Talk:28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment of Foot

American Revolutionary War

I don't see anything in here about them being part of the ARW. Can Anyone confirm this? Adamdaley (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment of Foot. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160824000628/http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/28th-north-gloucestershire-regiment-foot to http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/28th-north-gloucestershire-regiment-foot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Back Badge

" 20:17, 1 October 2019 Factotem talk contribs...Undid revision 919083444 by JF42 (talk) According to the source (p. 75), the regiment was "granted" the distinction, it did not "assume" it."

As you will see, I have undone your reversion of 1.10.2019 to continue the conversation.

The source, Daniell's 'Cap of Honour' (1951) is a regimental history in the traditional vein and perpetuates the image of the Back Badge being 'granted' as a form of battle honour.

There are several points worth bearing in mind. In 1801, the custom of granting 'battle honours' as we understand them today had not been established. As it is, the Egypt campaign of 1801 was the first* to see the award of 'The Egyptian Badge' to be borne 'a distinguishing mark' on the colours of all the units in the expeditionary force. The 'A Sphinx, superscribed Egypt,' was the emblem which formed the basis of the badge later adopted by the 28th Regiment, for wear on the back of their caps. {* second only to the honour 'Gibraltar' awarded to the four infantry regiments that served for the duration in the siege of Gibraltar 1779-1782; supplemented with a badge in the 1830s}

The regiments then decided for themselves where else apart from on their colours they would show the 'Egyptian badge'. As time went on it appeared on cap badges, belt plates and drum shells; much later, on the collar of the coat. Only the 28th and their descendants ever showed it on the back of their caps, supplemented by their regimental number.

However, the 'Back Number,' as it came to be called, csnnot be connected with the verifiable presentation or communication of an award granted by authority.

Perhaps the more recent statement taken from the former 'Soldiers of Gloucestershire' website (ca. 2012), is more accurate when it states: "this unique distinction was first claimed by and then granted to the 28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment."

'Claimed' then 'granted.' In fact there was no 'granting' as such; that is to say, no investing with a distinction selected and awarded by the King in direct response to their exploits on the battlefield.

In the early 1820s a number of regiments were asked to explain the non-regulation distinctions displayed on their uniforms- mostly on headdress, for which no authority could be found in the records: the 42nd and their red hackle; the 5th Northumberlands and their white 'St Lucia' feather; the 28th North Gloucestershires and their 'Back Number.'

The explanation offered by the 28th has not survived but the response of the Adjutant General in 1823 makes the position clear (my italics):

"I have the honour to acquaint you that it was never our intention to deprive the 28th Regiment of any badge of honour they may have acquired by their distinguished service in Egypt and that there will be no objection to their retaining the plate they have been accustomed to wear on the back of their caps since that service for which this letter may be shown by you to the Inspecting General Officer as sufficient authority."

The 'Back Badge' as it came to be known was an ornament 'acquired' by the 28th regiment. When they returned fron Egypt in 1801 it was presented to all ranks by the colonel to commemorate their stand at Alexandria and worn for the rest of the French wars; a 'badge of honour; enshrined by custom and tempered in battle. Having provided a good account for the records they were duly granted permission- or as Cadell puts it, 'allowed'- to retain the distinction as a memento of their 'distinguished service.' The Duke of York was keen to restore authority but also believed in the value of such tokens for regimental 'esprit de corps.'

The badge was questioned once again in the 1840s, by the station Commandant at Chatham: "Sphinx and a brass number attached to the back part of officers Chacos and a brass number to that of the Chacos of the Soldiers," which prompted this judgement from on high:

"22 June 1843 Horse Guards, The Duke of Wellington does not object to the continuance in wear of these ornaments by the officers and soldiers of the 28th Regiment."

So all in all, I believe it is best not to take the reference from David Daniell too literally and instead reflect the nuance of what we know today. JF42 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The only source given for this statement is Daniell, who uses the term "granted". Your argument is compelling but lacking in sources, and I've heard similar from @Domdeparis:, a former officer in the Gloucestershire Regiment who was privvy to regimental lore. The problem here is sources; if you can add reliable sources to support this version of events, then by all means edit the article to reflect this version of events. In the meantime, I'm sorry but I'm reverting back to what the source says. Factotem (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources supplied by JF42 back up the the statement in the article that the privilege was accorded. In the regiment it was always said that it was the men of the 28th that started to customise their dress to commemorate this act of war and that permission was granted later on. Battle honours are carried on the colours and are "awarded" this unique element of dress was "authorised". There was a certain pride in the fact that it was the men who collectively "awarded" themselves this distinction and that the authorities eventually gave in and officially granted permission to wear the backbadge. This was part of the strength of county regiments the esprit de corps was so strong that in the face of the enemy or the powers that be, victory was always attainable. In the mess we held a regimental customs book that did not have a final page because any officer could propose a new custom linked with an historical regimental event. When I was dined in I had to eat a half cooked pigs ear from the tip of a sword whilst stand on the mess table after having recited the 1694 authorisation to raise a regiment "By beat of drum or otherwise". As glosters we often heard banter from other (less glorious) regiments that the backbadge was to know who we were when running away but we wore it with immense pride partly because it was something that had been fought for and obtained by men of the regiment to commemorate this act of courage and discipline. Thanks to the backbadge the men of the glosters could not forget the men of the 28th who fought back to back and this may be why the glosters had more battle honours than any other regiment. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The only source I can see in @JF42:'s post is the Soldiers of Gloucestershire museum website. I've checked that site, and the only reference to the acquisition of the back badge is in the account of the Battle of Alexandria at https://www.soldiersofglos.com/announcement/the-battle-of-alexandria/:

• "On March 21st 1801 a battle was fought outside Alexandria which resulted in the 28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment being awarded a unique distinction."
• "The gallant action of the 28th has been commemorated by the privilege of wearing the emblem of the Egyptian Sphinx on the back of the headdress."

Neither support the assertion that the regiment assumed the privilege, which is what JF42 is inserting.

I've found a JSTOR article written in 1946 by Lieutenant-Colonel Grazebrook, who fought with the Glosters in WWI and commanded the regiment after that war. It also does not explicitly confirm that the regiment assumed the honour, but is a good source for the official sanctioning of the back badge outlined by JF42 above, which I've paraphrased in a footnote. I've also amended the main text to say that the regiment "gained the unique privilege" (my emphasis). This wording remains substantially true to the source provided (Daniell) without giving the impression that the privilege was officially awarded immediately after the battle. I hope this is satisfactory. Factotem (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Points taken. I would submit, however, that if we were to amend Grazebrook's 'gained' to the Adjutant General's 'acquired' and amend 'unique privilege,' which still smacks of Victorian regimental puff (with all due respect to Dom and his comrades), to 'unique distinction, ' we would be doing our duty by all parties.

JF42 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Something about "acquired" nags at me. What about "For this action the regiment was permitted the unique distinction of wearing the regimental number..."? Factotem (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I would have to say that by juxtaposing 'For this action' and 'permitted' does truncate the time frame so as to suggest a much closer relationship between the battle, the assumption of the badge and official recognition than existed; an impression that I think we would do right to avoid. Otherwise the article risks being too much a reflection of later regimental tradition - which of course has its place in the narrative but should not dominate. That was the purpose of my original emendation.

Well... 'acquired' does have the merit of being from a contemporary and official document and, while Colonel Charles Cadell, late the 28th, wrote 'allowed' (1835)- the editor of the United Service Journal in discussing the distinction echoed the Adj. Gen. thus: "The 28th gained their title to this distinction in Egypt.....From this exploit the “Slashers”, as the 28th were familiarly styled acquired the emblem of their double front.." (November 1837)

Perhaps adapting the United Service Journal phrase might serve- "From this action the 28th acquired the unique distinction of wearing the regimental number both on the front and the back of its head-dress." What do you think?

JF42 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand the desire to avoid puffery, but there is an element of official recognition that I think should legitimately be accommodated. Unfortunately, there is no secondary source we can use to state, effectively, the regiment started to wear the back badge which was later officially sanctioned; we have only the later officially sanctioned part of the story. I would prefer to stick with "permitted". Perhaps qualifying that by stating "subsequently permitted" might, alongside the detailed footnote, address your concerns about concatenating the timescale? Factotem (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this further, we do have the source to state "After the battle, the regiment began wearing a badge on the back as well as the front of the headdress, a unique distinction in the British Army which was officially sanctioned in 1830." sourced to Grazebrook. Would that be satisfactory? Factotem (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. Looks good to me.

JF42 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Added "...to commemorate their action..." after "...front of the headdress..." to explicitly link the back badge to the battle. Feel free to remove that if you think it unnecessary. Well observed, BTW. A definite improvement to our knowledge of the regiment. Factotem (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree the subject was worth clarifying. Though- since you ask! - I do think the additional clause tends to unbalance your sentence. Rather than cut 'To commemorate the action' if you were to substitute it for 'After the battle,' that might do it. Then 'After the battle' can be taken as read. See below. I've tweaked the word order to accommodate and also made the badge reference more specific, which I think gives it additional clarity. See if you agree. It seems to hang together well.

'To commemorate this action, the 28th thereafter wore the regimental number on the back of their headdress as well as the front, a unique distinction in the British Army which was officially sanctioned in 1830.'

JF42 (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure "thereafter" is necessary; the timescale is unambiguously implied by the fact that it was done to commemorate their action in the battle. I would also be wary about being too specific about the design of the cap badge - Grazebrook specifically writes that there is no information about its original shape or design, and his illustrations indicate that it varied over time and between officers and other ranks. His illustrations indicate that it could have included the sphinx, the regimental number, or both. The number wasn't dropped until 1881, when the 28th and 61st were amalgamated and made it obsolete. Safer option might be to use "regimental badge" rather than "regimental number". Factotem (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)