# Compendium of Canadian Regiments (Book)



## Zartan (1 May 2006)

While looking around a bookstore, I came across a book titled "Compendium of Canadian Regiments: a Civilian's Perspective." An examination of the book gave me a few surprises - namely that it is not some sort of "Encyclopaedia Regimentia," but actually even features chapters regarding the histories and purposes of the regiments in our past, in addition to the encyclopedic references to the battalions themselves.

Given the wealth of information that seemed to lie within, I thought it would be a good idea to give the other history buffs a word about it, as at the moment it would seem to be a unique resource. However, this is coming from but a limited in-store overview, so be warned.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 May 2006)

Is it new?

Author's name?

ISBN?


----------



## ArmyRick (2 May 2006)

Please do fetch some more info


----------



## geo (2 May 2006)

Micheal Gregory
ISBN#0-9688562-0-9  

 This 400page reference book compresses an exhaustive research of a rarely explored subject. Its index includes 565 mostly Canadian regiment names.
The book opens with ten short chapters that probe, sometimes irreverently, the place regiments have in both the nation’s history and society. The chapters have titles such as Words and Weapons, Apparel and Tactics and Strategy. Also explored is the method of using regiments to settle the country and the consequent relationship regiments have to the nation's geography. In the attendant notes and arrangement of regiments in the Compilation this relationship becomes thematic. Underlying all of this is the tribalistic romance inherent in the concept of a regiment.
It is shown that regiments have borne the brunt of the wars and that they are a distinct and ancient form of military organization having a surprising continuity through changing jurisdictions and therefore are placed in a context of war and peace, from first contact to the 21stC. In so doing the book uses fifteen various types of lists.  For example a list is devoted to the numbered battalions of the First World War. Other lists have titles such as Chronology or Military Demographics and there is a short illustrated list of the various hats worn by Canadian soldiers in their 300year history.
Part III, The Compilation, which takes up half the book, contains all the regiments entered in historical and then geographical sequence under 132 headings. It contains the vital data and has reproductions of 123 insignia or badges. 

  Mike Gregory has had some contact with the Armed Forces and has participated in schemes and exercises to test equipment. The idea for the book however came more from an interest in Canadian history.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 May 2006)

"Some contact?"

I'd argue that we don't have a strong sense of regimental history simply because they changed wholesale at least 3 times.

In 1900 all infantry battalions were redesignated as regiments; not a huge deal. But

In 1920, the Otter Commission reorganized the entire Army, and just about every regiment changed its identity in a major way - this was done to accommodate the perpetuation of CEF battalions that actually fought the war - themselves without any pre-1914 history. Even two of the three regular force infantry regiments had no pre-1914 history since they were formed that year. For most regiments, it was a start from scratch as far as name and identity went, though they in theory perpetuated the prewar regiments AND the CEF.

In 1936, the Militia was reorganized yet again with major disbandments and reorganizations/amalgamations.

During the Second World War, the armoured corps was shaped and many infantry regiments were reroled, though usually without loss of identity (just traditions - ie over time their Colours were lost in favour of Guidons).

Things have been more stable since 1950, though again, new regiments (Canadian Airborne, Canadian Guards) came - and went.

Few regiments today can claim to have been in existence in the same role and name as they were 100 years ago.

Sounds like an interesting reference book but the "tribalistic romance" behind the regiments is probably just that, eh.

My own regimental lists, FWIW are here:

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Cavalry_Regiments_1914-1939

This is the Cavalry; additional lists are linked to across the bottom of the page.  Lots of history there, but I wonder if there is as much continuity as all that. I think the number of regiments (or at the least, regimental distinctions) that have existed more than 30 years is outnumbered by those that haven't.

Am certainly interested in other opinions on Gregory's book - y'know, from someone who actually read it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Micheal Gregory
> ISBN#0-9688562-0-9
> 
> This 400page reference book compresses an exhaustive research of a rarely explored subject. Its index includes 565 mostly Canadian regiment names.



Forgot to thank you for quoting that. I found it on Google just now, but what is "gsph"?  I can only call up the cache version, not the actual page.

Incidentally, on other results from gsph, the book is subtitled "A Civilian's Perspective".  Not filling me with confidence...


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (2 May 2006)

GSPH = General Store Publishing House. Site seems to be fine right now

Looks like they have a whole category of military interest (47 titles).


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (8 May 2006)

I was at Chapters at the weekend and bought a copy.

I do not intend to write a review but I should make two points

1) The book as stated in the introduction is for non-specialists; most of what is included here is available elsewhere but 
it is is particularly interesting for me at least with respect to the pre-confederation militia
2)The book could use more judicious editing for content

It was probably worth the 30$ if only to convince publishers to continue to publish on Canadian Military subjects


----------



## FRONTIERSMEN (17 May 2006)

After reviewing the book, I purchased it about two weeks ago. I also ran it by a Military Curator, someone who served 30 years in the Army and now 15 years in the present position. I have served 35 years in the military, plus have a good collection of my own books. The Compendium of Cdn Regiments is pretty good. I crossed referenced his material with DHH publications and other history books and at the moment, I could not find any faults.


----------



## big bad john (25 May 2006)

Not being a native born Canadian and not having served in the Canadian Forces, but having an interest in the same I bought and read the book.  I found it informative from a laymans viewpoint.  It is an excellent starting point and a good reference work for an inexperianced person.  

I have found many other books out there on Canadian military history that are brilliant, such as "Not Mentioned in Dispatches" by Fred Bagnall.  About a mans experiances with the 14th Battalion CEF in the First War.


----------



## pbi (17 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> "Some contact?"
> 
> I'd argue that we don't have a strong sense of regimental history simply because they changed wholesale at least 3 times.



Where would that leave the Infantry Regiments of the British Army, I wonder? Starting from the Cardwell Reforms (which, IIRC) caused controversy by substituting names for numbers, there have been (IMHO) considerably more than three waves of reorganizations/amalgamations in the British regiments. Would you agree that has resulted in them not having a strong sense of Regimental history? (Not a rhetorical question... ;D)

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> Where would that leave the Infantry Regiments of the British Army, I wonder? Starting from the Cardwell Reforms (which, IIRC) caused controversy by substituting names for numbers, there have been (IMHO) considerably more than three waves of reorganizations/amalgamations in the British regiments. Would you agree that has resulted in them not having a strong sense of Regimental history? (Not a rhetorical question... ;D)
> 
> Cheers



I was perhaps being a bit too precocious in making my point.  We do have a strong sense of regimental identity here and so do the Brits, and shouldn't have suggested otherwise. 

But the point I tried to make was the same point I've made on this forum several times - regimental solidarity can be created from whole cloth. I ask in return, do you think the CEF had unit pride, cohesion and the abilities of an effective fighting force? Even those numbered battalions that did not draw heavily on the prewar regiments seem to have had an enormous sense of identity based solely on the fact that they were the "Fighting Tenth" or "Iron 2nd" despite being amalgams of two or more prewar regiments that had no Battle Honours and none of their insignia and regimental "stuff" perpetuated. 

I'm quite serious when I suggest that  "regimental" tradition had possibly not much to do with it. I'm sure the British are just as good as adopting new unit names/designations as we are.   

The Tenth Battalion was created from the 103rd Regiment, a rifle regiment, and a light infantry regiment, the 106th, but did not use the traditions of either - they did not wear black badges, carry the rifle at the trail, marchpast at double time, etc., etc., and did not identify with either Calgary or Winnipeg, their founding cities (though later in the war the battalion was firmly identified as an Alberta unit for purposes of reinforcement). Yet according to Dancocks, their reputation was enviable.

Do you disagree?  If they told you tomorrow your parent regiment was no longer the PPCLI but the 1st Battalion, Alberta Infantry Regiment following an amalamation of the PPCLI, Loyal Edmontons and Calgary Highlanders, how would you anticipate your self perception changing?

I'm a huge fan of the regimental system, but unfortunately for proponents of it, we've already proved beyond doubt we can live without it.


----------



## pbi (18 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> But the point I tried to make was the same point I've made on this forum several times - regimental solidarity can be created from whole cloth. . .I'm quite serious when I suggest that  "regimental" tradition had possibly not much to do with it. I'm sure the British are just as good as adopting new unit names/designations as we are... If they told you tomorrow your parent regiment was no longer the PPCLI but the 1st Battalion, Alberta Infantry Regiment following an amalamation of the PPCLI, Loyal Edmontons and Calgary Highlanders, how would you anticipate your self perception changing?
> 
> I'm a huge fan of the regimental system, but unfortunately for proponents of it, we've already proved beyond doubt we can live without it.



OK-I'm with 100% on this. If this was not true, the CEF (which formally and by intent severed most of the Regimental connections during the mobilization phase) would not have done as well as it did. How could the Cdn Para Bn have fought as well as it did?--it had NO regimental history at all.

I wrote my paper at Army Staff College on this very issue. The conclusion I came to was very similar to your position: while the Regtl system is generally good, and can certainly be force multiplier, it is not necessary for success in combat (cohesion, morale, ability to "bounce back", pride in unit, combat effectiveness, etc). Units can do quite well without it. 

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> OK-I'm with 100% on this. If this was not true, the CEF (which formally and by intent severed most of the Regimental connections during the mobilization phase) would not have done as well as it did. How could the Cdn Para Bn have fought as well as it did?--it had NO regimental history at all.


On the other hand, how could things have gone so wrong for the Canadian Airborne Regiment?



> I wrote my paper at Army Staff College on this very issue. The conclusion I came to was very similar to your position: while the Regtl system is generally good, and can certainly be force multiplier, it is not necessary for success in combat (cohesion, morale, ability to "bounce back", pride in unit, combat effectiveness, etc). Units can do quite well without it.


I wonder if we haven't lost sight of the fact that unit cohesion is what the soldiers make of it. Battle Honours and uniform distinctions are just the pegs to hang all that on.  I feel no great pride in my 41 Brigade formation patch, mainly because I've heard way too many uncomplimentary comments about "Brigade", and also because I have no direct connection to them that supercede the guys that I talk to on the street or armoury floor, stand in line for chow with, etc. The unit is where a soldier's world is, and woe betide him if he doesn't take pride in it no matter what it is called. Though over-identification with your own unit as the only one worth belonging to runs counter to that, I think. I suppose the silk flags and funny hats are just a reminder to all the other units out there that even if you don't know anyone in them, they too are worth belonging to.


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Jun 2006)

I have worked in 100% mixed cap badge units (with some brits and US thrown in too) and was surprised at how well people will bound during times of need and when the goings gets rough.


----------

