Lady Grey's Light Horse

Real women

The picture is of Co. A of the 62nd. St. John Fusiliers, Captain Sharp commanding. There is also Co. B, Captain Dunning commanding. These were female drill units, not regulars. I have found Sarah Emma Edmonds, who served as Franklin Thompson in the 2nd Michigan Infantry during the Civil War. She fought in several battles without discovery. When Sarah got malaria, she deserted. The POD changes her life here. Sarah returns to T.O. and has a family. A daughter debuts into Society in 1890. Catherine Seeley is a founding member of the L.G.L.H.. By 1900, they are a fully worked up unit with the best equipment. A visiting British officer having seen them exercise, remarked "A good unit, except they addled brained women, who should be at home". I must now come up with a good reason for the PM to use them. It cannot be simple pique at the British.
 
Last edited:
Money

People, the only reason I can think of is money. The women would have to offer their service free of cost and to pay all expenses. Col. Seeley's "Our blood, our money" to the PM is the best I can do. Is that good enough? Or am I to go quietly into the night?
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
People, the only reason I can think of is money. The women would have to offer their service free of cost and to pay all expenses. Col. Seeley's "Our blood, our money" to the PM is the best I can do. Is that good enough? Or am I to go quietly into the night?

It´s a long shot, but... if they unit is sent into the general vicinity of the war zone, either as a morale booster, as "mascots" or to embarass the men into fighting harder, but is stationed in a very very quiet place to keep them out of harm´s way, and the enemy then decides to attack exactly that place, either not knowing the women are there, or to score a hit against morale... then the women could see some action. The results of said action would then determine the further fate of such women´s units.
 
People, the only reason I can think of is money. The women would have to offer their service free of cost and to pay all expenses. Col. Seeley's "Our blood, our money" to the PM is the best I can do. Is that good enough? Or am I to go quietly into the night?


Let me explain to you again that these "units" were merely social organizations with military trappings to varying extents. They were not militia units and they were never meant to be militia units. They were the late 19th Century equivalent of the Junior League, book clubs, and other groups which promote civic ideas and volunteerism among middle and upper class women.

They may have had uniforms, organized themselves in a military fashion, engaged in quasi-military drills, and even had military "advisers", but the idea that they were in any way viewed as actual military units comes from your 21st Century incomprehension of their true nature and nothing else.

When you remember the furor resulting from upper class women like Jenny Churchill going to South Africa as part of privately funded, volunteer hospital groups you'll begin to understand why any suggestion like the fictional Lady Grey's Light Horse or their historical counterparts being thought of as actual military units is asinine.

These garden clubs masquerading as riflemen and cavalrymen are not going to be sent anywhere near a war and the closest they'll get to any soldiers is when they host a ball for officers.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
These garden clubs masquerading as riflemen and cavalrymen are not going to be sent anywhere near a war and the closest they'll get to any soldiers is when they host a ball for officers.

To be fair that's a pretty close description of the militia at the time.
 
To be fair that's a pretty close description of the militia at the time.


Nearly all male militia was liable to call up, at least in the US and before the reforms which replaced most militia units with the National Guard.

The all-female variety were social groups and nothing more. In the ACW you had women dressing like Zouaves while sewing bandages, but that didn't mean they were going to be drafted. :rolleyes:
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Nearly all male militia was liable to call up, at least in the US and before the reforms which replaced most militia units with the National Guard.

The all-female variety were social groups and nothing more. In the ACW you had women dressing like Zouaves while sewing bandages, but that didn't mean they were going to be drafted. :rolleyes:

The English militia at the time was a disaster. It was a social club and little else. I'm not sure when it happened to the National Guard, but I know it was that for most of the period between the civil war and WW2.
 
The English militia at the time was a disaster. It was a social club and little else.


You're missing the point.

Those English militia units were supposed to be available as military units. Whether that capability was ignored or not is besides the point. The various groups of uniformed women groups whose pictures the OP and others found and immediately misinterpreted were never meant to be military units at all.

The intent is what matters. Male militia units were intended to be military units no matter what the reality may have been while the intent behind female "militia" was to play dress up.

I'm not sure when it happened to the National Guard, but I know it was that for most of the period between the civil war and WW2.
You seriously need to look at the post-ACW history of the US militia and National Guard. Some militia units were little more than social organizations, others were professional, if part-time, military units, others were somewhere in between, and still others were both. Root's reforms in 1903, which were a result of the militias' performance in the Span-Am War, weeded out most of the "social" militia units by linking federal support to actual military drills and readiness.

In the wars that followed, the US has fielded entire divisions made up of federalized NG units. In WW1, many of the "socially focused" militia units which had opted out of the earlier reforms still managed to enlist as entire groups under their own officers albeit into national units and "mixed focus" NG units, Boston's First Corps of Cadets, acted as both a WASP social organization and a trained infantry unit still existed. In WW2, some NG divisions had been called into active service well before the US entered the war or were used as cadre to build the many divisions that were needed.

The point still remains that these female "militias" were social organizations only, were meant to be social organizations only, and were viewed as social organizations only. Looking at a photo of uniformed women from the 1890s holding rifles and believing they were actual militia members is like looking at a photo of children "trick or treating" from the 1960s and believing hordes of midget witches, hobos, and pirates roamed the streets.
 
Last edited:
Female soldiers

Don Lardo, I do not understand your hate-on for my "Fantasy" soldiers. I admitted my first error. Found real women, who fought really, in the Civil War. Created a "social setting of a rare chance" and still, you take me from pillar to post. Why is my TL such an offence to you? Is the real and increasing use of women of the US military at the sharp end, offensive to you?
 
Don Lardo, I do not understand your hate-on for my "Fantasy" soldiers. I admitted my first error. Found real women, who fought really, in the Civil War. Created a "social setting of a rare chance" and still, you take me from pillar to post. Why is my TL such an offence to you? Is the real and increasing use of women of the US military at the sharp end, offensive to you?
Don't take it personally. Don Lardo is an extremely blunt poster and he finds your setting implausible. He'll do it to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Don Lardo, I do not understand your hate-on for my "Fantasy" soldiers.


I do not "hate" you fantasy soldiers. I very much dislike, however, repeated and deliberate incomprehension.

Found real women, who fought really, in the Civil War.

You found women who fought disguised as men, a practice that dates back to antiquity. What you didn't find was any instance during the period in question of actual military units comprised of females and intended to serve in combat.

Created a "social setting of a rare chance" and still, you take me from pillar to post.

By taking you from pillar to post I'm explaining to you again what I and others in the thread have been telling you from the first. In the words of another poster, you're talking out of your ass. You've also refused to understand or acknowledge the cultural context in which these "militia" groups existed. This continued pretense that somehow you don't realize those facts has worn very thin.

Why is my TL such an offence to you?

This TL doesn't offend me. Instead it is the repeated and deliberate incomprehension behind this TL which offends me.

Is the real and increasing use of women of the US military at the sharp end, offensive to you?

Nice try, but attempting to smear me with sexism isn't going to work. Women are full citizens and are fully able to meet all the obligations of citizenship.
 
goodbye

I will quit my mulish behavior and leave the field to all of you. Enjoy yourself, I will pop around, to read the stories.]
 
Top