A Defence of the Hessians — Background and Themes

A Defense Built on Ledgers, Not Anecdotes

Rosengarten’s primary evidence is numerical. He cites treaties and pay tables to show that Hessian soldiers received full English pay, plus allowances for clothing, food, and booty. For example, he notes that Hessian sergeants in Gibraltar started at £1 14s., while English sergeants got £1 9s. He also provides savings figures: four colonels accumulated 24,000 thalers, and General von Mirbach sent home 6,000 thalers in sixteen months. These details are meant to counter the “perjured soldier” claims that pay was reduced.

The author’s reliance on such data suggests that the pamphlet he summarizes was itself a financial rebuttal. The catalog subject “Participation, German” implies a military history, but the excerpts focus on economics and contractual obligations. Readers expecting battle narratives will instead find a ledger-based argument about fairness and alliance.

The German Pamphlet as Source and Target

Rosengarten explicitly frames his article as a summary of a 1879 pamphlet titled “Frederick the Second and Modern History,” which he calls “a second and enlarged edition” that “must have found readers.” He does not name the pamphlet’s author, nor does he provide its full argument. Instead, he selects evidence that supports his own defense, particularly regarding pay and the Elector’s integrity.

This reliance on a single, obscure source limits the scope of the defense. The catalog does not list the pamphlet as a subject, yet it is the backbone of the article. Rosengarten’s claim that the pamphlet offers “a new view of Seume’s statements” hints at a broader historiographical debate, but the excerpts do not develop it. The reader is left to wonder how representative this pamphlet was of German scholarship.

Missing Context: The American Revolutionary War

Despite the catalog subject linking the work to the American Revolution, the excerpts contain almost no American content. There are no mentions of battles, generals, or colonial grievances. The only reference to America is geographical: the Hessians served “under the British flag” there. Instead, the text dwells on European alliances, the Seven Years’ War, and the financial relationship between England and Hesse.

This disconnect suggests that the catalog subject is misleadingly broad. The article is not about Hessian participation in the war itself, but about the moral and financial terms of their service. Readers interested in the Revolutionary War will find little here beyond a footnote on pay scales. The work is better understood as a contribution to German historiography than to American military history.

Rosengarten’s article is a narrow, evidence-driven rebuttal that challenges popular narratives about Hessian mercenaries. Its value lies in the detailed financial records it preserves, not in any comprehensive account of the Revolution. Readers should approach it as a primary source for late-19th-century German-American historical debate, rather than as a general history of Hessian soldiers. The catalog subject may overstate its scope, but the work itself offers a precise, if limited, corrective.