Talk:Queen's Rangers

Merge?

What's the difference between this article and The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (RCAC)? It links here, but this basically has the same information.Mingusboodle (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article, along with King's Rangers should be merged into Rogers' Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. - ^theWOLFchild 02:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No. This was a Roberts Rogers invention. The Queen involved was Charlotte, King George III consort. She wasn’t crowned until 1761, After the French and Indian war. So America has Rogers Rangers, a Loyalist unit (along with everyone else) during the French and Indian War. THEN they were disbanded. Rogers recruited a bunch of Loyalists for the American Revolution. He called THEM “Queens Rangers.” THEN deciding they would have the history of HIS unit from the prior war. If the British had won, this might have worked! Too much of a break. Wrong Queen. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queen's Rangers. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120402020258/http://qyrang.ca:80/about/history/ to http://qyrang.ca/about/history/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.queensrangers.co.uk/QR2009/History.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101128115145/http://qyrang.ca/about/history/ to http://www.qyrang.ca/about/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Difference between the Queen's Rangers (War of 1770s-80s) and Rogers' Rangers (War of 1750s-60s)

Rogers' Rangers treats the distinction between that unit and this one correctly, acknowledging the Queen's Rangers as inheritors of the earlier unit's tradition but still keeping them distinct from each other. I see that this article did the same until banned User:Chitt66 changed that when he added the article's infobox. I'm going to revert it; it should involve minimal changes to the article. Binabik80 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

'partisan hunters'

"They filled the role of partisan hunters."

This seems an odd phrase, being unidiomatic, vague, and indeed ambiguous: does it mean 'hunters of the partisan subcategory' or 'hunters of partisans' In any case the term 'partisan,' used in this context also requires explanation, as its meaning has changed over the years..

The Queen's Rangers were formed as a light corps, unit of regular troops usin 'irregular' methods of warfare, or in the idiom of the time, 'petit guerre' (rendered in Spanish as 'guerrilla,' whence the tautology 'guerilla warfare.'

All of these terms - 'partisan,' 'irregular', 'petit guerre' and 'guerilla' are too imprecise to be deployed as descriptive terms without further definition and explanation.

I shall amend, in clearer terms. JF42 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)