Talk:Russian Imperial Guard

History of the Imperial Russian Guard

Shouldn't the history be added?--Mrg3105 12:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Units of the Imperial Guard

Lets see how long it takes someone to add these in-- mrg3105mrg3105 07:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

renaming proposal

The official name was the Imperial Russian Guard (Imperatorskaya Russkaya Armiya), and in all cases where they applied to structures and organisations under Imperial authority the name of the organisation was preceded by Imperial.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

However, this does not read well in English, and we're writing in English in this part of wikipedia. Fine for the Ru-section, but as I said at GABTU, we need to stick to good English, not translations that replicate Russian word order. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining to me why Imperial Russian Guard does not "read well" in English? I can understand being uncomfortable with the French Garde impériale becoming Guard Imperial (though consider Queen mother) rather then Imperial Guard, but why here? I have more of a problem with Military history of Imperial Russia which should be Military history of the Russian Empire.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds ugly. Sorry, I know it's really hard to understand, but the English phrasing works better with the 'Imperial Guard' as the noun and the 'Russian' as an adjective in front of it. In the same way you'd be at a loss to explain how terms are constructed in Russian to me, it's a bit hard for me to explain it in the other direction. As for Military history of the Russian Empire, if everything is at 'Russian Empire', rather than 'Imperial Russia' - so we're consistent - just fine with me. Raise it on the talk page, leave it for ten days, and if noone objects, go ahead and move it. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate the issue of putting the adjective before the noun, but the rule, if there were any rules to that effect in English, does not apply to official titles and organisation names, only to prose grammar.I can ask Philip Beard though, but I see nothing wrong with it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Try a google test; I think you'll find more references to 'Russian Imperial Guard' that 'Imperial Russian Guard'. Um, and by the way - are you trying to tell me, the native English speaker, what the rules of my native language are, and that you know them, and I do not? It sound blunt, but that seems to be what you're doing. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he was doing that at all, and please, let's keep this on the "civil" side of "blunt". There's in fact no grammatical rule that determines order of adjectives in English: it's purely a matter of pattern of usage. If you feel that one "works" and the other doesn't, it's likely because similar phrases use the "Imperial Guard" pattern, rather than the reverse, but there's nothing immutable about it. In fact, googlefighting them in this case is a narrow "win" for "Imperial Russian Guard", but it would be preferable to look at what appropriate, reliable sources use. If that's still an effective "tie", I'd personally going with the more direct translation, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Alai (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar phrases - sounds roughly right. In that case, that similar phrases use across Imperial Guards would be the basis of my argument. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting; I googlechecked it (after) I wrote that, and found it something like 888 Imperial Russian Guards and 1040 for Russian Imperial Guard. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Google does all sorts of localisation and assorted black magic so that search results are often not consistent from person to person, or even from day to day, which is yet another reason to take such results with a pinch of salt. More importantly, it doesn't distinguish between results by "quality" in a way we'd like, as far as determining which is conventional usage (if there is such a thing). Alai (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, while I was not insinuating that you personally need any English lessons, the blanket application of "I'm a native English speaker, therefore I know better" is patently false when one looks at the amount of grammatical and spelling errors that are corrected daily in English Wikipedia, which overwhelmingly edited by English spakers.

(Not blanket. My case. I think if you look, you will find my grammar and spelling pretty good (I make mistakes, but I usually correct them before hitting the 'Save' key), and my phrasing and sentance structure has been good enough to get two articles promoted to FA without copyediting for ease of word flow. I agree completely about the majority of editors here. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

In any case, I was simply pointing out that there is no order preference rule in English...at least not in any sources available to me.

The reason for change is that the name of the higher organisation was Imperial Russian Army per Zhurnal Voennykh Deistvii Imperatorskoi Rossiiskoi Armii (Journal of combat actions of the Imperial Russian Army), St. Petersburg, 1807 as a source used by Alexander Mikaberidze, in The Russian Officer Corps in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars 1792 - 1815, and therefore by extension the name of one of its components would be Imperial Russian Guard. Alexander is an academic on the subject, and has written a number of works on the Imperial Russian Army, this work being an encyclopaedic reference which attempts to list all significantly notable Russian officers for the period.

The logic of using Imperial Russian, and not Russian Imperial is because the the forces were Imperial first and Russian second in that the Commander-in-Chief was the Emperor of Russia, and that the composition was not solely based on the Russian population, what with most of the hussar regiments being recruited in Ukraine, and not a few infantry units (including Guard) coming from the Baltic and Finland areas, and this only for the 18th and 19th centuries. The character of the Empire's forces became even more multinational by the time of the First World War.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I so dislike Google counts being used as a proof of anything--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Great source to draw information from - I'd actually seen you adding references to it in places. But it's in Russian - that's my point. We're talking about how to render it in English. (Um - you've got me unclear on the makeup of the Russian Empire. Was the Ukraine, the Baltic, etc not part of the Russian Empire at this time?) Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the usage in this case was from a time before English grammar was formalised, I dare say nothing can be said about the usage of transposed words being correct or otherwise.

Yes, but we're writing for an encyclopaedia for 2008-.., not then. OK, if you wish, go ahead and move it. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the Russian Empire coming into being Imperial would have counted for much more with those in England (before 1707) who could write then Russian, which was still called 'Moskovy' in many publications. Russian Empire begun before Ukrainian and Baltic territories were added to it. In fact there were never Ukraine and Baltic states within the Empire, although there always was a Ukrainian cavalry unit of some sort in the Army. The use of Russian Empire is obvious since the Russian population, and its aristocracy, were the predominant source of its power, however the forces had changed over time of its expansion, and lets not forget the article is to cover over two centuries of history. I think it would be inappropriate to place Russian up front, considering the many officers Peter Ist used to create the forces were Germans, Swedes, English, Italians and Scots, of which a descendent of one who essentially saved the Imperial Russian Army to fight another day at Borodino despite insultingly called a "German", and a Georgian who gave his life for the Empire.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not try to determine "logical" usage, just actual such! If I went to the bookshop and had a look at a book on Russian history, or attended a War Studies conference, etc, would I be more likely to see the term "Russian Imperial Guard", "Imperial Russian Guard", or something else? (For example, if the most common usage were just "Imperial Guard", the logical title would be "Imperial Guard (Russia)", though that's even further from the form mrg3105 favours.) Alai (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who was speaking ;o)

In my own library the "opinion" is almost evenly divided although at least half of it is from pre-1970s days, and therefore in my opinion not that reliable. I note that Boris Mollo, John Mollo do have a book on Uniforms of the Imperial Russian Army, and Bruce W. Menning makes the point in the title Bayonets Before Bullets: The Imperial Russian Army, 1861-1914. I also had a look in Google books, and found that Pertti Luntinen (a Finn) also uses The Imperial Russian Army and Navy in Finland, 1808-1918, no doubt because of Mannerheim where in absence of the article the link is given as Imperial Russian army. Albert Seaton who had written several books on the Russian Armies in the late 60s and 70s uses Imperial Russian Army also. Then there is the volume I do not have, M. Lyons' The Russian Imperial Army;: A bibliography of regimental histories and related works from the Hoover Institution bibliographical series published in the 1960s. Roger Reese wrote his The Russian Imperial Army 1796-1917 (The International Library of Essays on Military History), but N. T. Iziumchenko, Peter Brock, and John L. H. Keep wrote Life in a Penal Battalion of the Imperial Russian Army: The Tolstoyan N. T. Iziumchenko's Story both of which are currently in print. However a commonly accepted authority on the Russian Army, George F Nafziger (also a publisher), has the The Imperial Russian Army, 1763-1815, though its earliest version which I also have is simply called The Russian Army, 1800-1815. I would go with George though, and I don;t think you will find many military historians who will disagree because many use George as a source of reference! --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to presume to try and pick and choose between your many sources there, but hopefully it's lots of food for thoughts for editors more familiar with milhisty things. Many thanks. Bear in mind that that it's Imperial Russian/Russian Guard that's at issue, not the Army as a whole, so the most specific sources on that would be preferable (though the pattern of usage is pretty likely to be similar, one would have thought). Alai (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial Guard (Russia). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110613165416/http://www.journalsovietarmy.org/free/The_Russian_Army_Part_Two.pdf to http://www.journalsovietarmy.org/free/The_Russian_Army_Part_Two.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)