Talk:Germans in the American Revolution

Untitled
I like what you've done. My main concern about the use of Hessian to mean German soldiers in the AWI was that it was Racist towards the People of Hesse, It was American Slang and Hessian went straight there instead of dismbiguation (I found the page looking for the cloth) it also seemed to me to be vary much weighted towards the Rebels and against the Unionist forces and HM. This article is brilliantly detailed, good work.(Morcus (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks. It's a long way from being finished, though, which is why nothing links to it, yet.Mingusboodle (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Use Of England/English and Britain/British
England (Which included Wales) and Scotland United in 1707 so I think Britain and British should be used over England/English unless refering to Ethnicity (Which is probably unnessarcery) or the English language. I mention this because George was refered to in the article as an 'English' King when in fact he wasn't English and I believe didn't have King of England in his titles (He has King of Great Britain which covers the area). Its important because it otherwise reinforces half truths and misconceptions.(Morcus (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Good catch. Mingusboodle (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Per initiail post, please do not even use English even to refer to ethnicity while discussing British regiment, as the British forces had large numbers of other enthnicities including Welsh, Irish and Scots. Even in "English Regiments" usually a large number of the enlisted women were "non-english". 72.37.171.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
 * British units also recruited Germans. That's something I've been meaning to add to the article, but haven't gotten around to it. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I've proposed merging the Hessian (soldiers) article into this one. Same topic, same subject matter. I think that Germans in the American Revolution should be the primary article, with link outs to subpages if depth of content warrants. Content contained in Hessian (soldiers) is indeed about all German mercenaries, not just the ones originating from Hesse. Interested in thoughts and feedback. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to focus more on the states in this article and let the Hessian (soldiers) article focus more on the soldiers. It hasn't been as easy to separate them as I thought. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No - (Not connected with the article) To me the articles should be separate though aligned, one is about the politics, the other is about the militaristic. I liked the separation for that perspective. One page would begin to be big anyway. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No - For the same reasons as stated by Billinghurst.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I originally thought 'no,' but as the two articles continue to grow and evolve, they are becoming two versions of the same article. Different texts, different sources; same topic, same information. As the two articles are today, they should be merged. Hessian (soldiers) shouldn't be made into a redirect, but rather just a short article explaining the Americanized slang use of "Hessian" while pointing to Germans in the American Revolution. My real preference, though, would be to keep each article and use Hessian (soldiers) to focus on soldiers from Hesse, specifically. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Hessian (soldiers) discusses the fact that Hessian mercenaries were also deployed in Ireland, and that not all of them were German (some soldiers grouped under the label "Hessian" were actually Russian), so the two articles really don't overlap. I'm taking off the merge proposal tag now (it's already been removed from the other article, if it was ever there) as there is clearly no consensus for a merger after almost two years. Pais (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Review
The WikiMilitary History review meets B-Class article status except for "Coverage and accuracy." Any ideas on what we could do to meet that criterion so the article could get bumped up to 'B' status? Mingusboodle (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick review
As per the request at WP:MHA, I have done a quick review on the article. Unfortunately I don't have specific content knowledge, so I can't really say anything about coverage, but I have the following other comments on possible improvements:


 * the lead could be expanded a little (up to four paragraphs);
 * Citation # 36 appears to be a dead link, could you please check to see if it has been moved?
 * the block quote in the Allies of Great Britain section needs an inline citation;
 * per the MOS some of the images should be left aligned rather than having them all stacked to the right, this would remove some of the whitespace that appears in the article (at least on my screen);
 * the last sentence in the Hessen-Hanau section needs a citation;
 * in the Anhalt-Zerbst section the last part of the paragraph needs a citation;
 * in the Europeans section, there are a couple of paragraphs that don't have inline citations and need them. One beginning with "Other Germans came to the United States...", the beginning "And at least one German..."
 * Citation # 11 (The Revolution's Black Soldiers) should have an accessdate. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! If it's ok with everyone else, let's simply strike out the line items above as we get to them. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the citations for Rosengarten's books to disambiguate by year not by title. There was one, "Rosengarten, 18" which had no title. I assume, from other citates with adjacent pages nos, that this refers to "Rosengarten (1906), 18" (ie Frederick the Great). If not, please tweak accordingly. Anhow, I guess this is B-class.  Roger Davies  talk 05:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a few possible things to add (or consider adding): --  Magic ♪piano 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * German troops in the French Army. Supposedly a significant number of them were either recruited from HRE states or were of German extraction.
 * German historiography calls the siege of Yorktown "die Deutsche Schlacht", with some historians counting as many as 1/3 of all forces there being of German extraction. (See Siege of Yorktown for citations.)
 * Hanoverian troops, in addition to Gibraltar, also served at Minorca and in India. (They were involved in one action in India.)
 * A section on neutrals: those HRE leaders that were asked, but refused to play.
 * Perhaps a section or paragraph(s) on major events that primarily involved Germans/German-Americans on one side or the other (e.g. Battle of Bennington, Battle of Red Bank, Attack on German Flatts (1778), Battle of Oriskany).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germans in the American Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807222019/http://www.ushistory.org/washingtoncrossing/history/crossagain.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/washingtoncrossing/history/crossagain.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Allies or mercenaries?
The American Revolutionary War Template lists among the combatants "German allies" of Great Britain. I have queried this on the basis that German participation on the British side involved the leasing of troops rather than alliances at the state government level, or so I understand it. One respondant has mentioned that page watchers here consider the arrangements to have been alliances. Is that the case, and does anyone have any opinion on changing the template from "German allies" to "German mercenaries"? Note also there was concern about a MOS:SUBMARINE issue, which I reponded to on the template TP. Factotem (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. The problem with "mercenaries" is that the word implies individuals acting as private citizens for personal gain.  This does not at all describe the Germans allies of Great Britain in the American War of Independence.  Great Britain negotiated treaties with sovereign states, who then recruited or conscripted soldiers to fulfill their treaty obligations.  (When was the last time you heard of a mercenary being drafted?)  Calling them "mercenaries" is a very strong violation of NPV, because it was a propaganda term used by Congressional advocates.  It would be similar to repeatedly referring to Germans as "Huns" in one of the World War articles.  I will acknowledge that many Americans still refer to them as "mercenaries" because that's what they're taught, and the counter argument to me is that money changed hands between Great Britain and several German states.  However, if this is the standard, we must also refer to many modern soldiers as mercenaries based on the money they earn and the massive amounts of money exchanged between allied nations for national defense. Canute (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The word is NOT limited to individuals. In 21st century it Primarily refers to business enterprises that do private guard and combat service. In the 18th century, which is what we're talking about, it referred not to individuals but to the governments of small countries, especially in Germany, that rented out regiments, complete with flags uniforms officers weapons and training, to the highest bidder. An individual running himself out could not fit in the highly organized system very well. A standard scholarly work is The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform under Frederick II, 1760-1785 by Professor Charles W. Ingrao  (Cambridge University press, 2003), With exurbs online at https://www.amazon.com/Hessian-Mercenary-State-Institutions-Frederick/dp/0521533228  Here's a quote from a major American scholarly history journal:  Robert J. Allison in Reviews in American History 32.2 (2004) at p 161: "The British had considered hiring mercenaries from Morocco and had even tried to hire Russians (Catherine the Great refused) and Prussians (Frederick the Great said this would be like selling "cattle to have their throats cut") but found Friedrich Wilhelm II, Landgraf of Hesse-Cassel, expanding his own military force and seeking uses for it. The officers and ordinary soldiers saw an opportunity to get wealthy in America (looting and pillaging were part of the allure)."  Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things to consider here. First is "modern usage" vs "historic usage."  This is why I used the word "implied" above.  I'm comfortable with either usage so long as we take the time to explain the difference in a way that makes sense to readers.  In other words, it's ok to say something in the article about what the word "mercenary" meant in the 18th century, and to explain that it can be applied to the state and not to the individual Soldier (although Thomas Jefferson applied it to individuals).  It's not ok for us to simply say Germans are all mercenaries and leave the false impression that these poor grunts were getting rich.  If you want to dig deep into the historic differences between the two, then you need to really expand this article and explain the shift in 18th century practices leading to the the American Revolutionary disdain for professional armies, which is really what we're talking about.  (I would support you in this, but it's a big undertaking and I couldn't lead such an effort at this time.)
 * Another thing to consider is the universal way the word "mercenary" is often applied. Were there some mercenaries ("professional Soldiers") in the German and British armies?  Absolutely.  Does that mean we can paint an entire ethnic group with a broad brush?  Absolutely not.  The armies of the German states also included people who were impressed against their will, people who were sentenced to military service, people who had no economic opportunities at home, and (to an un-quantifiable degree) people who accepted a few too many free beers by aggressive recruiters.  So again, it's fine to explain what a "mercenary" was at the time, but it's not ok to apply the term universally and pretend that history is simpler than it really was.
 * Another third thing to consider is NPOV. Whatever rationale we're using to excuse the word "mercenary" when applied to Germans must be equally applicable to other armies, regardless of their allegiance.  Are they Soldiers of Fortune because they were paid?  That applies to everyone else fighting in the war (except for maybe the Americans who were given worthless paper).  Were they mercenaries because they were paid bonuses when they enlisted, or because they got tuition reimbursement and VA loans?  No, but that describes modern Americans Soldiers, and we don't call them mercenaries, so we have to explain why.  Were the armies of German states mercenary armies because they tried to hire professional Soldiers with experience?  Then the same should apply to the British, and we'll also need to discuss the promises Ben Franklin made to many a foreign officer looking to advance his career through service to US Congress.  We also have to consider NPOV when we recognize that the word "mercenary" became such a term of contention exactly because it was used by Pro-US propagandists during the war and Pro-US historians in the 19th century.  To beat a dead horse, we can discuss how the phrase was used at the time and why the Americans used it for the Germans, but we can't simply accept that they were all mercenaries and barbarians merely because Thomas Jefferson said so.
 * I appreciate the references you're providing. As you can see from the article, there is no universal consensus on this topic among authors and scholars.  This puts us in an odd position as Wikipedia editors because we have to be discerning about the references we use (a high school textbook, for example, is not an authoritative source for a historical debate), but we can't merely cherry-pick the sources that support our own biases.  We've been debating this for over a decade on Wikipedia and I won't pretend that we're going to suddenly all agree on it, but we do need to work together for the benefit of the average reader when we make edits.  Canute (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a similar argument to oppose use of the term allies, with it's modern-day connotations of political alliances that do not seem to fit the arrangement made by the British and Germans in the 18th century. The query that sparked this debate over at American Revolutionary War Template seems to have been amicably settled by using the term auxiliaries. This seems to be a more apt term than allies to describe what seems to me to be a purely commercial arrangement for the supply of troops that was, apparently, very common in this period, and less politically charged and more acceptable than mercenaries. It is a term employed in Atwood's The Hessians (p. 29 - and his book appears to be a good source for this article, although he also uses the term mercenaries). Factotem (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For the average Wikipedia reader, "Auxiliaries" probably describes the German armies in the Revolution better than any other terms we've come up with.  That's not to say that "mercenaries" or "allies" are necessarily wrong, just that they imply specific types of relationships to modern readers which aren't necessarily true in these cases. Canute (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

POV issue
Agree with Rjensen. - The term mercenaries is not limited to individuals. Mercenaries don't go about acting as individual 'Lone-Rangers' – they are part of a military body that can be under the command of a private or state sponsored entity, as were the Hessian mercenaries. The Allies of Great Britain section is completely one sided, claiming that the term mercenaries is merely propaganda, which is an opinion, and that its usage in the Declaration of Independence is also "propaganda". The soldiers in question were hired to fight in a foreign war they had little to no social or political interest in. Hence they come under the general heading of mercenary. All other considerations are academic. They were still hired soldiers -- hired by Britain. That the Hessians had ties to the British Crown does not change this basic fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I went back and re-read this entire debate, and I don't think the real issue is/was that the term "mercenaries" is limited to individuals. That could be a red herring.  The real question is which term best describes the complex situations of these European Soldiers brought to the United States to bolster the military of Great Britain?  (Alternatively: what's the least worst term to use?)  If you think the Allies of Great Britain section is one-sided, you are free to improve it.  I don't find the same issues; it currently explains why we're using certain terms, and gives a few different terms that were used.  There's always room for improvement, but I don't find any obvious violations of WP:NPOV.  Far worse would be to use a single term throughout without any context or explanation.
 * To your other point, I must respectfully disagree, and I believe the facts- as cited in this article- are on my side. The individual Soldiers were not hired directly by Great Britain.  They were recruited, conscripted, tricked, or otherwise forced into service by various principalities who were compensated by Great Britain, but they were not "hired soldiers -- hired by Britain."  At best, that's a gross over-simplification.  As this article has become more complete and "academic," we've seen the story of German auxiliaries become more complex, not more simple. Canute (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Allies and Alliances??
Allies and alliances assume a treaty. London did sign some treaties for soldiers but there was no mention of an "alliance" and London did not call Hesse and the others "allies." When historians talk of british "allies" they mean Indian tribes (and treaties were involved there. Frederick II landgrave of Hesse was a Roman Catholic, so I deleted the unsourced statement about the princes being Lutherans. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've made a lot of edits. Some of them I agree with.  I'll leave the others alone for now, but would like to discuss at some point.  For example, the article is split into the two major sides of the American Revolutionary War, so I think "Allies of Great Britain" was a better header than "Auxiliaries Hired by Great Britian," since not all who supported GB were auxiliaries (per the text you added).  I also don't like the header "Europeans coming to help Washington," since that paints them all with the same broad brush of altruism and loyalty to an American they had never met. I have similar issues with the header "Patriot Units," since the term "Patriot" could have some WP:NPOV concerns (see the archives in []), and since the section goes on to include European formations.  It's odd to describe European officers and units under that moniker.
 * To your points here: I'm not sure what your complaint is on alliances. You say it assumes a treaty, but specific treaties are mentioned for Hesse-Kassel, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Waldeck, Hanover, and Anhalt-Zerbst.  No treaty is mentioned in the Hesse-Hanau section, but it is in the article Hesse-Hanau Troops in the American Revolutionary War.  So if each principality signed a treaty with London, I'm confused about your objection that "allies and alliances assume a treaty."
 * The bit about Lutherans is neither here nor there. Nothing was incorrect; the text did not state that Frederick II was a Lutheran.  To the contrary, the article still specifically mentions (twice) that he was Roman Catholic.  If memory serves, that info was put in to setup some of the historical context- that the 18th century often saw alliances that mimicked the religious divisions within Europe.  I'm not sure how relevant that is to the article as a whole.  Probably not as relevant as the previous alliances during the Seven Years' War.Canute (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Historians do not talk about Britain's European "allies" nor should we. (note that when France entered the war it did NOT make war on these little states which it could easily have done if they were military allies of Britain.) The treaties with the various German states were NOT treaties of alliance--read them. They were written in terms of international law that the mercenary prince was a neutral and was not engaged directly in the war in support of Britain. Neutrals had the right to sell munitions--and soldiers--to either side. Lots of useless details about irrelevant events before 1775 distract the readers--a person who has limited time to read the article will waste time. The business about European religion was irrelevant and not sourced to scholarship on the topic of tis article. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a big issue if you want to stop calling the auxiliary forces "allies." I think I understand your rationale.  I'd be curious to see what others think, as well.  I can see where the early historians such as Max von Eelking, J. Rosengarten, or Edward Jackson Lowell referred to as "German Allied Troops," "English allies," the "ally princes of Great Britain" or "German allies."  Perhaps the term "Ally" is no longer popular with historians and authors, but we should be humble about this since more modern works often reference these earlier authors.  This might be another case where one word ("allies") isn't technically wrong, but another word is better.  This is an interesting rabbit hole.  On the other hand, France is a moot point; we can't write this article based on what-if history.  Canute (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Different topic. Could you address my concerns about the header changes that you made?  I'm trying to be collaborative, but I do not think those particular changes improved the article.  It's my intent to revert those specific changes unless someone makes a really good argument for them. Canute (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you re the "help Washinton" header and changed it to "join"--Washington was very well known in Europe in military circles by 1776--it was the biggest war going on. as for "allies" -- I looked through Google Scholar and historians in last 150 years typically use the term only for Indian tribes working with the Brits. London did not have any treaties of alliance for the  AM Rev War--unlike previous and later big wars. Its 1776  treaties were limited to renting units of the sort neutrals were allowed to do under international law. "Patriot" =  the standard scholarly and popular term  for last 75+ years.  At the time "patriot" was a term of ridicule in Britain and for Loyalists --as Samuel Johnson famously said it was last refuge of scoundrels  do the rebels proudly adopted it.  Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I let this sit for a long time to see if anyone else had an opinion, but I edited some of the headers- not quite a revert back to the original, but hopefully an improvement from what's here. "Hired by Great Britain" is back to "Allies of Great Britain."  I use "allies" in the more informal sense, but the bottom line is that Great Britain had active supporters in both Europe and North America.  Treaties were signed with some German states, but the article mentions that some ethnic Germans in British North America also joined the ranks.  "Patriot units" is changed to "Congressional supporters" because NPV (Tory colonials also considered themselves to be patriotic).  "Europeans coming to join Washington" changed because not all supporters mentioned came to North America, and we can't prove they came specifically to join with George Washington. Canute (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

follow the reliable sources
when editors debate it's the Wiki policy to follow the usage in modern reliable sources they are using. In his 1980 history of the Hessians, scholar Rodney Atwood says, "By common usage, however, the Hessians have been called mercenaries. In this work I refer to them as both auxiliaries and mercenaries." [page 1 footnote 1] His book uses "mercenary" 79 times and "auxiliary" 44 times. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * link to Rodney Atwood summary quote: "Both the Hessian corps and the British army included within their ranks mercenaries, i.e. foreigners who had enlisted for pay, but properly neither of them could be called mercenary." Canute (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to 2021 writing . Atwood says that today historians also call them mercenaries, as he does. So if wiki editors are writing in 2021 for a 2021 audience we can call them mercenaries--as Atwood does in his title and a majority of his references. If we trust Atwood (a leading expert) we are on target, and we can add a sentence about what  legal specialists BEFORE 1776 said a) the soldiers themselves were not mercenaries but b) their regiments (owned by the prince) were mercenary. The same 18c lawyers were talking about wars between states....they had never seen a major popular rebellion like 1776 and did not include that possibility. German writers (like Frederick the Great) said the British use of auxiliaries was NOT legal, a view that became standard in Continental writing  says Schmidt, H. D. "The Hessian Mercenaries: The Career of a Political Cliché." History 43.149 (1958): 207-212 online here Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm confused why you can pull a line from a 30 40-year-old text to argue that we have to call these Soldiers "mercenaries," but when I find a contradiction from the same source you says it's irrelevant.
 * I agree with you, we need to tailor this article to modern readers. That's actually an argument against the word "mercenaries," since to the modern reader that lumps these Soldiers together with Deadpool.  This debate is old.  I've seen no new arguments in 10 years, and there are plenty of sources cited in the article to explain why we use the terms we use. Canute (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Atwood is a leading scholarly source. He says that in terms of 18th century law treatises the men were technically not mercenaries. He states that modern writers ignore that technicality & use auxiliary and mercenary interchangably, as he and other historian do. Wiki editors should not try to read and interpret and apply 18th century legal concepts--none of us has that expertise. So we follow the way modern scholars write history. Canute says: "there are plenty of sources cited in the article to explain why we use the terms"...???  You cite Deadpool a video game--not quite the reliable secondary source that Wikipedia requires. Can you quote three of these for us please?  I suggest you read Schmidt's article. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, let's just go with Atwood. He is cited in both this article and Hessian as stating that "mercenary" is not the appropriate term.  I don't understand what we're arguing about.  Beyond Atwood, there are other citations in the paragraph in this article, and there's an entire section devoted to this at Hessian_(soldier).  Krebs spends a good deal of time explaining this confusion in A Generous and Merciful Enemy (2013).  You obviously have strong feelings about this, and that's great, but you've brought nothing new to the discussion.  Forgive me if I seem unwilling to engage, but this debate has come and gone for over a decade on Wikipedia.  We've seen the arguments and counter-arguments, and over time we agreed that "auxiliary" is the least-worst term.  It wasn't my first choice, either, but I have no interest in throwing all that away and starting over.  Canute (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Atwood says that it was a technicality in 18c law and that scholars today use both terms. As or NPOV --that rule states that current reliable sources have to be represented and they are. You misinterpret the rule --it is not true that if XYZ is negative toward a group or country Wikipedia rules that we cannot use it.  On the contrary we are following how the the reliable sources like Atwood actually use it. (I counted--he uses mercenary much more often than auxiliary).  Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me be more blunt. You are cherry-picking text from a 40 year old book in a search for confirmation bias (unintentionally, I assume... we all do it).  This cannot even be maintained in the one book that you cite.  Other historians also exist, and they wrote other books which further erode this argument that the Germans were all mercenaries.  Wikipedia users had this discussion ad nauseum and eventually agreed that "auxiliary" was the general term we would use to most appropriately describe the service of German Soldiers sent to support Great Britain.
 * If you have something new to contribute to that discussion, please share it with us here so we may consider it. Thus far, you've simply been making a lot of edits to this article so that it reflects your perspective on the topic.  I've found some of the edits to be good, and I have issues with others.  But it took a long time to get this article to the B-Class that it is.  We shouldn't make specious edits for the sake of change; we should made concerted edits towards the goal of getting to an A rating. Canute (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * an A rating will be hard to achieve when it's full of minor details about European history long before 1776, as well as misinterpretations of concepts like reliable sources and NPOV. Krebs by the way uses "auxiliary" 72 times in his book and "mercenary" 73 times ( I counted). 22:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so let's start there instead of dredging up old arguments. Do we need less information explaining the context of these alliances prior to 1776, or do we need more details in the rest of the article to balance the load?  RE: Kreb, see pages 32-35 where he explains that "Mercenary" refers to professional Soldiers (i.e. standing army), as opposed to the militias that the colonists preferred, and how this meaning became corrupted over the 19th century.
 * We have long articles on "mercenaries" where the detailed info belongs -- one sentence is adequate here. "corrupted" is not how historians explain the changes in Europe. They show how wars changed from fights between kings to fights between the entire populations (esp caused by American and French revolutions). The old view was that hired outsiders could only be used in just wars. The new view (Washinton, Napoleon) is that soldiers all had to be patriotic =reflect the will of the entire people ==but outsiders were never patriots for the country that hired them. Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS is Deadpool a good guy or bad? Google says : "Deadpool (Wade Winston Wilson) is an antihero from the Marvel Comics Universe. When he first appeared, he acted as a villain of the New Mutants and X-Force, before becoming a more heroic figure later on." Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another recent reliable source: The NY TIMES May 14, 2018 review of DEADPOOL 2 states: “ his righteousness is always assured. He befriends a boy named Russell (Julian Dennison), who has pyrotechnic abilities and who has been bullied and abused at a Dickensian home for young mutants. Deadpool protects Russell, which helps guarantee Deadpool’s good-guy status.” Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)