Lifeguard regiments?

[Parrot]

I have seen in various sources that some regiments were called things like "King's Lifeguard" or "Life Regiment" "Guard".  My question is this:  Why are these units called this?  Would they have only been deployed if in the presence of the king?  Would they only be present at actions that the king or queen was present at?  Or is it just a title of honor or distinguishment?

[Tordenskjold]

With the rise of professional armies drawn from the populace in the early enlightenment it became prudent for the kings and queens of Europe to have regiment that were specifically loyal to their person. Imagine you're are king, you raise a regment of soldiers from the oppressed peasents. Now these soldiers rebel - who is going to defend you?
That's why you have a regiment, or several regiments, of lifeguard, guard or king's guard. Standing troops paid directly by you and loyal to you. They might have elite status, live in the best barracks close to the castle etc. All priviliges aimed at increasing their loyalty.
As time went on these regiments might participate in wars. No reason to not use your most elite troops if you are safe in your position. At the moment. As the French revolution showed these things coukd turn quickly.

So no, on the battlefield it would not have any real significance if the regiment was called King's or Queen's something. They might have been more elite, more experienced and better equiped, or they might not.

[zippyfusenet]

I agree about the development of Guard formations in early modern Europe, but disagree about the issue of troop quality.

The Guards were usually the best troops in an army. Often the best (biggest, strongest, healthiest, bravest) soldiers were drafted into the Guard regiments from the rest of the army. Guard formations were kept up to full strength, when line regiments were kept at cadre strength in peace time, or reduced by losses in the field. Officer positions were often reserved for the highest nobility, while young nobles served in the Guards as cadets to train them for command roles, and also in court etiquette, and to encourage them to network and make themselves known among the courtiers.

Guard regiments had the best barracks, the best uniforms, the best food, the best weapons and equipment, the best horses in the army. They were the best drilled, so as to put on a good show at guard-mount, and were often used to experiment and develop new drills and tactical systems, and then to demonstrate them to the rest of the army, and to serve as models and trainers.

Besides guarding the palace and the king's person, the Royal Guards had a police function, keeping order and suppressing riots in the capital in an age when civilian police forces were weak. It sometimes happened that the Guards' security and police functions became so predominant that their tactical efficiency eroded, and they performed poorly when mobilized for war, but this fault was rare and usually soon corrected. The Royal Guards were supposed to be the best regiments, and usually were.

Of course there were differences in quality between the Lifeguard Troop of the County of Lower Pishkey and the Guards of a major power like France or England. Sometime a country's army was so run down, like the Spanish, Portuguese or Polish armies were at times, that even the Guards were under-strength and ragged. In the 18th century, most armies' Guards comprised just a few battalions of infantry and a cavalry regiment or two, so they could be kept elite. Napoleon expanded his guard until it made up nearly half his army, but they were the *best* half.

There's a good reason that most wargame rules writers rate the Royal Guards so highly.

[Sparrow]

Hi - not sure re the context of your question but in the ECW the King (and Queen's) Lifeguard of Foot were just A.N. other regiments - nothing special. The Regiments of Horse each had a particular character (the Queen's regiment reputedly included a large quantity of Frenchmen and the King's was referred to as the "Troope of Shew") but neither seem to have been any more effective than any other regiment.

They're all fun units to have in a Wargames army though 

[Argonor]

'Life', and  King's/Queen's (Own) Regiment often just denotes that the sovereign (or a member of her/his family) is the nominal head (colonel) of the unit (often the sponsor/patron of it). It could be recruited and trained just like any other unit in the army - might have fancier uniform and/or colours, but otherwise be fairly average. Officers might consider themselves 'special' for serving under the patronage of royalty (or whatever), but the rank-and-file would probably not feel very priviledged.

Guards, on the other hand, are often handpicked and considered elite. Not always, but often.

To determine whether or not a given unit should be considered elite certainly requires knowing more than just the name/designation of it (will often vary with period and theater of war).

[Arthur]

Argonor puts it very well. You have to differentiate between bodyguards, whose purpose was to protect a king or a prominent figure, and Life/King's/Queen's regiments which were units whose colonel/proprietor was a monarch, a prince or a high-ranking commander.

The former were small bodies of troops whereas the latter were standard units, which may or may not have ranked as elite. As an illustration, here are a few examples drawn from the Thirty Years War :

* The Würzburg infantry regiment was raised in 1619 for service with the Catholic League. It became the property of Count Tilly (then commander in chief of the Catholic League army) in 1624 and was often referred to as Tilly's Life Regiment afterwards though its official name remained the Alt-Tily regiment zu Fuss. It wasn't a guard unit but a regular infantry regiment who fought in many campaigns and certainly qualified as a veteran unit.

* In the Swedish army, Gustavus Adolphus' personal regiment of foot (originally known as the Hovregiment and subsequently as the Yellow regiment because of the colour of its flags and uniforms) was similarly a regular infantry regiment - albeit a crack one - which fought as a combat unit. Gustavus' actual bodyguards were organized into a separate company of around 120 men which were often brigaded with the yellow regiment when called to fight pitched battles.

* The Danish army's King's Life Regiment was similar to the Swedish yellow regiment in many ways : Christian IV of Denmark was its nominal colonel-proprietor but it was a regular infantry regiment in every other respect, apart from its size (it boasted 20 companies instead of 12 in the other Danish standing regiments) and the fact that it also included a unit of real bodyguards, the 400-strong Livcompani whose primary function was to protect the King's person.

Hope this helps.

[zippyfusenet]

I can't argue with any of the points made. I will suggest that both the Thirty Years War and English Civil War were very early in the Early Modern era, before the Enlightenment, and  the development of the bureaucratic state and the royal standing armies - all of these latter were reactions to the chaotic destructiveness of the Thirty Years War.

The royal guards formations that I have described developed as an element of the royal standing armies, in the last quarter of the 17th century, for instance Peter the Great's Russian Guard, which was his model for the reform of the Russian army, or William III's Foot and Horse Guards, and were seen in most 18th century European armies.

Of course the references to the TYW and ECW were entirely appropriate to the 'Pikes, Muskets and Flouncy Shirts' board, and perhaps I should have kept to that context.