Talk:Troupes de marine

message: I thought that there were three separate things:  Colonial Troops (other than the Senegalese or Algerian troops, which were always Army) which were moved about by the Navy, but did not storm beaches;  Marine Infantry ("Fantassins marins," nicknamed "Marsouins"); and Marine Artillery ("artillerie marin," or so, nicknamed "Bigors"). The last two are indeed equivalent to what became the Royal Marines and the USMC. But in France, they have been subsumed under the Army, not hanging around the Navy. What is the author of this piece doing by confusing this with the descendants of the Colonial Troop forces?  I can't figure it out. Further, there are specialized commando units, too. This is difficult to sort out by web sources in English or simple French (i.e., not an on-line volume of military history).  --Sobolewski 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is at the level of its role within French armed forces not at the organisational point of view. As you pointed out, TDM are part of the French army like the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy and in that regard they differ from the USMC but they serve the same purpose. Blastwizard 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I'm having a lot of trouble getting the dates and names of the predecessor marine organizations to the TDM straight. I was able to see snippets of Louis Beausza, "La formation de l'armee coloniale", Paris, L. Fournier et cie., 1939 on Google Books and think that it might have the best analysis. The other book that I put in the References section of the article - Arthur Girault, "Principes de colonisation et de législation coloniale", L. Larose et L. Tenin, 1907 has some information. Another source is "Journal du palais: recueil le plus ancien et le plus complet de la jurisprudence" By Ledru-Rollin, Cours, France, Cour de cassation, Cours d'ap in the discussion of 2 July 1840. The last two are completely readable on Google Books. I don't read French, so it would probably best if a French speaker checked this out. Jmosman (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessor marines to the TDM

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support as an incorrect translation. 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Fellow Troopers:
The Troupes de Marine are NOT Marines in the RM or USMC sense.
The REAL French Marines are the Fusiliers Marines, part of the French Navy. They wear naval uniforms and use naval ranks.
 
Sorry to disagree on that, as Marines are troops specialised in overseas operations, which is the role of the Troupes de Marine within French armed forces, whereas Fusiliers marins' main function is to protect French naval bases; the Commandos on the other hand are French equivalent of British SBS or US Navy seals.
It is not because the fusiliers marins, wear naval uniforms and are part of the navy that they are marines, anyway USMC is not part of the US Navy either. But to be fair, fusiliers marins and troupes de marine were from 1622 (compagnies ordinaires de la mer) to 1856 the same unit, and were separated with the fusiliers marins for protecting naval bases and troupes de marine (troupes coloniales) for oversea operations. In addition, troupes de marine were for a long time under the supervision of ministry of sea before being transfered to the ministry of defense. --Blastwizard 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intro changed to reflect this Lloydelliot10 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. If we refer to the definition given in the article Marine, the TDM better corresponds to this definition : "A marine is a member of a force that specializes in expeditionary operations such as amphibious assault and occupation. The marines traditionally have strong links with the country's navy.". The TDM are boat-transported amphibious troops, while Fusiliers-Marins are more similar to coastal defence troops. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that they fit the above description.  The various Ma Regiments are spread through the French Army Bdes, with no common theme of specialising in expeditionary operations such as amphibious assault and occupation and with no common role connected to Naval/Amphibious operations.  In what way is 3e RAMa for instance a marine unit?  19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are mentionned as "marines" in the cited material. That's all that matters. The "incorrectly" has to go unless you can find and cite a source that says it. Otherwise it's opinion vs current source, in which case it's the later that matters. Don Durandal (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All TDM regiments are either airborne or amphibious, but not exclusively if they had to be employed exclusively for that purpose, they wouldn't do much, would they? As far as I know there are US Marines, Royal Marines and Troupes de Marine in Afghanistan, they are not doing any naval infantry job there but are still Marines. Blastwizard (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's unwrap this axle. There are Marines (USMC types) and marines (as in naval infantry). ("All Marines are marines, but not all marines are Marines.") In earlier discussion for this article there was a basis established to use the term "marine" as a common noun. Continuning to follow that usage will be clear. --S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ain't Marines 

message: There is no evidence that any units of the Artillerie Coloniale were present at Gallipoli. Reliable sources that underpin this sweeping assertion have not materialised. Keith H99 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Dardanelles fallacy disputed1

message: There is also a wild and sweeping assertion that two thirds of the Corps expéditionnaire d'Orient were composed of Troupes coloniales, and no evidence whatsoever to support this "theory". Keith H99 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Dardanelles fallacy disputed2