Was General Friedrich Wilhelm de Steuben Openly Gay?

Charles Wilson Peale's portrait of Steuben[1]

Dear Reader,


Today, we are going to carefully address a topic related to American and Prussian military history, and the history of the LGTBQ+ community in the United States. It important to note, at the outset, that topics dealing with the history of the LGTBQ+ community are politically charged, and that it is often difficult to speak on these topics without saying anything controversial. I hope, in my post today, to treat this topic with the humility, care, and respect it deserves. This post seeks to address the following questions, using the best sources available: 1) Is it possible that Steuben was homosexual? 2) Is it possible that Steuben was heterosexual? 3) Is there any evidence to support the contemporary charges that Steuben was a pedophile? 4) Did Steuben hold the first underwear party in American history, at Valley Forge? 5) Did Steuben leave his property to North, Walker, and Mulligan because they were lovers?

Since 2011, author and journalist Mark Segal has written a number of pieces regarding Steuben and his place in American history as a gay man. You can see an interview with Segal here. One of Segal's articles (most of them run along similar lines) can be found here. There are numerous posts on news sites and which explore this idea. At first glance, an examination of the documentary record confirms this view. In the early days of 1780, Steuben wrote to his young "friend" Benjamin Walker, stating, "I expect you with the impatience of a lover for his mistress..."[2] It would seem, then, that there is some evidence that Steuben lived his life as a gay man.  However, Steuben continues his letter: "... or to speak without figures, all the sentiments of true friendship."[3] This ambiguity is often lost in writings which argue that Steuben lived his life as an openly gay man.

For more on Steuben's life, and a brief discussion of his sexuality, check out Dr. Paul Lockhart's excellent book, The Drillmaster of Valley Forge. Lockhart explores the whole course of Steuben's life in a way which it is impossible to do here on this blog. The only chapter length treatment on the subject of Steuben, North, and Walker's sexuality is William Beneman's Male-Male Intimacy in Early America, and though Benemann comes to slightly different conclusions than I do here, I still highly recommend it.

1) Is it possible that Steuben was homosexual? 

In the course of his service in the Prussian Army during the Seven Years War, Steuben became familiar with Frederick II ("the Great") of Prussia, who was likely gay, and his brother, Prince Henry of Prussia, who was almost certainly gay. Both members of this Prussian Royal Family were unhappily married, neither had children, and Prince Henry had a series of famous male lovers. Thus, in the course of his service with the Prussian Army, it is highly likely that Steuben experienced (and possibly an active part in) a queer subculture which was present at its highest echelons.

In 1777, Steuben was extremely interested in service with the American Continental Army as a result of his dismissal from the court of Hohenzollern-Hechingen. He was dismissed from his position at this small German court as a result of accusations that "taken familiarities with young boys which the laws forbid and punish severely."[4] This is not a reference to homosexual relations between consenting adults, which was also punishable, but instead a charge of pedophilia.[5] Obviously, this charge of pedophilia does not mean that Steuben is gay or straight. However, the fact that there were some at the court of Hohenzollern-Hechingen who believed that he was interested in young boys rather than women may have some bearing on his sexuality. As I will discuss below using archival evidence, I think these accusations are baseless, and that Steuben was not a pedophile.

Upon his arrival in North America, Steuben formed close and potentially sexual relationships with many men, including Peter Stephen Duponceau and John W. Mulligan, his secretaries, Benjamin Walker and William North, his aides, and Charles Adams, John Adam's son. These men lived with Steuben, and he left his worldy goods and property to some of them upon his death: Mulligan, North, Walker. One modern writer has referred to Steuben's retirement in upstate New York as an "ephibic Eden."[6]

Most of the evidence for Steuben's homosexuality comes out of the extremely emotional and occasionally erotic language which Steuben used in correspondence with his two best friends in North America: Benjamin Walker, and William North. As with the reference above, much of this erotic language can be ascribed to the neo-classical nature of eighteenth-century letter writing and male friendships, but it is also very possible that these relationships were sexual in nature.

2) Is it possible that Steuben was heterosexual? 

Mark Segal argues that the only shred of evidence which points to the idea that Steuben formed romantic relationships with women is an unsourced anecdote from Friedrich Kapp's biography of Steuben, in which Steuben had a miniature portrait of a beautiful woman, and was touchy when asked about it.[7] He also playfully noted in a letter to an officer before the Seven Years War, "I am more gallant with the ladies than my master [Frederick II]."[8] Correspondence indicates that Steuben gave French Brigadier Hahn permission to set him up with a daughter of a friend, but nothing came of the match.[9] 

Steuben was clearly familiar with standards of female beauty, and was not shy about telling his friends (even friends who were often said to be gay) that beautiful women were present. In the same letter to Benjamin Walker quoted above, as an incentive for a reason to come and visit him, Steuben tells Walker, "You will find there a young widow, and a lady from New York with a beautiful waist, a reason the more for you to hasten your departure."[10] This seems to indicate that at least on some level, Steuben was aware that Walker possessed a sexual interest in young women, and even took it upon himself to further Walker's interests.

In a letter to Steuben in December of 1783, Walker notes, "I have been obliged to learn backgammon, of which I am equally tired. In fact I have only one resource left to prevent my dying of ennui, to seek some neighbors' daughters, pour passer le temps. You know, my dear general, how much this is against my conscience, and will judge how hard I must be driven before I could bring myself to seek this expedient to amuse myself."[11] Walker's statement could be read two ways: one which indicates that he is against seducing young women because he believes it is morally wrong, the other that women were not his preference or first sexual choice. However, if Steuben was gay and in a partnership with Walker, it would seem odd that he both attempted to suggest that Walker should visit him as a result of the beautiful women, and that Walker would feel comfortable with expressing his desire to "pass the time" with local women.

Steuben's aides also reported that he was not afraid to flirt. North reported to his fellow officer James Thatcher, 

In the company of ladies, the baron always appeared to peculiar advantage . At the house of the respectable Mrs . Livingston, mother of the late Chancellor , where virtue , talent , and modest worth of every kind met a welcome reception , the baron was introduced to a Miss Sheaf , an amiable and interesting young lady. “ I am very happy , " said he , "in the honor of being presented to you , mademoiselle , though I see it is at an infinite risk ; I have from my youth been cautioned to guard myself against mischief , but I had no idea that her attractions were so powerful.[12]

North himself wrote letters to Walker, indicating a (possibly romantic) love for both Steuben and Walker, and also that he objectified women. He summed up his feeling's on George Washington's niece with the statement, "she has no breasts, Ben!" Likewise, he expressed disbelief that he had not sexual assaulted enslaved women in the south, noting with obvious sarcasm, "Will you believe it-- I have not humped a single mulatto since I am down here."[13] Though the second piece of evidence is horrifying, both point to the idea that North both had and sometimes acted on sexual impulses related to women.

Steuben's first secretary, Pierre-Étienne du Ponceau, is often framed as Steuben's sexual companion or plaything during his trip to North America, with one publication calling him "his pretty young French secretary."[14]

That same secretary, gives this description of Steuben's passage through Lancaster on his way to Valley Forge:

"we passed through Lancaster, then considered the largest inland town in the United States. Having arrived there early in the afternoon, the baron was waited upon by Colonel Gibson and other gentlemen, who invited him and his family to a subscription ball to take place that evening, in honor of his arrival. The baron accepted, and we accordingly went. There we saw assembled all the fashion and beauty of Lancaster and its vicinity. The baron was delighted to converse with the German girls in his native tongue. There was a handsome supper, and the company did not separate until two o'clock the next morning."[15]

Duponceau himself seemed rather attached to young women, he made and kept a pledge to kiss the first girl he met in America, and was incredibly infatuated with Sally Duane, the sixteen year-old daughter of his (and Steuben's) Landlady. Duponceau himself was only seventeen, and his notebook was filled Sally's name written in a number of different scripts.[16] In the same notebook, poems mention Sally's name quite frequently.[17] If Duponceau and Steuben possessed a romantic relationship, it was not an exclusive one, and Duponcaeu clearly held feelings for women, and noted that Steuben was "delighted" to speak with them. Duponceau also notes that he felt duty bound, as Steuben's interpreter, to translate Steuben's flirtations with his landlady and the young women in Boston, but that he left the other young men of Steuben's suite to fend for themselves when it came to flirting, taking advantage of his familiarity with the English language in order to flirt with young women. [18] Steuben valued his friendship with this family of three women (Mrs. Duane, a British officer's widow, and her two daughters), that he made a special trip to see them in 1786.[19]

 None of the correspondence from the Adams family between late 1792 and early 1795 indicates that John Adams thought of Steuben as anything other than a good friend and mentor to his son. Upon receiving news of Steuben's death, John Adams wrote to his son, Charles, stating, "The Papers announce to Us the Death of our Friend the Baron, whom I Sincerely lament. The Importance of his services to this Country were not known to every One so well as to me."[20] If John Adams did not like Steuben, as the theory that Steuben facilitated Charles' gay lifestyle suggests, why are Adam's letters to Charles about Steuben so glowing? The most telling is perhaps John Adams writing to Abigail Adams in December of 1794, "I am afraid that Charles will lose his friend Steuben", in reference to reports that Steuben had suffered a stroke.[21]

What about Steuben himself? Steuben paid wages to an African American woman connect to either himself or Colonel Walker. Steuben had one African American servant, a free man named Nathan Fry, but this woman is not listed in either of his surviving wills. Is it possible that he or Benjamin Walker had an illegitimate child with this woman?[22]  Steuben seems to have caused some controversy while at the court of Peter III in Russia, during his stay as a guest of Catherine the Great. It is currently unclear what the exact nature of this scandal was. In addition, Steuben himself formed a close attachment to his friend and patron, Friedericke Dorothea, the wife of the future Duke of Wuerttemberg. It is possible that she was the woman in Steuben's miniature portrait, but this is purely speculation. In the same way that there is not clear evidence to suggest physical intimacy with many of his male friends, sources are lacking here.

All of Steuben's potential American male lovers (Adams, Duponceau, Mulligan, Walker, and North) married and had children, most of them during his life time. Some had sexual relations with women before marriage, or implied that they did in private correspondence. Of course, this is not direct evidence that Steuben and these men did not have sexual relationships, simply that these men were capable of also existing in the hetero-normative culture of their time.  Steuben's sexuality was likely not as clear cut (gay/straight) as modern advocates claim.

3) Is there any evidence to support the contemporary charges that Steuben was a pedophile? 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, modern advocates for Steuben's homosexuality are relatively silent on the contemporary charge (made in 1777) that he had committed pedophilia. (Again, the exact wording of the charge is that Steuben "taken familiarities with young boys which the laws forbid and punish severely.") This fits less well with the overall understanding that Steuben was an openly gay founding father of the United States, and should be treated as an LGTBQ+ hero. Fortunately, the evidence against Steuben is very slight, and I can particularly add to this part of the conversation based upon my research.'

The only reference to this charge comes from an indignant letter sent by a supporter of Steuben to his former employer, Prinz Josef of Hohenzollern-Hechingen. Steuben fled from the court of Hohenzollern-Hechingen after this charge was brought against him, but within three years, Steuben's former friend Hoevel, still at court, reached out to him to ensure Steuben of his continued friendship. Likewise, after five years, Prinz Josef of Hohenzollern-Hechingen wrote to assure Steuben that both he and his wife had only ever thought the best of Steuben, and that he had their continued friendship.[23] To my mind, considering the extreme nature of the charges against Steuben (trans and gay people were sometimes exiled or put to death in the eighteenth century) it seems unlikely that these letters would have been written if Steuben had been seriously suspected of these crimes. Thus, aside from the accusation, there is no evidence to support the claim that Steuben was a pedophile, and indeed, there is evidence to suggest that those present at the time did not take the charge very seriously.

4) Did Steuben hold the first underwear party in American Military History?

The evidence for this comes from a social gathering held by Steuben in April of 1778. Supposedly, Steuben insisted that nobody who attended this party could wear a whole pair of breeches. His secretary, Duponceau gives us the whole story:

We who lived in good quarters did not feel the misery of the times so much as the common soldiers and the subaltern officers... Once with the Baron's permission, his aides invited a number of young officers to diner at our quarters, on the condition that none should be admitted that had on a whole pair of breeches. This was understood of course, as pars pro toto, but torn clothes were an indispensable requisite for admission and in this the guests were not sure to fail.[24] 

On closer examination, then, it appears that this was a effort to show solidarity with the suffering soldiers at Valley Forge, rather than effort to hold an explicitly erotic gathering. Duponceau continued, "The Baron loved to speak of that dinner, and of his sans culottes, as he called us."[25] Duponceau then claims that Steuben invented this term before it was used in Paris during the French Revolution, which, of course, is not quite correct. In calling the gathered men, sans culottes, Steuben was invoking a phrase common to Parisian salons in the 1770s, which referred to a young genius (usually a writer) without a patron.[26] Once again, a careful analysis of this event seems to point to the idea that it was based upon class solidarity, not sensual delight.


5) Did Steuben leave his property and wealth to his male lovers?

In his will, Steuben left his money and property to William North, Benjamin Walker, and John Mulligan. and this is often cited as evidence of the potential romantic nature of their relationship. While this may indeed be the case, Steuben had previously planned to leave his estate to his nephew, Friedrich Wilhelm von Canitz. His second will, made in the year 1781, makes it clear that he still expects to leave his property to his family.[27]

Unfortunately for Canitz and Steuben, the two had a falling out after both of Steuben's nephews visited the old general in North America in the year 1786. On their way back to Europe, the two young men spent heavily, stopped for a costly vacation in Norway, and expected Steuben to pay the cost. He was extremely offended, and when they offered to come see him again, he threatened to put them both in debtors prison should they return to America. Steuben wrote to Canitz in January of 1789, informing him of the breaking of familial ties, and that he never wished to see Canitz again.[28] Needless to say, this somewhat soured Steuben's relationship with his European family, and as a result of not have any North American relatives, Steuben decided to leave his property to North, Walker, and Mulligan. Of course, this does not mean that Steuben did not have a sexual relationship with North, Walker, or Mulligan, simply that he had other reasons to leave them his worldly possessions.

Final Thoughts

There is plenty of room for Steuben to be a hero for many diverse groups. It is possible that he was asexual, as there is no clear evidence that he engaged in sexual relationships with anyone throughout his life. It is also possible that he was heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. The simple fact is that there is not clear evidence to definitively understand Steuben's sexual preferences. Steuben's life was complex, and he should be claimed by citizens of the United States, not just as a result of his sexual preferences, but as a fascinating man in his own right. Steuben may have been gay, but the moral standards of the time dictated that he could never have been openly gay. In the end, Steuben's sexuality remains obscure. 

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always: 

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Apparently, Steuben hated this picture of himself. Kapp, Life of Steuben, 620.
[2] Kapp, Life of Steuben, 617.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Quoted in Palmer, General von Steuben, 92.
[5] For an examination of an eighteenth-century German military figure who was prosecuted for having homosexual relations with his fellow soldiers, see Alexander Burns, "Honor, Religion and Reputation: The Worldview of the German Subsidentruppen who fought in the American War of Independence", Master Thesis presented to Ball State University, Chapter 4.
[6] https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/secret-gay-history-hamilton-4th-july/
[7] Kapp, Life of Steuben, 641.
[8] Kapp, Life of Steuben, 617.

[9]Quoted in Palmer, General von Steuben, 32.

[10] Quoted in Palmer, General von Steuben, 77.
[11] Kapp, Life of Steuben, 619.

[12] James Thatcher, Military Journal, 432. 
[13] The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Simon Gratz Collection (#250), Case 8, Box 14, William North to Benjamin Walker, February 16, 1783.
[14] https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/secret-gay-history-hamilton-4th-july/
[15]Duponcaeu, "Notes and Documents:  The Autobiography of Peter Stephen Du Ponceau," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol 63, (1939), 206-207.
[16] The Papers of General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, Duponcaeu diary, Vol 1, No. 9. (microcfilm) Afterwords referred to as, Steuben Papers. 
[17]Kapp, Life of Steuben, 610.
[18]Duponcaeu, "Notes and Documents:  The Autobiography of Peter Stephen Du Ponceau," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol 64, (1940), 264.
[19] Society of the Cincinnati Library, MSS1321MMB.
[20] John Adams to Charles Adams, 20th December, 1794. https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Baron%20Charles%20Adams&s=1111311113&r=163
[21]John Adams to Abigail Adams, 7 December 1794
[22] Steuben Papers, 7:224  (mircofilm).
[23] Steuben Papers, 5: 351,504. (mircofilm).
[25]Duponcaeu, "Notes and Documents:  The Autobiography of Peter Stephen Du Ponceau," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol 63, (1939), 208.
[26] Ibid
[27] Michael Sonenscher, Sans-Culottes: An Eighteenth-Century Emblem in the French Revolution, 58.
[28] Steuben's second and third will's are reproduced here: https://loyolanotredamelib.org/php/report05/articles/pdfs/Report35Pritchett19-26.pdf
[29] Steuben Papers, 7: 222. (mircofilm).

"In what a bad condition I found the Regiment Prinz Friedrich!": A Worst Regiment

Staff and volunteers at Ft. Ticonderoga doing a phenomenal portrayal of Prinz Friedrich .

Dear Reader,

Having examined one of the best units in the eighteenth century, the Delaware Regiment, we will now turn to examining one of the worst: Brunwick Regiment Prinz Friedrich. Some reenactors portray this unit quite well, particularly when displaying its garrison duty at Fort Ticonderoga. This post is not intended to be a hit-job on anyone's favorite unit, or reenacting career.

Despite all of that, I have to assert that Regiment Prinz Friedrich was one of the worst regular infantry units in Revolutionary era North America. This pains me to say, as the regimental commander, Christian Julius Prätorius, is one of my favorite figures from the revolutionary era. I have worked with his records a number of times, in the course of writing my masters thesis, as well as an article I wrote for the Seven Years' War Association Journal.[1]

Members of the recreated Regiment Prinz Friedrich enjoy garrison service at Fort Ticonderoga

The regiment hailed from the small state of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel in the latter half of the eighteenth century. It served in the Seven Years' War in Europe, before being sent to Canada during the American War of Independence. The main evidence against Regiment Prinz Friedrich comes from the second and third factors of our criteria: performance on campaign and opinions of its army commander. In the other three areas, we are left with a relatively slim pile of evidence, Prinz Friedrich was certainly mentioned by the diarists of the Burgoyne campaign, but only in passing, Christian Julius Prätorius had a rather normal reputation, and historians have been relatively silent on individual qualities of the regiment, preferring to examine Burgoyne's Brunswickers as a whole. Finally, in a rather unique case, the reputation of the regiment suffered as a result of a scandal involving a regimental chaplain.

In the course of its tour to North America, Regiment Prinz Friedrich was usually utilized as a garrison force. Excepting the advance to Fort Ticonderoga, and a minor role in the Battle of Hubbardton, the regiment spent most of the war in garrison service. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, its very role as a garrison prevented the regiment from being captured at the debacle of Saratoga. In John Brown's raid on Fort Ticonderoga, Regiment Prinz Friedrich performed very well, certainly outshining the efforts of the British 53rd Regiment of Foot. So, if it performed adequately, if not exceptionally under fire, why might we think it was a poor regiment?

First of all, garrison regiments did not enjoy a high reputation in Germanic military circles and were often referred to as Mauerscheisser, a less than polite term intentionally calling out their status as low-quality fortress soldiers.[2] Thus, by choosing to leave Regiment Prinz Friedrich behind, Brunswick General Riedesel indicated it was the least trustworthy of the regiments he had available. In an ironic twist, the American rebels captured Riedesel and his regiments in the Burgoyne campaign. However, since the Regiment Prinz Friedrich stayed at Fort Ticonderoga, they remained in British service, out of American hands. At times, it paid to be a poor soldier.

However, being relegated to a minor, garrison role did not necessarily mean that that the men of Regiment Prinz Friedrich were poor soldiers. What possible reason could Riedesel have had for placing them in the garrison at Fort Ticonderoga? Why did he choose Prinz Friedrich, rather any of his other five regiments?

A detachment of Prinz Friedrich, looking much better than they did on August 27th, 1776

It is possible that Riedesel's reasoning dates to an inspection in the late summer of 1776. In a report to headquarters on August 27th, 1776, Riedesel notes, "But as regards the Prinz Friedrich Regiment, I regret to say that I did not find it in the condition I desired, and which I had hoped for after the assurances given me by Lieutenant-Colonel Prätorius."[3] Riedesel unpacked his objections even further in a subsequent letter to Praetorius: "In what a bad condition I found the Regiment Prinz Friedrich! I am convinced that as long as the regiment has existed, it has never drilled so badly as on the day I saw it."[4] Riedesel included a number of specific complaints, which read like a litany of poor soldiering:

"Most of the men rest their heads on the right shoulder, consequently the left point on their hats is in a line with their guns. There is no life in their manual exercises, and their running fire lasts a quarter of an hour. After each exercise the men move their hands, knees and feet, touch their faces or grasp their hats, and even look to the left. The regiment is never in step when advancing, the line wavers constantly, the men bend their knees and stick out their heads, and they load their guns so slowly that not one of them has it resting firmly on his shoulder at 30 [seconds]. The platoons do not fire at the same time when advancing, and after the men have loaded they run back to the battalion line just as unevenly. The officers have no method when issuing commands, they give orders every moment and are not certain about anything, and when advancing they waver quite as much as the privates. In short, there are faults to find with everything, and that lies in the fact that the men have not been properly drilled in companies."[5]

The man dishing out the pain: Friedrich Adolph, Freiherr von Riedesel

 Ouch! It may seem from the following litany of complaints that Riedesel was a drill-square, by the book, soldier, but there is much evidence to suggest that he adapted to fighting in North America quite well. Context is everything, the proper drill-square performance was an invaluable part of the life of an eighteenth-century soldier, even if it usually did not match up with combat experience. You can see some of Riedesel's own thoughts on the importance of adapting to wilderness warfare in this post.

So, don't read the following to suggest that Riedesel was a drill-square tyrant (indeed, he was a dashing hussar officer in the Seven Years' War). Rather this is a display of his keen knowledge that drill-square perfection was an important indication of the quality and determination of the men performing it. Perhaps the most telling part of his indictment is that he saves his criticism at the speed of loading for the last, most important critique. So, how could Regiment Prinz Friedrich remedy the situation?

Riedesel sadly noted, “You will have to commence again from the beginning, first in files and then in companies, to march, do manual exercises, load, and repeat this until all the companies are equally well drilled.” He exhorts Prätorius to, “make the maladroit and the ignorant stop forward every time,” for punishment. The letter made clear that Riedesel no longer trusted Prätorius. Riedesel appointed another Lt. Colonel, Baum of the Braunschweig Dragoon Regiment, to oversee the drilling of Regiment Prinz Friedrich. “Baum… has received orders from me to see them drill frequently, and to tell you when he finds the companies so far advanced that you can draw the battalion together, and then you will unite all the companies[.]” By placing the decision making power in the hands of Baum, rather than Prätorius, Riedesel showed his lack of faith in Prätorius’ judgment. [6]

Riedesel continued,

"as soon as Lieutenant-Colonel Baum finds that the regiment drills well and reports it to me, you can cease drilling when [Baum] has given you permission, and then only drill once a week, so that the men do not forget what they have been taught. But until the regiment gets into proper condition, you must drill 4 times a week, and leave 2 days for resting." [7]

Riedesel closed his letter on a rather hopeful note, indicating that Prätorius would be able to achieve the outlined requirements. Regiment Prinz Friedrich did indeed join the invasion south into the rebellious colonies, even if Riedesel assigned them to a garrison role after the fall of Ticonderoga.

Finally, it is possible that the reputation of the regiment suffered in another way. The regimental chaplain (Feldprediger) Friedrich Fügerer, was brought up on charges of ill-conduct, which according to the morals of the time, included censure for homosexual relations. Regimental Auditor P.G. Wolpers worried that, "“not only everyone in the regiment, but the Canadian nation itself has been scandalized by him [Fügerer].” Wolpers indicated that the Prinz Friedrich Regiment's chaplain, as well as his perceived indiscretions, had become "the general talk at parties."[8]

Sketches of the Brunswick Infantry Regiments drawn by Ensign von Hille

A member of another Braunschweig infantry regiment, Lieutenant von Papet of the Rhetz regiment, recorded his views on Fügerer in his diary. On January 15th, 1779, Papet records that the commander of the Rhetz regiment received a letter of apology from Fügerer. According to von Papet, in this letter Fügerer, “cloaked all of his infamous actions under the influence of drunkenness.” Thus, according to Papet, Fügerer had much to hide. He also informs his reader that the letter, “will be put aside as future proof that he cared as little for us spiritually as bodily.” Thus, it is apparent that Fügerer had indeed created a bad name with the other regiments in Canada.[9]

It is certainly unfair to imply that this scandal impacted the military readiness of Regiment Prinz Friedrich, but it may have impacted the perception of the regiment, both among other regiments, and internally. As a result of their garrison assignments, censure from the army commander, and scandal marring the regimental reputation, it appears as though Regiment Prinz Friedrich may have had a low status during their deployment to North America.

Therefore, without demeaning the sacrifice of the soldiers, it may not be out of the realm of probability to suggest that Regiment Prinz Friedrich was one of the worst units in the American War of Independence. While the regiment's performance under fire was not necessarily poor, it drew censure from its army commander, and as a result, was placed in low-status garrison service. Oddly enough, this meant that Regiment Prinz Friedrich would escape capture with Burgoyne's army at Saratoga. Regiment Prinz Friedrich was then able to do what it apparently did best: relatively obscure garrison service.


Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns








[1] Alexander Burns, "Honor, Religion, and Reputation: The Worldview of the German Subsidientruppen who fought in the American War of Independence." Ball State University, Masters Thesis, 2014. A portion of this post is taken from my 2016 article, "'A Question of Doing it Quickly:' Essential Qualities of North Germanic Infantrymen, 1756-1783," published in the Journal of the Seven Years' War Association. 
[2] Cathal J. Nolan, Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650-1715: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization, 286.; Duffy, Fire and Stone: The Science of Fortress Warfare, 81.
[3] "Correspondence of General Riedesel," in Hessian Documents of the American Revolution (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1989), H.Z. 929, microform.

[4] Ibid, H.Z. 930.
[5] Ibid, H.Z. 930-1.
[6] Ibid, H.Z. 932.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Proceedings of the Military Court of the Prinz Friedrich Regiment, October 12, 1778, NdsStA Wf, 38 B (Alt 237), Acta Militaria.
[9] Von Papet and Burgoyne, Canada during the American Revolutionary War, 105.