Image: Brunswick (“Hesse”) troops, Amer­i­can War of Inde­pen­dence. From Richard Knö­tel. Image detail. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Knoetel_American_War_of_Independence.jpg

Table of Con­tents
Intro­duc­tion  |  The present sit­u­a­tion  |  The poten­tial  |  Archival Hold­ings  |  Pub­lished sources  |  Sec­ondary literature

Introduction

Mar­tin Christof-Füchsle’s essay (in the MIDA Archival Reflex­i­con) on Ger­man archival sources for the study of the Anglo-Mysore wars con­cen­trates on the hold­ings of two major archives that are indeed the most per­ti­nent for this sur­vey: the hold­ings of the Nieder­säch­sis­ches Lan­desarchiv in Hanover, con­tain­ing files relat­ing to the two Hanover­ian reg­i­ments in EIC ser­vice between 1782 and 1792, and the archive of the Dan­ish-Halle mis­sion in Tran­que­bar, locat­ed in the Archiv der Franck­eschen Stiftun­gen zu  Halle. He fur­ther points out the exis­tence of per­ti­nent mate­r­i­al in oth­er Ger­man archives, such as the Thüringis­ches Staat­sarchiv in Gotha and the Bran­den­bur­gis­ches Haupt­staat­sarchiv in Pots­dam. Begin­ning his sur­vey of these archival hold­ings with hold­ings con­tain­ing doc­u­ments relat­ing to mil­i­tary and admin­is­tra­tive issues, he then goes on to dis­cuss in greater detail files con­tain­ing ego-doc­u­ments that can sup­ply a more per­son­al, poten­tial­ly a pecu­liar Ger­man per­spec­tive of the mil­i­tary events. In the present essay, I want to sup­ply a fol­low-up to Christof-Füchsle’s essay, high­light­ing what I con­sid­er to be a very promis­ing poten­tial for find­ing addi­tion­al sources in Ger­man archives, includ­ing per­son­al let­ters and diaries. Sub­se­quent­ly, I dis­cuss the val­ue of these doc­u­ments, argu­ing for tak­ing their intend­ed or pre­sumed read­er­ship into account.

The present situation

  Christof-Füch­sle starts his sur­vey of Ger­man sources on the sec­ond Anglo-Mysore war (1780–1784) with a ref­er­ence to the pub­lished nar­ra­tions and trav­el jour­nals that Hanover­ian offi­cers began pub­lish­ing soon after embark­ing on EIC ships to India, con­tin­u­ing to do so many years after return­ing to Ger­many (the lat­est was Best 1807). In one of the cas­es, that of Chap­lain Friedrich Lud­wig Lang­st­edt (1750–1804), the expe­ri­ence in India even became the basis and start­ing point of his career as an author and trans­la­tor of books relat­ed to world trade and trav­el in var­i­ous con­ti­nents (Lang­st­edt 1789, 1799, 1801, 1803). 

Until now, the con­tem­po­rary pub­lished texts by these Hanover­ian offi­cers are more numer­ous in quan­ti­ty than the per­son­al let­ters and diaries that have been locat­ed in the archives. For against five books (Lang­st­edt 1789, Lang­st­edt 1799, Scharn­horst 1788, Scharn­horst 1789 and Best 1807) and about thir­ty mag­a­zine arti­cles in vary­ing lengths (see the list in Tzoref Ashke­nazi 2009:208–11) we have at our dis­pos­al only five sub­stan­tial per­son­al tes­ti­monies in man­u­script form, including:

  1. the let­ters of Fer­di­nand Brey­mann (1764–1794) (being rather short, they can be con­sid­ered a sin­gle doc­u­ment for the present pur­pose; NLA HA Bestand Kleine Erwer­bun­gen A 48 Nr. 2);
  2. the diary of Carl de Roques (1757–1786) (NLA HA Bestand Kleine Erwer­bun­gen A 48 Nr.1);
  3. a let­ter by Peter Joseph du Plat (1761–1824) (NLA HA 38c Nr. 23, pp. 20–28), with a copy among the papers of August Georg Ulrich von Hard­en­berg (1762–1806), (Bran­den­bur­gis­ches Lan­deshauptarchiv Bestand 37 Herrschaft Neuhard­en­berg, Kr. Lebus –Akten (1211–1945) Film 1739: Teil­nahme August Georg Ulrichs von Hard­en­berg an den englis­chen Feldzü­gen in Indien);
  4. the diary of Chris­t­ian August von Wan­gen­heim (locat­ed in Thüringis­ches Staat­sarchiv Gotha, Bestand 2–97-0958: Fam­i­lie von Wan­gen­heim, Archiva­lien-Sig­natur 529: Tage­buch des Christoph August von Wan­gen­heim (1741–1830) über seine Reise nach Ostin­di­en (Mysore-Krieg));
  5. the mil­i­tary-geo­graph­i­cal sur­vey of the Dec­can by Carl August Schlegel (1762–1789), which, hav­ing been ini­tial­ly com­posed as an offi­cial report is not strict­ly speak­ing an ego-doc­u­ment but does con­tain an indi­vid­ual per­spec­tive of the mil­i­tary sit­u­a­tion. (Nieder­säch­sis­che Staats- und Uni­ver­sitäts­bib­lio­thek, Cod. Ms. Hist. 815).

The potential

Approx­i­mate­ly at the same time that the Hanove­ri­ans served in India, thou­sands of Ger­man troops from six Ger­man prin­ci­pal­i­ties served as aux­il­iary troops of the British Crown in North Amer­i­ca. Their ser­vice began in 1776, short­ly before the recruit­ment of the Hanove­ri­ans, and last­ed until 1783, when the Hanove­ri­ans had just arrived in India. About twen­ty thou­sand were sent at the com­mence­ment of the war in 1776, with the total num­ber of those who were recruit­ed dur­ing the sev­en years of the con­flict reach­ing up to thir­ty-eight thou­sand, although not all reached Amer­i­ca. The Ger­man troops in North Amer­i­ca rep­re­sent­ed a larg­er pro­por­tion of the British troops than did the Hanove­ri­ans in India. There the Hanove­ri­ans rep­re­sent­ed only a frac­tion of the total troops, both Indi­an and Euro­peans, but up to twen­ty-five per­cent when con­sid­er­ing only the Euro­peans. The Ger­man troops in Amer­i­ca rep­re­sent­ed about a third of the Crown troops, reach­ing at its peak up to forty per­cent (Con­way 2014: 90–95, Krebs 2013:24). Sim­i­lar to the Hanove­ri­ans in India, some of them began pub­lish­ing their impres­sions in Ger­man peri­od­i­cals already dur­ing their ser­vice. Nev­er­the­less, the num­ber of con­tem­po­rary pub­li­ca­tions by mem­bers of these troops remained mod­est and is rough­ly equal to those by Hanover­ian sol­diers in India. A far larg­er num­ber of man­u­scripts, includ­ing let­ters and diaries, writ­ten by Ger­man sol­diers in North Amer­i­ca are kept in archives in Ger­many and North Amer­i­ca. Accord­ing to Christof Mauch, “more than a thou­sand diaries and per­son­al tes­ti­monies by Ger­man sol­diers, includ­ing long let­ters are at our dis­pos­al” (Mauch 2003:412). These include, fur­ther­more, not only texts writ­ten by offi­cers but also by ordi­nary sol­diers. Since the late nine­teenth cen­tu­ry, dozens of vol­umes of such texts have been pub­lished both in the orig­i­nal Ger­man and in Eng­lish trans­la­tions (for a bib­li­og­ra­phy see Haunert 2014:218–224). How can the small quan­ti­ty of Hanover­ian per­son­al tes­ti­monies on the expe­di­tion to India – com­pared to the large num­ber of such tes­ti­monies on the Amer­i­can war – be account­ed for, even when tak­ing the fact that the num­ber of Ger­man troops sent to Amer­i­ca was more than ten times high­er into account? One could argue that the strong polit­i­cal inter­est in the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion in Ger­many led more sol­diers to write down their impres­sions. But the almost equal num­ber of con­tem­po­rary pub­li­ca­tions by mem­bers of both expe­di­tions speaks against this hypoth­e­sis. Christof Mauch and Lena Haunert believe that the main rea­son for the pro­duc­tion of so many diaries by Ger­man sol­diers in North Amer­i­ca was the encounter with land­scapes and soci­eties so dif­fer­ent from their own (Mauch 2003:412, Haunert 2014:4). This kind of incen­tive for writ­ing would not have been any weak­er among sol­diers of the Hanover­ian reg­i­ments in India. Their social com­po­si­tion was like­wise sim­i­lar to that of the Ger­man aux­il­iary troops in Amer­i­ca. Anoth­er expla­na­tion would demand tak­ing the much high­er mor­tal­i­ty rates of sol­diers in India and the mis­er­able health con­di­tion of many of the sur­vivors into account. This con­sid­er­a­tion explains why most of the man­u­scripts by Hanove­ri­ans are from the first years of ser­vice in India. But this does not ful­ly explain the dif­fer­ence in num­bers between texts on India and Amer­i­ca. It seems rea­son­able to assume that the strong polit­i­cal inter­est in the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion did play a role, but this dif­fer­ence may have been reflect­ed not so much in the num­ber of texts writ­ten as by the effort put by pro­fes­sion­al and ama­teur his­to­ri­ans to unearth them. More blunt­ly put, far less Hanover­ian texts are known to us because inter­est in them was min­i­mal com­pared to the inter­est in texts describ­ing the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion. Since Ger­man texts about the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion are still being unearthed today (sev­er­al impor­tant find­ings were made in the present cen­tu­ry), it seems plau­si­ble that the vast major­i­ty of Ger­man per­son­al man­u­scripts on the sec­ond Anglo-Mysore war remain unknown to us. Many of those that remained out­side state archives may have been destroyed dur­ing the pre­vi­ous 230 years, but oth­ers may still be wait­ing to be dis­cov­ered. As in the Amer­i­can case, these may well include man­u­scripts by ordi­nary sol­diers and not just offi­cers as is the case with the man­u­scripts known to us now, although admit­ted­ly man­u­scripts by ordi­nary sol­diers, com­ing from less afflu­ent fam­i­lies, were much less like­ly to survive.

Where are the manuscripts

Addi­tion­al man­u­scripts by Hanover­ian sol­diers in India are most like­ly to be dis­cov­ered in fam­i­ly col­lec­tions. As indi­cat­ed by Christof-Füch­sle, two impor­tant sources for man­u­scripts on the Hanover­ian expe­di­tion to India are indeed locat­ed in fam­i­ly col­lec­tions in archives (in the Bran­den­bur­gis­ches Lan­deshauptarchiv in Pots­dam: Bestand 37 Herrschaft Neuhard­en­berg; in the Lan­desarchiv Thürin­gen — Staat­sarchiv Gotha: Bestand 2–97-0958 Fam­i­lie von Wan­gen­heim). Oth­er col­lec­tions may be found in fam­i­ly pos­ses­sions. The let­ters addressed to the Hes­s­ian army offi­cer and offi­cial Georg Ernst von und zu Gilsa (1740–1798) by offi­cers serv­ing in Amer­i­ca were recent­ly dis­cov­ered acci­den­tal­ly in fam­i­ly pos­ses­sion and deliv­ered to the archive. (Gräf, 2010). Dur­ing my work on the Hanover­ian reg­i­ments, I made a few ran­dom attempts to unearth such man­u­scripts, writ­ing to the mem­bers of two Hanover­ian aris­to­crat­ic fam­i­lies (von Wersebe and von Hinüber) that had ances­tors among the offi­cers in India. The gen­tle­men I approached replied that while they were well aware of the Indi­an adven­ture in the fam­i­ly past, they regret­ted that they had no per­ti­nent doc­u­ments. After hav­ing pub­lished a tran­scrip­tion of Peter Joseph du Plat’s let­ter from India in the Nieder­säch­sis­ches Jahrbuch für Lan­des­geschichte (Tzoref-Ashke­nazi 2018), I received a very friend­ly let­ter from a Low­er Sax­on aris­to­crat whose ances­tor, Johann Wil­helm von Pla­to (1734–1783), had been men­tioned in du Plat’s text. He attached tran­scripts of let­ters writ­ten by his ances­tor on the way to India, adding that the fam­i­ly held longer, jour­nal-like let­ters writ­ten by him. This inci­dence indi­cates the impor­tance of hav­ing some luck, but also the impor­tance of pub­lic­i­ty in local venues for draw­ing the atten­tion of the hold­ers of the rel­e­vant papers.

Anoth­er case in point is that of Georg Friedrich Gaupp (1719–1798), who in 1750 raised in his home region of Baden one of the “Swiss” com­pa­nies hired by the EIC, sub­se­quent­ly serv­ing the EIC army in India between 1751 and 1760 and par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Car­nat­ic wars and the bat­tle of Plassey (1757). After return­ing to Ger­many he invest­ed in a cot­ton fac­to­ry, draw­ing on Indi­an tech­ni­cal knowl­edge. His son Lud­wig wrote a detailed biog­ra­phy of his father based on his per­son­al papers. Karl Heb­ster could still use this source for his arti­cles on Gaupp writ­ten in the 1930s. The man­u­script has since dis­ap­peared but could still be kept in fam­i­ly pos­ses­sion some­where (Herb­ster 1930, Herb­ster 1936, Sander 2003:121–122). Oth­er doc­u­ments did sur­vive. Papers relat­ed to Gaupp’s fac­to­ry are kept in the Gen­er­al­lan­desarchiv Karl­sruhe (Bestand 212 Lör­rach: Stadt, 18: Gewerbe). Gaupp also cor­re­spond­ed con­cern­ing Indi­an trade with Karo­line Louise von Baden (1723–1783), wife of the mar­grave of Baden-Durlach, Karl Friedrich (1728–1811) (Mey­er 1981). This cor­re­spon­dence is pre­served in the Mark­grä­fich­es Fam­i­lien­ar­chiv in the Gen­er­al­lan­desarchiv in Karl­sruhe. (Bestand FA Nr. 5 A Corr 11). The mis­sion archive of the Franck­esche Stiftun­gen holds a let­ter by him to mis­sion­ary Johann Philipp Fabri­cius (1711–1791 (AFSt/M 1 D 18:9) and a nar­ra­tive by him of the war in Ben­gal in 1756 (AFSt/M 1 B 47:33).        

Evaluating the sources

In his arti­cle ‘The Prob­lem of Speech Gen­res’ Michael Bakhtin dis­tin­guished between two kinds of utter­ances, which con­sti­tute the con­crete and indi­vid­ual enti­ties through which lan­guage is man­i­fest­ed. Dai­ly dia­logues and pri­vate let­ters are pri­ma­ry utter­ances. Sec­ondary or com­plex utter­ances include all sorts of artis­tic, sci­en­tif­ic and com­men­tary texts, but also less sophis­ti­cat­ed but more stan­dard­ized texts such as all mil­i­tary and bureau­crat­ic doc­u­ments. While pri­ma­ry utter­ances are also part of an end­less chain of speech, sec­ondary utter­ances are part of a much more com­plex com­mu­ni­ca­tion sys­tem. They are much more ide­o­log­i­cal, not in the polit­i­cal sense but in the sense of relat­ing to a sys­tem of ideas (Bakhtin 1987). Apply­ing this clas­si­fi­ca­tion to the Hanover­ian man­u­scripts on the sec­ond Anglo-Mysore war that were found in the archives, it seems that most of them should be regard­ed as sec­ondary utter­ances. This is most obvi­ous con­cern­ing the offi­cial doc­u­ments such as mil­i­tary reports, includ­ing Schlegel’s text, whose ori­gin was as an offi­cial report. But it also holds for some of the per­son­al let­ters and diaries. Du Plat’s let­ter belongs most clear­ly to this cat­e­go­ry, being the extract of a let­ter to a rel­a­tive in Ger­many of which a copy was found in Hardenberg’s papers. This is a clear indi­ca­tion that the extract was pre­pared for the pur­pose of cir­cu­lat­ing among offi­cers and oth­er mem­bers of the Hanover­ian social elite. This pro­ce­dure was a com­mon prac­tice in the eigh­teenth cen­tu­ry and was often applied to the let­ters arriv­ing from India. The Han­noverisches Mag­a­zin even pub­lished calls for recip­i­ents of let­ters from India to hand them over to the peri­od­i­cal for pub­li­ca­tion. This means the offi­cers writ­ing let­ters home knew well that the let­ters would prob­a­bly be read by a far wider read­er­ship than their addressees. This was espe­cial­ly true for let­ters that includ­ed much infor­ma­tion of the kind that made them suit­able for cir­cu­la­tion, as was the case of du Plat’s let­ter. This does not mean that the let­ter does not include the per­son­al per­spec­tive of the author, but it does mean that it belongs, to a large degree, to a pub­lic dis­course in Hanover, and that the author would not write any­thing that might be polit­i­cal­ly sen­si­tive. The let­ters of Fer­di­nand Brey­mann are, on the oth­er hand, much more pri­vate and emo­tion­al, and much of their con­tent unsuit­able for cir­cu­la­tion, and thus much clos­er to a pri­ma­ry utterance.

The diaries were much more under the con­trol of their authors as long as they remained in their pos­ses­sion, but authors usu­al­ly intend­ed them to be read by a wider pub­lic, either in the fam­i­ly or beyond. Often, they were meant to serve as the basis for a trav­el book. Wangenheim’s diary is rather con­cise. It includes short entries with­out long trans­gres­sions sup­ply­ing com­pre­hen­sive descrip­tions of India, but rather con­cen­trat­ing on the events of the day. The lack of long reflec­tions could result from Wangenheim’s many occu­pa­tions as reg­i­ment com­man­der or from him being accus­tomed to a mil­i­tary style as a long serv­ing offi­cer. But it does not mean that the jour­nal was meant only for his per­son­al use. De Roques’ diary is dif­fer­ent, in that it includes long trans­gres­sions with reflec­tions on Indi­an soci­ety that indi­cate that this is a much less imme­di­ate text. It may well be that de Roques con­tem­plat­ed the pos­si­bil­i­ty of pub­lish­ing it after return­ing home, as some of his com­rades did. The style, too, is at times quite lit­er­ary, and in some places, such as his sec­ond thoughts about war in gen­er­al, with­out ques­tion­ing his own par­tic­i­pa­tion in the expe­di­tion to India, appear heav­i­ly influ­enced by the con­tem­po­rary cul­tur­al trend of Empfind­samkeit (sen­ti­men­tal­i­ty). There­fore, it should be classed as a sec­ondary utterance.

This does not mean that sources that are pri­ma­ry utter­ances are more valu­able than sec­ondary ones, but each allows for a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive of the sit­u­a­tion to which they refer, a dif­fer­ence that should be con­sid­ered when ana­lyz­ing the sources. A dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive is also what the Ger­man sources can offer us in gen­er­al. Yet, what they sup­ply is not nec­es­sar­i­ly a Ger­man per­spec­tive. They rather add a range of dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives to those afford­ed by British sources, be it the mis­sion­ary per­spec­tive, the Hanover­ian per­spec­tive, and some­times a more gen­er­al Euro­pean per­spec­tive, besides mul­ti­ple indi­vid­ual per­spec­tives. In the case of the Hanover­ian texts, the Hanover­ian per­spec­tive is revealed for exam­ple when some of them nar­rate mil­i­tary action in a way that defends the per­for­mance of the Hanove­ri­ans or treat British inter­ests in India in a dis­tanced man­ner. A Euro­pean per­spec­tive is high­light­ed when they regard colo­nial pres­ence in India as affect­ing Euro­peans in gen­er­al, as du Plat for exam­ple does. Their under­stand­ing of Indi­an soci­ety, while based on British infor­ma­tion, also tends to reflect con­tem­po­rary Euro­pean images on India rather than more spe­cif­ic British notions con­struct­ed through colo­nial encounter. 

Archival Holdings

Nieder­säch­sis­ches Lan­desarchiv, Han­nover
Bestand Kleine Erwer­bun­gen
NLA HA 38 C Ostindis­che Regimente

Bran­den­bur­gis­ches Lan­deshauptarchiv, Pots­dam
Bestand 37 Herrschaft Neuhard­en­berg, Kr. Lebus –Akten (1211–1945)

Lan­desarchiv Thürin­gen —  Staat­sarchiv, Gotha
Bestand 2–97-0958: Fam­i­lie von Wangenheim

Archiv der  der Franck­eschen Stiftun­gen zu Halle
Bestand: Mis­sion­sarchiv
AFSt/M 1 B 47
AFSt/M 1 D

Gen­er­al­lan­desarchiv Karl­sruhe
Bestand 212 Lör­rech: Stadt, 18: Gewerbe.
Bestand FA 5A Markgräfiches/Großherzogliches Fam­i­lien­ar­chiv, Karo­line Louise, Mark­gräfin, Korrespondenz.

Published sources

Best, Carl Con­rad, Briefe über Ost-Indi­en, das Vorge­birge der guten Hoff­nung und die Insel St. Hele­na. Leipzig: Göschen, 1807.

Gall, Man­fred von, Hg., Hanauer Jour­nale und Briefe aus dem amerikanis­chen Unab­hängigkeit­skrieg 1776–1783. Hanau: Hanauer Geschichtsvere­in, 2005.

Gräf, Th. Hol­ger et al., Krieg in Ameri­ka und Aufk­lärung in Hes­sen: die Pri­vat­briefe (1772–1784) an Georg Ernst von und zu Gilsa. Mar­burg: Hes­sis­ches Lan­desamt für geschichtliche Lan­deskunde, 2010.

Lang­st­edt, Lud­wig Friedrich, Reisen nach Südameri­ka, Asien und Afri­ka: neb­st geo­graphis­chen, his­torischen und das Kom­merz­i­um betr­e­f­fend­en Anmerkun­gen. Hildesheim: Tucht­feld, 1789.

——–, Hin­dostanis­che Denkwürdigkeit­en: ein Lese­buch zur Beherzi­gung für jeden Kos­mopo­liten. Nürn­berg: Raspe, 1799.

——–, Ueber die evan­ge­lis­chen Mis­sion­san­gele­gen­heit­en, sowohl über­haupt, als ins­beson­dere die ostindis­chen. Ein­beck: Fey­sel, 1801.

——–, Prac­tis­che Geschichte des asi­atis­chen Han­dels. Nürn­berg: Raspe, 1803.

[Scharn­horst, Lud­wig von], Kurze Beschrei­bung ein­er Reise von Arcot in Ostin­di­en nach… Deutsch­land. Ham­burg: Hoff­mann, 1788.

——–, Briefe auf ein­er Reise von Stade nach Madras. Bre­men: Förster, 1789.

Tzoref-Ashke­nazi, Chen, „‚Die indis­chen Ver­herun­gen sind von jeher als grausam in der Geschichte bekan­nt‘. Brief eines han­nover­schen Offiziers aus dem britis­chen Indi­en, 1784“. Nieder­säch­sis­ches Jahrbuch für Lan­des­geschichte 90 (2018): pp. 101–136.

Wan­gen­heim, Christoph August von, Im Dien­ste der British East India Com­pa­ny. Hg. Stef­fen Arndt. Gotha: Thüringis­ches Staat­sarchiv, 2017.

Secondary literature

Bakhtin, Michael, “The prob­lem of speech gen­res“. In: Ibid. (ed.) Speech gen­res and oth­er late essays. Austin: Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas Press, 1987: pp. 60–102.

Con­way, Stephen, “Con­ti­nen­tal Euro­pean Sol­diers in British Impe­r­i­al Ser­vice”. Eng­lish His­tor­i­cal Review 129 (2014): pp. 79-106.

Haunert, Lena, Ein­satz in der Fremde? das Amerik­a­bild der deutschen Sub­si­di­en­trup­pen im amerikanis­chen Unab­hängigkeit­skrieg. Darm­stadt: Hes­sis­che His­torische Kom­mis­sion, 2014.

Herb­ster, Karl, „Aus den Lör­racher Tagen des Großbri­tan­nis­chen Haupt­manns Georg  Friedrich Gaupp“. Das Mark­gräfler­land: Beiträge zu sein­er Geschichte und Kul­tur 1, 3 (1930): pp. 74–82.

——–, ‘Georg Friedrich Gaupp: Kolo­nialof­fizier, Indus­trieller und Muster­land­wirt 1719–1798’. Mein Heimat­land. Badis­che Blät­ter für Volk­skunde, Heimat- und Naturschutz, Denkmalpflege, Fam­i­lien­forschung und Kun­st, 23 (1936): pp. 76–77.

Krebs, Daniel, A Gen­er­ous and Mer­ci­ful Ene­my. Nor­man, Okl.: Uni­ver­si­ty of Okla­homa Press, 2013.

May­er, Gas­ton, „Min­er­al­o­gis­che Mit­teilun­gen des großbri­tan­nis­chen Haupt­manns und Unternehmers Georg Friedrich Gaupp an die Mark­gräfin Car­o­line Louise von Baden 1763/4 und 1772“ Auf­schluss 32 (1981): pp. 37–42.

Sander, Friedrich, „Cap­tain Georg Friedrich Gaupp 1719–1798“. Pforzheimer Geschichts­blät­ter 11 (2003): pp. 121–128.

Tzoref-Ashke­nazi, Chen, “Ger­man Voic­es from India: Offi­cers of the Hanover­ian Reg­i­ments in East India Com­pa­ny Ser­vice”. South Asia 32, 2 (2009): pp. 189–211.  

Chen Tzoref Ashkenazi

MIDA Archival Reflex­i­con

Edi­tors: Anan­di­ta Baj­pai, Heike Liebau
Lay­out: Mon­ja Hof­mann, Nico Putz
Host: ZMO, Kirch­weg 33, 14129 Berlin
Con­tact: archival.reflexicon [at] zmo.de

ISSN 2628–5029