Talk:Guards of Honour of the Imperial Guard

Merge proposal

J-Man11, I have reverted your edit to Guards of Honour (France). By converting to a redirect you have effectively deleted an article and replaced it with your shorter one at Guards of Honour of the Imperial Guard. The correct procedure is to merge any new content into the existing article, which I would support. I think the new name is incorrect; Pawly & Courcelle (2012) are clear that the unit was not officially part of the Imperial Guard, though many of its members considered that they were - Dumelow (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

J-Man11 one of the things I got incredibly exasperated about your behaviour previously was that you wanted all the time to create YET ANOTHER NEW ARTICLE. Under Dumelow's close supervision, the merger of these two articles represents another potential stage in your learning process. Follow his instructions carefully. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dumelow:, sorry you messaged me just as I fell asleep last night so I couldn't describe what was happening. So yes, I agree and have merged the two articles and left a re-direct. With regard to the Imperial Guard, I have several sources (I'll provide screenshots below) showing they WERE in-fact part of the Guard. It is worth noting because this unit was created in 1813, the 'Imperial Guard' as we know wasn't really what it was. So with regard to these regiments, they were assigned to Guard units, though the 'Corps itself was independent', but 'integrally part of the Guard'. This is why I've left a redirect. My references for the unit being fully part of the Guard are provided by Digby Smith (whom I use a lot of the time, and adore as a historian). His books 'Uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars' and 'Napoleon's Regiments' are my sources here: https://imgur.com/gallery/0kQweZ7. And you are correct, Pawly states "The Guards of Honour were never an official part of the Imperial Guard, but their exact status was and remains the subject of confusion".

Note: I was about to press reply when I double checked "Napoleon's Guard Cavalry", also part of the Men-at-Arms series by Emir Bukhari. There is a 'Guards of Honour' section. And I quote "They were therefore in the Guard, but not of it". J-Man11 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi J-Man11, your merge looks good to me (but is there a source to cite for the military divisions?) and the article is improved by it. Apologies if I came across as abrupt in my first communications, I was just a bit shocked to see the article vanish. The in/of the guard question is interesting and, I think, worthy of a dedicated section in the article. Do you think you could write one? At the moment we only have Pawly's position, would be good to discuss what Bukhari and Digby Smith say too. One final thing, if you have a hard copy of Pawly it would be great if you could add the missing page numbers (currently citation 5). I think I must have been working from a Google preview or something, as I didn't add the numbers. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

1. The Pawley reference was used for the military divisions and I added that, and if not I'll double check and add it now.
2. Yes, I'm planning on doing that under 'Status'
3. I'll work on adding those citations right now, and I do have it hard copy.

J-Man11 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)