• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION

Rocky Mountains said:
I suspect most battle honours granted in the Canadian Army ignore Mr. O'Leary's rules.  Many of those granted for 1885 and almost all for South Africa and WWI were not directly earned by the unit claiming them.  Every mobilization in Canadian history is unique and carrying Mr. O'Leary's line of reasoning, only the RCR and PPCLI would have WWI battle honours which I'm sure is okay with him, but hardly practical.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many Units who have rightfully earned their Battle Honours for NW Canada, battles during the Boer War, and WW I.  The Royal Canadian Dragoons have Battle Honours for NW Canada.  Both The RCD and The RCR, also served in the Yukon Field Force.  Both sent members over to serve in Siberia.  Both The RCD and The Lord Strathcona Horse (RC) have Battle Honours for South Africa, along with The RCR.  The PPCLI were not even raised until 1914, so their participation in both NW Canada and the Boer War would not have been possible.

Although many of the units in the First World War were "numbered" units, they were perpetuated by current units of the CAF.  If you look at all Canadian units, you will find that they do have numbers somewhere in their historical backgrounds.  Being familiar with the Prince Edward Island Regiment, an example would be that their number in the order of Armour Regiments is 17 as depicted on their hatbadge by the "XVII". 

Back to the RCD; they have earned all the following Battle Honours under the name of The Royal Canadian Dragoons, no matter what other name they may have originally been sent into battle under:
North West Canada 1885, South Africa 1900, Festubert 1915, Somme 1916 '18, Bazentin, Pozières, Flers-Courcelette, Cambrai 1917 '18, St. Quentin, Amiens, Hindenburg Line, St. Quentin Canal, Beaurevoir, Pursuit to Mons, France and Flanders 1915–18, Liri Valley, Gothic Line, Lamone Crossing, Misano Ridge, Sant' Angelo-in-Salute, Fosso Vecchio, Italy 1944–45, Groningen, Bad Zwischenahn, North-West Europe 1945
 
Further to what George posted, please substantiate your statement re battle honours granted for 1885.
 
Rocky Mountains said:
I suspect most battle honours granted in the Canadian Army ignore Mr. O'Leary's rules.  Many of those granted for 1885 and almost all for South Africa and WWI were not directly earned by the unit claiming them.  Every mobilization in Canadian history is unique and carrying Mr. O'Leary's line of reasoning, only the RCR and PPCLI would have WWI battle honours which I'm sure is okay with him, but hardly practical.

Well done Rocky Mountains at putting all kinds of words into my mouth, and all completely wrong.

What rules do you think I am applying? I have not yet questioned any rules for the allocation of Battle Honours that have been documented, and have all those that I have available posted on my own website.

I have not questioned the award of 1812 Battle Honours, they were granted by the Canadian Government in 2012 to existing units of the Canadian Army in perpetuation of War of 1812 units (with no reference to the intervening period, 1815-2012, other than to establish which current unit is in the same recruiting locality).

I have not questioned Perpetuation. In fact I have spent quite some effort on illuminating this poorly understood concept. In particular, I have examined the Battle Honours of each extant Armour and Infantry regiment to show how their lists of Battle Honours evolved to their current state. I have, in fact, been quite prolific in explaining this within the context of my own Regiment:


The underlying question in this discussion is what effort has been made to differentiate the mass of "Canadian Militia" at War of 1812 actions to show the roles taken by each Regiment of Militia to earn their Battle Honour. I would welcome those details, if you have them available.

Perhaps I have missed something in the little work I have done on Canadian Battle Honours. Please share your research with us.

By the way, you can also see the awards of Battle Honours for 1885 on my website at these links:

 
Being familiar with the Prince Edward Island Regiment, an example would be that their number in the order of Armour Regiments is 17 as depicted on their hatbadge by the "XVII".

George Wallace, your example (in the quote above) does not hold ‘water’, at this time.
The Prince Edward Island Regiment is an amalgamated Regiment, formed in 1946, from 2 former Infantry Regiments, 1 former Cavalry Regiment and 1 former Artillery Regiment.
The Cavalry Regiment was the 36th, and last Cavalry Regiment, formed by Canada, in 1914.
The present Regiment was formed by these four Regiments in 1946.
The Number 17 comes from The Prince Edward Island Light Horse (the ex 36th Prince Edward Island Light Horse), who were converted to Armour in 1941 as the 17th (Reserve) Armoured Regiment.
The Regiment’s cap-badge simply displays the number 17, because that was their original number on the Roll of Canadian Armoured Regiments in 1941, when they were transferred to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.
In 1964, their seniority, on the Armoured Roll was 13th. In 2013 their seniority is now 9th, on the Reserve List.

Just what is the point that you are making here, as it relates to this thread ?  Am i missing something ? or are you not explaining yourself, as to be understood , properly ?

vaya con Dios
John
 
George Wallace, what you said has some sense, but it is not true in all cases. Take the example of the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), their original number was 7th in the Infantry Roll, but this number had nothing to do with seniority. Their original numbered (and seniority) was to be 23rd, but a Quebec Regiment, numbered 7th was disbanded  The Government of the day did not want to leave a blank spot of the list of Infantry Regiments, so the Cdn Fus were numbered as 7th, on their date of origin. Yes, the Cdn Fus did indeed have a number 7 on their cap-badge. But I will grant you, that in most cases what you said about numbers on cap-badges is usually true, but not always.
You have to investigate the Regiment's lineage to understand what their number stands for.

vaya con Dios
John
 
I believe I was quite clear when I pointed out that the perpetuated units of the War of 1812 were those that existed solely between 1812 and 1815. I even directed you to the online source document for that.

Thank you for pointing this out, I found it very helpful, but your conclusion is not entirely correct.
Would you be referring to; ‘The War of 1812 Canadian Awards Sorted by Current Units (BG 12.052 - September 25, 2012)’, under the column titled; ‘Canadian Historic Unit Perpetuated or British Historic Unit being Commemorated ?
I will grant you that some of the Sedentary Militia Units ‘called-out’ during the war were war-raised; as in; “8th Battalion, Select Embodied Militia”; “1st Lotbinière Division”; “Battalion of Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada”; etc. These were Units that were formed from members of the Sedentary Militia Units, either volunteers or (to use a modern term) draftees.

On your web page of Canadian Battle Honours; War of 1812; I noticed that you added the dates in brackets, as in (1812-1815) after every Sedentary Militia Unit that was ‘called-out’ for active duty during the war. However, you failed to add these same bracketed dates after every war-raised Unit. Possibly this is the Government’s err that you followed.

If so, this is a comprehensive, but mixed, list of both ‘war-raised’ and ‘Sedentary Militia’ Units. You will have to search the various histories of these Units to understand what I mean by this.
As for any (Sedentary) Militia Units that fought in the War of 1812, about two-thirds of those listed were war-raised Units, during the war and speedily disbanded in 1815. But, about one-third of these Units, were Units of the Sedentary Militia, who were ‘called-out’, from time to time, during the war, and ‘stood -down’ in 1815, but, they continued to be in existence, until they were officially abolished in 1950.

Again, I stress and maintain that due to their abolishment (effectively in 1904 and officially in 1950) there was no lineage after 1950, to any unit raised after 1855 (the present Regular and Reserve Army.
What the Government ‘manufactured’ in 2012, was the ‘perpetuations’ (using coincidence of geography) of most of these Units, to Units that exist to-day, and, as you well know, perpetuation never  involves ‘lineage’.

Michael, I believe that we have both misunderstood each other, as well as, misunderstood the published material and source documents. The dates of Reply #250 are (as you admitted) real dates and the comments, have not been interpreted to enhance my case, but are the various authors, comments.

There is no issue of lineage continuity such as you continue to try to proclaim.

Reply #250 clearly states, that the Sedentary Militia, which fought in the War of 1812, was officially abolished in 1950. I’ve known that, since day one, and I never said anything to the contrary, nor even proclaimed it as fact. There is no unit of the Sedentary Militia that has a lineage to the present Regular or Reserve Army of to-day.

……. having others give up in frustration does not mean you are correct.

No, I do not want to win anything, especially by default. All I am after is the truth of the matter and this seems to be sadly lacking in many areas. I could be wrong in some or all of my conclusions, but please, do not say that I am wrong without verifiable proof. Please point out where I went astray and why I am in error.

Thank you, Michael, for all the help you have been, to me and all others, on this thread.

vaya con Dios
John
 
wheels031 said:
On your web page of Canadian Battle Honours; War of 1812; I noticed that you added the dates in brackets, as in (1812-1815) after every Sedentary Militia Unit that was ‘called-out’ for active duty during the war. However, you failed to add these same bracketed dates after every war-raised Unit. Possibly this is the Government’s err that you followed.

I would suggest that the reason for this distinction is that the war-raised units were afterwards disbanded and did not need limiting dates in order to establish that the perpetuated period is limited to the years of the War of 1812. The purpose, I suspect, is to hold the perpetuation to the elements of each unit that were engaged, and to intentionally avoid the likelihood of people trying to extend that perpetuation to the count regiments over longer periods.
 
I would suggest that the reason for this distinction is that the war-raised units were afterwards disbanded and did not need limiting dates in order to establish that the perpetuated period is limited to the years of the War of 1812. The purpose, I suspect, is to hold the perpetuation to the elements of each unit that were engaged, and to intentionally avoid the likelihood of people trying to extend that perpetuation to the count regiments over longer periods.

This idea never occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for your thoughts.

vaya con Dios
John
 
Back
Top