Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:yes,, the Uk military tradition is that units have a regiona identity. The US is not averse to this, though the regional identities are less strongly held. The US and CSA had strong regional identities in the American Civil War so you should be familiar with the historical concept.

This is slowly being killed off sadly, the current dogma is that regional traditional historcal identities must be subsumed into the New Britain of a comon dogma and different ethnicities replacing the differnt regional identities.

This is why many historical regments are being detroyed. there was an attempt to amalgamate the Guards into a single unit, also the Scottsh regiments lost their traditions and identities and numberour English regiments lost their identity to become five regiments of 'The Rifles'.

this is more thna a shame, and a catastrophic historic loss, regiments fight better knowing who they are. We need the Black Watch and other historica regiments, not the New Labour's own Regiment of Riflepersons.

Well hitorically it was substantially less common in the US. In actuality I can only think of the Civil War as a reference for that in the US, although I am sure it occurred before that. Militias generally were state militias to begin with and moved up on that basis. After the Civil War, and because of it, it was much more of a national endeavor (plus we liked to have immigrants be the primary driver in the enlisted ranks until the 20th century conflicts).

Frazzled wrote:
After the Civil War, and because of it, it was much more of a national endeavor (plus we liked to have immigrants be the primary driver in the enlisted ranks until the 20th century conflicts).

thats a double ended statement frazz as well all Americans(minus the indians...YEA I SAID INDIAN WUT) are immigrants.

(looks at avatar..nice!) Don't get your panties in a wad. I meant 1st generation immigrants.

Orlanth wrote:Wales has never been part of England, though it has for much of the time been administered as part of the English crown.

That is not quite true. The Statute of Rhuddlan legally made the Principality of Wales a part of England. And in with the Act of Union 1707, the document made reference only to the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. There is no mention of Wales in any form because it was legally part of England. The whole idea of Wales being a separate entity is either an ancient idea or a modern romantic phenomena.

Define ancient...

Didn't scotland gain right within the past ten years for self govern? or did I misshear that.

P.S Ooo and thank you frazz I like her too

Orlanth wrote:The US and CSA had strong regional identities in the American Civil War so you should be familiar with the historical concept anyway.

The practice was largely abandoned after the Civil War because of the potential it brought for disunity.

Orlanth wrote:This is slowly being killed off sadly, the current dogma is that regional traditional historcal identities must be subsumed into the New Britain of a common dogma.

This is why many historical regments are being detroyed. there was an attempt to amalgamate the Guards into a single unit, that was resisted, but the Scottsh regiments lost their traditions and identities and numberous English regiments recently lost their identity to become five regiments of 'The Rifles'.

This is more thna a shame, and a catastrophic historic loss, regiments fight better knowing who they are what rtghey stand for and where their forebears fought. We need the Black Watch and other historical regiments, not the New Labour's own Regiment of Riflepersons.

I couldn't agree with you more. I keep up with the politics and happenings of the UK quite a bit, and I find it quite sad that New Labour meant the destruction of many of the brilliant traditions and practices that have been had for hundreds of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Define ancient...

Older then you

As I stated before Jeb disunity was a small part of it. Thiose regt's were initially Gaurd or Militia however you want to call them, as they were transitioned into federal service. Very similar to how it is now actually.

Empchild wrote:As I stated before Jeb disunity was a small part of it. Thiose regt's were initially Gaurd or Militia however you want to call them, as they were transitioned into federal service. Very similar to how it is now actually.

Thats only initially, and expecialy in the South. At the same time regiments were also raised locally and either fought locally or moved North to join the Army of the Tennessee or Virginia. The North had similar practices. Afterwards US practice was more nationwide.

Older then you

Wait, now you're just entering the realm of impossibility there.

Very true fazzled, and I think though it is a strong saying that once they moved north they "enlisted" into a real reg't. Many of the home grown could be counted very similar to say oooo acient rome.. You should know that frazz weren't you part of the XVII legion?

Empchild wrote:Very true fazzled, and I think though it is a strong saying that once they moved north they "enlisted" into a real reg't. Many of the home grown could be counted very similar to say oooo acient rome.. You should know that frazz weren't you part of the XVII legion?

Don't insult me. XVII were manginas. Legio decima Gemina!

Frazzled wrote:Don't insult me. XVII were manginas. Legio decima Gemina!

I heard from Cicero that you and Pompey got horrifically trashed together and then went and pissed all over Caesar's chariot...

Empchild wrote:Didn't scotland gain right within the past ten years for self govern? or did I misshear that.

Almost. You are refering to the Regional assemblies which are super sized local councils really. Scotland has one, Northern Ireland has one and Wales has one. Most forms of policy are still taken in London by central government.

Scotland is not self governing, however much of the role of central government towards local authorities goes to the regional assemblies rather than central government. there are also regional assemblies within England, but they have even less power, and have little controlover their own budgets. They existed for a different reason. the natioanl regional assemblies are a form of divide and rule, the English regional assemblies are a means of breasking the power of local democracy and handing power firmly to Westminster.

The Scottish assembly is elected, the Birmingham regional assembly is part appointed (i.e cronies) the latter also now has its budget pre-allocated to it so it has very little power at all. Regional assemblies are a mess, increasing dissent in Scotland and Wales, which decreasing representation in England. Just how Blair wanted it.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Don't insult me. XVII were manginas. Legio decima Gemina!

I heard from Cicero that you and Pompey got horrifically trashed together and then went and pissed all over Caesar's chariot...

I can neither confirm nor deny anything...

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Don't insult me. XVII were manginas. Legio decima Gemina!

I heard from Cicero that you and Pompey got horrifically trashed together and then went and pissed all over Caesar's chariot...

That explains much, I had to order it cleaned twice that day, ol' Gaius would have been most upset otherwise, he had a tendency to sweat the small stuff.

Yup. We have a bunch of the original Civil War regimental banners in cases in our State House.

Mannahnin wrote:Yup. We have a bunch of the original Civil War regimental banners in cases in our State House.

LIVE FREE OR DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New Hampshire state motto if im not mistaken.

Mannahnin wrote:Yup. We have a bunch of the original Civil War regimental banners in cases in our State House.

We have a few of yours as well.

That it is. The other half of that toast is "Death is not the worst of evils".

Good ol' Gen. John Stark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fraz- NH guys marched all the way down there to shoot at Texans??

Makes my heart proud, if so!

Frazzled wrote:

I believe that flag is in the Bill Daniel Student Center at Baylor University, or at least we have another flag that was also flown over the Alamo. It was a gift from Gov. Bill to the school. I walked by it many times, and always thanked the heroes of the Alamo for their sacrifice every time I walked by....

Here's another one for you JEBbby

wasn't that based off of the cannons they cough aquired cough in aaaaa damn what was that town.

Goliad battleflag. Mexican troops tried to seize cannon and effectively started the war.

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
After the Civil War, and because of it, it was much more of a national endeavor (plus we liked to have immigrants be the primary driver in the enlisted ranks until the 20th century conflicts).

thats a double ended statement frazz as well all Americans(minus the indians...YEA I SAID INDIAN WUT) are immigrants.

In my mind saying Indian is as valid if not more so than Native American. I'm a Native American since I wasn't born in China or any other country. Which America is refered to in this anyway? North, Central, or South?
PC complicates a lot of what should be simple.

Frazzled wrote:Here's another one for you JEBbby

Ah, well met my good man. Here is something for you then!



And as an added tidbit, a recent quote from a friend of mine:
Q: "Where are you from?"
A: "America, Texas"

Well we did allow the rest of the states to join up with us.

Relapse wrote:

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
After the Civil War, and because of it, it was much more of a national endeavor (plus we liked to have immigrants be the primary driver in the enlisted ranks until the 20th century conflicts).

thats a double ended statement frazz as well all Americans(minus the indians...YEA I SAID INDIAN WUT) are immigrants.

In my mind saying Indian is as valid if not more so than Native American. I'm a Native American since I wasn't born in China or any other country. Which America is refered to in this anyway? North, Central, or South?
PC complicates a lot of what should be simple.

I don't agree that "Indian" is particularly correct (not politicly so),as it was a "mis-naming" of an indigenious people,however I do agree that "Native American" is some what silly,since,as you pointed out,any one born here is "Native American".
Now,my Father is 100% "Native American" (using the current PC definition of the term for clarity),born on the Pawnee Nation in Oklahoma,if asked he would call himself a "Pawnee National" or an American,I have never ever heard him refer to himself as "Native American",and I will only call myself "half Native American" to simplify a conversation if the subject comes up.

How about "Aborigine"?

ZF-