Image: Bruns­wick („Hes­se“) tro­ops, Ame­ri­can War of Inde­pen­dence. From Richard Knö­tel. Image detail.

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


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]

ISSN 2628–5029