Talk:Connaught Rangers

Rangers mutiny in India in 1920

I'm surprised that there's no information on the Rangers' mutiny in India in 1920. Anyone know much about it?

---

Sorry, been really busy, nearly finished the whole article which will include the Mutiny SoLando 19:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Devil's Own

Any idea how they got the nickname? --Henrygb 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

General Thomas Picton, during his time commanding the regiment, was known to despise them; he gave them the nickname not as a compliment, but as an insult for (as he saw it) their drunken and criminal antics. As British and Irish troops often do however, they took this insult and turned it on its head into something they took pride in. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:FCE4:D7DF:2C92:AA12 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The nickname 'Devil's Own' only appears in the mid-19th century, first recorded in the 'Naval & Military Gazette' of October 8th, 1853-

" SOBRIQUETS OF REGIMENTS:

88th - The Devil’s Own- The 87th being the “Prince’s Own” General Picton named the 88th “The Devil’s Own,” as a compliment to their dauntless bravery in presence of the enemy, and their uniform irregularity in camp and quarters.{Footnote: Connaught Boys}"

This appears to be a Victorian invention. There is no reference to the epithet or its origins in the regimental Historical Record published in 1837 nor in the writings of William Grattan a former officer in the 88th (‘Reminiscences of a Subaltern,’ The United Service Journal, 1830-33; Adventures with the Connaught Rangers, 1847) who records only that soon after the regiment joined Picton’s Third Division, when two soldiers of the 88th had been flogged for stealing a goat, Picton had publicily denounced the regiment for being known in the army as “Connaught Foot-pads.” The officers of the regiment protested and Picton later withdrew his comments, after which he always addressed the regiment as ‘Rangers of Connaught.’

The 1853 list was reprinted in the Naval & Military Gazette of October 5th,1861, as The Devil’s Own, Connaught Boys,which was then taken up but misconstrued by author Richard Trimens who rendered it as “The Devil’s Own Connaught Boys” in his The Regiments of the British Army, Chronologically Arranged of 1878. Thereafter, books and press articles repeated one or other version and it became established as fact.

JF42 (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

A rather nice start, and a brief skim seems to indicate that it's well-written and relatively thorough. The sections on the Peninsular and Crimean War are absurdly short, however, and in my personal opinion, it looks bad. If these sections can be expanded, that would be great; if not, perhaps the statement that the Rangers served in these conflicts should be included somewhere else. Perhaps at the beginning of the following section - "After having served in the Peninsular (18xx-xxxx) and Crimean (xxx) Wars, the Rangers returned to Britain..." LordAmeth 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

There's also 88th Regiment of Foot (Connaught Rangers). I suggest that is merged here. Alternatively, the specific 88th Foot history here could be merged there, and this left only for the post 1880 history of the combined 88th & 94th. (The early history of the 94th is missing from this; that page redirects here, though). Gwinva (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer two seperate pages for the prior regiments Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've transferred the pre-1881 88th Foot info to the appropriate article. There is nothing here on the 94th, so that page needs creating in the future. Gwinva (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More pre-1881 info may have snuck in since this. The page confusingly lightly refers to the napoleonic era units, instead of simply sending us to that earlier regiment's page. Not sure of the format for such a direction, so I'll leave it to a more experienced editor. Could the page titles include these temporal discriminations?EdJ343 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

connaught rangers association

i would just like to let you know that their is an excellant association dedicated to preserving the name connaught rangers,which was formed in 2002 in boyle co.roscommon,ireland.their website is connaughtrangersassoc.com well done on connaughtrangers information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.206.19 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The site suggests that two VC were awarded to Private Fitzpatrick and Private Danagher. I believe that this should be Private Francis Fitzpatrick and Private Thomas Flawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.252.229.246 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish regiment of the British Army

This article has used the phrase "Irish regiment of the British Army" for as long as it has existed, until MFIreland, who appears to have POV on this, chose to delete it. To make this change, to elide the fact that the Rangers were Irish from inception, just as much as the Scottish Dragoons were raised in Scotland and the Anglians in East Anglia. It is a critical fact of their history and unconscionable to seek to erase it. Such a major change in this, as in any other article, should only be made after securing consensus on the talk page. MFIreland has made no attempt to do this. I am reverting again and I invite him to engage in debate before redoing the deletion. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite an odd thing to remove, particularly without explanation. It was important facet of the regiment. --RA (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is an essential part of their history and identification---even the name makes it clear they are from Connaught. In addition, the mutiny in India is viewed as an aspect of the larger conspiracy between Irish and Indian nationalists against the British. This cannot be accurately understood if the Rangers are not viewed as an Irish regiment. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed. Given a similar pattern of edits on other articles, I have raised a concern/suggestion to the editor in question. Guliolopez (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether the Rangers were Irish or British ought to be settled by discussion rather than by unilateral effacement of the article.

There are interesting questions: Although the original regiment personnel were raised in Connacht, how long thereafter did the majority of the men remain Irish? Always? Or were the Irish ranks diluted by British recruits? After the amalgamation of the 88th and 94th regiments brought in a wave of Glaswegians, what proportion of Irish soldiers remained? When does a regiment cease to be Irish?

That Irishmen assisted British foreign and imperial military efforts complicates the Irish historical narrative. —O'Dea 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It cant be both. Its either Irish or British. The phrase Anglo-Irish is often used to imply links between the two but in this case I dont think it would work. The term "raised in" is often used in military unit articles. "raised in Ireland" may be the better option for the intro. --MFIreland (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can - until 1922 the island of Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely can. As others points out we need to be watchful of a tendency in the Irish (republican) historical narrative to raise contradictions like these where none existed. During the 19th century, almost half of the British army was composed of Irishmen. --RA (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course something can be both. Many phenomena do not fall neatly into comfortable EITHER/OR logical divisions but exist in BOTH/AND logical configurations, thereby complicating life for everyone and obliging us to think harder. We're not children who need to take comfort in simple categories. Reality is messier than fantasy. It's a biscuit in a bar. —O'Dea 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a book called "The Irish Regiments, 1683-1999" (R G Harris). It's about the Irish regiments, they are referred to throughout the book as Irish regiments. In "A Forlorn Hope: The Royal Dublin Fusiliers in the Kaiser's Battle" and other books on the Dubs it is described as an Irish regiment. I could pick dozens of other books where these well-known regiments are described as Irish regiments. This more than satisfies the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability, so the adjective should remain, not only here but also on the other sites that MFIreland has reverted. Hohenloh ⁺ 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Murder assertion

The assertion that Barror murdered 2 men is cited with ref to an unspecified passage in the "3rd Battalion, Connaught Rangers War Diary". Couple of issues with this.

Firstly, only two Rangers were recorded in the diary as being in Dublin over Easter - Leeson and Barror. Both were on leave in Dublin when the Rising started. (The rest of 3rd Battalion - according to the self same diary - were in Cork at the outbreak). Leeson reported to an officer in the RIR, and was deployed to the Crown Alley telephone exchange. Barror reported to an officer of the 10th Bn RDF, and is recorded as being involved in actions which resulted in the deaths of 2 snipers. There is nothing in the diary about "murdering" 2 people that I can see.

Secondly, while I could (of course) be missing something in the text, unless there was some kind of court-martial (of which there would be more record), it seems very unlikely that the Bn's own diary would blithely record someone as having "murdered" two people.

This claim either needs SPECIFICS from the diary (page number, copy of text, etc) which support the claim, or it needs to be reworded to reflect the facts available. Or it should be removed. Guliolopez (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

War Diary

A number of statements cite the 3rd Battalion war diary, without further information. Can we be informed as to where this can be read? Is it online anywhere? --Red King (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: the UK National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/war-diaries-ww1.htm) doesn't mention the 3rd Btn., presumably because it remained as a reserve. --Red King (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the 1916 section completely. The 3rd Btn. was solely a training battalion that never left Ireland so by definition [not being in the war] it couldn't have had a war diary. So I have to assume that the material contributed is fictitious since the source it cites in support does not exist. Of course I'd be happy to be proved wrong - just produce the source and say where it can be inspected. --Red King (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I had already tagged this.Hohenloh ⁺

Easter Week

Before you, anonymous contributor 109.154.157.211, make any further edits on any page you first need to conform to accepted Wikipedia standards of practice and proceedure and officially register with a "User:name" to enable questions arising from your edits be clarified and replied to on your talk page. You have been asked several times to name a recongnised historical source in which the mentioned "war diary" has been published, but you ignore providing this and the need for such verification. If I may make the comparison, your widespread style of editing is very reminicent of that earlier by blocked User:MFIreland. At any rate until verifiable sources are quoted, this section ought to be fought out here, but not on the article page. Osioni (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Osioni

Anon contributor IP 109.154.157.211 would appear to have taken on an additional new anon IP 86.168.0.62 identity (now blocked). Osioni (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about reporting this editor as a sockpuppet. Has this already been done? Hohenloh ⁺ 00:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of. His one day block appears to have been lifted again! Osioni (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sweeping Assertion (section The Rangers After 1922)

It is said here of the regiment, "The rolls of which bore the names of every family in Connaught." (The sentence is already pinpointed as needing citation.) That looks a literary distortion (POV?) to those who are aware the regiment also recruited Irishmen from elsewhere in Ireland, besides Englishmen in the First World War - one example being England international footballer Harry Chambers, a native of Northumberland, who enlisted after being signed up by Liverpool.Cloptonson (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Devil's Own" 2

The placing of the traditional nickname'The Devil's Own' adjacent to the regimental title is misleading, especially without further mention or explanation elsewhere in the article. Other regiments did have a collooquial name attached to their official title e.g. The Buffs, The Black Watch, The Cameronians. This was not the case with the Conanaught Rangers.

Although one of the better known regimental nicknames, as with many other regiments its origins appear obscure. In this case it seems to be often attributed to Major General Sir Thomas Picton during the Peninsular war, without a direct attribution I am aware of, while the earliest known written mention may only date from a mention in the 'Dublin University Magazine' in the mid C19th. These are both in reference to the former 88th, subsequently the 1st Battalion of the COnnaught Rangers formed in 1881.

Given that 'Devil's Own'as a nickname is so closely associated with the regiment, it would merit a separate paragraph or section giving reliable references to the origin of this tradition, rather than appearing as it does now at the head of the article. JF42 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me if you can find the sources. Dormskirk (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

See reference above in the earlier 'Devil's Own' section. Neither the regiment's Historical Record of 1837 nor the prolific writings of William Grattan, late of the 88th, make reference to such a nickname or its origin. The earliest reference to the nickname appears to be in a military journal of 1853 and then repeated, or misquoted, in other press articles or military histories thereafter. The fifty-year silence between 1810 and 1861 is eloquent, if not conclusive. Meanwhile, a few years earlier 'The Devil's Own' had indeed been bestowed as a nickname on one of the London volunteer corps, formed by lawyers of the Temple inn of court.

JF42 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have inserted a section into the article setting the nickname and its alleged origins in context. I do think, however, that attaching the nickname to the regimental title is incorrect.

JF42 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)