Talk:Dragoon

Military history: Early Modern / Napoleonic era / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)
	World War I task force

Merge in mounted infantry

I think the article mounted infantry should be merged into this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That was indeed originally what dragoons were, but the term "mounted infantry" began to be commonly used long after dragoons had become standard cavalry. -- Necrothesp 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- too many similarities between the two - Brian Stout.

Keep them separate. Dragoons and mounted infantry may have had similar functions in their respective beginnings but they did not share a common time frame and evolved into quite different types of horse soldiesrs.

I agree with those who disagree - keep them separate - they are not the same. Dragoons morphed into something different over time. There should also be mention of the Australian Light Horse units of WWI in the Mounted Infantry article. As well, add a link to the Cavalry article at the bottom of the Dragoons page. -- Tom Rycroft, 6 Apr 06

I agree with Tom just use the link at the bottom of the page.

The categories should not be merged. The Society of the Military Horse has started a thread on its website on the merger of these topics, and this topic in general. Pat H. http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6393

Dragoon page should not be listed under pigeon breeds Dragoon

I am not sure if this should be folded into it or not, but it should not be listed under pigeon breeds, Dragoon. While there is a pigeon breed called Dragoon, this article has nothing to do with that breed.

John Verburg The Pigeon Cote www.pigeoncote.com

False Link

I removed the link to Dragon, because, well, it's not the right link. The Disambiguation page doesn't list a carbine called a dragon, so unless someone can provide the right article, I don't think this should have a hyperlink at all.

In case you didnt know...

In the game The Legend of dragoon, a Dragoon is a warrior said to come in time of need to fight such things as winglies. When in fact a dragoon is a soldier that rides on horseback. Also in the game a dragoon can gain five d lv ( dragoon levels). Maybe this is a thing that also reverts to history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.122.64.178 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just a small curiosity. The Portuguese army had a Cavalry group in the Colonial War, called the Angolan Dragoons, that used horses. Just to make a small footnote of history, as they look similar to dragoons, at least in some functions, like patrol and recon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.56.89 (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information re; American Dragoons worth it's own entry

I think the very detailed section regarding the US Dragoon regiments confuses the entry, which until this point appears to be a general overview of the cavalry unit type. It would be better to replace this section with a brief detail of the US Dragoons, and resection the additional information and historical detail in a new entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.109.150 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The extensive material assembled on historical American dragoons is excellent and would serve as a solid basis for a separate "U.S. Dragoons" article. It is however a bit out of place amongst a listing of surviving dragoon regiments in modern armies. Brief details recording the present day U.S. units with a dragoon heritage should be sufficient for this part of the general "Dragoon" article. Buistr (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Espcially as the subheadline is "Modern Dragoons", I is not appropiate to have a small essay about historial U.S. dragoons in the Early American Wars. Beringar —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The American entry should either be removed or placed in its own article if it merits independent treatment. Peter (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Dragoons

Since i've started to learn english, Everyone said that i shouldn't translate names, but in the Brazil section, all names are translated. I'm editing to correct this.

Original -> Translation, Pedro I -> Peter I, João IV -> John IV 189.59.190.59 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Dragoons

Added some details regarding Norwegian Dragoons. Kingvald (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Period when dragoons were established in national armies

I think that there is an error in the opening section of this article. That is the statement "During the late 18th century and the Napoleonic Wars dragoon regiments were formed in most European armies". Starting with the French Army (prior to 1669) dragoons were established in Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Wurttemberg, England, Sardinia, Portugal, Russia, Spain and Sweden during the second half of the 17th or the very early 18th centuries. The only significant exceptions amongst European armies appear to have been those of Denmark (1807) and the Netherlands (1849). If no one has any objections I will reword the sentence accordingly. Buistr (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

Is Image:2. Badisches Dragoner Rgt.jpg an illustration of Baden Dragoons? --Una Smith (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Emps

Short section titled "Popular Culture" added. Recorded the role in the [[Age of Empires III]. Improvement very, very welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident Mario (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the 18th century there were three tercios[...]. In 1704 disbanded

18th Century: 1701-1800, can't have been disbanded in 1704, or can't have been 3 tercios of Dragoons at the end of the 18th century. Dubious. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern use of horse-mounted troops

See this article on the use of horses in 20th century counter-insurgency warfare - http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237625.pdf The South African army had a horse-mounted infantry unit until 2006 when 12 SA Infantry Battalion was disbanded - http://www.dod.mil.za/sasoldier/2007/mar2007.pdf (page 28). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon and French guns

According to the French page, the name for the mounted infantry can't come from the weapons since they were never called Dragon in French. I therefore mark that statement as dubious. BP OMowe (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and the alternative explanation given by French sources (that dragons of the fire-breathing lizard variety were used as a symbol on the standards carried by some early mounted infantry units) seems more convincing. However it does seem that no-one really knows for sure.Buistr (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source which supports the "dragons on standards" origin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need to emphasize dismounted origins?

As discussed in the Wiki article for calvary in general, " Infantry who moved on horseback, but dismounted to fight on foot, were known in the 17th and early 18th centuries as dragoons, a class of mounted infantry which later evolved into cavalry proper while retaining their historic title." The dismounting is implied by classifying them as infantry, but we don't make it explicitly clear. Since this was a defining difference between calvary in general and dragoons specifically in earlier incarnations, it seems like this is an importnt thing to note in the lead, and elsewhere.12.11.127.253 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic period British cavalry

There seems to me some confusion in the article about the regiments and designations of British cavalry in the Napoleonic Wars period. Although regiments of dragoons were considered to be 'medium cavalry' in France, this is not the case in Britain, the concept of medium cavalry didn't exist. The heavy cavalry consisted of the Household Cavalry (3 regiments: 1st and 2nd Life Guards, and the Royal Horse Guards (Blues)), the Dragoon Guards (7 regiments) and the Dragoons (nominally 6 regiments, but the 5th Dragoons were disbanded for suspected treasonous intentions). The Household and Dragoon guards were considered separate, and the remaining regiments were 'line cavalry' numbered consecutively from 1 to (eventually) 25. The first 6 regiments (as I mentioned ) were "Dragoons" and were heavy cavalry (they had the same equipment and very similar uniforms to the Dragoon Guards), from 7 and up, they were regiments of light cavalry, termed 'Light Dragoons'. From 1806 a number of Light Dragoon regiments (7th,10th,15th and 18th) were renamed 'Hussars', though formally they were called "?th Light Dragoons (Hussars)". They had different uniforms and grew moustaches, but they had the same equipment and role as the remaining Light Dragoons regiments. All the heavy cavalry used the 1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword, and all the light regiments used the 1796 pattern light cavalry sabre.

That seems a very accurate summary of the somewhat complex history of dragoons/dragoon guards during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I wonder though if it is correct to distinguish Dragoon Guards from line cavalry. The sources I have agree that after 1746 the three senior regiments of Horse were converted into Dragoons for reasons of economy (dragoons although no longer mounted infantry were cheaper to equip and maintain). It was to compensate for the loss of status and lower pay that the regiments affected were given the grander title of Dragoon Guards. They remained line (in the sense of ordinary or mainstream) cavalry and did not become Household troops of any sort. All of which sounds like a recipe for desertion or mutiny in some armies but seems to have been accepted without demur. Buistr (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources call the Dragoon Guards 'line cavalry', but their status was anomalous. As you say their creation was due to a financial scam on the part of the government. They were not 'household regiments', but the 1st Dragoon Guards were brigaded with the acknowledged household regiments during the 1815 campaign. Also, strangely, any regiment (heavy or light) might be assigned royal escort duty (for example, in the summer of 1796 the 16th Light Dragoons were in attendance on George III at Weymouth). The infantry had no 'household regiments', but did have numbered guards regiments, with all other regiments numbered consecutively from 1st to 100+th. The Dragoon Guards were definitely senior to all other non-household cavalry regiments, but, in the best tradition of British ambiguity and fudging, their exact status, line or quasi-guards, seems to be elusive. Urselius (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dragoon-illustration.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some inaccuracies

From the Article:

"The Dragoon Guards regiments were the heavy cavalry regiments of the British Army, although by continental standards they were not the heaviest type of cavalry since they carried no armour (unlike cuirassiers).[20] While some of the cavalry regiments of the line were simply designated as regiments of dragoons i.e. medium cavalry, the lighter cavalry regiments, which were particularly mobile, became regiments of hussars, identified by their 1796-pattern light cavalry sabres[21] or became lancers, identified by the lances that they carried.[22]"

There was no distinction of equipment or type of mount (other than colour for some regiments "Scots Greys", "Queen's Bays") or role between regiments of Dragoon Guards and regiments of Dragoons - same helmet, same sword, , same carbine, same pistols, same saddle etc. The only differences were minor details of uniform (shape of cuffs). To say that one type was heavy and the other was 'medium' cavalry is erroneous, they were both heavy.

Starting from around 1745 there was a gradual introduction of light cavalry into the British army. After c. 1760 whole regiments of dragoons were converted into regiments of "Light Dragoons". By c. 1800 all regiments of dragoons numbered above the 6th were Light Dragoons - they had different uniforms and weapons and, in theory at least, lighter-fleshed mounts (though not necessarily shorter at the withers) from the heavy cavalry. Beginning in 1806-1807 four regiments of Light Dragoons were converted to hussars, the 7th, 10th, 15th and 18th - but officially their names retained the designation Light Dragoons, becoming, for example: "7th Light Dragoons (Hussars)". All regiments of Light Dragoons and Hussars used the 1796 pattern light cavalry sabre. See the first few chapters of Fletcher, Ian (1999), Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808–15, Staplehurst: Spellmount, ISBN 1-86227-016-3 Urselius (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]