Talk:Red coat (British army)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not sure that I'd say that the term is "particularly associated with the British military which were fighting the American colonists during the American Revolution". In America, maybe but it wouldn't be the first context which would occur to me. Epeeist smudge 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is what I've added in the 'thanks to the American media' part for. To Americans this is what comes to mind first thing and with the poor quality of history teaching in today's Britain with a complete overlook of the Napoleonic wars the influence of American TV shows is making it quite like that.--Josquius 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] POV
"Though by the standards of today it would be both incredibly foolish and a waste of good men to wear a bright scarlet coat on a battle field...Many people with little grasp of actual historical knowledge however (particularly young Americans talking of the American Revolution) continue to apply the standards of today to the era of bright uniforms of which the British red coat was part."
I think somewhere in this there is probably a valid point, red is easier to see in difficult conditions but it's wrapped in such pejorative language that it needs radical change before inclusion. At least a citation from a decent source giving that as a reason need to be found - i've certainly heard other 'better' explantions and I fancy you will have a hard time proving one over another.Alci12 23:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Where can I put this?
Where? Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Material
What were the coats made of?
[edit] Material
What was the material made of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherries 80 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Regular
In most sources they are called "Regulars". Could someone change the name.
- British Regulars already exists - maybe this should be merged? --82.13.146.160 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- The "Red Coat" article traces the history of the uniform rather than the men ("Regulars") who wore it. I think it would be confusing if the two articles were run together. In addition the uniform article has a wider scope, ranging across three centuries of British Army and British Empire useage. Indian sepoys (for example) in 1857 were not known as regulars but most wore the red coat. The British Regulars article could perhaps be developed further to cover the recruitment, organisation etc of the British soldier during the historical periods that he was likely to be referred to by this name.Buistr 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mother, may I?
Since there is a speacialty article on british soldiers. Could I make a speacialty aricle on, and not limited to, French or say German (Confederation of the Rhine, Confederation of Germany etc.). would that be OK? On second thought its wiki., I will anyway.Philippe Auguste 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
