Talk:Battle honour

message: WP:CSB seems to sum up what is wrong with the article.
As I noted here, streamers are actually European in origin and copied by the US.  Prussia and the USSR (maybe Russia post 1991 as well?) used ribbon-shaped honours.  The article imposes an anglocentric view despite repeated attempts by others to remedy the situation.  In any case the article is in need of attention of a European-military historian (...not a military historian from Europe :D).
118.90.103.146 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Streamers" 

message: After reading the article a while back, I noticed that there was little (if any) information in regards to battle honours as applied to naval units. Its boradly the same but slightly different, particularly in how they are displayed (ships have no regimental colours), and the concept of 'single ship' honours (where a battle honour for a one-on-one or many-on-one engagement is treated differently to a many-on-many engagement).
I've knocked something together in userspace (User:Saberwyn/Naval_battle_honour), but I think it would be better if editors more involved here integrate the info into the article, because I don't have an idea how it should be done. -- saberwyn 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval battle honours 

message: The back badge was not awarded to the 28th Regiment for the battle of Alexandria. Like all unit that served in the Egypt campaign, the 28th were awarded the Sphinx which featured prominently in its appointments thereafter. 
The 'Back Number' was a badge assumed by the Regiment, without authority, for wear on the back of their caps to commemorate the front and rear rank fighting back to back when French cavalry penetrated the line at Alexandria. The earliest know date for this is 1805.
It was only in May 1823 that this custom was acknowledged by the Adjutant General's Office  in  a letter which merely states:
"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." 
When an Inspection General later questioned the 'back badge' as a deviation of dress, the AG department replied:
"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."
There were several other instances of regiments assuming distinctions on their own cognizance  which much later were given official permission, some with Royal authority, others less formally as in the case of the 28th. Tradition has later converted these into awards and honours which is not strictly true.JF42 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  28th Regiment Back badge 

message: The article says "The first battle honour to be awarded in the British Army was granted to the 15th Hussars for the Battle of Emsdorf in 1760." The next paragraph states "The earliest battle honour in the British Army is Tangier 1662–80". Unless Tangier was awarded retroactively after 1760, this is a contradiction. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest/first? 

message: "The first battle honour to be awarded in the British Army was granted to the 15th Hussars for the Battle of Emsdorf in 1760."
Not so. The earliest honorary distinction in British army history was awarded to the Earl of Grannard's regiment for their conduct at the Siege of Namur in  1695. In addition to the title 'Royal Regiment of Ireland,' they  were granted the emblem of the 'Lion of Nassau' together with the motto Virtutis Namurcensis Praetium to be borne on colours and appointments.
'Tangier 1662' is the earliest campaign for which an honorary distinction has been awarded, which is different.
JF42 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest /First?  2