Talk:Gendarme (historical)

Untitled
Thoughts? Seemed that wikipedia needed a page on this. I'd like to flesh it out with some more details on the later gendarmes (especially those of Louis XIV), so would welcome any additions.Larry Dunn 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea! There are a pile of articles where being able to link to this term will be invaluable. Kirill Lokshin 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
A very nice start, with some good length, detail, and sectioning. And a fairly invaluable topic, as Kirill said. You've definitely set the stage for yourself or someone else to really expand upon this and make it a great article. You've even got a picture! Needs expansion, wherever possible, as do the vast majority of articles. In particular, while it sums it up nicely, I'm not a big fan of one sentence intro paragraphs - how can this be expanded? Also, if "Late Medieval" is a red-link, I think it needs to be either relinked or delinked. Finally, a small thing, but I think it'd be nice to have a link somewhere to the other or main meanings of the word. Maybe even a brief description of how the term came to apply to the modern meaning (if you think it relevant and appropriate - I'm not a European specialiist). LordAmeth 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's a redlink? I'll try to fix it, if I know what it is.


 * What's the official policy on intro paragraphs? I thought it was supposed to be one sentence -- seems to be that way on many Wiki pages, so I'd assumed it was preferred.


 * I definitely plan to expand it, and especially welcome edits expanding the later period. For now, wanted to get something in the works so that the word gendarme would no longer go unlinked in so many other wikipedia articles.Larry Dunn 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as lead sections go, they are generally two or three full paragraphs summarizing the article in the finished case. Since they tend to be the last thing written, though, a lot of articles have unusually short ones. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Gendarmes d'Elite under Napoleon I
I removed that information as it was entirely incorrect. A single regiment of ''Gendarmes d'Elite' (part of the Imperial Guard, usually with the heavy cavalry) was formed in 1802 (ten years before the Russian campaign), it consisted of both cavalry and infantry (infantry companies disbanded in 1805-06). The regiment remained in service throughout the war. The regiment also seems to be in the tradition of militarised Police rather then the original Gents d'Armes.

In addition to the Gendarmes d'Elites the Imperial Guard also included Gendarmes d'Ordonnance, a cors of orderlies formed in 1806 and disbanded in 1807 (this unit was indeed recruited from youths from prominent families as René Chartrand states in Napoleonic Wars: Napoleon's Army, Brassey's History of Uniforms.

In addition to those two formations various corps of Gendarmerie (militarised Police) existed, but none fall under the scope of this article.--Caranorn 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want co correct it, that would be great. Please do so instead of deleting in its entirety. This article's scope is a discussion of the evolution of the term gendarme in the French cavalry, so such troops are pefectly within the scope. Larry Dunn 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see no continuation from the 16th century to Napoleon. Napoleon's Gendarmes are as far as I can tell all belonged or descended from the police force only. If I knew the exact transition from heavy cavalry to police I'd write a short paragraph on that and add a link to Gendarmerie. But I have very little to no knowledge of military matters from the late 15th to the late 18th century, so I can't help. Therefore I think the only thing worth doing at this point is deleting the entire Napoleonic entry in this article.--Caranorn 21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article isn't exclusively about 16th century gendarmes and their progeny -- it covers all use of the word to describe cavalry regiments in armies. What it really needs is expansion to cover the other types, not contraction to cover only the 16th C. types.  Think of it as an article about grenadiers -- these start off as one thing (in Louis XIV's army) and end up as something very different (panzer grenadiers, volsgrenadiers, etc.)  The article is weighted heavily in favor of the 16th C. now as I wrote it and that's my area of expertise.  Maybe you can add more on the early 19th C.? I'd particularly like to see it updated to include more on the Gendarmes de France that were so famously effective in Louis XIV's armies.  Larry Dunn 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

English Army
Isn't the description of a 'lance' the description of an English formation used in the late stages of the Hundreds years war? I've never heard that French armies were levied this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.64.80 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Use in pop culture
Someone with more experience in the subject than me ought to see about including some notes about their use in pop culture as a humorously terrible and incompetent group á la the 2015 French film "Avril et le monde truqué". I've seen it other places in French culture but can't remember other sources off the top of my head. I can do it myself in a couple days if no one else steps up. —Preceding comment added by 147.138.82.135 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)