Talk:8th King's Royal Irish Hussars

Milhist Assessment
I have re-assessed it and it remains a start article. One of the main problems with this article is its lack of references. In order to remain verifiable it needs to have verifiable, reliable sources listed to cite any arguments or points. At the moment a lot of the references used are to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. You need outside sources such as books, The Times, journals etc. When you do add a citation try to use a citation template so we can see all of the information about it.

This line doesn't imbue me with confidence: "Reproduced in part from the website of the Queen's Royal Hussars the successor regiment of the 8th Hussars. [2]" Make sure you do not copy text directly, instead rewrite it here and cite the other website.

I will run through it now and rewrite sections. Some of the section headers need amalgamating. Woody (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments very much, also thank you for being willing to rewrite some of the sections. I don't think I was aware of how big a project this was going to be and I believe I'll be at it for some time yet to produce a good article. At least there's a good improvement to it though and here's hoping I'm able to verify it to Wikipedia standards.GDD1000 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Crimean War
I think the following text is far, far too detailed for an article on the 8th. It is ok for the Crimean War article, but we need to be more concise here. I will try and trim it down so it relates to the 8th instead of general terms. Woody (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC) As part of the second wave of the brigade's attack, the 8th were in line with the 4th Light Dragoons and, advancing in support at a steady pace, came under fire. Wounded men and horses from the leading squadrons kept dashing out, making the lines unsteady. The pace increasing, the 8th, who were on the right, directing, were checked by the officers, but the 4th did not check and continued on at the utmost speed, the two regiments forming into separate lines and advancing separately, the pace of the 8th not exceeding a good trot. In spite of the fall of men and horses, the regiment passed the remains of the battery in the valley. They, unaware of the imminent presence of a Russian brigade of light cavalry, "slaughtered the Russian gunners and pushing forward were met by the remnants of the first line in retreat. Lord George Paget, commander of the second line, on being informed that Russian lancers were closing in behind them shouted, "Halt boys, halt front, if we don't halt now we're done!" [4] They halted some 300 to 400 yards beyond. They had passed completely through the crossfire of the infantry and the batteries on the hills, losing about half their men. Here they formed up to their front, and being out of fire, waited some three to five minutes for orders. They were so diminished in numbers that they formed less than one squadron. Joined by a few others, chiefly from the 17th Lancers, the remains formed up on the left, making in all about 70 men. Deciding to attack the Russian lancers in their rear the squadron came round as if on parade. Two Russian squadrons were faced, some of them going off before they could be reached, but the remainder waited, received the attack and were overthrown. The ground was now opened up for the Brigade to retire, the 8th now pursued their course to their original position, followed by all the other horsemen of the other regiments, and as their horses became blown or wounded, they tailed

I'm fine with that.GDD1000 (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's looking good. I have a CD of images which I'll try and select some from later to give the article some colour.GDD1000 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added some without seeing this post. Feel free to replace them with more 8th specific ones. Woody (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A friend of mine who's still serving sent me a CD of thousands of images for th 3rd, 4th, 7th & 8th hussars just recently. I just have to trawl though them to find some specific ones. I bet you can guess which articles I'll be editing next then?GDD1000 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle Honours
Woody I note your excellent layout of the battle honours. One wee thing in the interests of accuracy: only 40 battle honours were emblazoned on the guidon (that's still the rule today), that's why I had a list of "emblazoned" and "accredited". I don't want to tamper with your excellent work so maybe you could change the wording to reflect that?GDD1000 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Spot on Woody - thanksGDD1000 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

QRIH
I'm not sure that the last change by Buckshot06 is relevant. The first duties of the new regiment involved several years overseas in the Far East as part of the dismantling of empire. I can't see why we need to jump to the 100 hour action of the QRIH in 1991? Could someone give me another opinion please?GDD1000 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Letter
The letter in the crimean war section is far to big and should be removed it is bigger than the whole section about the war. BigDunc Talk 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the "charge" was the regiment's major moment in the Crimean War - that's why it occupies such a large space. This artcile is about the 8th Hussars, not the Crimean War. Thunderer (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
What award did the royal irish hussars get in Korea? BigDunc Talk 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Two awards - the battle honour "Korea 1950-1952" and "Imjin". They're in the list of battle honours.Thunderer (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And are they distinguished service medals? BigDunc  Talk 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what a battle honour is, a record of a unit's distinguished service in a particualr campaign or engagement. They are awarded by a central committee after teh event, not every unit which participates automatically gets the honour. Also note that in my experience, since the lead is supposed to summarise the article as a whole, you rarrely get citaitons in the lead, except for when a direct quote of something is used. The place to cite is in the body of the article, where the point is expanded upon. David Underdown (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks David for wikilink but was this honour for distinguished service? Don't regiments get honours just for being in a particular region? Also A unit need not have defeated an adversary in order to earn a battle honour so would a defeated unit get a distinguished service medal or would members of said regiment who had acted bravely get a distinguished service medal? BigDunc  Talk 15:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally British practice is that decorations are for individuals, there are very few examples of "corporate" awards of gallantry medals. They are the GCs to Malta and the RUC, and the CGC for the UDR.  Corporate recognition is in the form of battle honours.  Originally (i.e. 17-18th century) merely being present and firing on the enemy was sufficient to qualify, but the criteria have considerably tightened over-time, and the unit (in broad terms) has to have done something more than the other units involved, or in the case of a defeat, done more than could reasonably have been expected of them.  Possibly things are slightly more relaxed for the campaign honours, as opposed to those for a specific incident, but KRIH got the specific Imjin River battle honour, so it does seem reasonable to say they had distinguished service in the Korean War.  The idea of a battle honour is broadly similar to the US Presidential Unit Citation and similar, though I don't think a specific equivalence to an individual award is spelled out in the same way.  David Underdown (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So what exact award was given to them in Korea? I'm sure it has a name. BigDunc  Talk 18:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No - they got the battle honours "Korea 1950-1952" and "Imjin".  The most important one for the purpose of your question is Imjin.  Due to a rotation the regiment was being returned to the UK, RHQ, A & B Squadrons were en route to Japan when the Chinese Spring Offensive started leaving only C Squadron under the command of Major Henry Huth.  (that's only 18 tank crews).  They were the only armour available to the British 29th Brigade who were outnumbered 10-1 by the Chinese at the Imjin Line.   C Sqn of the 8th supported the Glosters and Northumberlands on the hills by getting close enough to them to provide direct fire support, along with artillery which was firing from some miles back.  The Chinese managed to break through on the low ground, cutting off the Glosters and Northumberlands and outflanking the artillery leaving only the tanks to provide fire support and a means of escape for the infantry.   The tanks kept going back in again and again to bring more infantry out from the Northumberlands position, supported by the Ulster Rifles.  They were surrounded by Chinese and had to fight in and fight out - losing 26 men in the process and having to machine gun themselves to clear Chinese troops off the turrets.   When they had the Northumberlands out they returned for the Glosters but one tank was knocked out in a narrow mountain pass so they had to abandon that as the other tanks couldn't get past and it was too dangerous to get out of the vehciles to try and recover it.   As a result of all this the Glosters were wiped out or taken prisoner and many hussars were taken prisoner.    The guns of many of the tanks were worn out as they had overheated.  They also lost six tanks.   Four of which were the new Centurions (at that time).   Huth was awarded the DSO and other individuals received other decorations and the 8H were given the battle honour "Imjin" for the action.   The remainder of the regiment returned and under their Commanding Officer, Colonel Lowther, formed "Lowther Force" with the Ulster Rifles (I think) and 45 (Belfast) Battery Royal Artillery and, along with other elements of the 29th Brigade successfully repulsed the Chinese offensive along their sector of the Imjin Line.Thunderer (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also - "Imjin" was the last battle honour of this unit which was formed from the survivors of the seige of Derry - they were amalgamated five years later. Thunderer (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats all well and good so what was the name of the honour that was awarded? Is it called The Battle Honour? Does the queen/king (and correct me if thats wrong) say I award the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars the Battle Honour for battles in Korea?  BigDunc  Talk 19:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific honour which was awarded was the battle honour "Imjin". It's awarded by the monarch (Queen Elizabeth II in this case) and is officially notified to the regiment through the office of its Colonel in Chief (Prince Phillip in this case).   The regimental guidon (which is what cavalry have instead of colours) is then replaced by a new one which has the extra battle honour(s) embroidered onto it and is re-presented by the Colonel in Chief at a parade held (normally) at the regiment's barracks.  It would be normal to have the individual bravery decorations presented individually by the Colonel in Chief during this parade, even though the recipients will have known for some months they have received the award and have been wearing the ribbon for the decoration on the appropriate uniforms.Thunderer (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, there would be a printed citation. It'll be held at the officers mess in Athlone Barracks, Sennelager at the moment, in the records of the Queen's Royal Hussars.Thunderer (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the award a Distinguished Service award? BigDunc  Talk 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I stated back in my first response to you. David Underdown (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you produce the ref which says it is a distinguished service award thanks. BigDunc  Talk 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No ref is needed. It's a battle honour.  Pipelink the bloody thing to battle honours if you must but for God's sake stop going on about it.  Read this.Thunderer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You have already today been asked to remain civil and I am asking again please remain civil are you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc Talk 15:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead - see if I care - tell them about your behaviour on the mediation page while you're at it and maybe if you're lucky you'll manage a block for yourself too. If you want civility you extend it.  Works both ways sonny! Thunderer (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From the article I originally pointed you to, there is a link to http://www2.army.mod.uk/infantry/regts/the_rifles/history_traditions/battle_honours/index.htm The opening of the second para of this states "Battle honours are usually presented in the form of a name of a country, a region or a city where the regiment's distinguished act took place together with the year when it occurred." (my emphasis)  The link as a whole gives a fairly good overview of the general process, albeit that it concentrates on a single regiment - The Rifles.  I've a few books at home by the likes of Richard Holmes and Julian Thompson which might have more info.  David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. BigDunc  Talk 15:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
I have to congratulate the people who have worked on this article. I came to read it after seeing an item in the Belfast Telegraph last week. This is so comprehensive and informative and I can only imagine the hours of research which different people have put in. I don't understand why the people in charge of the site don't give it an award. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.1914-1918.net/CAVALRY/hussars.htm
 * In 19th Royal Hussars on 2011-05-25 06:47:50, 404 Not Found
 * In 19th Royal Hussars on 2011-06-09 12:16:10, 404 Not Found
 * In 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars on 2011-06-19 21:36:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove
I have removed the "refimprove" citation because I can see the article has been greatly improved since 2011 with many links and inline refs added. IO removed the last request for a citation myself today and added a ref proving the regiment was involved in the "Glorious Revolution". If anyone has any serious concerns about the article please add citations where you think it's necessary. New sources are available now and I think if the article was being started from new it would be a more referenced piece. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Tent hat honour"
The reference to the "Tent Hat" might need refining.

In the side strap photograph it is referred to as "worn by Prince Phillip and Major General John Strawson at a parade of the QRIH in 1980. The tent hat honour was passed to the QRIH by the KRIH on amalgamation in 1957."

I am certain that this item of headgear is not an 'honour' as such, in the sense of being awarded as consequence of a Regimental exploit on active service. It perhaps better described as a 'privilege' similar to other items worn specific to certain regiments in the British Army, or even simply as a 'custom', if authority to wear it wasn't in fact required or granted- given that practices regarding officers' undress headgear have been fairly lax at times.

There appear to be various traditions relating to the origin of the 'Tent hat.' I have read that it had its origins in the Crimean war, being a version of the French contemporary style of "bonnet de police" - that is, side-cap, adopted as a gesture of comradeship with the French cavalry who served in that campaign. Other sources state that it was adopted by the 8th Hussars in 1909, some adding that its immediate origins were Danish, in acknowledgement of the Regiment's association with the Royal house of Denmark. The style is definitely mid-19th French. However, elements of the Danish army wore a version of the French 'bonnet de police' side-cap from the late C19th until at least the mid-20th century). I have also read on-line that former KRIH soldiers recall being told its origins were in the War of the Spanish Succession- doubtless a confusion with the tradition of the cross belts associated with the battle of Alamanara in 1710, such confusion over long-treasured customs being common in many British regiments.

It would be worth including a brief reference to the 'tent cap' in the main text with an authoritative summary of its origin.

I note that the Wiki article on the Queens Royal Irish Hussars is very circumspect on the subject, stating merely: "Officers can be distinguished by their distinctive tent hats (the only item of army headress worn without a cap badge other than with combat uniforms)." JF42 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, the tent hat is a privilege and not an honour. It was I who introduced it as an honour on the article some years ago but at that time I was recalling information provided to me during regimental history lessons which have now been proven to be incorrect. I contacted the Regimental Secretary and he sent me an e-mail from which I now quote:


 * It was introduced into the 8th in 1909 by Lt Col HF Deare.(then CO) along with the green suit.


 * The 8th were in India.


 * It was called the ‘balaclava headdress at first, It was worn with Mess Dress instead of the red peaked hat.


 * Neither HHQ or our oldest surviving QM can confirm the origin but Denmark has been suggested.


 * You are correct when you quote the confusion regarding the possible origins of the hat along with the Crossbelt from the War of the Spanish Succession. May I suggest you go ahead with you changes bearing in mind the quote from HHQ which I have provided? SonofSetanta (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * After further thought I would add that, I also included the info regarding the tent hat on the QRIH article. I didn't go into its origins in detail because my intention was to link it in-line to the 8th KRIH page.  I also wanted to start an article on the tent hat itself but I can't remember why I didn't.  I suspect I was intercepted and made to include it at British_Army_uniform where I know I put a few details.  If there's any other help I can give you while you're cleaning this up do please let me know. SonofSetanta (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those interesting details. I am not sure I am qualified to write an authoritative summary of the origins of the Tent Hat but I might at least be able to write an accurate summary of the facts gathered here. The difficulty would be a lack of sources to hand to support what I am fairly confident are the most likely origins.


 * The original name of 'Balaclava Headdress' cited by your Regimental secretary (QRIH?) clearly points to a tradition rooted in the Crimean war,  although not actually dating from that time. Malcolm Dawson in his brief introduction to the 'Uniforms of the Royal Armoured Corps'  from 1974, notes that 'The origins of this headgear are a little obscure..."  He refers to Lt Col Deare as the probable author of the cap and adds that, after WW2, the Regiment explained to the War Office that the Tent Hat was "a reminder of the head-dress worn by the regiment during winter in the Crimea and that the gold lace represented the flaps of the wollen cap (Balaclava helmet)" - a classic case of 'filling in the gaps', I would suggest, given that a balaclava bears no relation to the pattern of the lace on the tent hat, while the Soufflet design of 'bonnet de police,' worn by elements of the French army in the second half of the C.19th, does!  While the Balaklava reference for the 8th Hussars is an obvious one, it does not explain why a French style of side-cap should have been adopted in India fifty five years later. The presence of the French and British armies side by side in front of Sevastopol is a probable explanation, even if a specific connection cannot be established for the present.


 * I believe we can safely say, in as concise a way as possible:
 * -Adopted in 1909 at instigation of Lt Co Deare when the Regiment was in India. Worn in the mess and in the evening on manoeuvres.
 * -Referred to intially as the 'Balaclava head-dress.'
 * -Despite the 8th Hussars participation in the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' at the battle of Balaclava, the connection between the Tent Hat and the Crimean war is obscure. However, the headdress does resemble the French 'bonnet de police' side-cap  worn by French Garde Imperial and cavalry of the period including units that served in the Crimea.


 * Unfortunately, I can find no images from the Crimea to illlustrate that connection specifically, but we can cite this Leicester Yeomanry website, which includes an interesting outline of cavalry headgear with, about half way down, a comparison of French, Danish and QRIH side caps
 *  Perhaps that would do for an 'authority' for the time being.


 * I am unable to find a source for the connection to the Danish Royal family that I referred to. I had a vague recollection that a member of the Danish Royal family had been Colonel-in-Chief around the turn of the C19th century and that this was also cited as the origin of the Tent Hat. Perhaps your Regimental Secretary can address that question, even if only to confirm it has no basis in fact.


 * Back to you!

JF42 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004023904/http://www.unithistories.com:80/officers/Army_officers_K01.html to http://www.unithistories.com/officers/Army_officers_K01.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars. 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: --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC) --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC) --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/cav/D08h.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516045107/http://www.btinternet.com/%7eian.a.paterson/orgarmour.htm to http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/orgarmour.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.army.mod.uk/news/25900.aspx

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) 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Check needed - apparent anachronism
Mahon succeeded in holding his position until the French came to his assistance, when the Boers were driven back in a south-easterly direction, having sustained some losses. So this description of an episode in the Boer War in 1900 goes. However 'French' seems to be a writer's (Freudian?) slip, as throughout that war France, where there was much strong pro-Boer opinion, was neutral; the only Frenchmen taking part were volunteers (reportedly 400) in the 'Legion of France' which served under the Boer army. (I am reminded of fact that Lord Raglan in the Crimean War had a confusing tendency to refer to the (Russian) enemy as 'the French', his previous combat experience being at the Battle of Waterloo.)Cloptonson (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)