Page 226 - Conflitti Militari e Popolazioni Civili - Tomo I

226 XXXIV Congresso della CommIssIone InternazIonale dI storIa mIlItare • CIHm

was published in General Orders that citizens had complained to General Pigot that “the Gar-
dens in Town [were] being frequently robbed in the Night.” The General stated that he was
“determined to punish the first Soldier, or Inhabitant, that is found guilty of such practices.”
However, his threat must not have been taken seriously as the problem continued throughout
the first summer of occupation. On 20 August 1777, it was again noted that “Brigadier Gen-
eral Smith and Brigadier General Losing [von Lossing] have frequent complaints from the
Inhabitants, of their Gardens being robbed, their Potatoes, and Turnips dug up, their trees and
Fences cut down and taken away; it is positively ordered that hereafter, any Soldier detected
in any of the above infamous Actions, may never be forgiven on account of former Character,
or at the Intercession of the Party injured….” General Smith even required that his order be
“read to all Companies with the utmost attention, that no Man may plead ignorance.” 16
Occasionally, the soldier robberies and depredations were not just against the inhabit-
nd
ants but against other soldiers. An Ensign Best of the 22 Regiment was robbed by soldiers
of “four guineas, two Half Joes, and some Shirts and Stockings.” In a sensational General
nd
Courts Martial of 1777, a Private Thomas Edwards of the 22 Regiment, acting in his role
as a “Sauve Guard [safe guard] at the house of Mr. Samuel Dyer” was charged with “Ma-
liciously Firing a Musket, and thereby wounding two Hessian Soldiers of the Regiment of
Ditfourth; one of whom Fuzileer Iburg is since dead of his wounds.” The Commanding
Officer of the Hessian regiment, Colonel Carl von Bose argued in court that the attack was
“without pretext or reason.” However, when called to the stand, Edwards noted that the farm
of Mr. Dyer had been robbed for two preceding nights and had some sheep taken and that
on the night prior to the shooting, that he had been beaten and “dragged about a field by four
Hessian soldiers and that on the third night of these Robberies…he found ten Hessians break-
ing thro’ the Fence, on which he Challenged them, but not receiving any answer, Fired upon
them….” Edwards further stated that after the dragging incident he had received permission
nd
from the Guard commander, Captain Edward Brabazon, 22 Regiment, to fire upon farm
trespassers in the future. And the very next night he did so. The Hessians claimed that the
men had been shot at from someone behind a haystack using “long slugs” or a lead ball cut
into square pieces. thus the weapon was used more like a shotgun than a musket and was
designed to hit as many people over as wide an area as possible. But knowing how Edwards
had been previously treated by the Hessians, this action was perhaps understandable. Ed-
wards was found not guilty. 17
For the most part, however, the majority of the crimes by the soldiery during the occupa-
tion were of the petty theft variety. The most common punishment for such crime was lashes
that could be as high as 500 or running the gauntlet. This latter punishment involved requir-
ing the soldier to run between two files of men who would then be required to beat the man
with their fists or even clubs. They would then repeat this procedure depending on the sever-
ity of the crime. Lieutenant Johann Prechtel noted that a “common soldier named Schmitt
was punished to run a gauntlet of 200 men twelve times for having stolen money from a
store.” A few Hessians and British soldiers received the death penalty for crimes against the

16 Don Hagist, General Orders, 61, 64.
17 Don Hagist, General Orders, 88-91.