality on this issue. We've come this far, so to drop everything here and start the same debate in an other article is futile, esp since the same editors will no doubt be involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
You can if you want, but I don't think you should feel obligated to explain all the different ideas in this article. There are numerous articles which support this topic. Canute (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
As I have said, it's fine to use partisan terminology in some cases, provided it's clear that we are reporting the descriptions used by partisans, rather than accurate ones. TFD (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • TFD, are you now suggesting that we mention "partisan" terminology, or words to that effect, every time either term comes up? Of course we would have to stop and debate that in every instance. This only confounds the issue further. We avoid "partisan" terminology, on both sides of the fence, simply by using the neutral proper name of Hessian soldier. This would get rid of the term mercenaries, which occurs seven times in the narrative, as does the term auxiliaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Canute, we are obligated to be clear on a controversial issue, and we do this by briefly mentioning that historians often use the terms in question interchangeably, while others use either term exclusively, in one footnote, preferably after the first usage of Hessian soldier. — Additional : Above you expressed a concern:, "I don't think this debate will ever go away, so long as there are U.S. history textbooks. American perspectives on the war will always be over-represented on Wikipedia". This would be a way to avoid that. Even though there seems to be more texts that support the term mercenaries, there are still enough that don't, and they can't be ignored either. The key to avoid all that is neutrality where neither perspective is slighted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'll support your proposal below. I just don't want you to feel obligated to do a whole bunch of work that perhaps isn't necessary. I don't want to speak for TFD, but I think the idea is that it's ok to use one term or the other so long as we state why the term is used. In other words, we can say the U.S. Declaration of Independence referred to German Soldiers as "foreign mercenaries," but that's different than stating as mere fact that "the Hessians were foreign mercenaries." (FWIW, the Declaration also referred to "merciless Indian Savages," but we wouldn't do the same.) Canute (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Status as part of the decolonisation of the Americas

Is this really an appropriate descriptor? Especially since:

1. One of the factors that sparked the war was the banning of settlement beyond the Appalachians. 2. After the war had ended, it did not take long for settler colonialism to largely continue to a perhaps even greater extent than it did under Britain

Both of these factors still largely practice colonialism, so can we really include "part of the decolonisation of the Americas"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the "decolonisation" described in the sentence describes the gradual creation of fully independent states across the Americas. Many of these states have continued to displace or mistreat indigenous populations or their own ethnic minorities, but they celebrate their independence from the European major powers. From the perspective of the persecuted, the identity of the abuser has changed, but the methods of the abuse are practically the same. Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it valid to say that the rights of native groups did not necessarily get better/remain oppressed in the wake of the independence of various South American states? Sure.
But it would be wrong to say that settler colonialism in the region (with one or two possible exceptions) continued. This isn't true for America however. Since settler colonialism if anything, intensified. Genabab (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources in the main article Decolonisation of the Americas that the U.S. or any other settler state was decolonized when it became independent. While American independence may have inspired actual decolonization wars, I don't see why it is included in the project. TFD (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hessian soldiers

@Canute: and all others concerned: The term Hessian soldier, in the German troops section, is already qualified with the following passage.

Often generically referred to as "Hessians", they included men from many other states, including Hanover and Brunswick.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. We explain a term that is used to describe these soldiers and we can then refer to them as Hessians without conveying inaccurate information, that is, that they were all from Hesse. TFD (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries. As I said before, I'm not going to challenge this, it's just another trap to avoid. Is there a grammar term for this, when an entire group is referred to by the name of it's majority? Canute (talk,) 20:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no one single term that adequately coins these soldiers -- not even the term German soldier, as this is simply too general a reference and more than suggests that 'Greater Germany' was allied with Britain. If need be we can simply qualify the term in better detail, but I don't see this as much of a content issue as they all came from small German states or Duchys within greater Germany. The info-box already makes this distinction per Axelrod, 2014 and Max von Eelking, 1893.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There's the etymological fallacy, where people expect a term to accurately reflect the words. I think the best approach is to use the COMMONNAME and explain its meaning if we think the reader may be misled. TFD (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for less of a logic/reason term and more of a linguistic description. More out of my own curiosity, but maybe it would be useful in a related article if there's a wiki on the topic. The idea is that we have a group, and we describe that entire group based on the identity of a part of that group. In this example, the whole is the set of all forces sent from 6-7 European states. Actual "Hessians" (from Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Hanau) made up approximately ⅔ of that whole. So when the whole set is referred as "Hessian," that would be an example of… (I don't know, that's the term I'm looking for). Canute (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Synecdoche! That's the term I was looking for! Ha ha, ironically I found it in the lede of the article Hessian (soldier).Canute (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
For purposes of this article we can simply add a footnote after the first usage of Hessian which would read:
The majority of German soldiers were from Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Hanau, and as such are commonly referred to as Hessians by many historians. However, appreciable numbers of them also came from the Electorate of Hanover, the Duchy of Brunswick and other lesser regions.[1][2]
If a reader comes along and still has some sort of issue over that, he or she is free to come to the Talk page and say so. After such clarification it's doubtful this will ever happen, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Eelking, 1893, pp. 15-16
  2. ^ Atwood, 2002, pp. 18, 163
Don't count on it. The more clarification they get, the better.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Weren't the Hanoverians posted to Gibraltar so that the British troops there could come to America? TFD (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Correct. They were also at Minorca and Mysore. I'm unaware of Hanover troops being sent to North America. I would be happy to learn something new if someone knows otherwise. Canute (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure if some were still bound for America. If not, then we won't mention them in the footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_31&oldid=1096078666"