Talk:List of regiments of foot

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Napoleonic era BL‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles BL This article has been rated as BL-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Is

The old list at regiments.org suggested no; 61-62; 62-68. However, it's possible it was - the details would certainly match. Is there a standard reference for this? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's here: Farmer, John S (1901). The Regimental Records of the British Army. A Historical Résumé Chronologically Arranged of Titles, Campaigns, Honours, Uniforms, Facings, Badges, Nicknames etc. London: Grant Richards. p. 192. if it's reliable Lozleader (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That leaves it a little ambiguous; it doesn't say if the 117th Invalids were the same as the previous 117th. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean. I think they are the same and the (1761) should be (1762) in the article title. Lozleader (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book [1] (p.555) from 1851 muddies the waters nicely. It has the 116th, 117th and 118th (Invalids) Regiments all raised in 1762 and disbanded in 1763, and the 73rd - 75th regiments formed in 1765 and disbanded in 1768, but seems a bit confused.Lozleader (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here we go: Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research - Volume 66 - Page 14 (1988):

"In 1762 three more Invalid Regiments were raised as the 116th, 117th and 118th, all wearing Invalid unform. ... the 81st and 82nd were re-numbered as 71st and 72nd Foot, and the 116th, 117th and 118th as the 73rd, 74th and 75th Foot."

So I would go for 1762. Lozleader (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Now someone has added the 1761 regiment as an extra one. Think that's probably wrong (but well intentioned). Lozleader (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry misunderstood the comments above. Issue fixed hopefully now. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Colonel Vale's History of the South Staffordshire Regiment the date of raising of the 38th Foot was wrongly celebrated for over 200 years as 13 Feb 1702 when the correct date is 25 March 1705. The original order for the raising of a regiment of volunteers by Luke Lillingston is held in the National Archives (WO25/3149 p.36) and is dated April 1705 - the issue was discussed in the Journal of Army Historical Research in 1953 and the conclusion was that the Army List giving the date as 1702 was an error. This raised the subsequent question of why the 38th held seniority over the 39th when the 39th was raised in 1702 - the explanation is that the 39th was raised in Ireland and did not feature in the English establishment until 1707 and therefore the seniority of the 39th is from the latter date only. I'd suggest that Swinson is here, incorrect, and the entry be amended in line with the original Order of Raising. NtheP (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if we can dig out the citations...Lozleader (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Luke Lillingstone article is confused! "Lillingstone was without a command until 1705, when he was authorised to raise a regiment of foot. The third Lillingstone's Regiment was duly raised at the King's Head, Bird Street, Lichfield on 13 February 1702." The 1702 date comes from a regimental history, but I note that it appears the plaque [2] at the location in Lichfield is dated 25 March 1705. Lozleader (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite Vale, no problem. The JAHR would be good but I don't have any back copies to refer to. Lillingstone's ONDB entry [3] is clear on the 1705 date. I'm surprised about The Short History ... as it postdates Vale. NtheP (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lozleader: there's several references to Fergusson 1968 in the text but the book isn't listed in the sources. Can you expand? Nthep (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only just saw this.... tis done. Lozleader (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opera hat (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]