Military history C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Template:FAOL

This page could do with reformatting - there are large gaps in pages and the images are quite badly positioned. 84.12.145.214 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence says infantry are "very highly disciplined and trained soldiers". Does a soldier really have to be highly disciplined and trained to be an infantryman? Seems like anyone on foot is infantry. 71.100.218.218 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I agree. I was definitly infantry, but neither highly disciplined nor trained.[reply]

I second this notion. This section strikes me as very "hoo-ah." All of my family are military, so I do appreciate the rigors, but there's no need for hero-worship. For one thing, even if this description applies to the infantry in most developed countries, it certainly does not to irregular infantry, or most pre-modern infantry. And indeed, "infantry" truly means any foot soldiers, though this first section seems to describe modern infantry exclusively. As a wiki-noob, I hesitate to try rewriting this section, but if anyone has comments, please share. Hooray for Wikipedia, what the Internet was meant to be! 69.180.230.102 ([[User talk:69.180.230.102|talk]]) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hohoho, it takes no discipline to carry 100lbs 15+ miles regularly. Are you folks serious? I'd lek to see the fat 50% of this country get up the ambition to shed their fat behinds and give it a whirl. BTW, being a military brat is no substitute for real comittment. You townies were always a hoot. Unless you sign on the line you will never be a Veteran and have no entitlements other than what dear ol ma and/or dad earned for you, just like an inheritance.

I bet real discipline is measured by self absorbed and self proclaimed smugness and living an average 50k/yr life with some crappy mass produced college degree! Talk about everyone having one! LOL

The caption below the men carrying bikes on their backs states that they are bersaglieri and that the photo was taken during World War I. It then states that the photo predates 1911. Obviously, one of these two assertions is wrong, but I don't know which one so I didn't change it. Does anyone know the provenance of the photo? 71.202.97.96 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US army link seems superfluous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chadloder (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2003.

Apparently, this link has since been deleted. -- Centrx 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In the modern period, the term "infantryman" is reserved for the most basic of infantry troops, the rifleman." Within the Army, at least, that's not the case, even if you only thought of the 11b's as infantry. there's a lot more to the infantry than just the rifleman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.138.253 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 May 2005.

In the US Army and the US Marine Corps, "Infantry" is considered a "Career Group", and there are a whole brace of seperate "Career Specialties" or "Military Ocupational Specialties" that are subheaded under "Infantry". Indeed, in the Marine Corps, they go further than that by stating that ALL marines are Infantry first, and another specialty second. For example, they remain the only service that trains its aircraft pilots by first teaching them how to be Riflemen, and then how to fly aircraft. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Necrothesp's recent revert:

• How are marines not soldiers? They are combatants in military service with a body of men armed for war. A marine is a special kind of soldier, but nevertheless a marine falls into the larger, inclusive class of soldiers, and a reference to "soldier" is a reference to all of the members of that class.

• In what military is the infantry is a special "branch" of service, and how is this "branch" any different than a unit of infantry that is already described by the description of the term "infantry" itself? - Centrx 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Canadian Army, the Infantry Branch is one of the official branches.Michael Dorosh 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Royal Netherlands Army the Infantry is an official branch refered to as: "wapen" (weapon) alongside with cavelry, artillery and signals. Brisbane2000 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marines do not appreciate being called soldiers. They are marines. Soldiers are members of the army. You wouldn't call sailors or airmen soldiers would you? In most armies the infantry is a branch of service, just as the cavalry, artillery, engineers etc are branches of service. What is so controversial about that? -- Necrothesp 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* That many or most marines do not appreciate being called soldiers does not mean that they are not soldiers; the meaning of the word is independent of the particular wishes of a particular group of people at a particular time. That the marines wish to distinguish themselves as more elite than the grunts of the Army does not mean that they themselves are not part of an army: a land force, armed for war; and it does not mean that men who generally fight as they do were not called soldiers 100 years ago or 100 years hence, and even now by some. As for sailors and airmen, by some definitions they do qualify as soldiers, but there I defer to the expert lexicographers at the OED and Webster. For the meaning you refer to, airmen and sailors are not land forces and some may not even have a sidearm.

* The term "branch" of a military usually means Army, Navy, etc. It is at the very least unclear to say that the infantry is a branch of a military. Further, are these Infantry Divisions and Engineer Brigades any different from being divisions of infantry and brigades for engineering? If not, then the terms "Infantry" and "Engineer" of these units are simply adjectival uses of the same "infantry" meaning we already have in the article here. We don't need to say on the article for "fighter" that "fighter" or "fighter wing" is a branch of the military, nor for "medical" or "support". - Centrx 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. In Canada, the Army is a colloquial term for "Land Force Command", the Air Force a term for "Air Command", etc. The Infantry Branch is one of many branches. As far as US military terminology, you seem extremely muddled. I suggest you look up the definition of "formation" which is what a division is. An Infantry Division actually has units from several branches, infantry included.Michael Dorosh 05:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "branch" usually means on the order of Army, Navy, Air Force. There are infantry divisions within the Canadian Land Force, but the branches of the Canadian military are not Infantry, Armoured, Bombers, etc. etc. An infantry division has non-infantry units, but the role of those non-infantry units is to support the primary brigades that is the core of the division and the reason it is maneuvered. —Centrx→talk • 07:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what you are talking about. What are "Bombers"? The Infantry Branch is the official title. I personally belong to the Logistics Branch but belong to an infantry regiment, which is part of the Infantry Branch. It is an administrative entity; tactically and operationally we belong to a Brigade (a formation). But the Infantry Branch oversees training throughout the branch. It used to be called the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (and may still be), which is not the same as a formation of the same name (corps). You're confusing administrative entities with tactical formations.Michael Dorosh 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate the claim it's a Branch and not a Corps? I'm tempted to take the Infantry School's claim of training a corps over your claim it trains a branch. I can find no Internet-based evidence of a Royal Canadian Infantry Branch (but I can find the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps). I don't have access to anything beyond the Internet presently, so can't go beyond that. Kenny.am 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Canadian watering down of a title extends to the rest of the world. It's not unlikely other countries have retained the title of Infantry Corps. Kenny.am 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations seem meaningless and unnecessary for leading readers to a truer understanding of infantry - is there really a strong case to be made for their inclusion?Michael Dorosh 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is, though some are better than others and are fairly good at conveying an impression. —Centrx→talk • 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The historical section is too long in any case 66.57.225.84 (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "infantryman" is itself a gender-neutral descriptor, so stating that "infanteer" is somehow more "gender friendly" is erroneous. The term "infantryman" is applied equally correctly to both men and women. I've removed the reference to this term not because it is not true that the term is in use, but because there is no source as to how common it is. The subject is one of hot debate at, say, army.ca as many seem to prefer the traditional name "infantryman". Michael Dorosh 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate extends beyond one website and its usage beyond the CF. Kindly keep your comments to the realm of, say, mature. Kenny.am 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that the debate extends beyond one website, then do feel free to present that evidence here for discussion. Also avoid the use of personal attacks, and remember to sign your comments.Michael Dorosh 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he must mean the more general "politically correct" use of "congresswoman", "congressperson", "policewoman", etc. I don't see any reason to use these terms, as "-man" and "man" have well-attested use referring to humans of either gender or in general, but "infanteer" seems to be an especially non-standard use, whereas at least the -person and -woman formations are rather common nowadays. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard the term "Infanteer" used in the US military. To me it seems a weak attempt to apply a "PC" comment to an essentially-male profession. Female members of the United States Armed Forces are prohibited from joining any of the Combat Arms branches. I believe this rule extends to all the military forces in the world (save for, perhaps, certain units in the Red Army where women were utilized in a combat role). Infantry is a occupational speciality in the armed forces, and despite claims that, say, Marines are riflemen first (and, therefore, women are "riflemen") this does not mean women are members of the infantry. So... the term "infantryman" is probably still safe from politically-correct verbal blitzkriegs. :) BRGillespie 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that even in such a broad-minded community, such as Wikipedia, attempts at fostering neutrality, inclusiveness and greater equity, are shot down as "PC verbal blitzkrieg". But, so be it. I am here more interested in the etymology of the word infantry, which bothers me more. If my Greek ad Latin rudiments serve me right, it comes from "children soldiers". right? Themalau 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate of he "correct" term is immaterial. Remember WP:NOR; Wikipedia must only collect information, not create or promote information. Wikipedia should use the term "infanteer" if it is in common English usage, and should not otherwise. --A D Monroe III 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author seems to prefer the eurpean words like Knight instead of Heavy cavalry,Phalanx formation instead of Heavy infantry,Roman legion istead of Light infantry.--Ksyrie 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's Eurocentric, but it isn't just in the words. The whole sections tracing infantry through Classical antiquity and Middle Ages are based on European history. Rather than change words, we need new data. If you have any good information on Asian or other non-European infantry development, please add it.

(BTW, Roman Legionaires where not Light Infantry.)

--A D Monroe III 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, under 'modern' it makes the claim that massed formations of infantry have fallen into disuse since World War II. Hello? What about the Iran-Iraq War? Or perhaps the Korean War?

--Agent of the Reds 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watching "Blood diamond(film)", I picked up a line by the samaritan where he says that infantry originates from "child soldier". It made sense, yet I couldn't find any reference to it. Anyone care to share his/her expertise?

There is already a page on the Hitler Youth - the descriptive paragraph here seems out of place.

The beginning of this article states that women are not allow to be in the infantry. This is not correct for all countries. Canada is a good example of this being untrue. As far as I know there is no position in the Canadian Forces that a woman can not hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.143.214 (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth do we have a whole section devoted to a poem that the US infantry have written about themselves? It doesn't tell us anything about infantry, it doesn't add to our understanding of the topic, it doesn't fit with the style of an encyclpedia.

It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonicTruism (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to cut out a lot of the "grunt cruft" from this article, but it's still not in great shape. Much of this article is unsourced, and could use a thorough copyediting. Another issue is that it remains a target for "go edit your own MOS" editors, which usually leads to unproductive edits like the above mentioned "I am the Infantry". Remember, we are building a scholarly encyclopedia, not a tribute page to infantrymen; there's plenty of space on the rest of the internets if that's your intention, just not here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what an infantryman is for all you scholarly young tykes that simply can't understand it:

A highly trained killer trained to stalk, engage and eliminate HIS nations enemies in life and death close combat. For a reward he gets posers and wannabes trying to define HIM>

You simply can't talk about the Infantry without saying something about the gallons of blood, the strings of guts laying on the ground, the cries for 'Mom" that echo through the gunfire and the recognizable screams of pain from friends and a life time of tears and scrubbing to try and rid the house of the deamons.

In my opinion if you can't talk about these real life FACTS of an average infantryman then you really have no facts on the topic and are simply but then again I'm sure hearing gun fire from outside the wire while being tucked away in some FOB is the same as being infantry and state that as a fact.

So go on and tell us infantrymen who we are and what we do while you rack up more self-serving but highly unknown accolades on how scholarly this topic has turned as it goes lower and lower on the search engines. In the end we are what we are and could give a crap less what others think... That's why most of us don't share our thoughts, facts and internal suffering. We already have ample knowledge that the average person including average military member, could never understand.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.37.153 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

69.223.37.153 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]