RCDC Seniority?

[edstorey]

I had to go out last evening for a work related event so I could not post about the 8CH reverting to militia - thanks Phil.

For sure, the regular force units, regardless of age are senior to reserve units. In the case of the CF, our remaining guards units which traditionally are the most senior of infantry regiments are Reserve and therefore farther down the precedence list then Regular Force regiments which in this case consists of two regiments that were formed during the Great War.

The answer I was given by DHH yesterday was not well researched and I am not sure why, but by looking deeper into the Order of Precedence list, the date a unit was formed seems to have little bearing on its place on the list.

I still believe that the Order of Precedence list is a seniority list so in the eyes of the CF the R22eR is senior to the GGFG even though the GGFG is a much older unit. This also applied to the CF Branches, so if you look at the various branches, some that were formed years after unification, you will see that relative newcomers like the EME Branch and Public Affairs when formed took up locations on the precedence list once held by their pre-unification predecessors. They placed higher on the list then the Intelligence Branch which was reformed in the mid-1980s. It appers to me that the current CF Branches are tied to the old pre-unification Corps and their precedence list locations, and the old pre-unification Corps were tied to the precedence locations of the parent British Corps.

Looking at strange precedence list locations, why does the Air Operations Branch fall under the The Royal Canadian Infantry Corps and ahead of the Logistics Branch when, as an arm of the military, the Airforce is third in line behind the Naval Operations Branch and the Army? I think that the Air Operations Branch is probably tied to the Royal Flying Corps and their location on the list when they were an Army Corps, but I don't have a pre-1919 British Army precedence list to check.

A quick check on line found this from the British Army: "The regular army of the British Army is listed according to an order of precedence for the purposes of parading. This is the order in which the various corps of the army parade, from right to left, with the unit at the extreme right being highest. Under ordinary circumstances, the Household Cavalry parades at the extreme right of the line. However, when on parade with its guns, it is the Royal Horse Artillery usually in the form of the King's Troop that goes to the right. Militia and Territorial Army Units take precedence after Regular units otherwise the Honourable Artillery Company and Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers would feature prominently being older than any Regular Regiments."

http://www.servinghistory.com/topics..._of_Precedence

I attended the CF Farwell parade for the outgoing Governor General earlier this week and there were four 50 person contingents on parade, the contingents were in this order or seniority: Navy, Army, Airforce and Special Operations. Senior parade appointments were Navy in recogniton of the 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Navy. When the Special Operations contingent marched past to salute the digitaries, their march past was played, but I did not recognize it and it was not the Canadian Airborne Regiment - The Longest Day.

Getting back to what the Dental Corps critieria was, perhaps we need to ask the British what was the criteria used to give them a place on the list?

[Bill A]

Some good information here Ed. The Dental Branch is a bit of a question however. The CADC was the first Commonwealth Dental unit. It stands to reason, from the explanations given, and the link posted by Jo, that the CADC was split off from the CAMC, and derived its seniority from that association.
I am also in agreement that seniority is the principle behind the order of precedence, but there are, as has been pointed out, a lot of anomalies which are not explained. Describing the rationale behind the precedence would be helpful for those interested in the history of the CF.
To further muddy the waters, the Special Operations are now a fourth branch of the armed forces? That appears to be the case by the march past for the new Governor General.

[edstorey]

I was wondering that myself when I was at the parade but I don't want to jump to any conclusions until I can get an answer. Canadian Special Operations Force Command (CANSOFCOM) works in the same building I do and I will see what I can find out.

I am sure there must have been some rationale and the odd meeting to discuss the placements on the list, finding the minutes from those meetings might offer some insight on the reasons.

I have not looked, but how did the conversion of guards infantry regiments to armoured regiments in WWII effect, if at all, their placement on the precedence list? Did they move up from infantry of the line to armoured or did they stay put? I may have to dig out an old copy or two of the KR&Os to find out.

[Seathanaich]

This is long. If it interests you, great; if not, don't read it (though it should be of more interest to collectors of militaria than to the wider community of those interested in the military). Essentially, precedence, to mean anything, should equate far more closely to seniority than it currently does.

The fact that the RCN, formed in 1910, has "precendence" over the Canadian Army, which fought campaigns in North-West Canada with little or no help from the British Army TWENTY FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE NAVY EVEN EXISTED is an indication of just how divorced from seniority and common sense "precedence" is. The precedence of the three armed services should be Army, Navy, Air Force, because that is their seniority. Anything else is insulting to the senior service.

The fact that some Army units go on the Supplementary Order of Battle and get resurrected with their initial precedence intact (The Halifax Rifles) or amalgamated after the fact (Irish Fusiliers (Vancouver Regiment)), while other units instead get disbanded and lose their continuous service (too numerous to mention) and therefore their precedence, is ridiculous, because there is no practical difference between being placed on the SOoB, and getting disbanded.

The fact that some regiments, like The Elgin Regiment, kept their "continuous service" despite being temporarily disbanded (circa 1900), while other regiments have lost their continuous service for being temporarily disbanded (too many to mention), indicates that precedence is often arbitrary in how it applies to disbandment or suspension of service as a unit.

The fact that the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps has high precedence despite being formed circa 1940, while the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps formed in 1942 has junior precedence to most Corps, is insulting to the corps which both history and common sense record as senior to most, if not all - the Infantry. The Infantry should not be "punished" in the precedence list, as a corps, for being regimented, if the Armour is not. This is arbitrary, not logical or governed by any discernable reason.

The RCE is older in the Reserve Army (at least 1861, apparently) than the Regular Army (1903). Why are they punished for this in terms of precendence, and placed behind Corps which were only established at the latter date? The RCASC was established in the Non-Permanent Active Militia in 1901, and in the Permanent Active Militia in 1903 - it should have precedence over all the Corps formed in 1903, whether Permanent or Non-Permanent. The precedence of an entire corps should date to its formation, whether regular or reserve. Reservists bleed and die the same way that regular soldiers do, and in the history of our nation more people have signed up as "temporary" soldiers - particularly between 1914-18 and 1939-45 - than have made a career of military service.

I can accept the idea of precedence for units WITHIN A CORPS for regular units over reserve ones (PPCLI on parade before The Essex Scottish), though it isn't completely cut and dried: for example, The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, The Black Watch, The Fort Garry Horse, and the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's) have all gone up and down the precedence list when they gained and then lost Regular Force battalions.

If the seniority of SOME corps is based upon the date at which individuals (Staff Clerks, Postal, School of Musketry, Veterinary, Ordnance, etc) or sub-battalion units (Signals, Guides, Engineers) came into organised service, then the same should apply to the precedence of the infantry, armour, and artillery, all of which have sub-units that were first formed in 1869 or 1855 or earlier, depending on which criteria we adopt. There can be no legitimate argument that the Infantry should have seniority to at least 1859, when The Canadian Grenadier Guards were formed, if all the other Corps have seniority dating to when the first individuals (Vets, Postal, etc) or platoon sized units (Signals) of their type were formed.

What is needed is guidelines that are logical and clear, not based on the whims of the past (Armour senior, infantry junior); factors which apply in the UK but not in Canada (naval precedence over army); or what Queen Victoria was persuaded to arbitrarily sign her name to, to make new corps "more glamorous" (precendence of artillery over infantry and horse artillery over cavalry). Canadian precedence should be re-done, from scratch, for it to mean anything within the Canadian military.

The Army clearly should have precendence over the RCN and then RCAF. This is indisputable. Within the Army, the Infantry, Armour (descended from cavalry), and Artillery should clearly be the three senior corps, with company-sized units dating to 1869 by one argument, 1855 by another. Engineers are not far behind. After them, Royal Military College was founded in 1876.

After them, a Medical Service was formed in the 1890s. Whether it was called "Corps" originally or not should be irrelevent. The various "Corps" didn't lose their seniority when they became "Branches" during unification; therefore they should not be punished if in the 1890s they were called a "Service", or if in the 1900s they were initially called "Staff", "Service", or "School". After all, we date the seniority and precedence of The Royal Canadian Regiment and The Royal Canadian Dragoons to when both were called "School".

After the Medics come the Service, Ordnance, Guides, Signals, Veterinary, School of Musketry, Staff Clerks, and Postal Corps that were formed in the 1901-1914 period. They should all have seniority based upon their formation, not necessarily as upper case "C" Corps, but rather as organisations.

After them come the Corps first formed during the Great War: Dental, Machine Gun, Forestry, even Military Police. Then the ones formed during the Second World War: RCEME, CWAC, etc. I'm okay with Intelligence growing out of Guides, but new Corps like RCEME should date to their formation, not that of the RCOC.

Lastly, the idea of "continuous service" needs to be re-examined. If Reserve Army units can "perpetuate" CEF battalions and units that fought in the War of 1812 (and I think they should); if units can be placed on a "Sup Order of Battle" and retain their seniority and past history (and I think they should); then let's not pick favourites. Precedence should be based on concepts applied equally and impartially to everyone, not to some but not others.

Anyway, I should write something on this for the Canadian Army Journal, I guess. In fact, I think I will!

[Hussar100]

Perhaps in those days they were classed as "teeth arms"?













I'll get me coat.

[servicepub]

The question of precedence in the Canadian Army is of little interest to anyone in the Canadian Army. Its roots go back to the assembly of troops for the purpose of marching to war and horses went before men and the camp train followed the fighters. Over the centuries this has evolved/devolved but, other than some retired Colonels arguing about this in their club in 1932, I don't think anyone gives a poop.
Go ahead and submit an article to the learned journals. You'll forgive me however, if I choose to spend my time in other, more meaningful, pursuits - such as contemplating the inside of my eye-lids.
C

[REMEVMBEA1]

Originally Posted by Phillip Herring

I think that Ed is right. I went through my copy of The Regiments and Corps of The Canadian Army and made the following observations:

1. RCAMC authorized 2 Jul 1904
2. RCDC - next in precedence after RCAMC - Militia component authorized 20 Apr 1915
3. RCOC authorized 1 Jul 1903
4. RCEME - next in precedence after RCOC - authorized 1 Feb 1944.

Since RCEME was formed from RCOC, it follows that its precedence is directly related to the parent corps. I think that this is what happened with RCDC.

Now, there was a "Medical Staff Corps" - the badge is shown in Mazeas - and I would be curious to know when they were authorized as they are not mentioned in The Regiments and Corps of The Canadian Army.

Phil

This would be the same precedence system as the Royal Corps of Signals succeeding the Royal Engineers that they were formed from the Royal Engineers although I believe the Royal Canadian Signals were formed originally as signals not as a component of the R C Engineers.

[Seathanaich]

Originally Posted by servicepub

The question of precedence in the Canadian Army is of little interest to anyone in the Canadian Army. Its roots go back to the assembly of troops for the purpose of marching to war and horses went before men and the camp train followed the fighters. Over the centuries this has evolved/devolved but, other than some retired Colonels arguing about this in their club in 1932, I don't think anyone gives a poop.
Go ahead and submit an article to the learned journals. You'll forgive me however, if I choose to spend my time in other, more meaningful, pursuits - such as contemplating the inside of my eye-lids.
C

It's an interesting sociological phenomenon that some people who claim to have no interest in something will go to the effort of writing and submitting a comment upon it.

[servicepub]