Were Guards Regiments "Elite" in the 18th Century?

The USMC has their own elite units. Just being a marine doesn’t signify that status.

I'm the English teacher who loves the way you speak. Using your provided subtitles (additional points, by the way) I can see how your improvisations and asides are as eloquent as your script while also breaking down information that might be too dense for some and breaking up rhythms that might become monotonous. Marvelous.

Not by this point. Even the vaunted Gardes Frances were routed at Dettinggen with a volley or 2 from an Imperial regiment. The Gardes also barely survived Fontenoy.

From what I understand about Napoleon's Imperial Guard, he actively only let veterans of one or more campaigns join. So, because it was composed of much more veteran and skilled troops, would it make sense to say that the Imperial Guard is elite?

So we should go back to sending the idle rich into war again? Cool

Cool so were gonna get a video on jaegers at some point.

Thanks Brandon!!!

Guard probably comes closest to loyal troops or crack troops.

Elite in the modern context just means committed to committing War crimes

Gentleman volunteers, a future episode hint or just a slip of the tongue?

Russian and Soviet Guards Divisions are kinda the same in both the modern times and during WW2. Their guard status seemed to have been due to distinguishment in certain battle rather than the general quality of recruits or special equipment. Their TO&E might be a bit different but not necessarily means that they get the better stuff. In modern times, its more of an honorific than anything and doesn't reflect their combat effectiveness.

The USMC has a well deserved and prestigious reputation but in actuality your typical Marine infantry unit is on par with a typical US Army infantry unit. There are more elite segments of the Marine Corps such as Force Recon. The most elite light infantry formation the United States has though is the 75th Ranger Regiment. There used to be high end formations in other arms like the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment before it's transition to OPFOR at the National Training Center. 11th ACR is still an above average unit but it's not a combat unit anymore. The 82nd Airborne's Rapid Deployment Brigade is the elite of regular infantry. Special Forces are certainly elite soldiers but not in the same way. They are highly trained specialists but I wouldn't put 1st SOG into the trenches in Ukraine and tell them to hold the front against a basic bitch Motor Rifle Regiment and expect them to hold the line. I would do so with a battalion of the 75th Rangers if I had nothing else in reserve. The Rangers are elite light infantry. The Green Berets are unconventional warfare specialists and trainers of soldiers. Rangers have the firepower and training to do it. 1st SOG would not have the firepower. To put either unit in to defend a trench line would be an utter waste of their skills. The 82nd Airborne would be a far better choice.

I have a cousin at horse guards, sir.

Couldn't the guards in UK at least, always recruit from the entire country (Scotland or England or Wales, etc...) whereas the line regiments would only recruit from a specific town or county? That would allow them to be more discerning in who they let in right?

US Marine Corps has a reputation of being the best infantry outside of special operators, with a higher baseline "toughness" and combat effectiveness. I'd say they consider themselves elite, their infantry an elite within an elite, but still lesser than an elite within an elite within yet another elite that is special operators.

But one of the funny things about them is that they are rather known for being austere and spartan. Unlike Guards, they don't have the nicest equipment. Much of their utility stuff is old, beaten up, purchased secondhand from the Army, etc. Like Guards, however, they easily have the nicest dress uniforms in the US military.

Elite doesn't always mean "special forces" for instance fighter pilots are the elite of pilots, Submariner are elite sailors, etc... Marines are 100% elite (by entrance standards and training, etc) compared to regular army... they just are not all special forces...

It was a missed opportunity not to give new elite roles like airborne to old elites

I wouldn't count Marine Corps as "elite." US Special Forces (Green Berets) are certainly to be considered elite.

That add transition was smooth Brandon… well played…

USMC Force Recon, when they are getting into specifics, are supposed to be elite, but normal USMC just think they are.
Also worth noting that the Legion Etrangere, the French Foreign Legion, can trace themselves to the French Royal Guard regiments, which had foreign mercenary regiments, the Scottish and Swiss Guard are the main ones I remember. Then Napoleon happened, but there's a sort of line there, if you squint. Kinda cool anyways.
Anyways, congrats on the book, sounds awesome!

I feel like the “elite” perception of the Marine Corps is mostly just due to marketing. Sure, their basic training is just a tad harder than Army BMT/OSUT, but it is most definitely doable for most military aged men with a room-temperature IQ and a mediocre level of physical fitness. They won’t have a very fun time, but it’s definitely possible for them to make it through. Same with the Army and all other branches.

In my mind, an “elite” serviceman in the modern sense is someone with training/credentials that few others in the services have.

Examples would be your SOF units (think SEALS, SF, Rangers, PJs, MARSOC, Recon Marines, etc…)

I’d even consider people with things like a Ranger or Sapper tab elite. They may not be in a high speed unit, but they had to demonstrate elite skills and traits to graduate the courses required to wear that tab… EOD is sorta the same way, while the school is not nearly as physically challenging as a SOF selection course, the academic requirements are absolutely INSANE for those dudes, hence the 50-75% attrition rate for a school that just teaches troops the fundamental duties of their MOS/job.

Sadly another case of modern people struggling to understand that pre-modern armies simply didn't function like contemporary militaries - much less emphasis on physical training in particular as part of their recruitment process means there was really no mechanism for filtering 'better' soldiers into more 'elite' regiments, at least not at the scale of the entire army.

The real factors that made a regiment elite or not were their standard of equipment, the calibre of their officers, and battlefield experience. Napoleon formed his guard regiments out of older soldiers who had proven themselves under fire - that's about the closest you'd get to an 18th or 19th century era SAS or Navy Seals programme.

Oh, Canada , we stand on Guarrd for thee ! And for our friends, if necessary.

Marines will hate me for this but they aren't an elite force. Specialized, yes, but not elite. There are elite units within the Marines, such as Marine Recon Battalions, but the force as a whole is a regular force.

The USMC is a branch just like the US Army and both in fact (and most) branches have special operations elements that would be considered elite, US Marines have the Raiders, US Army have Special Forces and Rangers, US Navy have the Seals, and US Air Force have Pararescue.

Will the book be released on Amazon?

249th

I now want a video about 'actual and real' ottoman troops for example the nizam Cedid

I once saw a Royal Marine officer being asked about his corp's 'elite' status. His response was 'Elite implies that a unit has reached a certain standard and that is dangerous. We, on the other hand, will always recruit and train in the assumption that there are always higher standards to achieve.'

The First French Empire's Old Guard is the most famous example of this trope.

The Carolinian Swedish army during the late 17th and early 18 centuries were elite in the modern sense - height requirements, permanently garrisoned and training, better pay, all of that. The Carolinian army is funny that in some sense like drill and organization it is a hundred years before its time, and still a hundred years after western Europe in their reliance on melee combat.

I love your passion. I hope it carries with you throughout your entire life. 👍👍

Typical American, uses words without properly defining them.
Elite is a term used in military circles to define the best of the best, for any given era.
Given that Americans tend to denegrate anything British, I'm surprised you even mentioned them.
That said, it's clear "elite" refers to different units in different centuries.
E.g: Greek Hoplites, Roman Legionaries, mounted Crusader cavalry, Swiss Pikemen, Cromwell's cavalry, 95th Rifles, Napoleon's Old Guard, to name but a tiny few.
My reservation is it's impossible to quantify or qualify across the centuries. Each can only be compared against others of the era. 😊😊😊😊

How come modern soldiers can act autonomously without deserting all the time? The baseline for modern combat is the platoon and the rifle squad, most often you'll be fighting in very small groups acting nearly autonomously. In yester years you seemed to be losing men to desertion and retreats whenever they didnt have hundreds of companions in line of sight.

It must also be taken into account that the soldiers of the Guards Regiments, due to their above-average size, also had a longer arm span, which increased their effectiveness in volley fire.

Do you know how 18th Century militaries managed firearm safety? How much consideration was given to trigger discipline and muzzle awareness? How did they deal with a musket misfiring, and how was a musket unloaded without firing?

As a young lad how do I start to get into reenactments

some guards (not all) were outstandingly loyal.
the french swiss guard comes to mind.

"learn on the job" And also "die on the job". Bad jokes aside, What was the average life expectancy of a soldier in that time? Given that as a soldier you had regular meals (not a given in those days) and medical attention (even less of a given). So, did common (in the contemporary sense) people join the army thinking: I might have to do hard work, get shouted at by my superiors, face harsh punishments and a chance of premature death, but that is basically my lot in life anyway?

A good litmus test (especially back then) is whether they were receiving extra pay. (or other benefits)

Surely in the early modern period "elite" is a state of mind rather than anything physical, the espirt de corps was ingrained into them making them more resilient in battle

love the one long take with plentiful ramblings… it’s giving lindy beige

I always find your videos interesting.

In fiction, some units are elite. Space marines are elite, but half of the legions turned traitor.

An idea of video: talk about how armies of 18th and 19th century marched during parades and during campaign.

You know I was looking threw your old videos and saw redcoat asmr I think we need a revisiting of the subject

brandon im making this one game, andi needed some "help" with uniforms, its not 100% historical accurate but still fun
thank you for helping me

The Austrian Army didn't have any guard units: ""No Mameluks, no Praetiroans, no Janussaries." The ordinary marching regiements did garrison service in Vienna by rotation, and the ceremonial lifeguard duties were entrusted to the non-combatant units of the Trabanten-Garde and the mounted Arciern-Garde, which owned only about 100 officers and me each.' Duffy, The Army of Maria Theresa (1977)

Ex welsh guards here ... I would say we may not be at the standard of our para and marine friends but we do get better facilities in training and do most of our course with the paras and have our own para platoon. We also dig in on our exercises in training and the line infantry don't. But the difference between us and the line infantry is probably negligible some line infantry units are exceptionally good I.e the rifles and some are not so great and you know who they are. In essence if you want elite status join the smash and do an ally course