How might the UK copy or even preempt the French Foreign Legion, what might the organisational/cultural differences be and what might it's effect on British military history be?
How might the UK copy or even preempt the French Foreign Legion, what might the organisational/cultural differences be and what might it's effect on British military history be?
Scenario 1:
IOTL the British had about 2 divisions' worth of Hanoverian exiles fighting in the Napoleonic War as the King's German Legion.
The rifle batallions of the 60th (Royal American) also had a high number of Germans.
The KGL units were considered elite units, and the cavalry were seen as the best the British ever had.
Perhaps after Waterloo cavalry and light infantry members of the Legion are offered to stay in British service.
Most decline and form the core of the Hannoverian Army, but enough stay on in the 60th and their own cavalry formation
the 60th Rifles become the King's own Hanoverian Rifles rather than the King's Royal Rifle Corps.
Scenario 2:
There was a totally unrelated British German Legion raised for service in the Crimea, along
with a Swiss and Italian Legion. None of these saw action, and were eventualy disbanded.
Perhaps if recruitment starts earlier and these units distinguish themselves in Crimea
(no charge of the Light Brigade?). Some settle in the Empire, but some see service
in the reformed British Army. Initially known as the Queen's Foreign Legion, maybe
renamed the Imperial Legion in the 1870s
In either scenario, we might see recruitment from what eventually become the Dominions,
imparting valuable experience when the Dominions and their militaries are established.
There are a lot of Irishmen in the other services as well, the current CO of HMS Excellent is one of them.They decided to keep the Gurkhas after Indian independence. Perhaps they might establish a brigade so that Sikhs and others who still wished to serve in the British army could choose to do so, and this might morph into a sort-of Commonwealth foreign legion over time.
In truth, though, foreigners serve in the British Army in pretty high numbers. I know a number of battalions recruit from Fiji, for example, and citizens from the Republic of Ireland still join the Irish Guards (the British are forbidden from actively recruiting from Ireland, but Irish citizens can still join).
A few problems with this, I think. Firstly, you're conflating the two rifle regiments: only the 95th was low enough to be disbanded, and as such it was taken out of the numerical sequence in 1816, whereas the 60th had enjoyed an unbroken existence since the 1750s. Secondly, the 60th remained the Royal American Regiment until 1824, when it ceased officially to be a colonial corps and was renamed the Duke of York's Own Rifle Corps and Light Infantry to reflect its one rifle and one light infantry battalion. Thirdly, although it tended to be a wartime expedient, there were certainly foreign regiments on the UK establishment at the point being discussed- both unnumbered (1st Greek Light Infantry, Royal Corsican Rangers, deRoll's Regiment, De Watteville's Regiment) and numbered (97th Regiment, the Queen's Own Germans).the KRRC are formed to take 60th (and 95th) out of the infantry establishment because they are low seniority regiments that would otherwise be disbanded, its a separate Corps outside the Corps of infantry, at the end of the war. Having a foreign regiment in the UK establishment is alien at the time and unnecessary.
A few problems with this, I think. Firstly, you're conflating the two rifle regiments: only the 95th was low enough to be disbanded, and as such it was taken out of the numerical sequence in 1816, whereas the 60th had enjoyed an unbroken existence since the 1750s. Secondly, the 60th remained the Royal American Regiment until 1824, when it ceased officially to be a colonial corps and was renamed the Duke of York's Own Rifle Corps and Light Infantry to reflect its one rifle and one light infantry battalion. Thirdly, although it tended to be a wartime expedient, there were certainly foreign regiments on the UK establishment at the point being discussed- both unnumbered (1st Greek Light Infantry, Royal Corsican Rangers, deRoll's Regiment, De Watteville's Regiment) and numbered (97th Regiment, the Queen's Own Germans).[/QUOTE
Fair enough, but in 1815 its a colonial corps and outside the precedence of the line, although I have seen the name ( if not formal designation) from 1815, after all it was the 2nd Warwicks who won all those VC at Rorkes Drift.
Yes there are several foreign regiments in the British Service but they are no more parts of the British army than the Danish Corps in the Service of the Maritime Powers or other regiments raised as local expedient are and their continued existence after Waterloo is as much the result of the Congress taking its time and the slow communications.
The Sikhs ofc course are different to the Gurkhas, gurkhas were part of a separate treaty arrangement with the crown but the Sikh regiments were part of the Indian army establishment at independence ( d the Indian army also has Gurkha units.
But the basic point remains, while British units like the 60th may recruit people who are not subjects of the Crown (and ofc the KGL were just as Elector) specifying a unit of foreign troops is not part of the British tradition whereas it is in France in peacetime.
If it's outside the precedence of the line, what is the number 60 supposed to represent?in 1815 its a colonial corps and outside the precedence of the line
I don't think you have. Why would a regiment be unofficially named the King's Royal Rifle Corps after George III in 1815, be renamed after the Duke of York (and thereby downgraded) in 1824, and then be re-renamed the King's Royal Rifle Corps after William IV in 1830?I have seen the name ( if not formal designation) from 1815
I think here that you're neglecting the very important difference between the regiments which Britain pays for and equips (e.g. the Russo-German legion, most of the Portuguese army) which aren't part of the British army, and the ones which are placed on the British establishment and are part of the British army (e.g. the ones I cited earlier).there are several foreign regiments in the British Service but they are no more parts of the British army than the Danish Corps in the Service of the Maritime Powers or other regiments raised as local expedient are.
Congress of Vienna concluded 9 June 1815; Napoleon abdicated 22 June; Treaty of Paris was signed 20 November; Roll's regiment was disbanded 24 August 1816 in Venice; Royal Corsican Rangers disbanded at Corfu in March 1817. Arguing that this was due to slow communications, rather than the government waiting to ensure the regiments weren't required before disbanding them, is totally unfounded in fact.their continued existence after Waterloo is as much the result of the Congress taking its time and the slow communications.
For now we can leave aside the earlier history of Dutch regiments placed on the British establishment by William III, and the colonial regiments subsequently placed on the British establishment during peacetime (such as the Royal Malta Fencibles, added to the establishment in 1829). The 60th (Royal American) Regiment is quite clearly an integral part of the British army, as well as a colonial corps recruited in peacetime from foreigners. You can argue that foreign regiments aren't as important a part of the British tradition as for the French, but arguing they aren't a part of the British tradition is just as insupportable as arguing it took nearly two years for Corfu to find out about Waterloo.a unit of foreign troops is not part of the British tradition whereas it is in France in peacetime.