WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION

[je suis prest]

I note that one of the regiments receiving the battle honour is an artillery regiment.  Is anyone aware of any other artillery units that perpetuate an infantry or cavalry unit and carry battle honours in addition to "Ubique"?  In the absence of colours, where will they display the honour?

 

[Old Sweat]

Artillery units do not bear individual battle honours and the 56th Field Regiment is not unique in this regard. The British Army gives individual batteries the right to bear the name of a battle after the battery number, but this is not done for regiments.

 

[fraserdw]

Artillery units do not bear individual battle honours and the 56th Field Regiment is not unique in this regard. The British Army gives individual batteries the right to bear the name of a battle after the battery number, but this is not done for regiments.

3rd Field has a regimental colour, awarded in the 1790s and still part of the regiment today.

 

[Webgear]

Can someone explain why the Royal Canadian Regiment is receiving the Battle Honour for the Battle of Detroit?

I am not aware of any connection between the two?

 

[fraserdw]

Can someone explain why the Royal Canadian Regiment is receiving the Battle Honour for the Battle of Detroit?

I am not aware of any connection between the two?

It's like MP seats for Alberta, you have to give seats to Quebec first! >

 

[The Bread Guy]

And if Postmedia News has it right, there's more to follow - highlights mine:

After more than a year of fierce, back-channel debates among historians and government officials, Canadian military regiments with links to 200-year-old units that fought in the War of 1812 have finally begun receiving so-called “battle honours” that formally recognize Canadian soldiers’ contributions in at least five major engagements from the war.

While Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced this week that several Canadian regiments will now be recognized for “perpetuating” the 19th-century units that fought in the Battle of Detroit — a key August 1812 victory led by British commander Sir Isaac Brock and allied aboriginal warrior Tecumseh — Postmedia News has learned that similar honours will soon be bestowed to other present-day military units for the Battle of Queenston Heights, the Battle of Chateauguay and the Battle of Crysler’s Farm ....

 

[Michael OLeary]

Can someone explain why the Royal Canadian Regiment is receiving the Battle Honour for the Battle of Detroit?

I am not aware of any connection between the two?

It's quite simple really. They have the same connection that the other regiments receiving these honours have to the militia units of the War of 1812 .... they currently recruit in the same communities.

The RCR was amalgamated with The Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) in the 1950s. These two Militia Regiments formed the Reserve battalion of the RCR, and the unit continues to recruit soldiers in Oxford and Middlesex counties. Honours are not carried by individual battalions, they are carried by regiments, therefore, to accept the honour offered by the Government, The RCR (as a Regiment) accepted it.

There are no current units with direct lineage extending to the War of 1812, the connection for perpetuation of each of these War of 1812 honours is geographic.

 

[Infanteer]

Are we going to start giving Battle Honours for aboriginal warfare that occured in the geographic area prior to the arrival of European settlers?

I wish they'd put the same amout of energy into recognizing the Battle Honours from Afghanistan - British units were stitching on Op TELIC soon after the first few years in Iraq....

 

[Webgear]

It's quite simple really. They have the same connection that the other regiments receiving these honours have to the militia units of the War of 1812 .... they currently recruit in the same communities.

The RCR was amalgamated with The Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) in the 1950s. These two Militia Regiments formed the Reserve battalion of the RCR, and the unit continues to recruit soldiers in Oxford and Middlesex counties. Honours are not carried by individual battalions, they are carried by regiments, therefore, to accept the honour offered by the Government, The RCR (as a Regiment) accepted it.

There are no current units with direct lineage extending to the War of 1812, the connection for perpetuation of each of these War of 1812 honours is geographic.

Thank you for the information, I was not aware of the Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers connection to the RCR.

 

[bick]

Infanteer,

Totally agree.  Instead of trying to establish some loose connection with the militia of 1812, lets recognize the soldiers of today.  While we're young people. 

 

[4Feathers]

The War of 1812 was pretty much a stalemate, although the Americans will say otherwise as will our Government. The only loser was the 1st Nations peoples of north America, whom the British abandoned their treaties with after the was over as they were not needed anymore. Napolean was defeated in Europe, things were good for the British again. No need for 1st Nations allies in North America. It was dark period for the first nations peoples after the was over, and now we get to wear a cheaply made in China pin to commemorate it.  I hope this whole thing gets reviewed and cancelled so we can take them off and throw them away quietly.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I had a whole big rant ready to post.

I'll summarize by saying this whole initiative is wrong in so many ways.

At least IMHO. I suppose the receiveing Units will feel otherwise though.

It was easy to swallow the idea of a banner saying '1812' from a colour or guidon, but a 'Battle Honour' actually awarded, presented and sewn on?

It just cheapens the whole idea of what we already have.

 

[Robert Henderson]

The War of 1812 was pretty much a stalemate, although the Americans will say otherwise as will our Government. The only loser was the 1st Nations peoples of north America, whom the British abandoned their treaties with after the was over as they were not needed anymore. Napolean was defeated in Europe, things were good for the British again. No need for 1st Nations allies in North America. It was dark period for the first nations peoples after the was over, and now we get to wear a cheaply made in China pin to commemorate it.  I hope this whole thing gets reviewed and cancelled so we can take them off and throw them away quietly.

Well if the United States failed in its invasion of Iraq, would that have been called a stalemate?  1812 took invasion off the list as an option for dealing with the northern border of the United States. 

 

[dapaterson]

Artillery units do not bear individual battle honours and the 56th Field Regiment is not unique in this regard. The British Army gives individual batteries the right to bear the name of a battle after the battery number, but this is not done for regiments.

Yes, but...

Certain units perpetuate other units.  Thus, 42 Fd Regt RCA perpetuates the Lanark and Renfrew Scottish.  This causes some consternation (to say the least).

Indeed, I was in Gagetown when the L&R Scots were re-roled to AD; one OCdt was given 5 minutes to pack his kit and "Get the hell out of the Infantry School" as he was now part of an Artillery regiment.

 

[bridges]

Indeed, I was in Gagetown when the L&R Scots were re-roled to AD; one OCdt was given 5 minutes to pack his kit and "Get the hell out of the Infantry School" as he was now part of an Artillery regiment.

:    Nice. 

 

[Old Sweat]

Yes, but...

Certain units perpetuate other units.  Thus, 42 Fd Regt RCA perpetuates the Lanark and Renfrew Scottish.  This causes some consternation (to say the least).

Indeed, I was in Gagetown when the L&R Scots were re-roled to AD; one OCdt was given 5 minutes to pack his kit and "Get the hell out of the Infantry School" as he was now part of an Artillery regiment.

There are a number of artillery regiments which were converted from infantry at various times in the past, and some, such as the Brockville Rifles, later returned to the fold. I have a list of ones that changed in the 1936 reorganization, but I am not at home. The list was quite extensive. This does not mean, however, that these gunner regiments have any colours or battle honours from their former lives on an official basis, but may well legitimately retain the linkage through their museum and/or messes.

 

[dapaterson]

:    Nice.

Given that the one giving the order was a sgt from The RCR, I cleaned up his language for posting purposes...

 

[Robert Henderson]

It was easy to swallow the idea of a banner saying '1812' from a colour or guidon, but a 'Battle Honour' actually awarded, presented and sewn on?

It just cheapens the whole idea of what we already have.

War of 1812 perpetuation was established in the Canadian Forces in May with units taking on the history and heritage of 1812 counterpart as determined by the CPS with advice from DHH.  Units were given the option to decline.  By this act, the next logical step was to assess each 1812 unit's service in that conflict and whether their conduct was meritious enough as to deserve a battle honour.  This can be done by the application of CF Honours policy and Military tradition.

Let's take a look at "Detroit".  The case of "Detroit" being worthy enough as a Battle Honour was established through the, admittedly informal, British process of 1816.  However even then, the official dispatches from the officer in command played a central role in determining units deserving the honour.  In this case Isaac Brock identifies both the Canadian militia and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (it's title in 1812 correspondence) as conducting themselves with valour.    Brock went even further as to say that he could not have been successful without the Canadian Militia.  Indeed he establishes a 'covenant' with the Canadian militia by promising they would "never be forgotten."

The Capture of Detroit itself, is a recognized event of national significance to Canada (1923).  This establishes a tradition of "public recognition" on behalf of Canadians.  In CFP200 the policy clearly states battle honours are a "public recognition" of valour.  The policy establishes two elements that are important in this case.  1. Only one battle honour from a conflict can be awarded to unit with only a sub-unit present.  2. However the awarding of battle honours for each conflict tends to demand them to be tailored to the uniqueness of the particular war.  The War of 1812 was a war of sub-units.  It was about doing more with less, and acting almost always in a numerical disadvantage.  From the awarding of 'Niagara' and 'Detroit', it appears the sub-unit restriction has been wisely removed.

So the question you ask, does Detroit cheapen other honours?  Based on these and many other measures, it does not.  The case is on firm ground and "Detroit" in my opinion, enhances existing CF honours.  In talking with friends in the units receiving the emblazoned honour, they are beaming with pride.

I hope this helps. 
 
Robert

P.S. The CDS from the advice of DHH awarded perpetuation of the Norfolk Militia to the 56th Fd Arty Regt RCA.  Strange but not without precedent (infantry unit perpetuated by arty).  It is also important to note they also perpetuate the Car Brigade (artillery) who were also at Detroit.  Notice the Car Brigade are not named for the "DETROIT" Battle Honour.  'Ubique' is thus respected.


 

 

[dapaterson]

Robert:  I'll repesctfully disagree.  "Canada" did not exist as a nation in 1812.  Therefore, Canada should not be granting battle honours for battles fought prior to her existence.  We start down a slippery slope with this precedent.  What's next - recognizing the Regiment de Saguenay for battles in the 1600s?

Thus "Detroit" as a battle honour does cheapen other honours, as it is being granted by an entity that did not exist at the time of the battle.  Should the UK choose to issue honours, that would be legitimate (and, let's face it, a 200 year delay is a bureaucratic ideal  ).  A nation that did not exist granting honours, not so much.

However, that argument has already been beaten into the ground here; no need for us to rehash it...

 

[Robert Henderson]

Robert:  I'll repesctfully disagree.  "Canada" did not exist as a nation in 1812.  Therefore, Canada should not be granting battle honours for battles fought prior to her existence.  We start down a slippery slope with this precedent.  What's next - recognizing the Regiment de Saguenay for battles in the 1600s?

Thus "Detroit" as a battle honour does cheapen other honours, as it is being granted by an entity that did not exist at the time of the battle.  Should the UK choose to issue honours, that would be legitimate (and, let's face it, a 200 year delay is a bureaucratic ideal  ).  A nation that did not exist granting honours, not so much.

However, that argument has already been beaten into the ground here; no need for us to rehash it...

Thank you for raising some good points. 

First.  Did the nation of Canada, or more simply Canadians exist in 1812?  The country of Canada was created in 1867.  However scholars of nationhood have rejected defining nation as a constitutional entity.  Nation is a a people.  For example was France created in 1958 with the latest republic?  Interestingly, their military perpetuate all French units even those under the royalty before 1789.

So did Canadians call themselves Canadian and see themselves as Canadian.  If you look on the roll of the HMS Victory you find a number of sailors of various nationalities including (English) names making their nationality down as "Canadian".  A Canadian militiaman wrote a song on the Detroit campaign.  What was its title "Come all ye Bold Canadians."  John Ogden, a New Brunswick UEL wrote a poem on Queeston Heights where he refers to the fighting "on OUR Canadian Shores."  I could go on forever with such evidence but you get the point.    Still you may deny these facts and internationally-accepted definitions of Nation.  That is your call.

Your second point is the awarding of battle honours by a entity, 200 years late, that did not exist at the time of the valour.  One word TANGIER. The United Kingdom awarded Tangier 217 years after the fact.  The United Kingdom did not exist.  England did.  There are so many Battle Honour "oddities" in the Commonwealth that the War of 1812 Battle Honour decision looks quite bland.  GIBRALTAR to the Royal Marines is one of the most bizarre.  The Royal Marines have not lineage or perpetuatation of the units there (other regiments maintain claim that lineage).  They received it just because of regiments there were serving as marine units.

Sadly heritage is not black and white but different shades of grey.  In working through the world of honour one must look to precedence in commonwealth miltiary tradition and use policy tools at hand.  However more important is the spirit behind those two elements.  That is how precedence is establish after all.  Rest assured "DETROIT" is built on solid rock my good friend.