Why Johann Rall totally would beat George Washington

[JHG]

Wait...shouldn't this be Johann Rall vs George Washington and as such be in the VS battle section? Well, no. I'm taking steamed hams and calling them hamburgers...I mean, providing a solid defense of Johann Rall and examining why American education is so Jon Snowish for writing him off as a worthless hack and showing how Johann Rall is seriously underrated.
Rall was born in 1726 in Hesse-Kassel, a small Holy Roman Imperial Landgraviate and a martial culture that sent its own troops to support its own allies so the practice of British hiring Hessians was far from unprecedented. This was the environment Johann Rall found himself born and raised in. Before the American War of Independence, Rall had fought against Austrians, French, Russians, and Spanish in the Wars of the Austrian Succession, Jacobites, Russo-Ottoman and Seven Years. By the time of Trenton, he had been reassured that the war was good as won and barely sent out reconnaissance. While he was made aware of something, he underestimated the opposition and did not expect Washington to take a river route through choked ice and blizzard. The results might've been different had Rall thought otherwise and it could be a sign Rall would've won had Washington lost the element of surprise. But what about you? What is your perspective on Johann Rall and is he underrated?

[slooroo]

Rall was a solid German officer from what we know of him when it came to battles. That said Rall's blunders were pretty bad. He was not a popular leader among his men, he too easily fell for patriots posing as loyalists to lull him into a false sense of security, he ignored his own officers who kept begging him to build defenses, and when he admitted Trenton was indefensible and he wasn't getting any support from the British he made no real plans of any kind to do something. The thing is the crossing of the Delaware has been a key moment in the American mythos but Washington only did it because he was fully aware of how many blunders Rall was making. If Rall was properly defending the town in any way Washington wouldn't have made the gamble at all. So while the Hessians were superior soldiers to the Americans it meant little when the Hessians were practically exhausted and caught with their pants down. If anything what strengths Washington did have was on display here. He made a great use of spies, he made great use of raids to weaken supply lines and gain information, and showed a boldness the British and Hessians weren't necessarily used to seeing in such a harsh winter on average. Most importantly of all though the Battle of Trenton wasn't important in the sense of Trenton being a valuable town (it kinda wasn't) or that a lot of Hessians were killed (only 22 killed) but it became a beacon of hope for the Americans. The fact Washington did pull this off and Americans actually beat Hessians known for their military prowess truly gave Americans the idea of "Hey maybe we CAN do this!" which was a genuinely huge deal for a revolution that almost collapsed.

So I guess my belief is if we're arguing what if Johann Rall actually had better defenses for Trenton then the result probably would've been Washington not even bothering to attack at all and instead the Battle of Cowpens (which happened weeks later and was equally as impressive) would have a stronger image in the American mythos. Perhaps we'd be talking about Daniel Morgan as being the hero of the hour instead of George Washington. Although another thing Trenton did do is it lowered the fear Americans had for the Hessians. With Washington's victory Americans became more willing to not quake in fear in the face of Hessian troops knowing it isn't impossible to win. Now if the argument is whether Johann Rall was a superior officer to Washington this question is tougher. Rall easily had more combat experience than Washington and more knowledge of standards for a European military of the time. On the other hand however Washington had a charisma and force to him that made men want to follow him even if it meant dying. From what we know of Rall he didn't. Regardless the fact Washington ultimately outwitted him and won the day has to say something about his abilities.

[JHG]

Rall was a solid German officer from what we know of him when it came to battles. That said Rall's blunders were pretty bad. He was not a popular leader among his men, he too easily fell for patriots posing as loyalists to lull him into a false sense of security, he ignored his own officers who kept begging him to build defenses, and when he admitted Trenton was indefensible and he wasn't getting any support from the British he made no real plans of any kind to do something. The thing is the crossing of the Delaware has been a key moment in the American mythos but Washington only did it because he was fully aware of how many blunders Rall was making. If Rall was properly defending the town in any way Washington wouldn't have made the gamble at all. So while the Hessians were superior soldiers to the Americans it meant little when the Hessians were practically exhausted and caught with their pants down. If anything what strengths Washington did have was on display here. He made a great use of spies, he made great use of raids to weaken supply lines and gain information, and showed a boldness the British and Hessians weren't necessarily used to seeing in such a harsh winter on average. Most importantly of all though the Battle of Trenton wasn't important in the sense of Trenton being a valuable town (it kinda wasn't) or that a lot of Hessians were killed (only 22 killed) but it became a beacon of hope for the Americans. The fact Washington did pull this off and Americans actually beat Hessians known for their military prowess truly gave Americans the idea of "Hey maybe we CAN do this!" which was a genuinely huge deal for a revolution that almost collapsed.

So I guess my belief is if we're arguing what if Johann Rall actually had better defenses for Trenton then the result probably would've been Washington not even bothering to attack at all and instead the Battle of Cowpens (which happened weeks later and was equally as impressive) would have a stronger image in the American mythos. Perhaps we'd be talking about Daniel Morgan as being the hero of the hour instead of George Washington. Although another thing Trenton did do is it lowered the fear Americans had for the Hessians. With Washington's victory Americans became more willing to not quake in fear in the face of Hessian troops knowing it isn't impossible to win. Now if the argument is whether Johann Rall was a superior officer to Washington this question is tougher. Rall easily had more combat experience than Washington and more knowledge of standards for a European military of the time. On the other hand however Washington had a charisma and force to him that made men want to follow him even if it meant dying. From what we know of Rall he didn't. Regardless the fact Washington ultimately outwitted him and won the day has to say something about his abilities.

Clearly this guy has a more flattering view of Georgia Washington than I!
I should also point out Trenton was the first known battle where Rall was the primary leader so there’s a possibility he could’ve been over his head. But for the lack of loyalty Rall’s men had, at least they weren’t deserting or seconds from it like Washington’s as Washington was truly desperate that 1776 winter because if he didn’t commit to any action, his army would utterly dissolve. I also got in time travel shock; Cowpens was not a mere weeks after Trenton but rather about 5 years later and its very existence probably would be preemptively aborted in the event of rebel defeat at Trenton.

[slooroo]

Clearly this guy has a more flattering view of Georgia Washington than I!
I should also point out Trenton was the first known battle where Rall was the primary leader so there’s a possibility he could’ve been over his head. But for the lack of loyalty Rall’s men had, at least they weren’t deserting or seconds from it like Washington’s as Washington was truly desperate that 1776 winter because if he didn’t commit to any action, his army would utterly dissolve. I also got in time travel shock; Cowpens was not a mere weeks after Trenton but rather about 5 years later and its very existence probably would be preemptively aborted in the event of rebel defeat at Trenton.

The Cowpens blunder is evidence of what happens when slooroo tries to write posts when half asleep instead of awake so I'll take the L for that. My logic there was mostly if Trenton never happened and if the war continued perhaps Cowpens would've been the "Crossing the Delaware" moment in the American story over Trenton. And yes men were deserting Washington heavily. Before Trenton the Continental Army was losing battle after battle to the British and Hessians. Some of this was due to Washington making military blunders (any student of history knows Washington wasn't a god general and his earlier years especially held his worst mistakes) while the rest was due to calling the Continental Army an "army" at all is a bit funny since it was more a rag tag band of colonists wearing whatever they had to wear (if anything) and using whatever weapons they had to use (if any) with little to no military experience or discipline at this stage of the Revolution. While the British weren't exactly the sharpest army of Europe at this time they were easily far more organized, trained, and disciplined than American forces. All of that said there was something about George Washington that held everything together, even if it nearly collapsed. If Congress would've selected John Hancock or really any other man to lead the army I'm not really convinced the army would've held together long enough to make it to Trenton (or for that matter the army nearly disintegrated many times after Trenton but Washington held it together.)

As for Rall I do think he was partly over his head (and he knew it to some extent) but his arrogance can't be underestimated either (he basically told his men even if the Americans attacked they could easily wipe the floor with them. To give Rall credit this is exactly what happened every time pre-Trenton). The Hessians wouldn't have exactly been keen on any desertions regardless of Rall because at this point why would they? They some of Europe's elite mercenaries being paid well by the British to fight and up to this point they've been mopping up rebels left and right. Heck many Hessians sleeping in Trenton that night probably thought they'd be back in Europe and off to another campaign in no time. The American situation was far more dire. Little food, little supplies, endless losses, terrible pay, and the British are constantly announcing if you put down their arms and swear loyalty to the King you'll basically be forgiven. There wasn't much to really be happy about at this point. Bunker Hill and the (year later) successful capture of Boston was already off in the distant past to them and some were beginning to think it was a fluke they'll never repeat. Washington was desperate for a win and had to play bold and risky but it was Rall's errors that Washington exploited for his much needed moral victory. If it was a very different and lets say "even" situation then I wouldn't be against saying Rall could win if only because of Hessian soldier quality over their American counterpart, at the very least in this stage of George Washington's military career (latter parts of his career would be trickier since post-Valley Forge the Americans have had some training under "Baron" von Steuben and Washington was starting to take a more defensive view on how to handle battles over his earlier career wanting big, inspiring wins on the field of battle. As a side note it's pretty humorous Robert E. Lee had a lot of the same flawed thinking as Washington in this regard but that's an entirely different thread.)

[JHG]

Arrogant yes and while I'm not gonna put him on my Top 10 mightiest/most brutal conquerors anytime soon, Johann Rall is underrated.