The names of American regiments the British Army raised if the 13 Colonies never successfully separated from Great Britain?

The British Army had many colorfully named regiments over the years drawn from all areas of Great Britain and the British Empire. Some of these include the names of regiments raised from Britain, such as the Sherwood Foresters, the Royal West Surrey Regiment, the Coldstream Guards. Regiments from Scotland were raised with names such as, The Black Watch, the Cameron Highlanders, the Highland Light Infantry. Regiments from Wales were created such as the South Wales Borderers and The Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Irish regiments like the Connaught Rangers and Canadian regiments including the Winnipeg Rifles and the Loyal Edmonton Regiment. There were also Indian Army regiments, like the Frontier Force Regiment, the Rajputana Rifles and the Guides Infantry Regiment.

If America had never separated from the British, what might be some of the names of British Army Regiments raised in America? One example might be, "the Loyal South Carolina Rangers"
 
Here are over 150 Loyalist units that were raised for the war.
The Royal American Regiment was a line regiment of the British Army and remains in existence today as one of the units forming 'The Rifles'. A current regiment.
 
Last edited:
The British Army had many colorfully named regiments over the years drawn from all areas of Great Britain and the British Empire. Some of these include the names of regiments raised from Britain, such as the Sherwood Foresters, the Royal West Surrey Regiment, the Coldstream Guards. Regiments from Scotland were raised with names such as, The Black Watch, the Cameron Highlanders, the Highland Light Infantry. Regiments from Wales were created such as the South Wales Borderers and The Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Irish regiments like the Connaught Rangers and Canadian regiments including the Winnipeg Rifles and the Loyal Edmonton Regiment. There were also Indian Army regiments, like the Frontier Force Regiment, the Rajputana Rifles and the Guides Infantry Regiment.

If America had never separated from the British, what might be some of the names of British Army Regiments raised in America? One example might be, "the Loyal South Carolina Rangers"
Except the Royal Welch and SWB are until late 19th century the 23rd and 24th of foot, With the 24th being known as the 2nd Warwickshire for the hundred hears to 1881. They have nicknames much earlier, but the number indicates precedence in the corps of Infantry so higher the number more likely to be disbanded in Peacetime ( which is why the 95th regiment of foot is taken out of the corps of Infantry and put into the Rifle Corps - where it is senior.)

Wiki has a list of all British regiments regiments and there several regiments raised in America that either morph into a county regiment at some long time later or disappear. So Alexander Spotswoods Regiment is raised in 1739 as the 43rd foot, becomes Goochs American Regiment, when Spotswood dies, is disbanded reraised as the 43rd Royal Highland ( which then gets renumbered to the 42nd Royal Highland aka the Black Watch) and the 43rd is raised as the Monmouth Regiment, Which had previously been the 54th foot.

The Americas for most of the time could not support large permanent formations, and Parliament wont want to pay for them so you are likely to get very few regular regiments. More likely are company sized ranger units of regular full time troops with militias on a lower level.

When you get to the Cardwell reforms you get Brigade/Regiment districts and localisation so the regiment district would depend on population and it gets its county/colony name.

What you are likely to end up with is a mix of 1st , 2nd etc Americans, several called Rangers ( New York, Great Lakes, Rogers, Connaught) I suspect some with an African heritage like the Royal Alabama African Rifles ( who disdainfully reject the notion of becoming the American Guards regiment) Colonial Marines ( who deserve respect for having burned the White House) and cavalry.

What you may also get is Company regiments taken over by the Crown as in India. So Kearny's Horse from an ex Hudson Bay company paramilitary unit. These are ones most likely to get a colonels name permanently - Lord Strathconas Horse.

There is no particular reason why a British North America would be a single political entity btw so you may get the 13 colonies being very like the UK but ( assuming the same geography eventually) Louisiane being more like Quebec with a francophone identity, Texas being both bigger and seperate, British Columbia being everything west of the Rockies with just the 1-5 British Columbia Regiments etc. with the Great Lakes littoral being a seperate thing with both the Canadian and US states coming together as a single thing - different to the Old Colonies.
 
If America had never separated from the British, what might be some of the names of British Army Regiments raised in America? One example might be, "the Loyal South Carolina Rangers"
Somewhat like what @Gannt the chartist said.

There wouldn't be any more British Army regiments of American decent. They'd all be part of the North American Army of TTL.

My guess is that British North America would have evolved into a Dominion of North America analogous to ITTL's Dominion of Canada. It would have consisted of the North American territory that the Great Britain had in 1863 plus Bermuda and the British West Indies.

Therefore, there would be a Royal Regiment of North American Artillery instead of the OTL Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery and the corps of the OTL Canadian Army would be corps of the North American Army so for example.
Royal North American Armoured Corps instead of the OTL Royal Canadian Armoured Corps​
Royal North American Infantry Corps instead of the OTL Royal Canadian Infantry Corps​
Corps of Royal North American Engineers instead of the OTL Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers​

AIUI Canada didn't have an army until World War II. That is it did have an army but it was't called one. Instead it was called the Militia. There was a small Permanent Militia (the Regular Army in all but name) which was mainly coast artillery and instructors for the Non-Permanent Militia which was a large volunteer reserve equivalent to the British Territorial Army and American National Guard. The Non-Permanent Militia was the field army and had all the cavalry and infantry regiments with the colourful names.

After World War II Canada maintained a larger regular army which included a field force and the regular infantry battalions were formed into The Royal Canadian Regiment. (The Australian and New Zealand Armies similarly formed the Royal Australian Regiment and Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment.) Therefore, ITTL there's likely to be a Royal North American Regiment and lots of single battalion territorial regiments.

AFAIK Canada didn't form a Royal Canadian Tank Corps, but there might be a Royal North American Tank Corps (RNATC) ITTL. Due to the Dominion of North American having a population that was several times larger than OTL Canada the TTL Dominion Government would be able to maintain a small regular RNATC between the World Wars. It would become the Royal North American Tank Regiment (RNATR) when the Royal North American Armoured Corps was created and after the war the regular RNAAC formations would be RNATR units.
 
There wouldn't be any more British Army regiments of American decent. They'd all be part of the North American Army of TTL.
Only if there is a North America. Otherwise there are several 'American' regiments in direct British Service which would ebb and flow with the size of the army. As long as North America are colonies then the forces would be part of the British Establishment- as the West India Regiment (s) were. Unlike Canada which generally has a peaceful border with the US and no real need for armed forces British North America will be swept along with the Napoleonic wars and will be at war with the Spanish and French at various times ( though I suspect Lousiane will tend be pro Royalist) and forces will be raised at various times for various purposes.

As I will continue to say There is no reason why British North America would be a single thing politically. It becomes a thing on the basis of all hanging together and a need to provide for the common defence and conduct a foreign policy. Any scenario that does not result in a USA means both of these are done by HM forces and the Foreign office. So New England has a whole different set of issues to Virginia and the Carolinas and they don't need to compromise with each other, both need to compromise with Westminster.

The biggest two are that the St Lawrence is navigable into the Great Lakes and the whole of their coasts more accessible earlier than by trekking through Appalachia; and Mansfield. No man can be slave except by reason of positive law. Which fundamentally changes what happens with slavery in North America.
 
My guess is that British North America would have evolved into a Dominion of North America analogous to ITTL's Dominion of Canada. It would have consisted of the North American territory that the Great Britain had in 1863 plus Bermuda and the British West Indies.
Just to comment on this as it seems like its taken as a given in these topics; there is no reason for a united North American Dominion. The US sticking together wasn't even a sure thing OTL when they had a threat to unite against, ITTL its not like North Americs can be threatened by a European power post 7 Years War, and Britain's classic "divide and conquer" strategy would probably work quite well. If New York need a dispute resolved with New Jersey, they'd get Britain to mediate, not some larger federal entity.
 
Just to comment on this as it seems like its taken as a given in these topics; there is no reason for a united North American Dominion. The US sticking together wasn't even a sure thing OTL when they had a threat to unite against, ITTL its not like North Americs can be threatened by a European power post 7 Years War, and Britain's classic "divide and conquer" strategy would probably work quite well. If New York need a dispute resolved with New Jersey, they'd get Britain to mediate, not some larger federal entity.
And @Gannt the chartist.

Points taken.

However, the British did have a habit of merging adjacent colonies into "super colonies" for want of a better term. E.g. Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria and South Africa are modern day consequences. Less permanent were the Federation of Rhodesia & Nyassaland and the West Indies Federation. AIUI the East African High Commission was intended to be a step on the path to a country called East Africa and the intention was to make the High Commission Territories (modern Botswana, Lesoto and Swaziland) part of a Greater South Africa whether they wanted them to be or not.
 
Just to comment on this as it seems like its taken as a given in these topics; there is no reason for a united North American Dominion. The US sticking together wasn't even a sure thing OTL when they had a threat to unite against, ITTL its not like North Americs can be threatened by a European power post 7 Years War, and Britain's classic "divide and conquer" strategy would probably work quite well. If New York need a dispute resolved with New Jersey, they'd get Britain to mediate, not some larger federal entity.
No, however a number of other factors that led to the formation of the United States would still be operative. There would still be a desire for a common body to handle matters at a less remote and difficult level than London, such as coordinating tariff policy, the construction and integration of large-scale public works such as railroads and canals, and forming a common immigration policy. All of these were important factors in the formation of later federations such as those of Australia and Canada (and Australia, of course, was just as unthreatened by European events as North America would be), quite aside from any defense considerations.

Additionally, Britain switched to a more "unite-and-conquer" mode in relation to its settler colonies later in the 19th century (it encouraged the federation of Australia, for instance), and in any case is likely to want to delegate the burden of handling such petty disputes between New York and New Jersey to a lower level so that it can handle larger and more pressing issues than the question of who is legally allowed to run a ferry route between the colonies or what not.

This may not lead to the formation of a single unified North American dominion (and even if it did some peripheral colonies would likely opt out, as Newfoundland and New Zealand did), but it is likely to result in the federalization of many of the colonies into fewer and larger units than was the case in 1775.
 
If there was a "Balkanized" British North America consisting of many colonies then British East Africa might be a better model.

In that case there would be a regular equivalent to the Kings African Rifles (perhaps the Kings American Rifles) which would have infantry battalions with integrated artillery and engineers for the whole of British North America and each colony would have its own territorial army.

However, the KAR analogue wouldn't be part of the British Army as the OTL West India Regiment was. It would be owned and financed by the governments of the colonies like the OTL KAR was.
 
No, however a number of other factors that led to the formation of the United States would still be operative. There would still be a desire for a common body to handle matters at a less remote and difficult level than London, such as coordinating tariff policy, the construction and integration of large-scale public works such as railroads and canals, and forming a common immigration policy. All of these were important factors in the formation of later federations such as those of Australia and Canada (and Australia, of course, was just as unthreatened by European events as North America would be), quite aside from any defense considerations.

Additionally, Britain switched to a more "unite-and-conquer" mode in relation to its settler colonies later in the 19th century (it encouraged the federation of Australia, for instance), and in any case is likely to want to delegate the burden of handling such petty disputes between New York and New Jersey to a lower level so that it can handle larger and more pressing issues than the question of who is legally allowed to run a ferry route between the colonies or what not.

This may not lead to the formation of a single unified North American dominion (and even if it did some peripheral colonies would likely opt out, as Newfoundland and New Zealand did), but it is likely to result in the federalization of many of the colonies into fewer and larger units than was the case in 1775.
I'm not denying there will be some larger federal colonies in North America. A New England, some sort of southern union, maybe something in the Mid-Atlantic and so on. What I am saying is that a lot of the time a "What if the British Won the Revolutionary War" TL inevitably sees a giant North American Commonwealth from sea to shining sea whereas I see no reason why the British would encourage confederation of the colonies where they didn't OTL, barring the Dominion of New England which was a failure. In the cases of Canada and Australia the colonies began the process of unification by themselves IIRC and Britain encouraged those, but didn't initiate anything.
So for a Dominion of North America situation the union would have to occur independent of British involvement. And without a war to bring the colonies together (and, again, the United States forming wasn't a certainty OTL) I see no reason for South Carolina and Quebec to agree to be in the same dominion. To clarify: I think regional federations are likely but a continent-wide super state is very unlikely. Not ASB, just not the most probable outcome.
In regard to the actual question, I'd imagine a lot of the King's American xxxxs would appear. If I had to make up some regiment names based on India I'd say the Rhode Island Volunteers, the Virginia Rifles, the New England Volunteer Rifles, ect. Could be named after part of a city e.g. the Brooklyn Regiment.
 
Probably this for every colony/state an thus using Virginia as an example

Royal Virginian Dragoons
Royal Virginian Fusiliers
Royal Virginian Guards
Royal Virginian Hussars
Royal Virginian Lancers
Royal Virginian Yeomanry

Kings Own Virginian Rifles
Queens Own Virginian Rifles

Royal Virginian Artillery

plus a battalion of Gurkha's thrown in for good measure

Much obliged!
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
If the POD is Britain winning a / the AWI, then I suggest many regiments would have "Loyal" in their name like the Loyal North Lancashire Regt. or other titles such as "Royal" and "The King's" to reflect their proud lineage.
 
No, however a number of other factors that led to the formation of the United States would still be operative. There would still be a desire for a common body to handle matters at a less remote and difficult level than London, such as coordinating tariff policy, the construction and integration of large-scale public works such as railroads and canals, and forming a common immigration policy. All of these were important factors in the formation of later federations such as those of Australia and Canada (and Australia, of course, was just as unthreatened by European events as North America would be), quite aside from any defense considerations.

Additionally, Britain switched to a more "unite-and-conquer" mode in relation to its settler colonies later in the 19th century (it encouraged the federation of Australia, for instance), and in any case is likely to want to delegate the burden of handling such petty disputes between New York and New Jersey to a lower level so that it can handle larger and more pressing issues than the question of who is legally allowed to run a ferry route between the colonies or what not.

This may not lead to the formation of a single unified North American dominion (and even if it did some peripheral colonies would likely opt out, as Newfoundland and New Zealand did), but it is likely to result in the federalization of many of the colonies into fewer and larger units than was the case in 1775.

Its called Parliament and lives in Westminster unless otherwise decided by Parliament.

Arguably the AWI was all about whether Westminster was supreme or whether the colonial assemblies were co equal with Westminster. If the British 'win' either by force of arms or compromise the end result is Westminster is supreme.

The basic post AWI colonial charter for New South Wales etc was form an assembly and pass any laws you like except no Laws repugnant to the Law of England and Wales with the Home Office Secretary being the responsible cabinet secretary until 1801 when its the War office. America is different to Australia in several ways, its a lot closer, 3 weeks sail not 6 months and has an established court system and its vastly different from say Malaysia as all the people in the American colonies are British. Models that aggregate various protectorates and really tiny colonies do not apply to British Subjects.

If the American colonies come together then like Australia it will be because they choose to or not as with New Zealand given the rivalry and different circumstances of the various areas I think thats very unlikely, slightly less likely than Third Act of Union with New England taking Seats at Westminster. The New England colonies having been part of British Society since at least the civil war.

So border disputes between the colonies are a matter for the Court of Chancery, I recommend the Ordnance Survey dispatch surveyors after the example of Messers Mason and Dixon to settle the matter but in the end if the locals cannot reach an agreement its a matter for the courts.

As to the army if you look at the US army which reflects the needs of a country suspicious of standing armies - like Britain is - then early on is likely to be a single infantry regiment, several detached companies ( as the previous Ranging companies) and an artillery battery. With a war scare, and there will be one assuming something like the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars that will increase but by the ACW the US army is 10 IR 4 Arty Rgt,( say 36 Batteries but that includes sea coast) 2 cavalry 2 dragoon and 3 Mounted rifles. The British army as at 1855 was 108 Inf Rgt, 26 Cavalry regiments and 199 arty Bty, Plus the East India Company regiments, at 154,000 + men. So it seems in keeping with the scale of things up to then.

By then the small number of IR will have numerical designations, plus a semi official nickname, the 60th will be the American Rifles and there may be more than one regiment so described ( don't forget a regular regiment is available for service anywhere, usually Martinique) , 104th the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. and the others I would guess would include some called Rangers ( its an old designation) based on 1812 Canadian units a Frontier Light Infantry and Western Rangers seem likely but as nicknames.

Come Childers reforms those will get regional designations or have the nickname made official. The Loyals (a British army regiment) were originally the Loyal Lincolnshire Volunteers, a regiment of volunteers raised at the time of the French Revolution and later incorporated as the 81st foot. then merged with the 43rd.

The Royal designation has to be earned so some of the older regiments may get it or Kings/ Queens Own but its not automatic or necessarily welcome.

What a war scare will do is raise a number of regiments for Home defense initially which if the scare is closely after the revolutionary period may reflect whatever units were raised then. So based on that and the Rule of Cool,

The Ethiopian Regiment aka the Black Banditti, Georgia Regiment, Kings American Regiment, Kings American Dragoons, Loyal Americans, McAlpins regiment ( fusiliers obviously ) Prince of Wales American Regiment, New Jersey Volunteers, New York Volunteers ( and so forth across the colonies/provinces.) Queens American Rangers, Virginia Light Horse, Canadian Voltigeurs, Provincial Marine ( Great Lakes not quite navy)

And if the colonies are designated Provinces rather than States a lot of Provincial formations - Provincial Guides and Pioneers. Things get weird when the volunteer rifle corps take off. Port of New York Submarine Miners for example.
 
Its called Parliament and lives in Westminster unless otherwise decided by Parliament.
Yes, and Parliament is probably going to get sick of spending a great deal of time adjudicating disputes between different colonies (not all of which will be matters for the courts; and even where the courts initially become involved, there is a distinct possibility of Parliament stepping in and creating a different outcome) and regulating intercolonial commerce and doing all of the other day-to-day work that managing a large empire entails instead of worrying about Europe or expanding the Empire as a whole or so on and so forth. Which was my point. Having Parliament and British courts be the only supra-colonial layer of government is unworkable because it puts too great a load on British institutions to take care of everything directly, especially as the Empire grows and multiplies the amount of work they have to do. They need to create intermediate levels of government, for much the same reason that generals have subordinates instead of having the Commander-in-Chief try to directly command every single individual soldier.

If the American colonies come together then like Australia it will be because they choose to or not as with New Zealand given the rivalry and different circumstances of the various areas
If you had bothered reading what I actually wrote, you would have noticed that I only said, "This may not lead to the formation of a single unified North American dominion (and even if it did some peripheral colonies would likely opt out, as Newfoundland and New Zealand did), but it is likely to result in the federalization of many of the colonies into fewer and larger units than was the case in 1775."

The point is that the status quo of having fifteen or sixteen separate colonies all directly subordinate from London was not one that could be sustained in the long run. Some degree of consolidation would be necessary to alleviate administrative stress and allow the British government as a whole to focus on other areas of interest. This does not necessarily mean the formation of a single super-dominion, but you are most likely not going to see British North America merrily bumbling along for the next two hundred years exactly the same as it was as some people on this thread seem to think.
 
Here are over 150 Loyalist units that were raised for the war.
The Royal American Regiment was a line regiment of the British Army and remains in existence today as one of the units forming 'The Rifles'. A current regiment.
Similarly, The Queen’s Rangers which was raised in New York and New England currently exists as The Queen’s York Rangers (1st American Regiment) in the Canadian Army.
 
Yes, and Parliament is probably going to get sick of spending a great deal of time adjudicating disputes between different colonies (not all of which will be matters for the courts; and even where the courts initially become involved, there is a distinct possibility of Parliament stepping in and creating a different outcome) and regulating intercolonial commerce and doing all of the other day-to-day work that managing a large empire entails instead of worrying about Europe or expanding the Empire as a whole or so on and so forth. Which was my point. Having Parliament and British courts be the only supra-colonial layer of government is unworkable because it puts too great a load on British institutions to take care of everything directly, especially as the Empire grows and multiplies the amount of work they have to do. They need to create intermediate levels of government, for much the same reason that generals have subordinates instead of having the Commander-in-Chief try to directly command every single individual soldier.


If you had bothered reading what I actually wrote, you would have noticed that I only said, "This may not lead to the formation of a single unified North American dominion (and even if it did some peripheral colonies would likely opt out, as Newfoundland and New Zealand did), but it is likely to result in the federalization of many of the colonies into fewer and larger units than was the case in 1775."

The point is that the status quo of having fifteen or sixteen separate colonies all directly subordinate from London was not one that could be sustained in the long run. Some degree of consolidation would be necessary to alleviate administrative stress and allow the British government as a whole to focus on other areas of interest. This does not necessarily mean the formation of a single super-dominion, but you are most likely not going to see British North America merrily bumbling along for the next two hundred years exactly the same as it was as some people on this thread seem to think.
Parliament would be wary of a single North American Dominion as it would inevitably replace the UK as the centre of the Empire.
The initial American Dominions.

Canada & Newfoundland
New England
Atlantia. (New York down to Maryland)
Arcadia (Virginia down to Florida)

The names would probably differ but you get the picture.
 
Top