Unit Organization and Nomenclature

[Didz]

Historically, I imagine that unit nomenclature varied over time and culture. We know that the Romans actually numbered their legions, but not their auxilaries. I've seen medieval formations referred to as Battles and viking formations referred to as Boats. I beleive in India troops were organised into Cushoons. It would also seem logical that somewhere in this variety of systems we will probably find the orginal concept of the Battalion and Regiment that eventually became the more or less standard system for modern armies.

In England the nomenclature system was focussed on the captain who commanded the unit. (that's captain with a small 'c', being a leader of a group rather than a rank) A captain might be a nobleman or knight who was leading a mixed force of men-at-arms, archers and knights, or a mercenary leader who controlled a group of mercenaries. So one gets mentions of Sir Stanley's battle or Tobys Archers.

This system remained in use until the late 17th Century and so during the English Civil War companies were named after their captains and regiments (being a collection of companies) were named after their Colonels. Therefore, you get 'Newcastles White Coats', 'Hazelrigg's Lobsters', 'Prince Ruperts Horse' etc, and later during the Marlborough Wars 'Durrels Regiment'.

The battle order of the British Army at Culloden begins to show the first signs of a transition from commander focussed nomenclature to numbering though it is doubtful that the numbers were actually used by Cumberland at the time.

Battle order of the British Army at Culloden
Cobham’s (10th) and Kerr’s (11th) dragoons, Kingston’s Light Dragoons, the Royals (1st), Howard’s Old Buffs (3rd), Barrel’s King’s Own (4th) Wolfe’s (8th), Pulteney’s (13th), Price’s (14th), Bligh’s (20th), Campbell’s Royal Scots Fusiliers (21st), Sempill’s (25th), Blakeney’s (27th), Cholmondeley’s (34th), Fleming’s (36th), Munro’s (37th), Ligonier’s (48th) and Battereau’s (62nd) Foot

The problem with this system was that everytime the captain of a unit changed its name changed. It was George II who began to take an interest in regulating the dress and nomenclature of the British army, with the desired intention of standardising both the uniforms, the organisation and the naming of regiments to make them appear 'more like Royal forces than private armies bearing the distinctions of their colonels.' The first of these regulations was published in 1727 and further warrants and regulations were added to refine the transition over the next century. By 1742 we begin to see lists of uniform distinctions ordered by Regimental number rather than by Colonels name, and by 1830 we begin to see the numbers routinely suffixed with a Regimental Name (e.g. 16th (Bedfordshire)).

Nevertheless, higher level organisations such as Corps, Brigades and Divisions continued to be named after their commanders even though they nominally had numbers allocated. Thus at Waterloo in 1815, Maitland's Brigade was part of Cooke's Division, and it was Ponsonby's Brigade which was ordered to charge D'Erlons Corps, even though all these units actually had numbers.