Hessian Origins of the Headless Horseman

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Evan Portman

“The Headless Horseman Pursuing Ichabod Crane” by John Quidor
(Google Art Project)

It’s a scene familiar and frightening to most American schoolchildren. A headless horseman riding down a dark road, his jack-o’-lantern face alight.

But the Headless Horseman is not strictly an American legend. In fact, it probably didn’t even originate in America. An Irish legend tells of a rider who allegedly carries his severed head under his arm and wields a whip made of the spines of human corpses. A similar revenant is said to haunt the Rhenish valleys of Germany. Thus, it is no surprise that an American twist on the headless horseman tale emerged from the revolutionary era—and the imagination of Washington Irving.

Irving’s life was intertwined with the history of the American Revolution. He was born in Manhattan in 1783 the same week that the city learned of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War. Of course, Irving’s namesake was the hero of the revolution, George Washington. Irving briefly met the father of the country when he was only 6 years old in 1789, when Washington came to New York City for his inauguration as president. It is therefore no surprise that Irving decided to base his version of the horseman on Revolutionary War lore.[1]

Published in 1820, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow follows Ichabod Crane, a tall, lanky, superstitious man from Connecticut who had traveled to Sleepy Hollow (just outside of Tarrytown, New York) to become a schoolmaster. Much to Crane’s fright, the town is said to be haunted by “the ghost of a Hessian trooper, whose head had been carried away by a cannon-ball, in some nameless battle during the Revolutionary War.”[2] Despite this, the timid but ambitions teacher quickly infatuates himself with the young lady, Katrina Van Tassel, but competes for her attention with the brawny Abraham “Brom Bones” Van Brunt.


On the way home from a gathering at Katrina’s house, Crane encounters a lone rider who appears to be headless. Recalling the ghost stories he had heard, Crane gallops across a bridge that the horseman reportedly cannot pass. But just as he crosses the bridge, the rider strikes him with what seems to be a severed head. The following morning, Crane’s horse arrives home without him, and all that is left by the bridge is a smashed pumpkin. Brom Bones marries Katrina, and the narrator is reluctant to accept whether the stunt was orchestrated by Van Brunt himself or that the Headless Horseman might truly haunt the valley of Sleepy Hollow.

The Headless Horseman of Irving’s imagination might have grown from one of the European myths of old, but the legend may also have origins rooted in the history of the Revolutionary War.

Washington Irving by Charles Robert Leslie

In 1776, British Gen. William Howe had slowly but surely pushed Washington’s Continental Army from Long Island to Upper Manhattan over the course of three months. After a daring escape across the East River, Washington’s army narrowly avoided destruction and lived to fight another day. That day came on October 28, as Howe attempted to encircle the Continental Army. Washington withdrew his forces to White Plains where he fought a valiant, but unsuccessful, defensive battle.

During that battle, British cannons bombarded the Continental lines, and several American guns responded in what became a brief artillery duel. According to Maj. Gen. William Heath, this counter-battery fire decapitated one of the Hessian soldiers. “A shot from the American cannon at this place took off the head of a Hessian artillery-man,” he recorded in his diary on November 1, 1776.[3] Perhaps this fellow became the inspiration for Irving’s headless horseman, or the author based him on one of the other Hessian casualties of the New York Campaign.

By late autumn in 1776, the area south of the Bronx River had become a veritable no-man’s-land. That included Westchester County, where Tarrytown—the setting of the legend—is located. Scores of Loyalist militiamen, British infantry, and Hessian Jägers roamed the countryside and skirmished with Patriots, vigilantes, and raiders. Irving’s specter could have been based on one of the feared Hessian soldiers who patrolled and “haunted” Sleepy Hollow during the war. His legend also might have grown from the alleged headless Hessian corps discovered near Tarrytown after the battle of White Plains. The corpse was later buried in the Old Dutch Burying Ground, where other inspirations for characters in Irving’s story can be found.[4]

Regardless of its origins, the headless horseman and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow looms large in our collective memory, even two centuries later. Perhaps the “Galloping Hessian,” as Irving called him, still patrols the quiet roads of Sleepy Hollow, 250 years after his untimely demise. I, for one, don’t want to find out!


[1] Donna Davies, “Halloween History: The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” New York Historical Quarterly, October 24, 2019, accessed September 2026, https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/halloween-history-the-legend-of-sleepy-hollow-2.

[2] Washington Irving, “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” in The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent., (New York: C. S. Van Winkle, 1820), 425.

[3] William Heath, Memoirs of Major General William Heath, (New York: William Abbatt, 1901), 73.

[4] Jonathan Kruk, Legends, and Lore of Sleepy Hollow & the Hudson Valley, (Charleston, SC: History Press, 2011), 117–118. 

Faith, Duty, and War: A Review of Avellina Balestri’s All Ye That Pass By Trilogy

The Burial of General Simon Fraser after the Battle of Saratoga, 1777, by John Graham, The National Army Museum

Avellina Balestri’s All Ye That Pass By trilogy is a deeply researched, thoughtfully constructed work of historical fiction set during the American Revolutionary War. Through the experiences of Edmund “Ned” Southworth, a young soldier serving in the British Army a protégé of General John Burgoyne, Balestri explores questions of faith, identity, morality, and military duty against the backdrop of a conflict that divided families, communities, and nations.

Continue reading “Faith, Duty, and War: A Review of Avellina Balestri’s All Ye That Pass By Trilogy” →

Maryland Loyalists in the American Revolution: Politics, War, and Exile

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes back guest historian Drew Palmer of Revolutionary Maryland

Part I

The historical memory of the Revolutionary War in Maryland generally focuses on the state’s Patriots. Men such as Otho Holland Williams and John Eager Howard are remembered fondly for their committed, heroic military service to the American cause. Politically, men such as Charles Carroll and William Paca—both signers of the Declaration of Independence and Maryland Patriots—are remembered for their commitment to the cause. Studying and remembering these men is vital to understanding Maryland’s role in the conflict. However, the Revolutionary War was a civil war. A civil war that made men from the same states sworn enemies. Though Maryland is rightly known as a state that contributed immensely to the Patriot cause, both ideologically and materially, it had a sizable and vocal minority of Loyalists who took it upon themselves to fight against the Patriot cause. Just like Maryland Patriots, Maryland’s Loyalists supported their cause both politically and militarily.

Maryland Loyalist courtesy of Don Troiani Art


Geography and Religion

The strength of Loyalist sentiment depended on where you were in Maryland. Baltimore, Annapolis, and the surrounding area mostly favored the Patriots. After the Patriot Committees of Correspondence in Baltimore and Annapolis developed their own networks of communication and governance, they strictly enforced conduct among people living within their areas of control. Anyone deemed an enemy “to the cause of liberty” faced strict legal and extralegal proceedings, along with harsh punishments. Though the Patriot cause already preached ideals of liberty, free speech, and self-governance, Patriot governments ironically cracked down hardest on political dissent early in the conflict. The accused dissenters were expected to beg for forgiveness before a Patriot tribunal.

Many such instances occurred in Baltimore in 1775, when James Dalgleish, a merchant, was accused of saying, “that as soon as the English troops shall land here, he will join them against the Americans, it being a folly for him to longer deny his principles.” The Baltimore Committee of Correspondence deemed Dalgleish dangerous to the cause and an “incurable enmity to this country.” Dalgleish was summoned before a tribunal where he had to beg for forgiveness and blamed his Loyalist speech on his drinking. The Continental Congress declared Dalgleish an “enemy to the liberty of Americans.” Out of fear of violent retribution, Dalgleish fled Baltimore and was never seen again.1

James Christie, another merchant from Baltimore, faced ridicule and ousting from the Baltimore Committee of Observation for saying in a letter that, “we are in such terrible confusion here with our politics, there is no depending on anything, and that makes me wish myself out of this province. We have some fanatical spirits among us, who do everything in their power to run things to the utmost extremity, and they are gone so far, that we moderate people are under a necessity of uniting for our own defense, after being threatened with expulsion and loss of life.”2 Christie was arrested, deemed an enemy to liberty and the people of America, and, “banished from the province forever.”3 Early in the conflict, it was not realistic to be an outspoken Loyalist in most of the Baltimore and Annapolis region due to organized systems of punishment for speaking against the Patriot cause. Outspoken Loyalism was minimal in the greater Baltimore and Annapolis regions. Maryland’s Eastern Shore, on the other side of the Chesapeake Bay, was a different story.

Continue reading “Maryland Loyalists in the American Revolution: Politics, War, and Exile” →

Rank-and-File Research

A quick Google search reveals that approximately 230,000 men served in the Continental Army during the eight years of the American Revolutionary War. A handful of those rank-and-file soldiers are well known, like Joseph Plumb Martin. A smattering of junior officers, like John Eager Howard or Robert Kirkwood, Jr. usually ring a bell of memory for those enthusiasts of the Revolution. Of the 73 generals that received, earned, or were granted commissions in the Continental Army more names are what we colloquially refer to as “household names.” Thousands more served in militias and on the water with the fledgling Continental Navy or aboard privateers.

I would not be raising a contentious point when I say that the majority of the men who donned the Continental uniform, fought, froze, starved, were wounded, and/or survived are lost to history. Through a myriad of reasons and mostly not from any fault of theirs. That is why, when doing research, especially with the aid and power of the internet, finding personal accounts, reminiscent, and battlefield stories, the Revolutionary era historian gets excited. That excitement generated this post.

While researching in general, for posts to bring to you, and for potential upcoming publications, I came across, naturally, the website for the National Archives. Many of you have accessed the site and/or visited the archives in Washington D.C. to do primary research. Nothing new to elaborate with on that point. However, I was intrigued by a new–to me–section of the website research section. The page was labeled “Citizen Archivist Dashboard, Stories from the Pension Files.”

Continue reading “Rank-and-File Research” →

Rev War Revelry: Battle of Pell’s Point and White Plains

Join us Sunday, October 4th at 7pm as we continue our series on the 250th of the New York Campaign. We welcome back ERW authors Mark Maloy and Dan Welch as they cover the events from the Battle of Harlem Heights to the Battle of White Plains. In the fall of 1776, George Washington struggled to keep his army together and keep the British Army at bay. From the strategic to the tactical, and what to see there today, this will be a revelry you will not want to miss.

This Revelry will be LIVE on our Facebook page, so join in on the conversation via the chat!

Also, be sure to pre-order Mark and Dan’s new book on the New York Campaign “Conquer or Die: The 1776 New York Campaign” at: https://www.savasbeatie.com/conquer-or-die-the-1776-new-york-campaign/#product-description

Rev War Revelry: Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World with historian Richard Lim

Join us this Sunday at 7pm on our Facebook page for our latest Rev War Revelry installment where we will welcome historian and author Richard Lim to discuss his new book; Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World . Lim explores America’s surprisingly complex transition from monarchy to republican government through the life and leadership of George Washington. The book argues that Washington’s decisions to relinquish power helped establish the norms of republican government not only in the United States but also inspired revolutionaries and reformers in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. It also examines how Judeo-Christian ideas about virtue, duty, and self-government shaped Washington’s understanding of leadership and informed some of his most consequential decisions. Timed for America’s 250th anniversary, the book offers a fresh perspective on how Washington’s example changed the course of world history.

This Revelry is pre-recorded and will post to our Facebook page this Sunday, September 20, 2026 at 7pm. You can also view it on our You Tube Channel.

If ERW were one of the Founders. . . .

This week, during a conference call, someone asked Rob Orrison, Neil Chatelain, and me, “Which figure from the Revolution is ERW most like?”

Stephen Hopkins

The first person who jumped to mind was Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island. Although none of us wears a cool hat like Hopkins does, it was easy to think of ERW as the guy in the back of the room, drinking a mug of rum or beer or grog and offering commentary on events. Hopkins had served several stints as Rhode Island’s colonial governor and served as chief justice of the colonial court during the infamous Gaspée affair. He was good natured and earnest, and John Adams said, “He kept us alive” with his energy. “Hopkins never drank to excess,” Adams said, “but all he drank was immediately not only converted into Wit, Sense, Knowledge and good humor, but inspired Us all with similar qualities.”

Or how about John Adams, as Rob suggested? (He knew I’d love that one!) Not only was Adams a writer, he was also a workhorse, like most of the regular contributors who keep ERW going—a small cadre of folks who each do a lot of work. Adams was also prickly, Rob pointed out, just as many of ERW’s folks are (a bit of self-revealing honesty there!). Adams preferred beer to cider, so I thought we’d have to swap that out, but Rob reminded me that few of us would turn down free cider.

I suggested Ben Franklin. Franklin had a background in printing and writing—something central to ERW—and was also generally good humored. He liked to have a good time—“Perhaps too good of a time,” someone in the conversation piped in—and always situated himself at the social center of any scene. ERW is, if nothing else, social. Rob did point out that Franklin was a genius in many, many areas, while ERW is pretty focused in its work, but personality wise, it’s a good match.

The question put us on the spot, so those were our initial answers. What do YOU think? If ERW was a figure from the Revolution, who would ERW be most like?

Review: “An Underappreciated Victory; Bernardo de Gálvez’s Mississippi River Campaign Against the British in 1779” by Stephen L. Kling, Jr. and Kristine L. Sjostrom

The American Revolution is often remembered through the familiar lens of successful campaigns and their contributing commanders: General George Washington at Yorktown, Virginia, and General Horatio Gates at Saratoga, New York, to name two of the most significant. Yet the Revolution was an international conflict fought across a much wider geographic area than just along the eastern seaboard of North America.  In An Underappreciated Victory, Stephen L. Kling, Jr. and Kristine L. Sjostrom seek to restore one of these overlooked campaigns to its proper place in the history of the war. Their study of Bernardo de Gálvez’s 1779 Mississippi River campaign demonstrates how Spain, despite pursuing its own strategic interests, contributed materially to the defeat of Britain and how Gálvez’s leadership produced significant results with remarkably limited resources.

The authors begin by establishing the strategic importance of Spanish Louisiana and the Mississippi River Valley. Following Spain’s entry into the war against Britain in 1779, Louisiana became both a potential target for British operations and a valuable base from which Spain could threaten British possessions. New Orleans was particularly vulnerable. British control of posts along the Mississippi posed a danger to Spanish interests while also threatening communications and commerce throughout the region. Rather than remain on the defensive, Gálvez recognized an opportunity to seize the initiative.

It is in this decision that the authors make one of their strongest arguments about Gálvez’s leadership. His forces were hardly overwhelming, and the campaign presented formidable logistical challenges. Distance, weather, disease, difficult terrain, transportation problems, and uncertain intelligence, all complicated operations. Gálvez nevertheless chose an offensive strategy. His willingness to act before the British could concentrate their forces became one of the campaign’s defining characteristics. The resulting operations against British positions, culminating in the capture of Baton Rouge and other posts, demonstrated the effectiveness of surprise, mobility, intelligence, and decisive leadership.

Kling and Sjostrom are very effective in showing that the campaign cannot be understood solely through its engagements. Logistics and geography receive significant attention, revealing the extent to which environmental conditions shaped military possibilities along the Mississippi River. The campaign’s success therefore becomes more impressive when measured against the obstacles continuing to confront Gálvez. His achievement was not simply that he defeated British forces; it was that he managed to organize and sustain an offensive in an environment that severely restricted the movement and supply of armies.

Another of the book’s greatest strengths is its use of multinational sources. By incorporating Spanish, British, and German accounts, the authors move beyond the predominantly Anglo-American perspective that has traditionally dominated Revolutionary War narratives. These sources allow them to reconstruct events from competing viewpoints and provide greater insight into the decisions made by both sides. Their documentary approach also strengthens the case for reconsidering Gálvez’s campaign as a serious military operation rather than an isolated episode on the margins of the Revolution.

The book’s greatest historiographical contribution, however, lies in its reassessment of Spain’s role in the American Revolution. Spain did not enter the war solely to assist the American colonies; it had territorial, commercial, and geopolitical objectives of its own. Nevertheless, those objectives frequently aligned with the interests of the American revolutionaries. Gálvez’s campaign illustrates how Spanish military operations diverted British attention and resources while weakening British control of the Gulf Coast and Mississippi Valley. The authors therefore broaden the traditional interpretation of the Revolution from an Anglo-American struggle supported by France into a genuinely international conflict.

The study is not without potential limitations. This book is a deep and exhaustive study of a particular subsect of war, designed to be the volume on this aspect. Similarly, the authors’ admiration for Gálvez occasionally raises the question of whether they attribute his successes too heavily to exceptional leadership rather than to a combination of favorable circumstances, British weaknesses, and Spanish strategic interests. Nevertheless, the evidence presented makes a convincing case that Gálvez exercised considerable initiative and understood the advantages of striking quickly against dispersed British positions.

Ultimately, An Underappreciated Victory shows that the importance of a military campaign cannot always be measured by the size of participants or soldiers. Gálvez’s 1779 Mississippi campaign involved relatively modest forces compared with the armies that fought at Saratoga or Yorktown, yet its strategic consequences were considerably greater than its obscurity might suggest. Kling and Sjostrom provide a valuable reconstruction of the campaign while challenging readers to reconsider the geographic and international dimensions of the American Revolution. Their study establishes Gálvez not merely as a peripheral Spanish commander but as an important participant in the broader struggle against Britain. In doing so, An Underappreciated Victory makes a persuasive case that the campaign—and Gálvez himself—deserve a more prominent place in the history of the American Revolution.

THGC Publishing, St. Louis, MO
2026
634 pages, including images
$50.00

Book Review: Closing the Ring, Geoge Washington’s War in the North, 1778 – 1781 by Jeffrey A. Denman

From June 28, 1778, until October 1781, there is a gap in major engagements by the main Continental Army under the command of General George Washington. A few minor engagements, at Springfield, Connecticut Farms in New Jersey or Stony Point in New York, occurred. Actions in the Southern Theater occupied much of that period and Newport, Rhode Island became a focal point as well, especially with the French arrival. Historians, especially popular and public historians, tend to quickly cover these approximately three years of war in short order, moving onto the finality.

Yet, these years are important, especially to understand the other facets of warfare, rebellion, and revolution. Diving into the primary sources, from the quill pens of Washington, his fellow generals, staff officers, Continental Congress, and the soldiery that comprised the Continental and militia forces, and one can easily surmise how important those non-major-warfare years were. Luckily for the avid students and enthusiasts of the American Revolutionary War, we now have a concise, richly researched, and impactfully created prose published by Casemate and authored by Jeffrey A. Denman to fill this gap.

A glance at Denman’s biography reveals that he was a public-school teacher and historian who has a resume filled with publications and researched articles. He takes that acquired skill set into this publication, weaving the story, sprinkled with direct quotes and primary source material, for an accurate and compelling overview of the high-stakes of the American Revolution and how success very much so hung in the balance from 1778 – 1781.

At the center is Washington, as the “book tracks…strategic and personal contributions across multiple theaters of war…” (pg. xv). This includes relationships with other military and political leaders, along with the French commander, Rochambeau, in how he “carefully navigated French egos, the paralysis of Congress, and state politics…” (pg. xvii). Yet Denman’s goal is to provide a balanced approach to these years from Monmouth Courthouse in 1778 to Yorktown in 1781, “History proves that Washington was not a great military strategist…committed serious tactical mistakes” but “no man…could match Washington in courage, fearlessness, and devotion to his country.” (pgs. xvi-xvii).

Concluding his introduction, Denman clearly states the purpose of the following pages and why, although no major engagements were fought for over three years under Washington’s command, “this book, focusing on moments and locales rarely chronicled, provides an in-depth and captivating window into how one individual galvanized meager resources to accomplish the extraordinary” (pg. xvii).

Continue reading “Book Review: Closing the Ring, Geoge Washington’s War in the North, 1778 – 1781 by Jeffrey A. Denman” →

“The people here are Liberty mad…” Nicholas Cresswell and the American Independence

Emerging Revolutionary War welcomes guest writer, historian Kenneth Bancroft


Leesburg, Virginia. Tuesday, July 9, 1776. “…News that the Sanhedrim (1) had declared the
thirteen united Colonies Free and Independent States. That this was intended by the
Northern Colonies from the first, I am well convinced…” (2) These are not the words one
expects when talking about the Declaration of Independence, but to a 26-year-old
entrepreneurial Englishman caught in a revolution that he neither wanted nor supported,
this was the worst news ever. (3)

The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell is an informative source on the Revolutionary War from what could be considered a ‘Tory’ point of view. It is a personal account that shows that the struggle for freedom was not just on the battlefield but also in the streets and homes at the end of the colonial era. Nicholas Cresswell was an outsider from the moment he stepped on American soil in 1774 and heard news of the siege of Boston, noting that the colonists “talk as if they were determined to dispute the matter with the Sword.” (4) For two years, Cresswell observed the American colonies descend into rebellion, “The people here are Liberty mad, nothing but war is thought of.” (5)


When the colonies officially separated, Cresswell felt despair and anger instead of hope.
Cresswell’s intention was to set up life as a farmer, but misfortune and bad timing foiled his
plans. He blamed the “cursed Rebellion” for turning this “earthly paradise to a Hell upon
terra firma.” (6) Constantly under the suspicion of the local committees tasked with enforcing the
Continental Association as a suspected ‘Tory’ spy, he grew to despise the Continental
Congress as vile and hypocritical. “The Congress under the fallacious pretense of nursing
the tender plant, liberty, which was said to thrive so well in American soil, have actually
torn it up by the very root.” (7)

Cresswell could not help himself and always got into political discussions in the bars and
houses of Virginia. “At Dinner had a long dispute with Doctor Jacson about the origin of the
present proceedings…Most of the company agrees that I had the better of the argument.
But never so much embarrassed in my whole life.” (8) He even chided General Washington as a yeoman farmer “Negro-driver” (9) and a and was befuddled that he kept evading General Howe. Ultimately, he did decide that he was a decent General.


In the end, Cresswell decided that Virginia, for all of its bounty, was lost and returning to
England was his only option. After three years of surviving the storm of a revolution, he
made his slip to British lines. While technically not a Loyalist, (10) Cresswell provides critical
details on the otherwise missing narrative of Loyalism in the colonies, especially Virginia.
His last act dramatically involved him in a plot to free English sailors and soldiers from a jail
in Alexandria Virginia. Some of the conspirators were well known merchants in
Alexandria. (11) Thankfully Cresswell’s account exists to inform how a revolution hits the
home front and the profundity of independence at that time.

To learn more about Nicholas Cresswell, visit Kenneth Bancroft’s website at: https://nicholascresswell.wordpress.com/ and see his Rev War Revelry episode on Nicholas Cresswell on our You Tube Channel at: https://youtu.be/fyONRWmy6_I?si=-tIAEmJ69-GHv2BI


1 Cresswell’s derisive term for the Continental Congress. It refers to the Sandedrim, or Jewish Supreme
Council. “Sanhedrim,”McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia, accessed June 2, 2026
https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/sanhedrim.html. 2 Nicholas Cresswell, The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774-1777, (North Charleston, South Carolina:
reprinted 2024, 117. Free online version at the Library of Congress https://tile.loc.gov/storageservices/service/gdc/lhbtn/30436/30436.pdf. 3 See: “An Englishman’s Journal of the Revolutionary War: The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell 1774-1777,”
Emerging Revolutionary War, October 20, 2025, https://emergingrevolutionarywar.org/2025/10/20/anenglishmans-journal-of-the-revolutionary-war-the-journals-of-nicholas-cresswell-1774-1777/. 4 Cresswell, 16. 5 Ibid, 77. 6 Ibid, 197.
7 Ibid, 198.
8 Ibid, 99.
9 Ibid, 193. It is interesting that that turn of phrase is famously used by Samuel Johnson, an avowed Tory who
despised what the American colonies were doing. See: Interview, “Gordon S. Wood: How the American
Revolution “infused into our culture our noblest ideals and highest aspirations,” Library of America, accessed
June 7, 2026 https://www.loa.org/news-and-views/639-gordon-s-wood-how-the-american-revolutioninfused-into-our-culture-our-noblest-ideals-and-highest-aspirations/. 10 McGill … Cresswell was more of an immigrant who still had cultural ties to his homeland. 11 William Buckner McGroarty, “Loyalism in Alexandria, Virginia, The Virginia Magazine of History and
Biuography, 52, no. 1 (January 1944), 42-43, accessed March 11, 2026 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4245269.