Talk:Battle honour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Culture specificity[edit]

(Mostly taken from here (last thread).)

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the origins of battle honours. A first-time reader will gain the impression that these are uniquely British things! The implication goes "This is a European thing, so the British (or English or Scots or whatever) followed suit", rather than "This is a British thing and the rest of Europe copied".

The Prussians, Spanish, French etc all record battles and dates on flags, drums, trumpet banners, sleeves etc. It may enlighten the reader to know that British military tradition is simply one specific example of these traditions. 118.90.25.170 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying may be correct but if this is so, please go ahead and place relevant referenced information to give a complete picture instead of unilaterally placing a bias tag. The bias is not an intentional one. We were recording well-documented practices in the British Commonwealth. Why claim it as a European thing? The Jammu and Kashmir Rifles of India have records of battle and accolades given by rulers 500 years ago. Surely the Americans must be having such honours too. And other military cultures of the world, definitely? So I am reverting a few edits while keeping your central issue of concern in mind. AshLin (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think WP:BOLD is my natural justification :D. I know that as a cultural topic that changes may be looked at a lot more closely than others. Indeed as you say it is unintentional bias (and was the kind of bias I had in mind), and the tag is indeed a systemic/uninentional bias tag which links to here! (See Template:overcoverage, and look closely ...) If you took my actions as speaking about intentional bias, my apologies for any misunderstanding.
Obviously in the case of the USA, and "Modern" India, the European thing is indeed the case, thanks to you-know-who :D. I don't dispute that rulers/commanders honoured units in their own way, as you said, but my edit was mainly addressing European-style battle honours.
(That reference to the other talk page at the top of this thread addresses this! It mentions China and non-Europeans ...)
Anyway, I'd like to emphasise that I don't mean to cause a negative reaction---I'd like to think that I'm on the same side of the fence as you :D 118.90.25.253 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No offence taken, your comment prodded me to cp ed the article - its slightly better now! Which is what WP is all about! :-) AshLin (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Streamers"[edit]

WP:CSB seems to sum up what is wrong with the article.

As I noted here, streamers are actually European in origin and copied by the US. Prussia and the USSR (maybe Russia post 1991 as well?) used ribbon-shaped honours. The article imposes an anglocentric view despite repeated attempts by others to remedy the situation. In any case the article is in need of attention of a European-military historian (...not a military historian from Europe :D).

118.90.103.146 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Naval battle honours[edit]

After reading the article a while back, I noticed that there was little (if any) information in regards to battle honours as applied to naval units. Its boradly the same but slightly different, particularly in how they are displayed (ships have no regimental colours), and the concept of 'single ship' honours (where a battle honour for a one-on-one or many-on-one engagement is treated differently to a many-on-many engagement).

I've knocked something together in userspace (User:Saberwyn/Naval_battle_honour), but I think it would be better if editors more involved here integrate the info into the article, because I don't have an idea how it should be done. -- saberwyn 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

28th Regiment Back badge[edit]

The back badge was not awarded to the 28th Regiment for the battle of Alexandria. Like all unit that served in the Egypt campaign, the 28th were awarded the Sphinx which featured prominently in its appointments thereafter.

The 'Back Number' was a badge assumed by the Regiment, without authority, for wear on the back of their caps to commemorate the front and rear rank fighting back to back when French cavalry penetrated the line at Alexandria. The earliest know date for this is 1805.

It was only in May 1823 that this custom was acknowledged by the Adjutant General's Office in a letter which merely states:

"it was never our intention to deprive the 28th Regiment of any badge of honour they may have acquired by their distinguished service in Egypt and that there will be no objection to their retaining the plate they have been accustomed to wear on the back of their caps since that service, for which this letter may be shown by you to the Inspecting General Officer as sufficient authority."

When an Inspection General later questioned the 'back badge' as a deviation of dress, the AG department replied:

"22 June 1843 Horse Guards. The Duke of Wellington does not object to the continuance in wear of these ornaments by the officers and soldiers of the 28th Regiment."

There were several other instances of regiments assuming distinctions on their own cognizance which much later were given official permission, some with Royal authority, others less formally as in the case of the 28th. Tradition has later converted these into awards and honours which is not strictly true.JF42 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)