« I'm so confused | Main | I still love Steve Almond »
more confusion, but this time I fear...
it has to do with socialization particular to gender.
There are things that don't stick in my head. I can look them up a hundred times (I have looked them up a hundred times) and I still don't remember a day later if a corporal is higher or lower than a sergeant, or what a philips screwdriver looks like. These are things completely within my sphere of intelligence, of course. I could, if I really wanted to, remember this kind of thing. Just as my husband could remember, if he really wanted to, how to make a roux or sew on a button. But we are the products of our upbringing, and in some areas at least, we don't fight against those divisions of labor.
However. Given the kind of stories I write, I have to concern myself with these kinds of details. The same way Preston and Childs should have done the basic legwork to figure out that lace isn't embroidered, I have to be careful that I don't mix up the fact that a company is led by a captain (in the U.S. army) and a brigade by a colonel. Facts like that are easy enough to figure out. I have a book I use a lot called The Order of Things, by Barbara Ann Kipfer.
Except. There's always an except, I know, but bear with me: Except for the fact that reference works like The Order of Things seldom take a historical perspective. I need to know about how ranks were ordered for the militia in 1814. Can I use the current day army system? Probably it's not going to be right in the details. Can I overlook that probability? I have to make myself, sometimes. It's easy to get so lost in the research that a day is spent on a really insignificant detail. Such as this:
War of 1812, Battle of New Orleans (or really, battles, from December 1814 through January 1815): approximately 350 men in the prestigious uniformed militia (company?) under Major Plauche, divided into four distinct (units? platoons?) under Captains. Each with its own very fancy uniform. These were the sons of the first families, dressing up to go to war. One of my characters is in the Hulans, as one of those four (units? platoons?) was called. And what exactly does THAT word mean? What's a Hulan? Pardon me while I go query the OED and a couple other research sites... okay.
Hulan is a variant of Uhlan, "A special type of cavalryman or lancer in various European armies (originally in Slavonic countries, esp. Poland; subsequently spec. in the German Empire)". (OED)
So, I'm wondering, why would a Francophone militia (unit? company?) headed by a native Frenchman in a fancy uniform call themselves after an originally Polish type of (unit? company?). They had another name too, Dragons a Pied, or Dragoons on Foot, which makes me laugh. I keep misreading it as Dragons on Foot, and I see a line of big ole dragons drudging down the road in army boots. Also from the OED, on the term dragoon:
A species of cavalry soldier. The name was originally applied to mounted infantry armed with the firearm (sense 1). These gradually developed into horse soldiers, and the term is now merely a name for certain regiments of cavalry which historically represent the ancient dragoons, and retain some distinctive features of dress, etc.Clearly the New Orleans uniformed militia companies didn't consult the OED, because they did call themselves Dragoons.In France, the edict of Louis XIV, 25 July 1665, ranked dragoons among infantry, and this was their status until 1784. In Montecuculi's time, a1688, they still ordinarily fought on foot, though sometimes firing from horseback; when Simes wrote, 1768, they mostly fought on horseback, though still occasionally on foot. The French règlement of 1 Jan. 1791, confirmed by the décret of 21 Feb. 1793, classed them among horse soldiers, after the cavalry proper. In the British Army, the Cavalry are now (1896) divided into Life Guards, Horse Guards, Dragoon Guards, Dragoons, Hussars, and Lancers. Earlier classifications made the Hussars and Lancers subdivisions of the Dragoons. (See quot. 1836.) In the U.S. army the term is not used.
I think you've got an idea how this all snowballs. I hope you're suitably appalled. I'm going to go try to do some more writing, and not worry about Hulans and Dragoons for the moment.
October 13, 2005 05:09 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/560
Comments
The Australian War Memorial (or, possibly, the Army History Unit?) has a great series of charts depicting rank structure in each of three services, and another of the basic brigade/company/unit etc structures for each of the major conflicts. I use these; heaps easier than trying to make sense of the written descriptions. I have no idea if there's a similar organisation in the States, but it might be worth touching base with them if there is? Also, the Imperial War Museum website has some good information about the structures of various military units, both British and opposing forces.
Posted by: Meredith at October 13, 2005 11:58 PM
The Uhlans were a cavalry unit in Eastern Europe (I think) of such fearsome reputation that children would scream and soil themselves if told that they were coming. Seriously. I can't remember where I read this but it's the impression I retain. If true, the later unit probably called themselves that to trade on the real Uhlans' reputation.
Posted by: Tim Scott at October 14, 2005 04:02 PM