I once heard that elite soldiers were the ones you could send marching through a forest, out of sight, without half of them deserting. Don't know how accurate that is, but it seems somewhat plausible. :D
A very exaggerated and silly definition, BUT, not without some truth in it. Battlemorale is a big thing, and soldiers that are better paid, have better equipment, sometimes better training, as well as a higher degree of group pressure and social onus, they're much more likely to obey orders.
@@DIREWOLFx75 No. Not true. Take f i swedish and finnish soldiers during the 17th century. Poorly paid, poorly fed and wearing rags, they kicked a*s for a 100 year period against the strongest armies of Europe. From the 1620's up until the first decade of the 1700's.
18th century soldiers seem to have had a high desertion rate in general. During the 1745-6 Jacobite Rebellion, for example, there were numerous desertions from both sides - the government army on the whole enrolled suspected deserters back into their units, or into other regiments of the same army. Suspicion however arose of some who had in fact deserted to the Jacobites, and then left that service. Two soldiers who turned up in Stafford tried to rejoin the British Army - I think they had been in Lascelles' 47th Regiment. But they were so far south that suspicion arose that they had gone over to the Jacobites and then deserted from them when they reached Derby and then turned back north. One of the two was sentenced to death but pardoned on condition he rejoin the British Army. All trace is lost of the other - possibly he died in jail while under arrest.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Desertions tends to be a common thing in most of history. Certain armies had less, others had more, but overall it was always a "thing".
"Nobby, you was always on the winning side, the reason bein', you used to lurk aroun' the edges to see who was winning and then pull the right uniform off'f some poor dead sod. I used to hear where the generals kept an eye on what you were wearin' so they'd know how the battle was going.
I always found it Hilariously random that during (the US) civil war a bunch of bros from like NY or Missouri would just randomly decide to go to battle dressed as Aladin because there was an elite unit from French North Africa that dressed like that...
@@daveweiss5647 You mean the Zuaves regiments? There uniforms where based on the french uniforms of that same name. Originally an argelinian light unit. Popular until 1942-45
1:30 If you ask a US Marine, the Corps is the greatest fighting force known to man. If you ask a US Navy Sailor, they’re the armed forces equivalent of a 14-year old who will yell that he’s a big, grown man who doesn’t need you any more “Dad”, but still expects you to feed him and drive him everywhere.
I once saw a Royal Marine officer being asked about his corp's 'elite' status. His response was 'Elite implies that a unit has reached a certain standard and that is dangerous. We, on the other hand, will always recruit and train in the assumption that there are always higher standards to achieve.'
@@podemosurss8316 Yeah, I knew that because when I was Germany everyone was glad I was American and not British. It seems like Brits took the title of most obnoxious tourists in Europe lol (at least when I travelled around back in 2012) I even saw a sign in a brewery in Belgium that said “British tourist go home”
Interesting little fact: the Austrian Empire did not have Guards units, as Kaiserin und Konigin Maria Thresa and her successors considered them an unnecessary expense and no better than the best line units. The closest you could say the Austrians and Austro-Hungarians came to having a guards unit was, in all likelihood, Infantrie Regiment (I.R.) No. 4 Hochs und Deutschmeister , which was raised ans stationed in Vienna.
Correct, they did not have Guards units, though later the Kaiserjäger had some Guards features. There was another wrinkle in this, namely that there was a tendency to consider mainly German-speaking units as a cut above or at least more reliable than infantry regiments with large numbers of non-Germans. So the 4th had a high reputation, but so did the 27th, also mainly German-speakers, the 49th, again German-speaking and mostly from the Graz area, and a few others. "Bohemian" regiments were somewhat suspect, especially in WW1, with the Prague-raised 28th being disbanded after large numbers went over to the Russians in 1915, though the actual circumstances are controversial (many soldiers in the unit were Bohemian Germans rather than Czechs - though the incident was thought to indicate the unreliability of Czechs).
There where actually four separate guard units in existence during the late early-modern period, the oldest specifically raised by Maria Therese herself. These where small formations though and differed from the larger line regiments in being meant as ceremonial palace troops which did not take to the field in times of war.
An interesting piece to keep in mind is, as elaborated on in your Social Elitism segment their is by all means in most Guard regiments in the United Kingdom & in my experiance in Denmark, a sense of elitism in said regiments. Most Guards believe themselves superior to the rest of the army typically today manifested in the fact that they have higher uniform maintance & drill standards. I recall a documentary from the sixties on the Welsh Guards were the first line was something along the lines of, as soon as you enter the Guards you are taught that you are a Guard & as such better than the rest of the army. I wouldn't be aware whether this applies to the 18th century, however, this traditional regimental culture that exists in Guard regiment (Altough all regiments have a regimental pride, Guard regiments are something else), I wouldn't imagine this culture is all to different from what used to be. Afterall, the Grenadier Guards always stick by 'once a Grenadier always a Grenadier' & equally in the Royal Danish Lifeguard you have the saying 'Once a Guard, always a Guard'.
Yup. As i just posted myself, a good old quote: "To create an elite unit, tell them they are an elite unit and then let them get on with living up to that". It really does work, even if it's preferable to not rely SOLELY on this.
The interesting things about the Royal Life Guards (from Denmark) is that they view themselves as elite, yet the rest of the army view them as inferior. I was told, that if I wanted to be a professional soldier (as opposed to a conscript for a few months), then I should specifically NOT go to the guard, because I'd be trained as a soldier from day 1 in any other combat regiment, whereas the guard would waste a lot of time on drill (and for a long time the guard had inferior weapons too for ceremonial reasons). The guards would say that drill and ceremonial duties instill a sense of discipline that carries over to the field, the others would say it's time wasted on old useless stuffy ceremonial traditions. Yet even modern history shows that both the British and Danish guards have often been picked over other equivalent infantry regiments when some new concept or a particularly difficult task had to be accomplished, so I guess the aura of eliteness does something even though they aren't structurally different. I wonder whether the British rifles also still has a sense of eliteness carried over from the Napoleonic days.
@@fridrekr7510 its a combination of both pride and discipline, and while neither necessarily make a unit more effective, it does make them more motivated. thats useful to have as a military, because if you want a unit to do something kind of crazy, you can put the task onto the guards
For Spain, the military organisation was far more centralised than the British one. What you describe in 7:00 for Spain happened during the reigns of Isabella I, Joanna I and later Charles I, with the unification of the various retinues into the Royal Army (previously, the Royal Armies of Castilla and Aragón, which were the personal armies of the kings of both kingdoms), with a proper organisation. The nobles loyal to the crown were given officer ranks into this unified Royal Army, becoming the new colonels, generals, captains and the like. At first the organisation was made centered around companies of around 200 men and "coronelías" of 10 companies, with the coronelías being the basis for the later (and larger) Tercios. During that period, there were a bunch of elite units (in the sense that they had better training and equipment than the rest) tasked with protecting the Monarch, but weren't an unified "Royal Guard", but rather the "Guardia de Alabarderos" (Halberders Guard) established by King Ferdinand after the death of Queen Isabella, or the "Guardia de Archeros de Borgoña" (Burgundian Glaive Guard), a company brought by the King Consort Philip the Handsome. In 1704, during the Spanish War of Succession, the new Philip V (of the French Borbon dynasty) unified most of those units (except for the ones that went and sided with the Austrian claimant) into the "Real Guardia de Corps" (Royal Guard), a reinforced regiment made from 5 companies (reinforced): two Spanish cavalry companies of 200 men each, 1 Flemish company of fusileers, 1 Italian company of fusileers and 1 "American" company of fusileers (that is, from the Spanish colonial territories in America). During the Napoleonic Wars (what in Spain is called "Guerra de Independencia" or "War for Independance"), the Royal Guards Regiment fought in several key engagements, and they certainly lived to the "elite" monicker, as it was their stubborn resistance against numerically superior enemies what allowed either the survival of the army (in battles like Ocaña in 1809) or turning the tides of the battle completely (such as happened in La Albuera in 1811).
I'm the English teacher who loves the way you speak. Using your provided subtitles (additional points, by the way) I can see how your improvisations and asides are as eloquent as your script while also breaking down information that might be too dense for some and breaking up rhythms that might become monotonous. Marvelous.
Eh, the USMC is, in a sense, a military in its own right. It's got its own combat and amphibious vessels, a versatile ground combat force, and an air arm. Is it elite? In that it's versatile, and its troops are trained for amphibious warfare, giving them more tactical flexibility, sort of. But in a global context, it just makes them a fairly well trained military. They're not the same thing as the Royal Marines, who are a brigade of superbly trained amphibious light infantry commandos.
Plus there's only about 5,000 RM and more than 200,000 USMC so there's no fair comparison between the two. Interestingly, my brother was a RM and he used to tell me that the USMC were much better marksmen than the RMC were. In his opinion
Good analysis, and I'm a former Marine myself. I'd add the one distinction Marines have is every Marine carries the secondary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) of rifleman, as in you can take any Marine, put him (now her I suppose) in an infantry platoon and while maybe not a specialist he'll be able to hold his own. Boot camp makes the basic Marine, and the basic Marine is an infantryman.
The Marines do have an (I believe) 4 week longer boot camp than standard Army and higher entrance standards and I believe their specialist training courses are longer as well, also higher marksmanship standards... so in that respect I would 100% say they are elite... it is just that the modern understanding of "elite" has been so influenced by the idea of elite=special forces... which most Marines are not (Except The Raiders, etc.) But within the US Military the Marines are 100% an elite service...
@@griffter68.58 He is not exaggerating. The USMC goes to quite a bit of time and trouble in training to cross-train all their people as basic rifleman, and even on some support weapons.
I really hope we get to see a video on the "Gentleman volunteers", from my own research they seemed to have been quite common in Sweden. I have found some as young as 16 years old serving as volunteer in the regular line regiments during the early 19th century
Not a thing in the British Army in the 18th century, as far as I can tell. Gentlemen were officers, other ranks were not gentlemen, indeed Wellington's description of his men as "the scum of the earth" is notorious. The "one-year volunteer" concept first developed in Prussia, unless I am mistaken, Russia and Austria followed suit. These were other ranks with certain skills and often middle-class backgrounds who were allowed to serve a shortened period in the military and had certain privileges, like being allowed to wear a sword as a sidearm. One-year volunteers who stayed on sometimes received a commission, but the concept was unknown in the British Army.
@BrandonF I don't even know what a gentleman volunteer is, and I can't be the only one who don't know. So it would likely enlighten more people to what that term means. 😊
@@stevekaczynski3793 I am not familiar with it in the 19th C. but it was definitely a thing in the 18th. When I make a video on the topic I can delve into examples and such, although to relocate them I'd have to spend time researching.
I think the simple answer is, they're SUPPOSED TO BE elite, but is not by default. And i think that also sums it up for "guards" units overall. But there's some ways that they often differed from the average soldiery. Higher wages was common. Which along with other things also ensured a generally better level of battle morale, which in most times means A LOT, as many many battles were lost because units of one side broke and routed. Guard units were less likely to do so in general. Guard units meant to be household units and guards, often had extra training for those duties, and while not a huge advantage militarily most of the time, it did mean it was somewhat common for guards units to train more in total than regular units. If nothing else, this tended to mean that guard units had an average higher level of physical fitness. Rarely a big difference, but still noticeable. Also, many guard units did have SOME sort of requirements above those of regular units. As you mention, sometimes that simply focused on being able to pay their own way, possibly outright being able to buy all their own equipment, but higher physical requirements were somewhat common. Some guard units also specifically recruited experienced troops from the regular units, or sometimes this could be a "promotion"/reward for soldiers that had distinguished themselves in battle. It was also much more common for guard units to have standardised uniforms, long before it became normal, as well as using more blatant colors or ornate designs. And while most people will scoff at it, it actually DOES have some level of psychological effect, unconsciously telling people that "oh dear, these people are so much stronger they can just prance around like that", it's basically the same thing in reverse as how people put on their uniform to "become their job". There is an inherent authority in uniforms, and the more distinct and "peacock-ish", the greater the effect. While it's not a huge thing, it still does make SOME difference. It also tends to be a minor morale booster for the troops themselves. Which is one of the reasons why the British ended up with their redcoat uniforms. . Also, there a very important quote worth remembering here. "To create an elite unit, tell them they are an elite unit and then let them get on with living up to that". It's an extremely simplistic way of looking at it, but it is also perfectly true to some extent. Even with no other differences involved, if you have 2 identical units being created and one of them is told they're elite and that they darn well better live up to it, they generally WILL. Give them 10% extra pay and give them special uniforms? At that point you're pretty much guaranteed that they will at minimum TRY to be BETTER. Humans have a distinct tendency to live up, or down, to expectations.
True, though some commanders opposed the elite unit idea on the grounds that it reduced the morale of the run-of-the-mill units. For example, the British Army's tendency to create ad hoc units out of grenadiers and light infantry from various regiments has been criticised, as the bulk of infantry were in battalion companies, that is, the troops who were left.
@@stevekaczynski3793 In the Spanish case, given that each regiment comprised usually 3 (sometimes 4) battalions and the "grenadier" company was simply the leading company of each battalion (with the rest being the "musketeer companies"), it wasn't much of an "elite", other than the fact that the grenadier company had more soldiers (and were slightly better trained). (There wasn't dedicated light infantry as such in the Spanish Army, rather, all infantry was trained and expected to act as light infantry if needed) As for regiments that were considered "elite", those would be the reinforced ones (4 battalions instead of 3), which not only were larger, but also were made from mercenaries from other countries (the most important regiments were from Switzerland and Italy), or the Royal Guards.
On the social side its interesting to note the even today there is no such rank of sergeant in the Household Cavalry because the title of sergeant is derived from the Latin "serviens" which means servant. Instead the equivalent rank is corporal of horse, with staff sergeant and sergeant major equivalents being staff corporals and corporal majors
@@stamfordly6463 I meant British Army, my mistake. In the Continent, Regiments were raised by the State (that is, the organisation led by the Monarch) but usually by an order from the Ministry of Defense or equivalent. In Spain, the Military Governors could raise regiments if needed in the event of war without needing permission from the King, but only in certain circumstances (in fact that decentralisation of the Spanish military intro various Military districts is one of the factors that played into the relative ease in which Spain established a provisional government in 1808).
Being a Guardsman is a matter of prestige rather than elite. Paras are elite, but too modern. Royal Marines are elite, but specialised. The true elite of the British Army were the assorted Highland regiments: the Forty-twa, Cameronians, the Sutherlands (the thin red line), the Argylls...all sadly gone now. I will give the Rifles and the Green Jackets a shout out though, they're pretty special (not a fan of the green uniforms though) 💋💋💋
I read an account of British troops in France during the Phony War, 1939-40, eventually ended by the German offensive. It noted morale and disciplinary problems were fairly common, partly due to boredom, with drink-related offences most common among Guards soldiers and members of Highland units.
@@maryannedouglas Perhaps not surprising for them but that the Guards were somewhat inclined to get sloshed was a surprise. Some English line unit indiscipline apparently included petty and occasionally not so petty assaults or theft committed against French civilians, but drunkenness was more common among Guards and Highland troops.
6:30 This is why it is called the "British army" and not the "Royal Army". Certain corps in the Army and services are "royal" however, like the Artillery and the Engineers. Meanwhile, the Navy was a Royal Service.
In Württemberg during the reign of Frederick II & I (1797-1816) the guard brigade (eventually named Maison du Roi) were a complicated structure. You see, at some point they did have specific "guard regiments" on horse and on foot, however, they also had other standard regiments that had attained some sort of veterancy or reputation attached to the guard. For example, the guard grew exponentially in the course of around 15 years from 1800 to 1815, from 1 Batallion of Garde Grenadiers and one 4 squadrons of Horse guards (in reality each squadron had a different function, the first and the second were "Garde du Corp", the Third were the Leibjägers which were guides and the fourth were the Chevauxlegers which had an almost standard army function) to 2 regiments of Guard Infantry (one being the aforementioned Garde Grenadiers and the other being the first regiment of the standing army) 2 Horse regiments (one being a proper Horse Guard regiment which was made up from the previous Garde du Corp and the Leibjägers together with other raised men and the other also being a standard cavalry regiment from the standing army) 1 Light infantry regiment (Possibly the most famous unit in the army by that time and with reason) and 2 artillery batteries (one on foor and one on horse). Of course the organization for the army was way more complicated than that and fluctuated alot in Frederick's reign as Duke, Elector then King, and i still have many questions yet to be answered. One interesting thing was that once, the King's adjudant von Dillen, went to the garrison of one of the cavalry regiments and told the colonel he "wanted the strongest and most handsome of men to be selected for the Horse Garde regiment".
It’s definitely different nowadays for sure, the term ‘elite’ has a very broad range of meanings often meaning better trained so the USMC for example aren’t elite compared to British Marines and I can speak from experience having a taste of the training during my process of trying to join the Royal Marines 😅 it often comes down to the Tier system RM and Paras are In between tier 3 and 2 and SBS/SAS/SRR are tier 1 and as far as the guards go in my own experience at least before I started infantry training I was speaking to a Scots guard and he was saying that the guards are considered elite above regular line infantry and even when you start infantry training you are separated from the start from line infantry and guards and I think that has been the way of it since the foundation of the British army as we know it today after the civil war.
It doesn't help that there is a wide variation in what "elite" means. The Russians, for example, have the Spetsnaz...but that could mean everything from a Tier 1 Counter-terror group like Alpha or Vympel, to army recon/sabotage units, to what are effectively county SWAT teams under OMON. (interior ministry security)
Marine, here. We're not elite, though we do have MARSOC, which is probably on par with Royal Marines. What we are is shock troops. Definitely scarier than a typical line unit, but not "elite" in the way most people imagine. We are special forces, but only in the same way that the Army's 10th Mountain or 101st Airborne are. All three units are trained for a specific mission-amphibious assault, helicopter assault, and mountain warfare. Other units can do these things, but they don't regularly rehearse them and aren't ready to do these missions on a moment's notice. At least not as well as a specialized unit.
I have another question Brandon, so when lines get broken by musket fire, where do they go when they rout? what happens when they rout? and do they just stop at the camp or just run anywhere?
I doubt I know the full answer, but from what I know that would depend on the enemy. If they have cavalry and are willing to commit it, than you just run and hope you don't get chased down, and then make the choice to regroup or desert. If they aren't willing to commit it than once you're out of danger the unit can reform and make a withdrawal. From what I've read (and there's always more to read so a few grains of salt) the line breaking wasn't the same as a full rout.
@@00yiggdrasill00It also depended on the terrain. A lot. In mountainous terrain even routed units could regroup after the battle, and in fact that was common for the Spanish Army (many guerrillas were basically routed units that had regrouped in the mountains behind enemy lines).
The French old guards certainly were relative to most soldiers since they had to have 10 years of experience in the French army, though not old by regular human standards since you had to be under 35 to become an Old Guard
Okay, given that the Grenadier Guards and the Coldstream Guards and the Scots Guards still exist today, but now that the UK also has the Ranger Regiment and the SAS. Which is the more prestigious unit to be in? It's fascinating because we have an example of the old "Guards" but new concept of elite forces existing concurrently within the UK military.
Tier one special forces like the SAS and SBS are obviously the most prestigious, followed by tier two/commandos like the Paras and Royal Marines, and I guess you could say the Guards rank above the rest of the common infantry. I don't think even Britain is stuffy enough to consider old ceremonial units like the Guards more prestigious than the current elite. The Ranger Regiment is too new to really be proven, but I'd guess it'll be somewhat similar to the Paras and RM after a while.
Sadly another case of modern people struggling to understand that pre-modern armies simply didn't function like contemporary militaries - much less emphasis on physical training in particular as part of their recruitment process means there was really no mechanism for filtering 'better' soldiers into more 'elite' regiments, at least not at the scale of the entire army. The real factors that made a regiment elite or not were their standard of equipment, the calibre of their officers, and battlefield experience. Napoleon formed his guard regiments out of older soldiers who had proven themselves under fire - that's about the closest you'd get to an 18th or 19th century era SAS or Navy Seals programme.
I think experience plays just as much of a part, getting into so called "elite" units means you would've been in the military for some time anyways that's always been true. And "elite" units did have specialised training for their roles I.E Marines on naval landings etc, Light infantry on working independently from the group and skirmishing so on so forth
Can you do a vid detailing the change in uniform styles of the British army post 1790 where the Wigs and tri corns are done away with and side burns are the new fashion
Perhaps mentioning the 23rd Foot, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who, being late to get rid of the pigtails that had been traditional, were later allowed to retain a "flash" at the back of the uniform collar as a regimental symbol.
So, Guard regiment were mostly socially elite, whereas elite in the form of specialisation is found in Grenadiers, Light infantry etc . Except for the French Napoleonic army, where the Guard were veterans (and therefore more experienced and slightly more effective and steadfast, but not necessarily specialised), who also gained social status because of their veterancy?
It's not just the french guards. Russian guards were also elite. More training, and from 1811 made up of the best men from the rest of the army (each regiment was required to send their 6 best mpouwn annually to the guards, perfurably veterans).
I served 2 tours in Iraq in the usmc. I can tell you e thought of ourselves as better than the average army unit. We were not as well equipped but had maybe better unit cohesion? I have worked with a couple army units and was nothing but impressed.
@@wolfthegreat87 I was, specifically active us army. I met a few Lithuanian and some other NATO units while in Iraq and they were all incredible. I will say that USNG were pretty poorly equipped too at the time but they were still incredible soldiers.
@@MUZA1875 I've never met any British military members, I would imagine yall are very well equipped just like we were, but compared to US army its just nothing.
The USMC is a branch just like the US Army and both in fact (and most) branches have special operations elements that would be considered elite, US Marines have the Raiders, US Army have Special Forces and Rangers, US Navy have the Seals, and US Air Force have Pararescue.
I think the point is that the basic USMC infantry unit also considers itself elite, whereas in the US Army it's more about particular units (like airborne and ranger) being considered elite. I belive the USMC doesn't actually wear unit patches on their uniforms, because they are all just proud of being marines, whereas the US Army places much more pride on the regimental level. There was even some resistance towards forming MARSOC because the leadership didn't like the idea of creating "elite marines" since all marines were already elite.
If we are considering whomever considers themselves elite then the US Army Infantry considers themselves elite, and so does US Army Cav, and the combat engineers……
@@charlesransom4546 ...and so does the Idaho Whitebread Freedom Militia (USA! USA! USA!) whose training materials come mostly from Hollywood films and re-runs of The A-Team.
Damn, nice video! you should make a video on the history of each guard regiment, each regiment has so much history and honours it'll be fun to both research and present them
1:50 the reason the Marines are held in a different regard is because they are always first. They are also a unique breed they are all fanatical about being marines. Served with them in the Navy since they are department of the Navy, anyway, those are warriors who I would compare to spartans. They eat, sleep, pray Devil Dog.
Usmc not elite, generally. But specific subsets of it definitely yes, particularly marsoc. I think the British royal Marines are generally elite, and of course a much smaller force than the usmc.
In addition to the social elite of the Horse Guards (for instance) I would characterize as elite in an 18th century context, a unit that is perceived to be slower to run in the face of casualties than the average unit. In that sense, some guards regiments are reasonably characterized as elite based on their battlefield performance, and further, a higher percentage of guards units would be so characterized than regular line units. This is quite probably a result of their being _seen_ as less likely to run, in a rather circular way. The same would apply to grenadier companies, which were regularly used to stiffen Line Infantry.
Most things about Guard regiments would be that most commonly they would of course Gyard... But they would also, like at Waterloo with the French Old Guard, Boosted the Morale of all other regiments and strike fear into the enemy...
The best explaination I've ever heard of why Napoleon didn't often commit his guard regiments to battles WAS the fact he knew they were in fact human and could indeed be ripped apart by gunfire, and as a result was not willing to commit them to battles which weren't very winnable. He could then make them prominently visable to the rest of the army and those regiments would essentially believe they are fighting alongside a legendary unbreakable unit that has never been defeated.
@@0sm1um76this is an interesting take on why Napoleon didn’t use them during battles like Borodino and Leipzig because if they did were destroyed morale would take a large blow. An argument against this are the battles in 1814 when the Imperial Guard was one of the only remaining corps it did destroy enemy forces quite rapidly, proving their worth as veterans. Regards
My mind just randomly thought that 18th century elite soldiers would be equipped with a rifle, a musketoon, a blunderbuss, two pistols, a sword and they carry them all mass effect style
The Austrian Army didn't have any guard units: ""No Mameluks, no Praetiroans, no Janussaries." The ordinary marching regiements did garrison service in Vienna by rotation, and the ceremonial lifeguard duties were entrusted to the non-combatant units of the Trabanten-Garde and the mounted Arciern-Garde, which owned only about 100 officers and me each.' Duffy, The Army of Maria Theresa (1977)
Shuffling units around was quite common, certainly in the later Austro-Hungarian Army. It was considered unwise to let soldiers stay too long in the same area and become too familiar with the locals. Sometimes they were deliberately placed in areas where they did not speak the local language. Jaroslav Hasek in "The Good Soldier Svejk" comments on Czech troops being sent to garrison Hungary and Hungarians being sent to Bohemia, and the inevitable ethnic mix likely to result.
From what I understand about Napoleon's Imperial Guard, he actively only let veterans of one or more campaigns join. So, because it was composed of much more veteran and skilled troops, would it make sense to say that the Imperial Guard is elite?
Do you know how 18th Century militaries managed firearm safety? How much consideration was given to trigger discipline and muzzle awareness? How did they deal with a musket misfiring, and how was a musket unloaded without firing?
Given how difficult the guns were to reload, and the lack of reliability of the flintlock compared to the later percussion cap lock, the problem was actually the opposite: weapons sometimes didn't fire when intended. In the Spanish Army this led to a popular saying: "Las reclamaciones, al maestro armero" (all complains, to the gunsmith), which in general means "I did my best so if there's a bad outcome, it's not my fault". It came as a response by soldiers when questioned over poor performance in drills.
So the answer to this question is, "Yes, they **were** 'elite' soldiers, but 'elite' didn't mean back then what it means today." Also, could we definitely do that video on "gentleman volunteers?"
Idk if regular USMC grunts are necessarily "elite" but they are trained differently. Marines are shock troops, not occupiers. But marines do have their own special forces units like the raiders/force recon, as does the army with the green berets/rangers/delta force. I'd generally put army paratroopers/air assault units higher than regular marines on the "elite unit" ladder though
I do not consider USMC as elite. They are usually given older equipment than the US army, so I consider their combat value on the battlefield as lower. So if I am going to fight a land war I rather use the US army, while if I am going to invade an island in the pacific and take it from the Japanese, then I rather use marine infantry of the USMC. They are just specialized into different tasks. I consider the US Armys better equipment as the reason why I consider it to have more combat power. They used Abrams tanks while USMC used M60 tanks instead for a long time. Same goes for Appache helicopters, while USMC used Huey Cobra instead. USMC used Huey helicopters in Vietnam while USMC often used the old Sikorsky H-34.
Though an interesting point I heard brought up about paratroopers on a podcast was that their main strength comes from their air mobility and surprise. They're light infantry at the end of the day, and so lack the armour and artillery to fight for long periods by themselves. They're meant to capture far objectives but must be linked up with friendly forces otherwise they face annihilation
@@niono1587 True, but they're good at causing chaos on short deployments. And they've even held objectives for extended periods during the second world war- the 101st airborne held the germans for six weeks at Bastogne before Patton's 3rd Army punched through to relieve them.
@@bjornancraite2266 True that's what they're good for but it is such a risky job. Likewise in ww2 the Germans grounded their troops for the rest of the war after Crete and I'm sure we've all heard of Arnhem? The British Paratroopers just didn't have the equipment to deal with all the German armour
@@niono1587 Paratroopers are considered elite for many of the same reasons as marines, despite their specialisation (air and naval insertion) often being a very minor role of their overall service. But being supposed to go in the first wave on a beach or getting dropped behind enemy lines instills a certain spirit that is also supposed to carry over to regular infantry duties. Even though the usefulness of paratroopers on the modern battlefield is dubious, they are still considered a sort of second tier special forces in most militaries. However, a standard mechanised infantry unit will obviously destroy a light infantry paratroop unit when caught in the open. Morale can only do so much when up against superior firepower.
The USMC has a well deserved and prestigious reputation but in actuality your typical Marine infantry unit is on par with a typical US Army infantry unit. There are more elite segments of the Marine Corps such as Force Recon. The most elite light infantry formation the United States has though is the 75th Ranger Regiment. There used to be high end formations in other arms like the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment before it's transition to OPFOR at the National Training Center. 11th ACR is still an above average unit but it's not a combat unit anymore. The 82nd Airborne's Rapid Deployment Brigade is the elite of regular infantry. Special Forces are certainly elite soldiers but not in the same way. They are highly trained specialists but I wouldn't put 1st SOG into the trenches in Ukraine and tell them to hold the front against a basic bitch Motor Rifle Regiment and expect them to hold the line. I would do so with a battalion of the 75th Rangers if I had nothing else in reserve. The Rangers are elite light infantry. The Green Berets are unconventional warfare specialists and trainers of soldiers. Rangers have the firepower and training to do it. 1st SOG would not have the firepower. To put either unit in to defend a trench line would be an utter waste of their skills. The 82nd Airborne would be a far better choice.
You make a good point about the 75th Rangers. To me they are the quintessential modern elite infantry, but they have of course had the SOF label slapped on them like is fashionable today. SF/SOF is a different animal to infantry like you say, it's wrong to only think of them as simply being better. Even more "conventional" SF units like the SAS (since the USSF have that advisor/guerilla role at the forefront) probably wouldn't do any better, if not worse, at a static defense than a regular mech inf company. I remember reading some stories from Afghanistan where SF (not American) were put on QRF for regular infantry, where the operators said that another infantry unit would actually have done the job better because the SF unit was so focused on long range recon etc.
You shut ups go to Oregon and check out Fort Stevens. Its a great historical area, its a state paro, and they have preserved this civil war era fort very well. Fort Stevens was used from the Civil War until the end of World War two, they have a lot of area to explore, and there is a tour of one of the batteries there. It was attacked in 1942 by a Japanese submarine. Its near Astoria, Oregon. I high recommend checking it out, its one of my favorite places in my home state of Oregon
I'm surprised that you didn't mentioned that the guards in the 18th century often wanted to get a special position in the battle formation - Fontenoy was a great opportunity to mention that. You missed it. We find often that the commanders of the guards (in France and UK) proclaimed a right to fight in the most dangerous or important position. Nevertheless, an interesting video.
The Swedish royal guards ("Svea Livgarde" or "Svea Lifgarde") was consider one of the better regiments in the Swedish army. The men did not come from newly conquered former Danish provinces so they would not try to kill the King or thinking of defecting over to the enemy side in the middle of a battle. Their peace time duty was to act as the body guards of the royal family and to protect the Capitol against any coup attempts. Still to this day do Sweden have its tradition of troops guarding the royals, and a military band play some music when one unit takes over the responsability for guard duty from unit. Nowaydays are Stockholm often visited by regiments from all over Sweden who shares the responsability to guarding the palace for a few days. Svea Livgarde is one of the oldest regiments in the world. And it was among one of the best. During the battle of Lund 1676 did it come into direct contact with the Danish royal guards, and the both sides continued to fight each other instead of fleeing even after both sides had suffered 90% casualties... which says a lot about the dicipline and the fighting morale in those units. In modern day combat do most units lose their willingness to continue fighting after they have recieved say 20-25% losses. However Svea Livgarde with their nicer gold blue uniforms instead of the typical yellow blue other regiments had.. was still not the best unit in the Swedish army. That unit was Drabantkåren (Drabant Corps of Charles XII). It was the unit that was the elite of the elite. Even the Swedish royal guards was nothing compared to them. Indeed, no other regiment in Europe was had the same extremely high combat value as them. They were a small force consisting of the best men in the Swedish army. They had the best training and wore the best and most modern weapons in the world. If the troops asked for an expensive special weapon, then the King ordered that for them no matter of the cost. Even if it meant importing expensive luxuries from a foreign country. The men were well paid and had the nicest uniforms in the Swedish army. They were a Cavalry unit, but they could fight in any type of combat. And even if you had the lowest and simplest job in this regiment, would your rank be considered that of an officer in other regiments, so it was not uncommon that a man from Drabantkåren could take over command over other units in the Swedish army and lead them in battle. They had the skill and had such an enormous amount of combat experience that this was no problem. The men in this unit was made up of the most capable men so they could also take over responsability of governing the civil administration over an area.
Given the amount of combat experience that the Swedish regiments gained in the Great Northern War, all regiments probably had a very high combat value.
When my group started reenacting the Peruvian Legion of the Guard we got asked that question a lot. The distinction ended up being much more mundane for the taste of many in the public. The only reason it was a Legion is simply because it was a “corp” comprised of one foot regiment, one light cavalry regiment and three artilliery batteries. And guard was simply put due to them being the guard of the government, being allocated to the capital.
I like the distinction of “a cut above”. It captures the vagueness of the issue nicely - and lays a finger of modern (self-perceptions) of elite within armed forces.
It's also interesting that, at least among NATO-style militaries, "elite" forces are typically some variety of light infantry troops. Contrast this with Russia, where "Guards" regiments might be considered "elite," but are full-bore combined arms formations. Even then Russia also has elite light infantry troops (see the VDV, Spetsnaz, and naval infantry).
I feel like the “elite” perception of the Marine Corps is mostly just due to marketing. Sure, their basic training is just a tad harder than Army BMT/OSUT, but it is most definitely doable for most military aged men with a room-temperature IQ and a mediocre level of physical fitness. They won’t have a very fun time, but it’s definitely possible for them to make it through. Same with the Army and all other branches. In my mind, an “elite” serviceman in the modern sense is someone with training/credentials that few others in the services have. Examples would be your SOF units (think SEALS, SF, Rangers, PJs, MARSOC, Recon Marines, etc…) I’d even consider people with things like a Ranger or Sapper tab elite. They may not be in a high speed unit, but they had to demonstrate elite skills and traits to graduate the courses required to wear that tab… EOD is sorta the same way, while the school is not nearly as physically challenging as a SOF selection course, the academic requirements are absolutely INSANE for those dudes, hence the 50-75% attrition rate for a school that just teaches troops the fundamental duties of their MOS/job.
Within the US Army, a more “elite” group would be something like the Rangers. Rangers are an assault unit, trained for the heaviest and most difficult types of fighting.
To put it bluntly and clearly, the British Guards NEVER were elite troops; that is a myth fostered by themselves and a lot of flattering books about them. An elite force has special and fairly strict requirements regarding the physique of its soldiers, plus a special and very intense programme of training that makes them a cut above the rest and, last but not least, the quality of its officers. The only requirement fulfilled by the Guards was the first one, regarding the height of the volunteers. The Guards are very much like Rolex watches (i.e.: Highly overrated thanks to a very clever marketing strategy) The only aspect in which the Guards were superior to the other regiments of the British army was in their smartness on parade, that is all. Essentially, the Guards have always been a very exclusive club within the Army where (until very recently) snobbery reigned supreme. Their "elitism" was based on the social background of their officers. The only truly elite unit of the British Army, until WW1, was the Rifle Brigade. Very fit soldiers who were encouraged to use their initiative and excellent marksmen, led by officers who did not look down on them; they were truly "a cut above the rest".
Did the guard regiments in England recruit civilians or from the rest of the army? What about the other nations? Differences between England, France, Russia, Austria?
I could be incorrect, but wasn’t Napoleon’s guard, Garde impériale, considered to be elite? Especially the old guard formation. I don’t know if this was talked about in the video but I don’t remember it being discussed.
Yeah, I recall other videos talking about groups of from different battalions from different regiments all being formed up- "let's get all the grenadiers of the right wing to make a push here" . would it be fair to say that the American Revolution saw a lot of ad hoc unit shuffling and an officer could find themselves sometimes commanding smaller or larger bodies of different battalions?
Of course. The Coldstream and Horse guards were elite, indeed, in as much as we're using "elite" to mean socially exclusive military institutions populated by men of high social status. If you want to expand the category to cavalry regiments then you must include them generally. The economics of maintaining horses in fighting and parade condition put membership in such regiments beyond the means of all but the elite strata of society-aristocrats, landed gentry, and, if one were socially ambitious and well-connected, the non-firstborn sons of the emerging wealthy merchant class.
Elite doesn't always mean "special forces" for instance fighter pilots are the elite of pilots, Submariner are elite sailors, etc... Marines are 100% elite (by entrance standards and training, etc) compared to regular army... they just are not all special forces...
The one nice thing about the skip-forward function on my computer is that I can skip over Brandon's "rambling". He would do better to write a script. KISS (Keep It Sooooooo Simple, and be much more entertaining and informative. His information is good and accurate. In that he does a good job, but if he cut out his disorganized ramblings he could cut his videos well down in length.
Please Please please 🙏 make a video on the book „in Stahlgewittern“ (storms of steal) by Ernst Jünger. I think it’s one of the best WW1 books and Jünger has an incredibly interesting perspective on his time on the Western front.
Did they work for the Crown? Or the East India Company or The Hudson bay Company??? The reason Cornwallis surrended at Yorktown was the other share holders, thought he spent too much money and was cut off.
"learn on the job" And also "die on the job". Bad jokes aside, What was the average life expectancy of a soldier in that time? Given that as a soldier you had regular meals (not a given in those days) and medical attention (even less of a given). So, did common (in the contemporary sense) people join the army thinking: I might have to do hard work, get shouted at by my superiors, face harsh punishments and a chance of premature death, but that is basically my lot in life anyway?
Not by this point. Even the vaunted Gardes Frances were routed at Dettinggen with a volley or 2 from an Imperial regiment. The Gardes also barely survived Fontenoy.
Couldn't the guards in UK at least, always recruit from the entire country (Scotland or England or Wales, etc...) whereas the line regiments would only recruit from a specific town or county? That would allow them to be more discerning in who they let in right?
So a Guards regiment could be compared to the WW2 Panzer Elites. The only thing elite about those Panzer Elite Divisions is the tthey received the latest equipment first and much hope and expectations was placed on them but they were no different than any other division. Looking at you Soviet Guard Regiments.
Difference between the army and the marines is that the army can think for themselves and will disobey unjust orders, e.g., they still have a conscience. Marines will do whatever they are told, no questions asked, up to and including murdering unarmed toddlers. There is no skill difference. The marines do have a much more brutal boot camp in order to make sure they'll do whatever you need them to without question. People die not uncommonly during marine boot camp. The only marines worth any respect are the medics and the bandsmen, and considering they deal with marine grunts on a regular basis, yea, they deserve a **lot** of respect
The marines are not elite by the regular definition. They are good, they are naval/amphibious specialized and have a higher training regimen / standard to the regular army. But they aren’t elite. Paratroopers are elite. Most recon probably falls under elite. But you can be in the marines and also be just a soldier. But a marine would never tell you that, if you asked they would tell you it was the best thing since gunpowder was invented
US Marine Corps has a reputation of being the best infantry outside of special operators, with a higher baseline "toughness" and combat effectiveness. I'd say they consider themselves elite, their infantry an elite within an elite, but still lesser than an elite within an elite within yet another elite that is special operators. But one of the funny things about them is that they are rather known for being austere and spartan. Unlike Guards, they don't have the nicest equipment. Much of their utility stuff is old, beaten up, purchased secondhand from the Army, etc. Like Guards, however, they easily have the nicest dress uniforms in the US military.
I'd say the British Guards are considered elite soldiers now. They're usually at the forefront of deployment. For example in the Falklands War the infantry task force consisted of the Marines, the Paras and two Guards regiments (I think, apologies if I have that wrong), so presumably they went as they were considered elite infantry soldiers.
Definitely not. They do somewhat think of them selfs as elite but the rest of the Army doesn’t. Their training and equipment is the same as the rest of the infantry. There deployment cycle is the same as the rest of the Army. As for the falklands campaign, the bulk of the Army was in Germany as part of the BOAR. The paras and marines are used as a QRF and the guards were based in the London area and were to hand. The units that took part were quite ad hoc. As a now ex-line Infantryman it pains me to say it but the marines and paras are the only elite units under UKSF. Better esprit de corps than line infantry.
@@joelyboy7 Thanks for that mate. I hadn't realized that and that is new to me. My assumption was that they were used as considered top flight infantry but what you say makes perfect sense, they were around when the bulk of the Army wasn't. I agree with you about the state of our military in general now sadly, the entire Army could sit in Wembley stadium with room to spare. Bad state of affairs.
The Guards are flat-out not elite, they are like every other Infantry Regiment of the British Army (other than ceremonial purposes) other than the Paras. Just look at WG's performance in the Falklands for evidence of such. The reason why they have been so regularly deployed since the end of the second world war is all political.
@joelyboy7 ex welsh guards here if it is the case that the guards are not trained to higher standard why is it we dig in on ex in basic and the line Infantry don't? Why is it the guards get better facilities with the paras and gurkahs ?
It's fascinating how reputation sometimes stretches far beyond the actual period of competency. Russia in the time period between the Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war is another example of this phenomenon.
Guards would be great at drill and on parade, so 18th and 19th century european warfare suits them well. Send them to Ft. Wilderness and see what happens.
Russian and Soviet Guards Divisions are kinda the same in both the modern times and during WW2. Their guard status seemed to have been due to distinguishment in certain battle rather than the general quality of recruits or special equipment. Their TO&E might be a bit different but not necessarily means that they get the better stuff. In modern times, its more of an honorific than anything and doesn't reflect their combat effectiveness.
All respect to the Marines, the USMC isn't seen as elite they're more seen as Uncle Sam's pitbulls. An elite unit would be the Green Berets or Delta Force or the SEALs.
How come modern soldiers can act autonomously without deserting all the time? The baseline for modern combat is the platoon and the rifle squad, most often you'll be fighting in very small groups acting nearly autonomously. In yester years you seemed to be losing men to desertion and retreats whenever they didnt have hundreds of companions in line of sight.
Us army rangers would be a better pick for an elite unit of the US military but marines just love to fight. See the stories behind their nicknames, devil dogs and leather neckss just to name a few.
So if guards regiments are "house troops" of the nobility and ruling monarch, what did that mean for England after the English Civil War when parliament was given sole control of the army? The guards can't be guards if they don't belong to their liege, can they? Why'd they keep the name?
Guards used to be superior, because they were the only standing force in a time of levies. Same reason the Spartans, Companions or Sacred Band were elite in their time.
Marines will hate me for this but they aren't an elite force. Specialized, yes, but not elite. There are elite units within the Marines, such as Marine Recon Battalions, but the force as a whole is a regular force.
I'm not sure the US marine corps is actually any more well trained and equipped than the regular US army. The US marine corps tends to be the branch of the military that gets sent in for the battles that make history, but I think their reputation is based on cyclical reasoning. They get used for everything, thus gaining a reputation, which means they get used for everything because they have a good reputation. The only thing really special about the marine corps is that they were used as guards for government buildings and officials in the very early years of the United States since at the time the US didn't have a federally controlled standing army, but did have a federally controlled navy. So to this day, US marines guard the White House and US embassies across the globe. But that's just tradition. But you could perceive this as the USMC being the United States' version of a guards unit.
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
I once heard that elite soldiers were the ones you could send marching through a forest, out of sight, without half of them deserting. Don't know how accurate that is, but it seems somewhat plausible. :D
A very exaggerated and silly definition, BUT, not without some truth in it.
Battlemorale is a big thing, and soldiers that are better paid, have better equipment, sometimes better training, as well as a higher degree of group pressure and social onus, they're much more likely to obey orders.
@@DIREWOLFx75 No. Not true. Take f i swedish and finnish soldiers during the 17th century. Poorly paid, poorly fed and wearing rags, they kicked a*s for a 100 year period against the strongest armies of Europe. From the 1620's up until the first decade of the 1700's.
18th century soldiers seem to have had a high desertion rate in general. During the 1745-6 Jacobite Rebellion, for example, there were numerous desertions from both sides - the government army on the whole enrolled suspected deserters back into their units, or into other regiments of the same army. Suspicion however arose of some who had in fact deserted to the Jacobites, and then left that service. Two soldiers who turned up in Stafford tried to rejoin the British Army - I think they had been in Lascelles' 47th Regiment. But they were so far south that suspicion arose that they had gone over to the Jacobites and then deserted from them when they reached Derby and then turned back north. One of the two was sentenced to death but pardoned on condition he rejoin the British Army. All trace is lost of the other - possibly he died in jail while under arrest.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Desertions tends to be a common thing in most of history.
Certain armies had less, others had more, but overall it was always a "thing".
"Nobby, you was always on the winning side, the reason bein', you used to lurk aroun' the edges to see who was winning and then pull the right uniform off'f some poor dead sod. I used to hear where the generals kept an eye on what you were wearin' so they'd know how the battle was going.
Before the term "elite" there was "prestige" which most military units used.
Don't forget the Zouaves
Yes; here in Mexico we remember The Zuaves.
I always found it Hilariously random that during (the US) civil war a bunch of bros from like NY or Missouri would just randomly decide to go to battle dressed as Aladin because there was an elite unit from French North Africa that dressed like that...
@@daveweiss5647 Drip exceeds all cultural barriers.
@@daveweiss5647
You mean the Zuaves regiments? There uniforms where based on the french uniforms of that same name.
Originally an argelinian light unit. Popular until 1942-45
@@chico9805what is the point of shooting someone if you can’t stun on them (look good while doing it)?
1:30 If you ask a US Marine, the Corps is the greatest fighting force known to man.
If you ask a US Navy Sailor, they’re the armed forces equivalent of a 14-year old who will yell that he’s a big, grown man who doesn’t need you any more “Dad”, but still expects you to feed him and drive him everywhere.
The most powerful air force on earth is the U.S air force.
The second most powerful air force on earth is the U.S Navy :)
How did they do during the civil war ?
@@morganlloyd6351
Ngl the Air Force didn't do well at all during the civil war
@@spiffygonzales5160 US marine core I war referring to .
@@spiffygonzales5160 I heard the Space Force fared even worse.
I once saw a Royal Marine officer being asked about his corp's 'elite' status. His response was 'Elite implies that a unit has reached a certain standard and that is dangerous. We, on the other hand, will always recruit and train in the assumption that there are always higher standards to achieve.'
Does that include being constantly drunk on deployment? Because that’s what I saw with all the Brits in Iraq.
@@jasoninthehood9726 TBF that applies to every Brit, regardless of wether they're civilian or military.
@@podemosurss8316 Yeah, I knew that because when I was Germany everyone was glad I was American and not British. It seems like Brits took the title of most obnoxious tourists in Europe lol (at least when I travelled around back in 2012) I even saw a sign in a brewery in Belgium that said “British tourist go home”
Interesting little fact: the Austrian Empire did not have Guards units, as Kaiserin und Konigin Maria Thresa and her successors considered them an unnecessary expense and no better than the best line units. The closest you could say the Austrians and Austro-Hungarians came to having a guards unit was, in all likelihood, Infantrie Regiment (I.R.) No. 4 Hochs und Deutschmeister , which was raised ans stationed in Vienna.
Correct, they did not have Guards units, though later the Kaiserjäger had some Guards features.
There was another wrinkle in this, namely that there was a tendency to consider mainly German-speaking units as a cut above or at least more reliable than infantry regiments with large numbers of non-Germans. So the 4th had a high reputation, but so did the 27th, also mainly German-speakers, the 49th, again German-speaking and mostly from the Graz area, and a few others. "Bohemian" regiments were somewhat suspect, especially in WW1, with the Prague-raised 28th being disbanded after large numbers went over to the Russians in 1915, though the actual circumstances are controversial (many soldiers in the unit were Bohemian Germans rather than Czechs - though the incident was thought to indicate the unreliability of Czechs).
Austrian empire was have grenadiers like elite infatry plus something like special units was been pandurs or jagers
@@stevekaczynski379328 regiment was been surroundet and been captured they dont deserted
There where actually four separate guard units in existence during the late early-modern period, the oldest specifically raised by Maria Therese herself. These where small formations though and differed from the larger line regiments in being meant as ceremonial palace troops which did not take to the field in times of war.
What an odd & neat fact.
An interesting piece to keep in mind is, as elaborated on in your Social Elitism segment their is by all means in most Guard regiments in the United Kingdom & in my experiance in Denmark, a sense of elitism in said regiments. Most Guards believe themselves superior to the rest of the army typically today manifested in the fact that they have higher uniform maintance & drill standards. I recall a documentary from the sixties on the Welsh Guards were the first line was something along the lines of, as soon as you enter the Guards you are taught that you are a Guard & as such better than the rest of the army. I wouldn't be aware whether this applies to the 18th century, however, this traditional regimental culture that exists in Guard regiment (Altough all regiments have a regimental pride, Guard regiments are something else), I wouldn't imagine this culture is all to different from what used to be. Afterall, the Grenadier Guards always stick by 'once a Grenadier always a Grenadier' & equally in the Royal Danish Lifeguard you have the saying 'Once a Guard, always a Guard'.
Yup.
As i just posted myself, a good old quote:
"To create an elite unit, tell them they are an elite unit and then let them get on with living up to that".
It really does work, even if it's preferable to not rely SOLELY on this.
The interesting things about the Royal Life Guards (from Denmark) is that they view themselves as elite, yet the rest of the army view them as inferior. I was told, that if I wanted to be a professional soldier (as opposed to a conscript for a few months), then I should specifically NOT go to the guard, because I'd be trained as a soldier from day 1 in any other combat regiment, whereas the guard would waste a lot of time on drill (and for a long time the guard had inferior weapons too for ceremonial reasons). The guards would say that drill and ceremonial duties instill a sense of discipline that carries over to the field, the others would say it's time wasted on old useless stuffy ceremonial traditions. Yet even modern history shows that both the British and Danish guards have often been picked over other equivalent infantry regiments when some new concept or a particularly difficult task had to be accomplished, so I guess the aura of eliteness does something even though they aren't structurally different. I wonder whether the British rifles also still has a sense of eliteness carried over from the Napoleonic days.
@@fridrekr7510 its a combination of both pride and discipline, and while neither necessarily make a unit more effective, it does make them more motivated. thats useful to have as a military, because if you want a unit to do something kind of crazy, you can put the task onto the guards
For Spain, the military organisation was far more centralised than the British one. What you describe in 7:00 for Spain happened during the reigns of Isabella I, Joanna I and later Charles I, with the unification of the various retinues into the Royal Army (previously, the Royal Armies of Castilla and Aragón, which were the personal armies of the kings of both kingdoms), with a proper organisation. The nobles loyal to the crown were given officer ranks into this unified Royal Army, becoming the new colonels, generals, captains and the like. At first the organisation was made centered around companies of around 200 men and "coronelías" of 10 companies, with the coronelías being the basis for the later (and larger) Tercios. During that period, there were a bunch of elite units (in the sense that they had better training and equipment than the rest) tasked with protecting the Monarch, but weren't an unified "Royal Guard", but rather the "Guardia de Alabarderos" (Halberders Guard) established by King Ferdinand after the death of Queen Isabella, or the "Guardia de Archeros de Borgoña" (Burgundian Glaive Guard), a company brought by the King Consort Philip the Handsome. In 1704, during the Spanish War of Succession, the new Philip V (of the French Borbon dynasty) unified most of those units (except for the ones that went and sided with the Austrian claimant) into the "Real Guardia de Corps" (Royal Guard), a reinforced regiment made from 5 companies (reinforced): two Spanish cavalry companies of 200 men each, 1 Flemish company of fusileers, 1 Italian company of fusileers and 1 "American" company of fusileers (that is, from the Spanish colonial territories in America). During the Napoleonic Wars (what in Spain is called "Guerra de Independencia" or "War for Independance"), the Royal Guards Regiment fought in several key engagements, and they certainly lived to the "elite" monicker, as it was their stubborn resistance against numerically superior enemies what allowed either the survival of the army (in battles like Ocaña in 1809) or turning the tides of the battle completely (such as happened in La Albuera in 1811).
I'm the English teacher who loves the way you speak. Using your provided subtitles (additional points, by the way) I can see how your improvisations and asides are as eloquent as your script while also breaking down information that might be too dense for some and breaking up rhythms that might become monotonous. Marvelous.
I notice that often also, however I am not an expert!
>have a sour day
>Brandon uploads
>day now good
Please keep making these
Glad to be able to help!
Eh, the USMC is, in a sense, a military in its own right. It's got its own combat and amphibious vessels, a versatile ground combat force, and an air arm. Is it elite? In that it's versatile, and its troops are trained for amphibious warfare, giving them more tactical flexibility, sort of. But in a global context, it just makes them a fairly well trained military. They're not the same thing as the Royal Marines, who are a brigade of superbly trained amphibious light infantry commandos.
Plus there's only about 5,000 RM and more than 200,000 USMC so there's no fair comparison between the two. Interestingly, my brother was a RM and he used to tell me that the USMC were much better marksmen than the RMC were. In his opinion
Good analysis, and I'm a former Marine myself. I'd add the one distinction Marines have is every Marine carries the secondary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) of rifleman, as in you can take any Marine, put him (now her I suppose) in an infantry platoon and while maybe not a specialist he'll be able to hold his own. Boot camp makes the basic Marine, and the basic Marine is an infantryman.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706Cool story, keep telling yourself that pog
The Marines do have an (I believe) 4 week longer boot camp than standard Army and higher entrance standards and I believe their specialist training courses are longer as well, also higher marksmanship standards... so in that respect I would 100% say they are elite... it is just that the modern understanding of "elite" has been so influenced by the idea of elite=special forces... which most Marines are not (Except The Raiders, etc.) But within the US Military the Marines are 100% an elite service...
@@griffter68.58 He is not exaggerating. The USMC goes to quite a bit of time and trouble in training to cross-train all their people as basic rifleman, and even on some support weapons.
I really hope we get to see a video on the "Gentleman volunteers", from my own research they seemed to have been quite common in Sweden. I have found some as young as 16 years old serving as volunteer in the regular line regiments during the early 19th century
Not a thing in the British Army in the 18th century, as far as I can tell. Gentlemen were officers, other ranks were not gentlemen, indeed Wellington's description of his men as "the scum of the earth" is notorious. The "one-year volunteer" concept first developed in Prussia, unless I am mistaken, Russia and Austria followed suit. These were other ranks with certain skills and often middle-class backgrounds who were allowed to serve a shortened period in the military and had certain privileges, like being allowed to wear a sword as a sidearm. One-year volunteers who stayed on sometimes received a commission, but the concept was unknown in the British Army.
There was definitely a tradition of Gentlemen Volunteers in the British Army- like I said, definitely a worthy topic for a video!
@BrandonF I don't even know what a gentleman volunteer is, and I can't be the only one who don't know. So it would likely enlighten more people to what that term means. 😊
@@BrandonF In the 18th century, though? Perhaps in the latter 19th century the concept developed.
@@stevekaczynski3793 I am not familiar with it in the 19th C. but it was definitely a thing in the 18th. When I make a video on the topic I can delve into examples and such, although to relocate them I'd have to spend time researching.
I think the simple answer is, they're SUPPOSED TO BE elite, but is not by default.
And i think that also sums it up for "guards" units overall.
But there's some ways that they often differed from the average soldiery.
Higher wages was common. Which along with other things also ensured a generally better level of battle morale, which in most times means A LOT, as many many battles were lost because units of one side broke and routed. Guard units were less likely to do so in general.
Guard units meant to be household units and guards, often had extra training for those duties, and while not a huge advantage militarily most of the time, it did mean it was somewhat common for guards units to train more in total than regular units. If nothing else, this tended to mean that guard units had an average higher level of physical fitness. Rarely a big difference, but still noticeable.
Also, many guard units did have SOME sort of requirements above those of regular units. As you mention, sometimes that simply focused on being able to pay their own way, possibly outright being able to buy all their own equipment, but higher physical requirements were somewhat common.
Some guard units also specifically recruited experienced troops from the regular units, or sometimes this could be a "promotion"/reward for soldiers that had distinguished themselves in battle.
It was also much more common for guard units to have standardised uniforms, long before it became normal, as well as using more blatant colors or ornate designs. And while most people will scoff at it, it actually DOES have some level of psychological effect, unconsciously telling people that "oh dear, these people are so much stronger they can just prance around like that", it's basically the same thing in reverse as how people put on their uniform to "become their job". There is an inherent authority in uniforms, and the more distinct and "peacock-ish", the greater the effect. While it's not a huge thing, it still does make SOME difference. It also tends to be a minor morale booster for the troops themselves. Which is one of the reasons why the British ended up with their redcoat uniforms.
.
Also, there a very important quote worth remembering here.
"To create an elite unit, tell them they are an elite unit and then let them get on with living up to that".
It's an extremely simplistic way of looking at it, but it is also perfectly true to some extent.
Even with no other differences involved, if you have 2 identical units being created and one of them is told they're elite and that they darn well better live up to it, they generally WILL.
Give them 10% extra pay and give them special uniforms? At that point you're pretty much guaranteed that they will at minimum TRY to be BETTER.
Humans have a distinct tendency to live up, or down, to expectations.
True, though some commanders opposed the elite unit idea on the grounds that it reduced the morale of the run-of-the-mill units. For example, the British Army's tendency to create ad hoc units out of grenadiers and light infantry from various regiments has been criticised, as the bulk of infantry were in battalion companies, that is, the troops who were left.
@@stevekaczynski3793 In the Spanish case, given that each regiment comprised usually 3 (sometimes 4) battalions and the "grenadier" company was simply the leading company of each battalion (with the rest being the "musketeer companies"), it wasn't much of an "elite", other than the fact that the grenadier company had more soldiers (and were slightly better trained). (There wasn't dedicated light infantry as such in the Spanish Army, rather, all infantry was trained and expected to act as light infantry if needed)
As for regiments that were considered "elite", those would be the reinforced ones (4 battalions instead of 3), which not only were larger, but also were made from mercenaries from other countries (the most important regiments were from Switzerland and Italy), or the Royal Guards.
Guard regiment soldiers usually spent years other places before getting into the guard no? You needed experience in combat to get to that level
On the social side its interesting to note the even today there is no such rank of sergeant in the Household Cavalry because the title of sergeant is derived from the Latin "serviens" which means servant. Instead the equivalent rank is corporal of horse, with staff sergeant and sergeant major equivalents being staff corporals and corporal majors
Probably worth mentioning that most regiments were raised by Royal Charter and that raising a regiment without a charter was considered a bit naughty.
Atholl Highlanders enter the chat
@@maryannedouglas They still have a Charter, that's what allows them to exist, they're just not covered by the Army Board.
That's for the Royal Army. Continental European armies raised their regiments on a very different manner.
@@podemosurss8316 What is this "Royal Army" of which you write?
@@stamfordly6463 I meant British Army, my mistake. In the Continent, Regiments were raised by the State (that is, the organisation led by the Monarch) but usually by an order from the Ministry of Defense or equivalent. In Spain, the Military Governors could raise regiments if needed in the event of war without needing permission from the King, but only in certain circumstances (in fact that decentralisation of the Spanish military intro various Military districts is one of the factors that played into the relative ease in which Spain established a provisional government in 1808).
Being a Guardsman is a matter of prestige rather than elite. Paras are elite, but too modern. Royal Marines are elite, but specialised. The true elite of the British Army were the assorted Highland regiments: the Forty-twa, Cameronians, the Sutherlands (the thin red line), the Argylls...all sadly gone now. I will give the Rifles and the Green Jackets a shout out though, they're pretty special (not a fan of the green uniforms though) 💋💋💋
I read an account of British troops in France during the Phony War, 1939-40, eventually ended by the German offensive. It noted morale and disciplinary problems were fairly common, partly due to boredom, with drink-related offences most common among Guards soldiers and members of Highland units.
@@stevekaczynski3793 well yes Steve, drinking in practically the national pastime in Scotland 😅
@@maryannedouglas Perhaps not surprising for them but that the Guards were somewhat inclined to get sloshed was a surprise. Some English line unit indiscipline apparently included petty and occasionally not so petty assaults or theft committed against French civilians, but drunkenness was more common among Guards and Highland troops.
6:30 This is why it is called the "British army" and not the "Royal Army". Certain corps in the Army and services are "royal" however, like the Artillery and the Engineers.
Meanwhile, the Navy was a Royal Service.
In Württemberg during the reign of Frederick II & I (1797-1816) the guard brigade (eventually named Maison du Roi) were a complicated structure. You see, at some point they did have specific "guard regiments" on horse and on foot, however, they also had other standard regiments that had attained some sort of veterancy or reputation attached to the guard. For example, the guard grew exponentially in the course of around 15 years from 1800 to 1815, from 1 Batallion of Garde Grenadiers and one 4 squadrons of Horse guards (in reality each squadron had a different function, the first and the second were "Garde du Corp", the Third were the Leibjägers which were guides and the fourth were the Chevauxlegers which had an almost standard army function) to 2 regiments of Guard Infantry (one being the aforementioned Garde Grenadiers and the other being the first regiment of the standing army) 2 Horse regiments (one being a proper Horse Guard regiment which was made up from the previous Garde du Corp and the Leibjägers together with other raised men and the other also being a standard cavalry regiment from the standing army) 1 Light infantry regiment (Possibly the most famous unit in the army by that time and with reason) and 2 artillery batteries (one on foor and one on horse).
Of course the organization for the army was way more complicated than that and fluctuated alot in Frederick's reign as Duke, Elector then King, and i still have many questions yet to be answered.
One interesting thing was that once, the King's adjudant von Dillen, went to the garrison of one of the cavalry regiments and told the colonel he "wanted the strongest and most handsome of men to be selected for the Horse Garde regiment".
It’s definitely different nowadays for sure, the term ‘elite’ has a very broad range of meanings often meaning better trained so the USMC for example aren’t elite compared to British Marines and I can speak from experience having a taste of the training during my process of trying to join the Royal Marines 😅 it often comes down to the Tier system RM and Paras are In between tier 3 and 2 and SBS/SAS/SRR are tier 1 and as far as the guards go in my own experience at least before I started infantry training I was speaking to a Scots guard and he was saying that the guards are considered elite above regular line infantry and even when you start infantry training you are separated from the start from line infantry and guards and I think that has been the way of it since the foundation of the British army as we know it today after the civil war.
It doesn't help that there is a wide variation in what "elite" means. The Russians, for example, have the Spetsnaz...but that could mean everything from a Tier 1 Counter-terror group like Alpha or Vympel, to army recon/sabotage units, to what are effectively county SWAT teams under OMON. (interior ministry security)
Marine, here. We're not elite, though we do have MARSOC, which is probably on par with Royal Marines. What we are is shock troops. Definitely scarier than a typical line unit, but not "elite" in the way most people imagine.
We are special forces, but only in the same way that the Army's 10th Mountain or 101st Airborne are. All three units are trained for a specific mission-amphibious assault, helicopter assault, and mountain warfare. Other units can do these things, but they don't regularly rehearse them and aren't ready to do these missions on a moment's notice. At least not as well as a specialized unit.
ALWAYS GREAT STUFF BF! Thank You - Useful Information and Helpful in many areas. ~ Be Safe out there ~ Peace & Health o Us All.
I have another question Brandon, so when lines get broken by musket fire, where do they go when they rout? what happens when they rout? and do they just stop at the camp or just run anywhere?
I doubt I know the full answer, but from what I know that would depend on the enemy. If they have cavalry and are willing to commit it, than you just run and hope you don't get chased down, and then make the choice to regroup or desert. If they aren't willing to commit it than once you're out of danger the unit can reform and make a withdrawal. From what I've read (and there's always more to read so a few grains of salt) the line breaking wasn't the same as a full rout.
Good question I think, I imagine it to be a bit hard to route when the officers and reserves are behind you. Would be nice to see some real examples
@@00yiggdrasill00It also depended on the terrain. A lot. In mountainous terrain even routed units could regroup after the battle, and in fact that was common for the Spanish Army (many guerrillas were basically routed units that had regrouped in the mountains behind enemy lines).
@@podemosurss8316 I had not considered that aspect. Thanks for the new information.
Next question: were old guards really old?
The French old guards certainly were relative to most soldiers since they had to have 10 years of experience in the French army, though not old by regular human standards since you had to be under 35 to become an Old Guard
Okay, given that the Grenadier Guards and the Coldstream Guards and the Scots Guards still exist today, but now that the UK also has the Ranger Regiment and the SAS. Which is the more prestigious unit to be in? It's fascinating because we have an example of the old "Guards" but new concept of elite forces existing concurrently within the UK military.
They’re all equally special little boys
Tier one special forces like the SAS and SBS are obviously the most prestigious, followed by tier two/commandos like the Paras and Royal Marines, and I guess you could say the Guards rank above the rest of the common infantry. I don't think even Britain is stuffy enough to consider old ceremonial units like the Guards more prestigious than the current elite. The Ranger Regiment is too new to really be proven, but I'd guess it'll be somewhat similar to the Paras and RM after a while.
Ah, "Elite" regiments. The term that sounds more impressive in the head than in reality. Thanks, fiction.
in Napoleon Total War even armed citizenry were god tier elite if Napoleon was on the field
Sadly another case of modern people struggling to understand that pre-modern armies simply didn't function like contemporary militaries - much less emphasis on physical training in particular as part of their recruitment process means there was really no mechanism for filtering 'better' soldiers into more 'elite' regiments, at least not at the scale of the entire army.
The real factors that made a regiment elite or not were their standard of equipment, the calibre of their officers, and battlefield experience. Napoleon formed his guard regiments out of older soldiers who had proven themselves under fire - that's about the closest you'd get to an 18th or 19th century era SAS or Navy Seals programme.
I think experience plays just as much of a part, getting into so called "elite" units means you would've been in the military for some time anyways that's always been true. And "elite" units did have specialised training for their roles I.E Marines on naval landings etc, Light infantry on working independently from the group and skirmishing so on so forth
Can you do a vid detailing the change in uniform styles of the British army post 1790 where the Wigs and tri corns are done away with and side burns are the new fashion
Perhaps mentioning the 23rd Foot, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who, being late to get rid of the pigtails that had been traditional, were later allowed to retain a "flash" at the back of the uniform collar as a regimental symbol.
underated spot of uniforms
So, Guard regiment were mostly socially elite, whereas elite in the form of specialisation is found in Grenadiers, Light infantry etc . Except for the French Napoleonic army, where the Guard were veterans (and therefore more experienced and slightly more effective and steadfast, but not necessarily specialised), who also gained social status because of their veterancy?
It's not just the french guards. Russian guards were also elite. More training, and from 1811 made up of the best men from the rest of the army (each regiment was required to send their 6 best mpouwn annually to the guards, perfurably veterans).
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Similar for Spain.
I served 2 tours in Iraq in the usmc. I can tell you e thought of ourselves as better than the average army unit. We were not as well equipped but had maybe better unit cohesion? I have worked with a couple army units and was nothing but impressed.
You're not as well equipped as the British army? Dude I bet you were 10 x better equipped and better looked after than us even as a marine.
@@MUZA1875 I think he was talking about US army units
I believe the word is espirit de corps
@@wolfthegreat87 I was, specifically active us army. I met a few Lithuanian and some other NATO units while in Iraq and they were all incredible. I will say that USNG were pretty poorly equipped too at the time but they were still incredible soldiers.
@@MUZA1875 I've never met any British military members, I would imagine yall are very well equipped just like we were, but compared to US army its just nothing.
The USMC is a branch just like the US Army and both in fact (and most) branches have special operations elements that would be considered elite, US Marines have the Raiders, US Army have Special Forces and Rangers, US Navy have the Seals, and US Air Force have Pararescue.
I think the point is that the basic USMC infantry unit also considers itself elite, whereas in the US Army it's more about particular units (like airborne and ranger) being considered elite. I belive the USMC doesn't actually wear unit patches on their uniforms, because they are all just proud of being marines, whereas the US Army places much more pride on the regimental level. There was even some resistance towards forming MARSOC because the leadership didn't like the idea of creating "elite marines" since all marines were already elite.
If we are considering whomever considers themselves elite then the US Army Infantry considers themselves elite, and so does US Army Cav, and the combat engineers……
@@charlesransom4546 ...and so does the Idaho Whitebread Freedom Militia (USA! USA! USA!) whose training materials come mostly from Hollywood films and re-runs of The A-Team.
1:34 id argue that for the US it would be more like the 82nd Airborne & 101st Air Assault. Possibly also the special operations capable MEUs.
Damn, nice video! you should make a video on the history of each guard regiment, each regiment has so much history and honours it'll be fun to both research and present them
1:50 the reason the Marines are held in a different regard is because they are always first. They are also a unique breed they are all fanatical about being marines. Served with them in the Navy since they are department of the Navy, anyway, those are warriors who I would compare to spartans. They eat, sleep, pray Devil Dog.
Usmc not elite, generally. But specific subsets of it definitely yes, particularly marsoc. I think the British royal Marines are generally elite, and of course a much smaller force than the usmc.
The USMC has their own elite units. Just being a marine doesn’t signify that status.
In addition to the social elite of the Horse Guards (for instance) I would characterize as elite in an 18th century context, a unit that is perceived to be slower to run in the face of casualties than the average unit.
In that sense, some guards regiments are reasonably characterized as elite based on their battlefield performance, and further, a higher percentage of guards units would be so characterized than regular line units. This is quite probably a result of their being _seen_ as less likely to run, in a rather circular way.
The same would apply to grenadier companies, which were regularly used to stiffen Line Infantry.
Most things about Guard regiments would be that most commonly they would of course Gyard... But they would also, like at Waterloo with the French Old Guard, Boosted the Morale of all other regiments and strike fear into the enemy...
At Waterloo it was the other way arround at the end.
The best explaination I've ever heard of why Napoleon didn't often commit his guard regiments to battles WAS the fact he knew they were in fact human and could indeed be ripped apart by gunfire, and as a result was not willing to commit them to battles which weren't very winnable.
He could then make them prominently visable to the rest of the army and those regiments would essentially believe they are fighting alongside a legendary unbreakable unit that has never been defeated.
@@0sm1um76this is an interesting take on why Napoleon didn’t use them during battles like Borodino and Leipzig because if they did were destroyed morale would take a large blow.
An argument against this are the battles in 1814 when the Imperial Guard was one of the only remaining corps it did destroy enemy forces quite rapidly, proving their worth as veterans.
Regards
Also happened with the Spanish Royal Guard in La Albuera (1811).
@@podemosurss8316 Those were palace guard troops. Totally incomparable to Veteran Imperial Guard forces.
My mind just randomly thought that 18th century elite soldiers would be equipped with a rifle, a musketoon, a blunderbuss, two pistols, a sword and they carry them all mass effect style
That’s a very good explanation!
A social but seldom a military elite.
The Austrian Army didn't have any guard units: ""No Mameluks, no Praetiroans, no Janussaries." The ordinary marching regiements did garrison service in Vienna by rotation, and the ceremonial lifeguard duties were entrusted to the non-combatant units of the Trabanten-Garde and the mounted Arciern-Garde, which owned only about 100 officers and me each.' Duffy, The Army of Maria Theresa (1977)
Shuffling units around was quite common, certainly in the later Austro-Hungarian Army. It was considered unwise to let soldiers stay too long in the same area and become too familiar with the locals. Sometimes they were deliberately placed in areas where they did not speak the local language. Jaroslav Hasek in "The Good Soldier Svejk" comments on Czech troops being sent to garrison Hungary and Hungarians being sent to Bohemia, and the inevitable ethnic mix likely to result.
From what I understand about Napoleon's Imperial Guard, he actively only let veterans of one or more campaigns join. So, because it was composed of much more veteran and skilled troops, would it make sense to say that the Imperial Guard is elite?
The Imperial Guard was absolutely elite, not only for ceremonial reasons or ties to the nobility, but for the practical reasons you stated.
Do you know how 18th Century militaries managed firearm safety? How much consideration was given to trigger discipline and muzzle awareness? How did they deal with a musket misfiring, and how was a musket unloaded without firing?
Given how difficult the guns were to reload, and the lack of reliability of the flintlock compared to the later percussion cap lock, the problem was actually the opposite: weapons sometimes didn't fire when intended. In the Spanish Army this led to a popular saying: "Las reclamaciones, al maestro armero" (all complains, to the gunsmith), which in general means "I did my best so if there's a bad outcome, it's not my fault". It came as a response by soldiers when questioned over poor performance in drills.
Considering that firearms safety wasn't even a thing during WW2, I doubt they cared much about trigger and muzzle discipline going even further back.
So the answer to this question is, "Yes, they **were** 'elite' soldiers, but 'elite' didn't mean back then what it means today."
Also, could we definitely do that video on "gentleman volunteers?"
Idk if regular USMC grunts are necessarily "elite" but they are trained differently. Marines are shock troops, not occupiers. But marines do have their own special forces units like the raiders/force recon, as does the army with the green berets/rangers/delta force. I'd generally put army paratroopers/air assault units higher than regular marines on the "elite unit" ladder though
I do not consider USMC as elite. They are usually given older equipment than the US army, so I consider their combat value on the battlefield as lower. So if I am going to fight a land war I rather use the US army, while if I am going to invade an island in the pacific and take it from the Japanese, then I rather use marine infantry of the USMC.
They are just specialized into different tasks.
I consider the US Armys better equipment as the reason why I consider it to have more combat power. They used Abrams tanks while USMC used M60 tanks instead for a long time. Same goes for Appache helicopters, while USMC used Huey Cobra instead. USMC used Huey helicopters in Vietnam while USMC often used the old Sikorsky H-34.
Though an interesting point I heard brought up about paratroopers on a podcast was that their main strength comes from their air mobility and surprise. They're light infantry at the end of the day, and so lack the armour and artillery to fight for long periods by themselves. They're meant to capture far objectives but must be linked up with friendly forces otherwise they face annihilation
@@niono1587 True, but they're good at causing chaos on short deployments. And they've even held objectives for extended periods during the second world war- the 101st airborne held the germans for six weeks at Bastogne before Patton's 3rd Army punched through to relieve them.
@@bjornancraite2266 True that's what they're good for but it is such a risky job. Likewise in ww2 the Germans grounded their troops for the rest of the war after Crete and I'm sure we've all heard of Arnhem? The British Paratroopers just didn't have the equipment to deal with all the German armour
@@niono1587 Paratroopers are considered elite for many of the same reasons as marines, despite their specialisation (air and naval insertion) often being a very minor role of their overall service. But being supposed to go in the first wave on a beach or getting dropped behind enemy lines instills a certain spirit that is also supposed to carry over to regular infantry duties. Even though the usefulness of paratroopers on the modern battlefield is dubious, they are still considered a sort of second tier special forces in most militaries. However, a standard mechanised infantry unit will obviously destroy a light infantry paratroop unit when caught in the open. Morale can only do so much when up against superior firepower.
The USMC has a well deserved and prestigious reputation but in actuality your typical Marine infantry unit is on par with a typical US Army infantry unit. There are more elite segments of the Marine Corps such as Force Recon. The most elite light infantry formation the United States has though is the 75th Ranger Regiment. There used to be high end formations in other arms like the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment before it's transition to OPFOR at the National Training Center. 11th ACR is still an above average unit but it's not a combat unit anymore. The 82nd Airborne's Rapid Deployment Brigade is the elite of regular infantry. Special Forces are certainly elite soldiers but not in the same way. They are highly trained specialists but I wouldn't put 1st SOG into the trenches in Ukraine and tell them to hold the front against a basic bitch Motor Rifle Regiment and expect them to hold the line. I would do so with a battalion of the 75th Rangers if I had nothing else in reserve. The Rangers are elite light infantry. The Green Berets are unconventional warfare specialists and trainers of soldiers. Rangers have the firepower and training to do it. 1st SOG would not have the firepower. To put either unit in to defend a trench line would be an utter waste of their skills. The 82nd Airborne would be a far better choice.
You make a good point about the 75th Rangers. To me they are the quintessential modern elite infantry, but they have of course had the SOF label slapped on them like is fashionable today. SF/SOF is a different animal to infantry like you say, it's wrong to only think of them as simply being better. Even more "conventional" SF units like the SAS (since the USSF have that advisor/guerilla role at the forefront) probably wouldn't do any better, if not worse, at a static defense than a regular mech inf company. I remember reading some stories from Afghanistan where SF (not American) were put on QRF for regular infantry, where the operators said that another infantry unit would actually have done the job better because the SF unit was so focused on long range recon etc.
You shut ups go to Oregon and check out Fort Stevens. Its a great historical area, its a state paro, and they have preserved this civil war era fort very well. Fort Stevens was used from the Civil War until the end of World War two, they have a lot of area to explore, and there is a tour of one of the batteries there. It was attacked in 1942 by a Japanese submarine. Its near Astoria, Oregon. I high recommend checking it out, its one of my favorite places in my home state of Oregon
That sounds like a lovely site! Bit far from my usual roaming, though.
I assumed guards were just veterans who distinguished themselves from battle and would be upgraded to guards like soviet Guards Rifle units
Did he just forget Canada Day?
I'm surprised that you didn't mentioned that the guards in the 18th century often wanted to get a special position in the battle formation - Fontenoy was a great opportunity to mention that. You missed it. We find often that the commanders of the guards (in France and UK) proclaimed a right to fight in the most dangerous or important position.
Nevertheless, an interesting video.
The Swedish royal guards ("Svea Livgarde" or "Svea Lifgarde") was consider one of the better regiments in the Swedish army. The men did not come from newly conquered former Danish provinces so they would not try to kill the King or thinking of defecting over to the enemy side in the middle of a battle.
Their peace time duty was to act as the body guards of the royal family and to protect the Capitol against any coup attempts. Still to this day do Sweden have its tradition of troops guarding the royals, and a military band play some music when one unit takes over the responsability for guard duty from unit. Nowaydays are Stockholm often visited by regiments from all over Sweden who shares the responsability to guarding the palace for a few days.
Svea Livgarde is one of the oldest regiments in the world. And it was among one of the best. During the battle of Lund 1676 did it come into direct contact with the Danish royal guards, and the both sides continued to fight each other instead of fleeing even after both sides had suffered 90% casualties... which says a lot about the dicipline and the fighting morale in those units.
In modern day combat do most units lose their willingness to continue fighting after they have recieved say 20-25% losses.
However Svea Livgarde with their nicer gold blue uniforms instead of the typical yellow blue other regiments had.. was still not the best unit in the Swedish army. That unit was Drabantkåren (Drabant Corps of Charles XII). It was the unit that was the elite of the elite. Even the Swedish royal guards was nothing compared to them. Indeed, no other regiment in Europe was had the same extremely high combat value as them.
They were a small force consisting of the best men in the Swedish army. They had the best training and wore the best and most modern weapons in the world. If the troops asked for an expensive special weapon, then the King ordered that for them no matter of the cost. Even if it meant importing expensive luxuries from a foreign country.
The men were well paid and had the nicest uniforms in the Swedish army. They were a Cavalry unit, but they could fight in any type of combat. And even if you had the lowest and simplest job in this regiment, would your rank be considered that of an officer in other regiments, so it was not uncommon that a man from Drabantkåren could take over command over other units in the Swedish army and lead them in battle. They had the skill and had such an enormous amount of combat experience that this was no problem. The men in this unit was made up of the most capable men so they could also take over responsability of governing the civil administration over an area.
Given the amount of combat experience that the Swedish regiments gained in the Great Northern War, all regiments probably had a very high combat value.
I would love to watch a video about gentleman volunteers if you're thinking about making one.
When my group started reenacting the Peruvian Legion of the Guard we got asked that question a lot. The distinction ended up being much more mundane for the taste of many in the public. The only reason it was a Legion is simply because it was a “corp” comprised of one foot regiment, one light cavalry regiment and three artilliery batteries. And guard was simply put due to them being the guard of the government, being allocated to the capital.
Interesting, is a very fancy name for something quite simple
Hey Brandon 😮..... READY AIM FIRE 😊
I like the distinction of “a cut above”. It captures the vagueness of the issue nicely - and lays a finger of modern (self-perceptions) of elite within armed forces.
It's also interesting that, at least among NATO-style militaries, "elite" forces are typically some variety of light infantry troops.
Contrast this with Russia, where "Guards" regiments might be considered "elite," but are full-bore combined arms formations. Even then Russia also has elite light infantry troops (see the VDV, Spetsnaz, and naval infantry).
I feel like the “elite” perception of the Marine Corps is mostly just due to marketing. Sure, their basic training is just a tad harder than Army BMT/OSUT, but it is most definitely doable for most military aged men with a room-temperature IQ and a mediocre level of physical fitness. They won’t have a very fun time, but it’s definitely possible for them to make it through. Same with the Army and all other branches.
In my mind, an “elite” serviceman in the modern sense is someone with training/credentials that few others in the services have.
Examples would be your SOF units (think SEALS, SF, Rangers, PJs, MARSOC, Recon Marines, etc…)
I’d even consider people with things like a Ranger or Sapper tab elite. They may not be in a high speed unit, but they had to demonstrate elite skills and traits to graduate the courses required to wear that tab… EOD is sorta the same way, while the school is not nearly as physically challenging as a SOF selection course, the academic requirements are absolutely INSANE for those dudes, hence the 50-75% attrition rate for a school that just teaches troops the fundamental duties of their MOS/job.
Within the US Army, a more “elite” group would be something like the Rangers. Rangers are an assault unit, trained for the heaviest and most difficult types of fighting.
Hey! Looks like my grenadier company showed up as a picture of the guards at 13:52! Great picture!
To put it bluntly and clearly, the British Guards NEVER were elite troops; that is a myth fostered by themselves and a lot of flattering books about them. An elite force has special and fairly strict requirements regarding the physique of its soldiers, plus a special and very intense programme of training that makes them a cut above the rest and, last but not least, the quality of its officers. The only requirement fulfilled by the Guards was the first one, regarding the height of the volunteers. The Guards are very much like Rolex watches (i.e.: Highly overrated thanks to a very clever marketing strategy)
The only aspect in which the Guards were superior to the other regiments of the British army was in their smartness on parade, that is all. Essentially, the Guards have always been a very exclusive club within the Army where (until very recently) snobbery reigned supreme. Their "elitism" was based on the social background of their officers. The only truly elite unit of the British Army, until WW1, was the Rifle Brigade. Very fit soldiers who were encouraged to use their initiative and excellent marksmen, led by officers who did not look down on them; they were truly "a cut above the rest".
Did the guard regiments in England recruit civilians or from the rest of the army? What about the other nations? Differences between England, France, Russia, Austria?
I could be incorrect, but wasn’t Napoleon’s guard, Garde impériale, considered to be elite? Especially the old guard formation. I don’t know if this was talked about in the video but I don’t remember it being discussed.
Yeah, I recall other videos talking about groups of from different battalions from different regiments all being formed up- "let's get all the grenadiers of the right wing to make a push here" . would it be fair to say that the American Revolution saw a lot of ad hoc unit shuffling and an officer could find themselves sometimes commanding smaller or larger bodies of different battalions?
Of course. The Coldstream and Horse guards were elite, indeed, in as much as we're using "elite" to mean socially exclusive military institutions populated by men of high social status.
If you want to expand the category to cavalry regiments then you must include them generally. The economics of maintaining horses in fighting and parade condition put membership in such regiments beyond the means of all but the elite strata of society-aristocrats, landed gentry, and, if one were socially ambitious and well-connected, the non-firstborn sons of the emerging wealthy merchant class.
Elite doesn't always mean "special forces" for instance fighter pilots are the elite of pilots, Submariner are elite sailors, etc... Marines are 100% elite (by entrance standards and training, etc) compared to regular army... they just are not all special forces...
The one nice thing about the skip-forward function on my computer is that I can skip over Brandon's "rambling". He would do better to write a script. KISS (Keep It Sooooooo Simple, and be much more entertaining and informative. His information is good and accurate. In that he does a good job, but if he cut out his disorganized ramblings he could cut his videos well down in length.
Please Please please 🙏 make a video on the book „in Stahlgewittern“ (storms of steal) by Ernst Jünger. I think it’s one of the best WW1 books and Jünger has an incredibly interesting perspective on his time on the Western front.
Did they work for the Crown? Or the East India Company or The Hudson bay Company???
The reason Cornwallis surrended at Yorktown was the other share holders, thought he spent too much money and was cut off.
"learn on the job" And also "die on the job". Bad jokes aside, What was the average life expectancy of a soldier in that time? Given that as a soldier you had regular meals (not a given in those days) and medical attention (even less of a given). So, did common (in the contemporary sense) people join the army thinking: I might have to do hard work, get shouted at by my superiors, face harsh punishments and a chance of premature death, but that is basically my lot in life anyway?
Not by this point. Even the vaunted Gardes Frances were routed at Dettinggen with a volley or 2 from an Imperial regiment. The Gardes also barely survived Fontenoy.
The First French Empire's Old Guard is the most famous example of this trope.
The 4th of July must be celebrating Kier Starmer's ascension... which is apparently a done deal since no one gives poor Ed Davey a consideration.
Couldn't the guards in UK at least, always recruit from the entire country (Scotland or England or Wales, etc...) whereas the line regiments would only recruit from a specific town or county? That would allow them to be more discerning in who they let in right?
So a Guards regiment could be compared to the WW2 Panzer Elites. The only thing elite about those Panzer Elite Divisions is the tthey received the latest equipment first and much hope and expectations was placed on them but they were no different than any other division. Looking at you Soviet Guard Regiments.
Difference between the army and the marines is that the army can think for themselves and will disobey unjust orders, e.g., they still have a conscience. Marines will do whatever they are told, no questions asked, up to and including murdering unarmed toddlers. There is no skill difference. The marines do have a much more brutal boot camp in order to make sure they'll do whatever you need them to without question. People die not uncommonly during marine boot camp. The only marines worth any respect are the medics and the bandsmen, and considering they deal with marine grunts on a regular basis, yea, they deserve a **lot** of respect
The 95th rifles where definitely elite, they had Richard Sharpe and Patrick Harper. Doesn't become much more elite than that xD
"[Protective bodyguards] can be traced back to at least the 17th century"
Roman Praetorians: am I a joke to you?
The marines are not elite by the regular definition. They are good, they are naval/amphibious specialized and have a higher training regimen / standard to the regular army. But they aren’t elite. Paratroopers are elite. Most recon probably falls under elite. But you can be in the marines and also be just a soldier. But a marine would never tell you that, if you asked they would tell you it was the best thing since gunpowder was invented
US Marine Corps has a reputation of being the best infantry outside of special operators, with a higher baseline "toughness" and combat effectiveness. I'd say they consider themselves elite, their infantry an elite within an elite, but still lesser than an elite within an elite within yet another elite that is special operators.
But one of the funny things about them is that they are rather known for being austere and spartan. Unlike Guards, they don't have the nicest equipment. Much of their utility stuff is old, beaten up, purchased secondhand from the Army, etc. Like Guards, however, they easily have the nicest dress uniforms in the US military.
I'd say the British Guards are considered elite soldiers now. They're usually at the forefront of deployment. For example in the Falklands War the infantry task force consisted of the Marines, the Paras and two Guards regiments (I think, apologies if I have that wrong), so presumably they went as they were considered elite infantry soldiers.
Definitely not. They do somewhat think of them selfs as elite but the rest of the Army doesn’t. Their training and equipment is the same as the rest of the infantry. There deployment cycle is the same as the rest of the Army. As for the falklands campaign, the bulk of the Army was in Germany as part of the BOAR. The paras and marines are used as a QRF and the guards were based in the London area and were to hand. The units that took part were quite ad hoc. As a now ex-line Infantryman it pains me to say it but the marines and paras are the only elite units under UKSF. Better esprit de corps than line infantry.
@@joelyboy7 Thanks for that mate. I hadn't realized that and that is new to me. My assumption was that they were used as considered top flight infantry but what you say makes perfect sense, they were around when the bulk of the Army wasn't. I agree with you about the state of our military in general now sadly, the entire Army could sit in Wembley stadium with room to spare. Bad state of affairs.
The Guards are flat-out not elite, they are like every other Infantry Regiment of the British Army (other than ceremonial purposes) other than the Paras. Just look at WG's performance in the Falklands for evidence of such. The reason why they have been so regularly deployed since the end of the second world war is all political.
@joelyboy7 ex welsh guards here if it is the case that the guards are not trained to higher standard why is it we dig in on ex in basic and the line Infantry don't? Why is it the guards get better facilities with the paras and gurkahs ?
@@dwarvensphere1094sorry Falklands performance we got bombed before we got of the ship what else could we have done ?
It's fascinating how reputation sometimes stretches far beyond the actual period of competency. Russia in the time period between the Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war is another example of this phenomenon.
Guards would be great at drill and on parade, so 18th and 19th century european warfare suits them well. Send them to Ft. Wilderness and see what happens.
I wonder when marksmen (referred to in modern terms as "snipers") actually became an official thing.
So are were you born 60 years old or did you become that way? I know what the Dr. from Idiocracy would diagnose...
Russian and Soviet Guards Divisions are kinda the same in both the modern times and during WW2. Their guard status seemed to have been due to distinguishment in certain battle rather than the general quality of recruits or special equipment. Their TO&E might be a bit different but not necessarily means that they get the better stuff. In modern times, its more of an honorific than anything and doesn't reflect their combat effectiveness.
All respect to the Marines, the USMC isn't seen as elite they're more seen as Uncle Sam's pitbulls. An elite unit would be the Green Berets or Delta Force or the SEALs.
How come modern soldiers can act autonomously without deserting all the time? The baseline for modern combat is the platoon and the rifle squad, most often you'll be fighting in very small groups acting nearly autonomously. In yester years you seemed to be losing men to desertion and retreats whenever they didnt have hundreds of companions in line of sight.
Us army rangers would be a better pick for an elite unit of the US military but marines just love to fight. See the stories behind their nicknames, devil dogs and leather neckss just to name a few.
The swedish lifeguard Where receuted by Karl XI and Karl XII from the regular regiments by merit standards
So if guards regiments are "house troops" of the nobility and ruling monarch, what did that mean for England after the English Civil War when parliament was given sole control of the army? The guards can't be guards if they don't belong to their liege, can they? Why'd they keep the name?
I think, the napoleonic Imperial guard was elite in concept, because they were recrutet from experienced soldiers from line regiments.
Guards used to be superior, because they were the only standing force in a time of levies.
Same reason the Spartans, Companions or Sacred Band were elite in their time.
Marines will hate me for this but they aren't an elite force. Specialized, yes, but not elite. There are elite units within the Marines, such as Marine Recon Battalions, but the force as a whole is a regular force.
I'm not sure the US marine corps is actually any more well trained and equipped than the regular US army. The US marine corps tends to be the branch of the military that gets sent in for the battles that make history, but I think their reputation is based on cyclical reasoning. They get used for everything, thus gaining a reputation, which means they get used for everything because they have a good reputation.
The only thing really special about the marine corps is that they were used as guards for government buildings and officials in the very early years of the United States since at the time the US didn't have a federally controlled standing army, but did have a federally controlled navy. So to this day, US marines guard the White House and US embassies across the globe. But that's just tradition.
But you could perceive this as the USMC being the United States' version of a guards unit.
We used to joke about being the best 6% in the finnish army, when we were in officer school and screwed something up
Some of them would be but others would just be impoverished noblemen, given titles they didn't earn and couldn't live up to I would wager...
Well, the marines are definitely special. And they are a force, just not the one you're thinking of.
And not to forget: grenadier guards! 😂
I think a good more accessible illustration of socially elite guards might be the musketeers (d’Artagnan etc)…
Army Rangers
You want a definition of an "elite" military unit?
Danish Frogmen Corps.
Honestly I hear more boasts about the German and Scottish regiments than the Guards.