Why 29th became 18th

[Bill A]

In reference to seniority and numbers. The numbers were used for purposes of seniority in the cavalry, and later in the RCAC. It is interesting to note that seniority of today's armoured regiments are based on the integrated seniority of the infantry / cavalry regiments. So, there are some converted infantry regimets that are senior to many cavalry regiments.

[Bill A]

One more note. Some of the lingeages I simplified. For example the BC and Alberta units had more changes and permutations, but I attempted to simplify it so the essence of the evolution is there.
Regarding the "reason why". There are numerous reasons that the numerical designations were re-alloctated. Some were simply changed to keep the sequence, while others were motivated by political concerns. Some were done to try and clean up a mess and rationalize the naming.

[Wmr-RHB]

Hello Bill,

Thank you for joining this thread.

Originally Posted by Bill A

Somehow, this thread flew under the radar for me. Perhaps with the members with Henk and Mike, I assumed it was about Aussie units.

Well, it is in the Canadian section of the forums

Originally Posted by Bill A

Henk what is the source(s) for your table?

Several, of which these are the most important I guess:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-.../index-eng.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/200710110...ents/index.htm
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/regiments/regiments.htm

Originally Posted by Bill A

The numerical designations are essentially the seniority ofthe regiments both for the infantry and the cavalry, but with some exceptions. For example, the 51st Hemmingford Rangers was disbanded and the number was realloted to the 51st Soo Rifles in 1913. Understanding the evolution of the Canadian armoured corps and the Canadian infantry is a phd thesis. More information below.

That was already my impression as you can read in post #12:

First a remark about numbering. IMHO the Canadians did not use the numbering sequence as a measure of seniority. Vacant numbers did not lead to renumbering of the sequence and where used for later new raisings. This is also true in the infantry.

You are producing new posts much faster then I can read and interprete them.
The table I produced above is an excerpt of this one:
http://hcvv.home.xs4all.nl/milweb/Ca...anges-1872.pdf
I hadn't the time to compare with your list, but I will certainly do so.

About the 51st, I was aware of that example. It is in my Infantry table. I will prepare that one also to be downloadable as the cavalry one above, But that may be tomorrow.

I will conclude this post no and go for reading your next posts

[Bill A]

Hi Henk, Yes it is in the Cdn section, but when you use the View New Posts function, that is not shown. So, that was how I think I missed this.

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Regarding the "reason why". There are numerous reasons that the numerical designations were re-alloctated. Some were simply changed to keep the sequence, while others were motivated by political concerns. Some were done to try and clean up a mess and rationalize the naming.

In this thread we are particular interested in the 1920 renumbering/renaming. Can you confirm that the idea behind it must have something to do with two types of regiments? One category keeping numbers (where some were renumbered to fill gaps) and one category without numbers. Is there any explanation about why those categories?

And let us not forget the original question of this, Mike's, thread. What was the real date of adoption of the new badge of the then 18th. It could take some time (even years) after the renumbering before it was designed, approved, made, etc.

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Hi Henk, Yes it is in the Cdn section, but when you use the View New Posts function, that is not shown. So, that was how I think I missed this.

Yes, I know. with a limited amount of time, I do not expect everybody to dig deep into each and every thread. I was was joking a bit.

[Bill A]

Henk, the authoritative source is the DHH pages. With a caveat. They do not have all the disbanded units perpetuated and some perpetuated units are now Engineer units or artillery etc. To access the correct lineage and history, you first need to know who perpetuates the unit, and that is not easy to find. The second source is one I would not rely upon. Michael Dorosh's page (the third link in that sequence) is solid, but cross reference it with others.
I am not sure of the source of the last link you provided? That is your work, or one you have found? It has some issues as can be seen by the update I entered.

[Bill A]

Henk the 1920 reorganization was done by Gen.Otter, one of the founding officers of the Canadian army. In the reorganization, a lot of emphasis was placed on the infantry. Those regiments were to go by names and remove the numerical designations. The same policy was not required of the cavalry. They were allowed to keep their numerical designation, but newly formed ones circa 1920 appear not to have used numbers. This appears to be consistent with the policy applied to the infantry. Most new units did not have numbers, though there are a few exceptions.The chart you linked to appears to go up to the re-organization but not include the changes due to it. Here is a link to Michael's page re the 1920 re-organization. It explains the issues behind the numbering issues. http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/orga...rcommittee.htm

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Henk, the authoritative source is the DHH pages. With a caveat. They do not have all the disbanded units perpetuated and some perpetuated units are now Engineer units or artillery etc. To access the correct lineage and history, you first need to know who perpetuates the unit, and that is not easy to find. The second source is one I would not rely upon. Michael Dorosh's page (the third link in that sequence) is solid, but cross reference it with others.
I am not sure of the source of the last link you provided? That is your work, or one you have found? It has some issues as can be seen by the update I entered.

The PDF table is indeed my work. You are free to use it. And I would love comment on it, so it can be improved. As said I have it also for the infantry (in fact two, due to the size). They will be offered tomorrow (later on the day on my side of the globe).

As soon as I have time, I will check your list against mine.

DHH pages are indeed the main source, but, as you say, extinct lines are not there.

I do not know if you can shed light on this one. The 7th Hussars, as it is in the tables, was created in 1903 (from the 58th Compton Regiment). I have no information about an earlier 7th Cavalry. It is a real gap in the numbering from around 1870/80.

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Here is a link to Michael's page re the 1920 re-organization. It explains the issues behind the numbering issues. http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/orga...rcommittee.htm

Thanks for the link. I know the site, but it is not always easy to pick the prunes.

[Bill A]

Hi Henk, your effort is admirable.
For my needs I require more detail and I use the DHH site, the Concise Lineages of the Canadian Army 1855-Date (which was the 1982 when it was published), and a few other sources. Perpetuations is another, different question.
As far as the lineages go, are you using that as a reference for badges? Eg, the designation = the badge?
As to any precursor of the 7th Hussars, I am not aware of the number having been previously used.

[Wmr-RHB]

First, I have added the infantry ones. It is now best to go to http://hcvv.home.xs4all.nl/milweb/ and the choose Canada, etc. (or choose another then Canada of course, feel free).

To avoid confusion about my intentions, I am not collecting badges. I am in lineage so to say.

The tables you see, are in fact HTML web pages (converted into PDFs). And all the entries in the table are links to individual pages per regiment (that is not exact, sometimes there are more regiments on one page, sometimes one regiment is to large to fit and is split).

Now these lineage schemes are a bit dry to read, thus I illustrate them with pictures of the badges about appropriate for the unit and the date.

The whole is on a local web site on the LAN here in my home. I did publish those tables on the link you found above, just to please people on these forums. I did not add the individual regimental pages because these have those pictures, of which the origin is not always clear and when the origin is clear, it is not always clear if they can be published in the open.

If you send me your e-mail address by PM, I can forward one or more of those pages to you to give you an impression (and there is more detail there).

[Bill A]

Henk, please use the pm system for the email.
I am curious as to why you are duplicating work which can be found elsewhere? Especially on the DHH lineages page?

[Wmr-RHB]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Henk, please use the pm system for the email.

I do not think I can attach files to a PM. But I see another item there that allows me to send an e-mail to you (again without attachments), which will reveal my e-mail address to you. You can then decide if you want to answer to reveal your e-mail address. After that I will be able to send you an e-mail directly from my computer were I can attach files.

Originally Posted by Bill A

I am curious as to why you are duplicating work which can be found elsewhere? Especially on the DHH lineages page?

Several reasons. Amongst them
. I had my format already before I started with Canada and learned about DHH.
. I do not think the DHH text to be very readable and certainly not lineages were I want to see lines, splits, connections, etc. Like in a genealogical scheme.

BTW, I am not duplicating the work of DHH, because that was hard work digging official archives I assume. I am only presenting it in a different way.

It was only after I translated the DHH texts into schemes that I started to get an understanding of the different large and small reorganisations. And only after that I felt to be able to create the tables you saw and that give a nice idea about what happened (at least that is my own impression).

Neither in the tables, nor in the schemes there is all the detail that can be found (in DHH or elsewhere), but for getting an impression about who was retitled waht and merged with what it is fine (again IMHO).

I will love your further comments after you got a few examples of the regimental schemes.