A very small thought
Apr. 22nd, 2008 12:43 amI recently was talking with ![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
headnoises about our and our relatives' army experiences. I have long known that different armies have different traditions and peculiarities - for instance, the peculiar British palm-forward salute, the different details of marching, etc. But as we discussed her grandfather's service, it occurred to me that these differences extend to the way our armies are divided and think of themselves. For instances, what are the basic units that people write histories about. In the US army, it is indubitably the division, at least in the twentieth century - in the Civil War we hear a lot about regiments, but in the first and second world war and down to this day, the emphasis is on what division a man served in. In the English Army, it is and has always been the regiment; as the army shrunk in the last few decades, the closure or merger of historic regiments caused, each time, widespread heartache and soul-searching. But in the Italian Army, it is the service: Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry, Alpini, Paratroops, Bersaglieri (assault troops), Carabinieri (military police), Genio (engineers), Lagunari (marines), etc. It is about them that people write specialist histories, more even than about historic divisions and regiments. Veterans will not say "I was with the Folgore or the Julia division", so much as they will say, "I was in the Paratroops, in the Alpini". (Folgore and Julia are two famous units in those particular services.) Units are important, but it is the service you belong to that gives you your identity and belonging. Not that this has any particular importance, but I find traditions and local peculiarities always interesting.
headnoises about our and our relatives' army experiences. I have long known that different armies have different traditions and peculiarities - for instance, the peculiar British palm-forward salute, the different details of marching, etc. But as we discussed her grandfather's service, it occurred to me that these differences extend to the way our armies are divided and think of themselves. For instances, what are the basic units that people write histories about. In the US army, it is indubitably the division, at least in the twentieth century - in the Civil War we hear a lot about regiments, but in the first and second world war and down to this day, the emphasis is on what division a man served in. In the English Army, it is and has always been the regiment; as the army shrunk in the last few decades, the closure or merger of historic regiments caused, each time, widespread heartache and soul-searching. But in the Italian Army, it is the service: Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry, Alpini, Paratroops, Bersaglieri (assault troops), Carabinieri (military police), Genio (engineers), Lagunari (marines), etc. It is about them that people write specialist histories, more even than about historic divisions and regiments. Veterans will not say "I was with the Folgore or the Julia division", so much as they will say, "I was in the Paratroops, in the Alpini". (Folgore and Julia are two famous units in those particular services.) Units are important, but it is the service you belong to that gives you your identity and belonging. Not that this has any particular importance, but I find traditions and local peculiarities always interesting.
