Talk:Spanish Legion

message: I Salute all!
Im curious to know whether non-spaniard soldiers were served with the Tercios during the Cold War?
The reason Im asking is that I heard a couple people saying, that "most expatriates then gone for the French Foreign Legion, but a handful also to Spain - and that was the harder way..."
Anyone who can tell if there were any other nationalities? (i hope its not secret)
User:Rabapone
:I don't know the details but there were people from Spanish Guinea. --Error 00:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to the list germans, belgians ( both a lot after 1945), french (some after the 60's), south americans (lately the most common ones) and morocans (only after 1956. At least with initial morocan nationality, but now most reared in Spain) I coudn't find any list of nationalities, and AFAIK foreigners were always a minority--Wllacer 09:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreigners in the Spanish Foreign Legion in the '50s-'80s 

message: Spanish Foreign Legion → Spanish Legion – The current official name is Spanish Legion. This is reflected in the Spanish version of the article already. The article was unilaterally moved from its original title (i.e. Spanish Legion) by someone back in July as a matter of personal preference without any discussion.E  Asterion u talking to me?
:The result of the discussion was to move. - Bobet 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: This name is incorrect at the present time. For example, NATO does not refer to it as Spanish Foreign Legion but Spanish Legion. The entry Spanish Foreign Legion could stay as a redirect even if it is an anacronyism. E  Asterion u talking to me? 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: But you agree with me that this new "Spanish Legion", whatever its official name, is the same as the unit commonly known as "Spanish Foreign Legion", and that no other unit can be called "Spanish Foreign Legion" now, don't you? In this case, the commonest name in use i "Spanish Foreign Legion", and this should be the name of the article.--Kwame Nkrumah 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: No, "Spanish Foreign Legion" is not the commonest name (neither in English  nor Spanish ). Even if it was, there may also be more "hits" for Rhodesia but we still call that country "Zimbabwe". This is an encyclopedia and needs to be accurate. The Spanish Legion was formerly known as Spanish Foreign Legion. IMHO, the article should reside at Spanish Legion and a redirect created for Spanish Foreign Legion, the way the articles were originally set up as. I will try to place a Request for Comments and contact people previously involved with the article too. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you read further up, you should convince yourself that Foreign Legion is not even the most commonly used form in English. E  Asterion u talking to me? 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Irrelevant? Somehow, I think the NATO designation should hold more weight than, say, what some random guy on Wikipedia decided. And if you're not convinced, I'd also take a look at what the  Spanish Army itself  calls the unit.  Albrecht 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose - Because in English is largely known as "Spanish Foreign Legion".--Kwame Nkrumah 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: This name is incorrect at the present time. For example, NATO does not refer to it as Spanish Foreign Legion but Spanish Legion. The entry Spanish Foreign Legion could stay as a redirect even if it is an anacronyism. E  Asterion u talking to me? 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: But you agree with me that this new "Spanish Legion", whatever its official name, is the same as the unit commonly known as "Spanish Foreign Legion", and that no other unit can be called "Spanish Foreign Legion" now, don't you? In this case, the commonest name in use i "Spanish Foreign Legion", and this should be the name of the article.--Kwame Nkrumah 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: No, "Spanish Foreign Legion" is not the commonest name (neither in English  nor Spanish ). Even if it was, there may also be more "hits" for Rhodesia but we still call that country "Zimbabwe". This is an encyclopedia and needs to be accurate. The Spanish Legion was formerly known as Spanish Foreign Legion. IMHO, the article should reside at Spanish Legion and a redirect created for Spanish Foreign Legion, the way the articles were originally set up as. I will try to place a Request for Comments and contact people previously involved with the article too. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you read further up, you should convince yourself that Foreign Legion is not even the most commonly used form in English. E  Asterion u talking to me? 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Irrelevant? Somehow, I think the NATO designation should hold more weight than, say, what some random guy on Wikipedia decided. And if you're not convinced, I'd also take a look at what the  Spanish Army itself  calls the unit.  Albrecht 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I doubt that a Spanish unit is stationed at Fort Bragg. --Error 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not that. The text is not very clear but it says the Legion have trained in various different areas, including SERE at Fort Bragg. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 00:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fort Bragg

message: Under Esprit de corps, what is 'Berber mistic a way', is it supposed to 'a mystic berber way'? Lilaac (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berber Mistic? 

message: The reference to the First Carlist War and the French and British (and Portuguese) units in Liberal service is a bit nonsensical. The Carlist raised a foreign battalion as well, made up for the most part of turncoats from the French Legion. There have been over the centuries many foreign units in Spaniard service, for instance the Walloon Guards, the Swiss regiments and even the so-called Royal Legion, a monarchist French emigré unit in the 1790s. Is the deployment of foreign legions in Spain in the 1830s a precedent to the Spanish legion raised in 1920? And why not, for instance, the French  invasion of 1822 to restore Ferdinand VII as an absolutist monarch and Philip V's Flemish regiments? In the 18th century there was at times a Regimiento Real Extranjero (Royal Foreign Regiment).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First Carlist War (1833-1840)... 

message: This article could be improved by adding a list of all nationalities that served in the Spanish Legion since 1920.  As a guide, see the article about the French Foreign Legion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.66.90 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of nationalities 

message: I am in no way an authority but even with the most basic aquaintance with the subject one can see the problems.
To begin with, the terminology regarding the name of the Legion is confused and contradictory.
Tercio/Tercios
The name at formation was Tercio de Extranjeros (The archaic term Tercio (lit. 'third') revived from the C17th and for which the origins are disputed,  has no exact translation. I think it is better translated as "Regiment of Foreigners" (or even "Foreign Regiment"). "The Foreigners' Regiment" would be rendered asTercio de los Extranjeros.)
The reference to Legion Extranjera is therefore unhelpful without explaining how and when the name of La Legión was applied formally (clearly it was used informally from the beginning by Milan-Astray whose 1923 account of the unit's formation was titled  La Legión.
The inserted disquisition on the etymology of extranjera would belong in a footnote, if it weren't incorrect and contradictory. Extranjera is clearly an adjective, the name being taken from the French Légion étrangère on which the Spanish Legion was originally modelled. To have the meaning attributed, I am fairly sure extranjera would require a preposition and take the masculine form.  In any case, the distinction is too slight to contribute much to a reader's understanding.  The dual-meaning of 'composed of Foreigners' and 'to serve abroad' is inherent in both the French and Spanish title.
It is also unhelpful in the next heading- 'Early Campaigns'- to refer to "the tercios" without explaining the development of the Legion from being one Regiment- the Tercio de Extranjeros with three banderas- to  a Legion of several numbered Tercios, each functioning as something between a Regiment in U.S.terminology and a Brigade group in British parlance, with several banderas- each with its own identity-  under command.
Bandera,  another archaic military term ,  is better translated literally as 'banner' or 'standard.' Deriving from the medieval term baniere or 'banner' and referring specifically to the standard of the commander (or 'banneret'), the term  was used to describe the basic unit  of the larger 'battle'/battaille/bataglia,  hence its eventual replacement by the word bataillon or battalion ('little battle').
A short section on these archaic terms used by the Legión, perhaps with a reference to the halberd, crossbow and musket in the unit's badge, might be appropriate.
Order of Battle ("Units comprising modern Spanish Legion")
This is a mess. The list of units  and sub units needs to be tabulated properly to give a clear sense of the hierarchy and organisation of the units. The Spanish version will provide a suitable template. There are also errors: "Legion Brigade "HM King Alfonso VII"" should read "Alfonso XIII." 
The half-translations of the unit names are clumsy. Brigada de la Legión, Tercio de la Legión and Bandera de la Legión are clear enough.  It's probably not necessary  for Bandera to be preceded by Legión every time (or vice versa). It isn't written that way on the  Legión website.
I don't think "procession" is a verb - as "in every Holy Week a platoon of legionnaires disembarks to procession the Christ of the Good Death" ('Present role and deployment'). 
"To process"? " To carry/ to bear aloft in procession?" 
"Disembarks" may be accurate but it introduces a maritime note which is confusing. Was the Malaga contingent posted to Marocco? Why do they have to come by sea? Too much information. "Returns" would probably suffice.
 
That's enough to be going on with. 
JF42 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is incoherent and inaccurate 

message: Their Civil War history seems to be glossed-over. There must have been some historic engagements. Valetude (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil war record 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Spanish Legion. 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/20150413052727/http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/20150403_1_Coaltion%20Build_Partner_Capacity_Operations_continue_in_Iraq.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/20150403_1_Coaltion%20Build_Partner_Capacity_Operations_continue_in_Iraq.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223220854/http://www.ejercito.mde.es:80/organizacion/legion/principal.htm to http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/principal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Spanish Legion. 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/20111114104110/http://www.lalegion.es/1/11.html to http://www.lalegion.es/1/11.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118085108/http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/igresaresfacil.htm to http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/igresaresfacil.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217064009/http://www.lalegion.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Acredo to http://www.lalegion.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Acredo
*Added  tag to http://www.santacruzchronicles.com/scw1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/principal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could anyone who knows this subject well please clarify the final bullet point under Traditions? It currently reads "Formerly the Legion did its marchpasts in the same way as the rest of the Spanish Armed Forces, today, all officers and the colour guards only do a hand salute and eyes right when marching past. When on the halt and giving full salutes, they only do a hand salute." This helpfully tells me that in the past they did something unclear in the same unclear way that the rest of the army did it, but that now they do the unclear thing differently!!! Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditions - marchpasts