Talk:Regiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Contents 1 Reorganise 2 Brigade of Gurkhas 3 Spellings 4 Civil War ref? 5 Military Coup? 6 List of U.S. Army regiments?

[edit] Reorganise

This article is becoming to long and needs a rewrite. I also suggest splitting off 'regimental system', and creating entries such as 'regimental system in U.S. Army etc . 145.253.108.22 11:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brigade of Gurkhas

Is the Brigade of Gurkhas a permanent organisational unit? The MOD web site is ambiguious:

• The Official Website of the Brigade of Gurkhas
• Units in the Brigade of Gurkhas

If it is then perhapses it should be mentioned as a notable exception to 'the Regiment is the largest "permanent" organisational unit'.Philip Baird Shearer 08:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In actual fact, the statement in the article that "In the British Army, for most purposes, the Regiment is the largest "permanent" organisational unit" is slightly misleading. This is the case in some corps, but is not the case in the infantry, where the battalion is the largest permanent organisational unit and regiments are simply "administrative" groupings of battalions, largely these days only retained for traditional reasons. The Brigade of Gurkhas and the Brigade of Guards go one better and are administrative groupings of regiments, but they are not tactical units (since both are still collections of battalions). So the statement in the article, while a bit misleading, is technically accurate. -- Necrothesp 10:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The April 2005 version provides additional clarification in regard to tactical regiments/battalions and "administrative regiments", including detail on the scope of such administration, which is somewhat more than ceremonial. The Gurkha Brigade is (I understand from afar) an administrative "home", similar to the Administrative regiment (or, in the UK more and more, the administrative division). I also understand that the Gurkhas are tactically deployed throughout the British Army, often in company groups. Thus the Gurkha Brigade is NOT a tactical unit/formation.-- 66.130.86.231 30 April 2005

[edit] Spellings

I know that Wikipedia convention is to use British spelling conventions when discussing British/European/Commonwealth topics and American ones when discussing American topics, but what is the best practice here, where the article is concerning both relatively equally? Here, where the American topic and American spellings predominate in the first part of the article, and British topics and spellings predominate in the secon, it just looks really strange. Wouldn't British spellings throughout (since they are somewhat more universal) serve us best here?

Rlquall 21:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realize that this answer is coming almost three years after you posed the question, but better late than never, eh? The usual policy (when the topic is neither especially US-oriented nor UK/Commonwealth-oriented) is to use the spelling conventions used by whoever first created the page--or created the first substantial body of text on the page, if it existed for a long time as a stub.

In this case, it appears that the first few contributors were Americans (since the information about the US military appeared before the information about the UK military), but the first really substantial expansion is British-oriented and uses "organisation." So UK spelling is appropriate for the whole article.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War ref?

Re Spellings above I don't have much of a view; I get the impression english speakers on the web are used to both. The question arises though because of the American civil war paragraph, which seems a bit out of place in an opening section on 'regiments'. It also seems a rather drawn-out illustration of fluctuating numbers ... in any case noted in the preceding paragraph and itself maybe a slightly obvious point.

Hakluyt bean

[edit] Military Coup?

The article states that due to the regimental system England has never suffered a military coup although Oliver Cromwell came to power as the leader of the New Model Army.--Counsel 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell and his supporters were members of parliament ( ie politicians ), members of the government AND serving officers at the same time when they seized power. Therefore it does not technically count as a military coup. David J James

[edit] List of U.S. Army regiments?

Is there a list of U.S. Army regiments on wiki? I wanna find out more about the 20th inf regiment, can anyone direct me to the their page on the internet, if they have one please. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)