Prev: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics) Next: Re: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics)

Re: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics)

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 06:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics)


--- Phillip Atcliffe <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:

> thereabouts. Armies, 
> OTOH, have generally been _raised_ piecemeal; that
> is, in small units 
> which then come together to form The Army. I suppose

As recently as the Victorian era, unit facings showed
with "army" the various regiments were raised from:
Royal regiments wore blue, English and Welsh regiments
wore white, Scottish wore yellow, and Irish regiments
had green facings.

Except (and it wouldn't be British without exceptions)
for units like the Buffs, Rifle Brigade, et al that
had some historical reason for wearing a different
facing.  And of course, the cavalry regiments were on
an entirely different scheme.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

Prev: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics) Next: Re: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics)