Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: grahams@milton.u.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: British Regiments
Keywords: History, Lineage, Honours
Message-ID: <1991Jan25.032312.11511@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 25 Jan 91 03:23:12 GMT
References: <1991Jan24.032946.18864@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: grahams@milton.u.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)

In article <1991Jan24.032946.18864@cbnews.att.com> bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) writes:
>
>  I don't believe any army in the world can trace their lineage and honors
>  as far back as the British Army. 
>
Oddly enough, the U.S. Army has older units. For instance, portions
of the Massachusetts National Guard trace their lineages back to
a militia unit raised in 1632. The Connecticut and Virginia National
Guard have units raised in 1634 and 1637. (The Virginia unit's lineage
is even more interesting, as it includes service as the 1st Virginia
Infantry in Confederate service.) 

However, the U.S. Army's lack of regard for historicity threatens to
eliminate these units.

Steve Graham
graham@isis.ee.washington.edu