Duplicate Regimental Numbers

Discussion in 'RAC' started by StumpyHussar, Jan 3, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Does anyone know why we had the 5th Skins (5 DG) and also the 16/5th Lancers?

    Given the jealousy of regiments and their seniority it seems odd that we'd two number 5's?

    On the same note why was the 16th before the 5th in the title and badge?

  2. I was told this by a 16/5 Lancer many years ago.

    5th Royal Lancers were an Irish regiment disbanded due to suspect loyalty to the crown. They were subsequently reformed but lost seniority due to the time they ceased to exist and were ranked behind the 17th Lancers in seniority, thus on amalgamation with the 16th Lancers it was the 16th Lancers who had seniority and so came first in the title.
  3. The 5th skins were Dragoons from Enniskilling, the 5th lancers were Irish too but were Lancers though they were originally 5th Royal Irish Dragoons so they were both entitled to be the 5th.

    The 5th were disbanded due to sedition in 1799. The regt was reformed on jan 9th 1858 as the5th royal Irish Lances.

    the reason for the 16th to be given seniority was the ignominy placedon the 5th.
  4. The main reason there were two duplicate numbers was due to thethe fact that the heavy and light branches of the cavalry were both numbered , starting from 1.
    e.g. 1st Royal Dragoons, (light) (now part of the Blues and Royals) and the 1st Kings Dragoon Guards (Heavies)
    2nd Dragoons (Scots Greys) (light) and 2nd Dragoon Guards (Queens Bays) (heavies)
    and so on through the orbat, although there were more light than heavy regiments hence not nuch conflict after7 or 8!!!
  5. When army regiments were formed in the 17th Century there were Regiments of Horse and Regiments of Foot. In between those there were Dragoon regiments who were mounted infantry, they used short muskets (called Dragons I think).

    The Dragoons were considered less skilled than the Regiments of Horse and so their pay was less. They were also lower in seniority.

    Over time the Dragoons became more like the Regiments of Horse, and gave up the mounted infantry role.

    In the middle of the 18th Century the goverment saw they were paying different wages to two identical sets of troops. So they cut the pay of the Regiments of Horse to match that of the Dragoons! As compensation for this very unpopular move they renamed the Regiments of Horse to be Dragoon Guards, 1st to 7th at that time. Spin isn't new at all!

    The Dragoons were also numbered from 1st to 19th (guessing abit here), the first six being "heavies" and the regiments from 7th onwards having Light (Dragoons) in their titles.
  6. I guess your questions been answered.
  7. Let's get this right chaps.

    Heavy Horse = Horse = Dragoons (heavy cavalry)
    Dragoon Guards = heavy horse with less equipment (also referred to as cuirassiers)
    Light Dragoons = light cavalry (later redesignated hussars or lancers which is why they don't exist today)

    All mounted regiments were numbered as per their date of raising and by designation so:

    1st Dragoons, 2nd Dragoons, 3rd Dragoons etc etc.,
    1st Dragoon Guards, 2nd Dragoon Guards, 3rd Dragoon Guards etc etc.,
    1st Light Dragoons, 2nd Light Dragoons, 3rd Light Dragoons etc etc.,

    You starting to get the idea?

    In terms of precedence on the ORBAT, dragoons come first, followed by dragoon guards, then hussars, then lancers. (then infantry, regardless of seniority)

    If you're wondering why some are missing - it's easy, they were disbanded or amalgamated with other units in days of yore.

    You'll always find an exception to the rule somewhere in the British Army but that's the general rule of things. The 5RIL example above is a classic. Because of the Curragh Mutiny they were tainted and although saved from disbandment were reduced to sqn size and attached to 16L with the new regiment becoming the "improper fraction" of the 16/5L.
  8. Um... courvoisier is a type of brandy beloved by gangster rappers. I suspect 'Cuirassier' is the term you're after. The Cuirassier was the heaviest of the Napoleonic Cavalry , these were big men on big horses often (but not always) with a breast plate or 'Cuirass', hence their name. Many nations employed this form of heavy cavalry with armour such as the Austrians, Prussians and Russians, but the British never adopted armoured heavy cavalry until after the Napoleonic wars.

    Cuirassiers from most countries were armed with a heavy straight bladed sword designed for cutting and being held straight armed during a charge like a spear, this was their primary weapon and they normally resisted attempts to arm them with carbines or any other type of fire arm apart from pistols (which French Cuirassiers carried until 1812). Like many of the Napoleonic cavalry these heavy armoured troops saw themselves as knights of the battlefield and looked down on firearms as weapons of the infantry preferring to use their swords in combat.
  9. I do beg your pardon. Having been consuming the stuff in copious amounts over Xmas I got confused. Cuirassier it is and I've corrected the error.

    They weren't the heaviest of the French cavalry however - Dragoons were, same as in Britain. You could be forgiven for mistaking the difference though because they are very similar.
  11. GDav

    I have to come in here IT rogue is correct Regiments of Horse became Dragoon Guards and were the Originally the heavier of the two, However as IT rogue states the two became exactly the same with the Dragoon Guards having seniority.
  13. Absolute tosh mate - sorry.

    Think about it logically: if what you are saying is true, why then is the "Royal Regiment of Horse" not a dragoon guard regiment and why are they the senior regiment of the line?

    In case you're thinking that is one of the idiosyncrasies of the system then think again. Go on to the "Tangier Regiment of Horse".

    Heavy Dragoons, to this day, have seniority.
  14. GDav

    You have spouted your view on 3 different threads on all threads people have disagreed with you. If you are correct Why do Regiments of Horse that became DG have right of line ie QDG is right of Line to SDG also most seniority is based on formation date the Regiments of Horse date from the 1680's before Dragoons.
  15. I haven't "spouted my views" anywhere pal. I have given you facts. If you don't like them, disprove them - simple as that!

    Right of line is NOT QDG. Right of line is HCR, both elements of which are DRAGOONS!

    No other dragoon regiments have survived.

    Don't try and ballix me about with seniority/dates because I'll wipe the floor with you - simple as that.