Kevinmeath

Quote:

Originally Posted by caldrail I didn't mean it like that, there's no need to take offence., but I apologise for the misunderstanding nonetheless.

Well I should apologise for (a) not replying sooner (family visiting) and (b) if I misread the nature of your reply, to be fair I should have known better there are posters here who can be arrogant with their opinions but I would have to say you are not one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caldrail Not quite. Under the reforms that saw the rifle companies formed there is no mention of elite status. The recruiting poster for the 95th is wonderful - "No White Belts!" it proclaims, and further mentions that the green coats wopuldn't need cleaning. The intent was clearly to induce some sort of esprit de corps (if a little laziness) and although the recruits would no doubt believe they were join ing something special (as indeed on account from the period suggests), elite status is not the same. The Rifle Corps were a different branch of the British Army of the time and clearly those responsible for them wanted their troops to be shown as worthy, but elite status without battle honours? Without association to the crown? Without official decree?

Why does ‘elite’ status need battle honours? need association with the crown? Or official decree?

Using that measure neither the ANZAC’s nor the and Commandos Parachute regiment of later wars could be considered ‘elite’.

Neither did the KGL have any previous battle honours but I would say that was an ‘elite’ unit.

I would say that the performance in battle is a much better measure of ‘elite’ status and from what I have read the 95th rifles (plus 5/60th and the light battalions of the KGL) and the Light Division did perform very well in combat.

For instance in the Portuguese military cavalry units were ‘elite’ with commissions requiring aristocratic blood. However they may have been ‘elite’ but their performance was terrible, short of horses, even shorter of honest and competent officers. Even after all of Beresford’s reforms never really solved all the problems. On the other hand the Cazadore regiments were outstanding and deserve their ‘elite’ status.

As for the poster it was a recruiting poster and the copy I have (in the Front of Mark Urbans book) seems to me to put the emphasis on ‘Riflemen’ and how different they are.
Both Harris and Wheeler comment how impressed they were with the ‘Rifles’ and very much wanted to join that corps, (in Wheelers case he joins the 51st light instead basically because that where his friends are going.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by caldrail I see the word 'elite' used very freely and often at any excuse, but the issue of elite status in those cases has more to do with modern definitions in which specialist units are generally considered elite as a matter of course.

Well we are now into semantics as to what actually ‘elite’ means, Napoleons Imperial guard were in every measure an ‘elite’ –titles, status and battle honours but it’s their military performance that makes them an ‘elite’ in my opinion.

Titles and status really mean nothing (as I suggested with the Portuguese cavalry) so for example are the British Foot Guards and Horse Guards really ‘elite’? they have title and status but are really not much different to ‘line’ units at this time. Their main advantage is that they tend to have the pick of recruits (selection would be elitist) and were always well up to and even over strength.

They would have the problem of being ‘fashionable’ which would attract rich purchase officers (commissions were very expensive in these regiments) who may not view the military in a practicable life way but rather a social one, they are also more likely to be on ‘home’ duties.

(We are of course making the assumption rich=incompetent which may not be the case eg Arthur Wellesley is a prime example of the ‘abuse’ of purchase and he did rather well).

To be fair to these regiments they generally fought well in this period (Waterloo especially) and would have believed themselves an ‘elite’ and behaved as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caldrail That was the whole point of skirmishing - to go ahead of the line both as a buffer against casualties and to harass the enemy as the regular troops approached. In any case the officers of the 195th century weren't particularly noted, despite a few exceptions, for their operational nous. We are taklking about an army with commisions paid for by their fathers when the officers were only infants - an army that was led by an upper class with strong traditional values on average.

The Rifles and the Light infantry acted as a buffer in two wasy before and as battle approached to man ‘outposts’ to warn of attack and to act as a vanguard before a battle. This required high quality troops and the Light Division became very good at it. In many ways it was ‘modern’ infantry practice being developed.

Light cavalry did the same and British regiments were poor at it—no training in Britain unlike the light infantry, the KGL Light Cavalry were excellent at out post duty.

In the actual battle the Light infantry moved in front of the line to combat the French Light infantry.

All accounts I have read put the 95th and other Rifle units and the Light Division as outstanding troops.

As for the purchase of commissions (positions as officers) it seems madness to us but remember the context in many armies of the time ‘noble blood’ was required for a commission (there were exceptions such as the French Military and the Royal Navy).

However not all positions were purchased with the massive expansion of the army many ‘free’ commissions were given (in new and unfashionable regiments of course) and battlefield promotions were ‘free’.

An officer intent on avoiding action and/or a posting abroad would ‘exchange’ into a regiment staying at home. An Officer may be eager to exchange not only may be getting a more valuable commission (there was a set official price but ‘fashionable’ regiments had a much high unofficial one) but also in action there was also the chance of free promotion, plunder, glory and of course death/injury.

A ‘Fop’ could also of course stay in the Militia or Volunteers where he could prance about in a smart fashionable uniform with zero chance (well almost zero some horrid protesting poor person or smuggler might cause trouble) of injury.

Conservative minded potential officers (or fathers of) my well not look kindly upon these new ‘Light’ infantry and Rifle regiments with their new ‘American’ tactics, especially as they are very likely to see action. However ambitious and/or poor officers who wanted to see action and are interested in this new warfare would be attracted.

caldrail

I was going to respond in detail but instead I want to clarify an important point. Elite status is either official or a matter of reputation (which I hadn't included earlier, but hey, I'm a generous guy ). With offical status the matter is closed. That's how it is. With reputation it largely depends on perspective and whilst a particular formation might seem elite to you on that basis, that cannot be said for everyone.

To expand on what I said earlier, it's become standard practice in our modern world to dilute distinction. Thus we see footballers called 'Hero's' on a regular basis, which seems to me a bit odd since they don't generally risk death so that another team member may score a goal. The same sort of thing happens concerning military matters as well. These days any unit with some specialisation or difference quickly assumes elite status in someone's eyes. The important point is that those with a record of excellence, or achievement in battle, tend to be those with more credibility.

No with regard to the 95th, the issue here is indeed credibility, since you tell us that they were elite in your opinion (not meaning to be arrogant, it's just you didn't include any other evidence). The impression I get of the 95th is that they were a right bunch of pirates.

There is of course an anecdote that men of the 95th gave a joint of ham to the Portuguese, who were starving and had eaten a dog belonging to one of the regiment. The ham was in fact sliced from the buttock of a dead french soldier.

Now it's easy to use anecdotes like this - I have to be sincere and say the behaviour of line infrantrymen probably wasn't much better - but then, where are the similar anecdotes about them?

What perhaps is more significant is the strangely egalitarian nature of command within the 95th. An officer and Chosen Man? How Roman... But the point is that leadership is not about chain of command, rather a more direct style. You might argue that the nature of the Rifle Corps and their tactical deployment made that necessary, but to me that only confirms the lack of elitism and the need for a more basic set-up which the recruitment poster alludes to indirectly.

As a matter of analogy you mentioned various formations in use over the last century or so. In that same vein I would point out that many irregular units did not have anything like elite status - it's that esprit de corps within the unit that gives them a reputation besides effectiveness.

Pacific_Victory

[quote=Cedar Brown;1036541]Polish cavalry tend to not be elite infantry, by definition.


Just about passed out from laughing when I read this