Kept in the André Malraux multimedia library (Strasbourg), Flohr’s manuscript is one of remarkable richness in many ways.1 Though the illustrations are the most noticeable, they are only the tip of the iceberg. In the pages of this account the reader will also enjoy the many informative, naturalistic, or simply anecdotal digressions that Flohr slipped into his war diary. Such diversity is surprising when compared to the title of the manuscript: “Account of the Land and Sea Expedition in America of the Acclaimed Deux-Ponts Regiment”, or considering the intended purpose: “concerning the present description of America as I have scrupulously noted day after day during the war opposing England and American colonies.” Taken from the Erklärung and written by Flohr, this citation implies that the description of America contained in this manuscript is faithful to the notes he took during the military campaign. This preliminary statement is inevitably refuted by a close reading of the text.

The framework of the text is made up of information dealing with the destination, of indications of the number of kilometers traveled each day, all elements that evidently correspond to the distinct genre that is the war diary, which presents itself as the practice of systematic and concise writing. The resulting work is as useful to military staff officers as it is to mapmakers,2 but also to individuals who keep fact records for private or collective interest.3

The writing of such a diary requires regular note taking in the field. In this context the written record is limited to mentioning the date and the names of the places the soldiers passed through; it is at times embellished by a short description of the landscape that was encountered or the risks of the voyage, the day’s events and the number of kilometers traveled are mentioned. With Flohr the war diary genre is the object of a certain number of adjustments, or rather, additions. Nevertheless, his field notes make up the primary source of his account. a comparison with other available war diaries, or with the records kept by the aides-de-camp or the mapmakers shows this. Thus when Flohr writes the town he passed through or the stages of the journey accomplished by his regiment, he transcribes their names phonetically. The town of Bowling Green becomes “Bollingen” by his pen, Page’s Bridge is similarly transformed into “Bettesbrück”. Such place names could not be reproduced afterwards, Flohr most likely took up the spelling used in his field notes. The distances covered also do not correspond to those indicated by other witnesses.4 This rudimentary note taking that makes up the framework of Flohr’s voyage is accompanied by commentaries on the landscape he encountered (“On the road we passed through a lovely little town on a beautiful plain”, diary page 69) including a multitude of flattering descriptions. The descriptions of towns, as superficial as they may be in some cases, include such precise indications that their direct origins cannot be called into question (“In this city of B. one can find quite a few Frenchmen, who live there: most of them live on the same street, which is why it is called the Rue Française”, diary page 171). The numerous digressions concerning the specifics of the local flora and fauna stand out due to their length and fact that they are written in the first person singular. These two characteristics suggest that they were written by Flohr and that they reflect his own vision of the American landscape. However, it is difficult to differentiate between the parts written “in the field” and those added later based on memories. In all likelihood the majority of the text does indeed have its origins in the day-to-day notes taken by the author. Yet the use of stories from third parties, rumors, as well as the integration of numerical data or official texts rules out the hypothesis of a sole source of inspiration.

The digressions are the most interesting parts of the account. Besides the author’s personal observations on the local environment, vegetation or the conditions of slaves, some of them allude to well-known incidents of the American War of Independence. For example, the digressions about the Treason of Benedict Arnold, the battle of Trenton or Princeton, and the sinking of the ship,Le Bourgogne are enlightening. In the case of these three digressions, the information could not have come from the author alone. The treason of Benedict Arnold and the battles of Trenton and Princeton took place in what would have been the recent past, and Flohr, despite what he may say, could not have witnessed the sinking of Le Bourgogne. These three notable accounts must have been taken from the author’s notes, not from his personal observation. Flohr most likely collected this information from his fellow soldiers and integrated it into his diary without indicating its source. The author alludes to this practice when he recounts the story of when the Indian delegation visited Rochambeau in Newport. When Flohr describes the Indians’ lifestyle, he cites the man who supplied him with the information he uses, the German interpreter (a certain Frey, originally from Schwetzingen according to the Baron von Closen),5 which gives weight to his account. Otherwise Flohr describes events that he did not always experience and observations that were not always his. The passage concerning the assault of redoubt nine shows this: it is written in the first person plural, which supports a certain vagueness regarding Flohr’s status as a witness.6 Similarly, when Flohr describes the capture of a Royal Deux-Ponts military group by an English ship at sea and their captivity in Jamaica, he inserts a third party’s account into his own without explicitly indicating it nor distinctly introducing it, the inclusive “we” marking the collective regiment remains to recount this episode.

In order to carry out his description of the Royal Deux-Ponts expedition, the author incorporated direct accounts of his fellow soldiers, but also tales that must have been circulating within the troop. This is most likely the case for the account of Benedict Arnold’s treason and of the battle of Trenton/Princeton. Flohr also introduces in his manuscript documentation that is almost like that of an appendix: here we find tables with the names of the ships of the different flotillas, registers showing the casualties that were suffered at Yorktown. To this he adds reproductions of several official texts such as the exchange between the Indian delegation and Rochambeau as well as a letter from Ministre Ségur addressed to the same general. Moreover, these two texts are faithfully reproduced. Such additions are indeed quite different from the note taking based on observations. Integrating these accounts required the collection of information and attests to the collection of documents undertaken by Flohr while he was writing his manuscript in the meantime.The origin of the data presented in the tables remains problematic. There are documents that provide the opportunity for comparison. Once again the data presentation is not similar, despite the fact that this data itself is nearly the same. An example is one of the many tables that lists the names of the naval vessels that took part in the combats at sea as well as the number of canons, Flohr’s information and that of the Baron von Closen differ: the order in which the entries are arranged is not the same. Yet Flohr must have copied these letters or tables from some other source. There are multiple hypotheses concerning this. The transmission of information within the expeditionary forces was rather good, as is proven by the existence of the Gazette Françoise in Newport, printed using the printing press brought over from France and intended to be used by the army officers (for example, this newspaper provides a detailed account of the naval battle of Cap Henry on March 6, 1781, a battle recounted by Flohr as well).7 The Gazette Françoise was only published for a few months in 1781, nonetheless Flohr was able to make use of this newspaper. Yet Flohr only returned to France in 1783. In addition he most likely made use of rare documents that were presented to the troops, such as congratulatory letters sent by the King and Count Ségur. However, his having access to the number of casualties suffered by the entire army at Yorktown suggests that Flohr had access to precise sources. In this respect we can assume that Flohr the rifleman was in contact with a military staff officer either during the military campaign or once he returned to Strasbourg.8

Flohr enriched his text with personal accounts, military campaign documentation, but also with geographic knowledge. Certain information about North America is approximated:9 on the other hand he seems well-informed about the South American continent. Thus he notes: “This tall mountain range, which is marvelous to behold, stretches all the way to Peru, where it is much taller still and more untamed. In geography it is described as being the tallest mountain range in the world” (pages 271-272). The fact that he notes “in geography” suggests that Flohr consulted a geographic dictionary or a similar book that mentions South America. It is most likely thanks to this precise information that he manages to describe the whole of the Spanish empire from Mexico to Chili (page 273-274) and the different groups of people that occupy those territories (page 256-259). The details of these descriptions indicate that Flohr turned to books and that he was not inspired only by his field notes.

Flohr’s treatment of the siege of Yorktown, a major event of the military campaign and of the account, shows another kind of intervention done to the diary later on. Flohr precisely explains that when the army finally left Yorktown in June 1781 it headed directly for Virginia to put an end to the abuses committed by the English. The damages committed by Arnold and then by Cornwallis in Virginia are mentioned in succession to justify the army’s march south starting in March 1781 (page 29-30). But the military staff officer only makes the decision on August 14. The actual account ofthe siege is the opportunity for the author to indulge in multiple “narrative fantasies”. The dramatization of the relations between the officers, the portrait of Cornwallis or mentioning certain military feats show Flohr’s willingness to make his account of the siege of Yorktown thrilling, by surpassing the realistic.10

If the notes Flohr took day to day represent the base of the account, Flohr enriches and completes them with witness accounts taken directly or stemming simply from rumors (as it is particularly inaccurate, see the treason of Benedict Arnold or the Battle of Trenton/Princeton), and also with documents that he consulted once he had returned. The “present description” is therefore not the one that Flohr is supposed to have recorded, day after day, during his voyage. The manuscript brings together sources of diverse origins, gathered during and after the campaign, presented in what is essentially a collective perspective — recounted several years after the events of the Royal Deux-Ponts expedition, by a zealous compiler. It is therefore necessary not to read Flohr’s diary as a faithful trace of the events experienced by the Royal Deux-Ponts but rather as the point of view of a young rifleman on this unique moment in history.