Talk:71st (Highland) Regiment of Foot

message: This regiment or 73rd (Perthshire) Regiment of Foot was involved in the wreck of the HMS Birkenhead (See here)  This WP article says that the regiment was not active in 1882 when the ship was wrecked. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Different 73rd.JF42 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And HMS Birkenhead was wrecked in 1852 not 1882.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: HMS Birkenhead

message: "The 2nd Battalion was captured in Boston in 1776 and reformed in Scotland in 1778 before returning to the United States."
In fact, athough elements of both battalions of the 71st were captured by colonist rebel forces in naval actions, both on the high seas and in Boston Harbour,  most of the regiment arrived safely off New York in August 1776. 
However, as a result of those losses, totalling about 400 men, the remaining companies were brigaded into three provisional battalions for the initial campaigns 1776 and 1777. After the capture of Philadelphia, the 71st, much reduced by sickness, was sent back to New York where the Regiment was joined by replacements from Scotland and resumed its original two-battalion structure.  In 1778, further companies were raised in Scotland. Later that year, the 71st was sent south to campaign in Georgia and the Carolinas. Although both battalions were once again considerably reduced by sickness, a skeleton battalion structure was maintained. When the 1st Battalion was effectively destroyed at Cowpens in January 1781 with many men being taken prisoner, the Regiment was formed onto a single battalion and finally went into captivity after Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown in October 1781.JF42 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Battalion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 71st (Highland) 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/071-786.htm
 --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Our article has an unsourced image caption which reads:
Where did this come from?
This does not at all agree with
* 
which has it that MacLeod's Highlanders and the original Seaforth's Highlanders (78th, later 72nd, raised 1778) both initially used Black Watch then jointly switched in 1787 (upon the raising of a second MacLeod's battalion) to a variant with red and white (not yellow) over-check, which they named "Mackenzie-MacLeod" after the commanders, and which eventually became the Mackenzie clan tartan.
Whatever the source for the caption is, we need to see exactly what it says. If a red-and-yellow over-check version (what eventually became a MacLeod clan tartan) was in use by MacLeod's Highlanders, it would seem to have been some time after 1787. Either that, or Barnes & Allen are flat-out wrong about MacLeod's Highlanders originally using Black Watch, in which case we have a source conflict and need to make readers aware that the ostensibly reliable sources do not agree.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regiments.org suggests that it should be the "Mackenzie" HLI tartan with red and buff thin overlay stripes. See here. This suggests Barnes & Allen were right. I have amended the article but am not sure that I have got exactly the right tartan. Dormskirk (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking into that. I guess two known sources beats one unknown source, but I would still love to see what the source of the original caption actually said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced tartan details that conflict with major source 

message: In the London Gazette I see many appointments such as Gazette 5 March 1782 "71st Regiment of Foot ... Ensign John Forbes to be Lieutenant, vice William Nairne". But the article says that it was raised as the 73rd and "The regiment was redesignated as the 71st (Highland) Regiment of Foot (MacLeod's Highlanders) in 1786[2]".  Was there another 71st? Perhaps this could be clarified in the entry for less knowledgeable folk like myself. Jim M Resolis (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This appointment may refer to another regiment: 71st Regiment of Foot, Fraser's Highlanders. See also 71st Regiment of Foot (disambiguation) for other regiments with the same numerical designation. Dormskirk (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, that's it. You are spot on. Hmm, it makes it clear about its origins as the 73rd later in the text, but I do wonder if in that introductory section which people might not read past "The 71st Regiment of Foot was a Highland regiment in the British Army, raised in 1777." it shouldn't read "The 71st Regiment of Foot was a Highland regiment in the British Army, raised as the 73rd (Highland) Regiment of Foot in 1777." Just a thought. Jim M Resolis (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dormskirk (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: very good Jim M Resolis (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  73rd or 71st?