I recently got interested in the Royal Scots Greys... the British 2nd Dragoons. This is the oldest line horse cavalry regiment serving in the British army. The 2nd Dragoons (2nd ACR Light now) is the oldest serving regiment in the US Army. What is it about dragoons that makes them so, well, long lasting? The 2nd Dragoons fought in every major war the US has been in since the 1830's, except Korea and Vietnam. It also has been redesignated, realigned and almost wiped out several times! They have been the elite, the tip to the tip of the spear many times, taking horrific losses, but always coming through.

The Scots Greys have their great history of fighting all over the Empire and the great charge at Waterloo (the US 2nd also has its charge in the Mexican war). Through all of the years and changes they have been around, eventually rising to be one of Britain's premier armor regiments. Their service in WWI and WWII are stories in themselves.

It would make a great article... the 2nd Regiment of Dragoons, twice over...

Their longevity probably lends to the Dragoons true purpose. They are basically mounted soldiers as opposed to true light cavalry which are designed to fight entirely while mounted. They have evolved into highly mobile soldiers who used the horse, now the APC to quickly find and fix the enemy for the main forces.

BTW, I sat through a class where the 2 ACR is now the 2 CR, they will be the next IBCT.

Yes, I think you hit the nail. When you look at how they were used (and abused) over the years you can see that. The 2nd Dragoon were used as rear area security and scouts in WWI, fought as a Recon Battalion in WWII, then took on the trip-wire role in Europe... after serviing as constatulary for a time. They also chased indians, fought in the Phillipines, were the first unit into Mexico City, were part of the Army of the Potomic and led the "left punch" for the 7th Corp in the Gulf... enough different missions?? I think the adaptability, the economy of force element and their compactness for their firepower also help.

I wonder how much research it would take to write an article on the history of the Dragoons... using these two regiments as parallel examples... well, that will have to wait until after these next two semesters.. but I can be researching it in the meantime.

dragoons in British history.....they were frequently used as government bully boys,and were
often the dregs of society,read the role they played after the the battle of Culloden.There is a saying here,when you are being forced to do something you dont want to do....you are bring
dragooned into it .The Scots Greys may be a proud regiment now,but they were originally
raised to put down a civilian population....in other words policemen.
Arthur
Am Alba Mannich

Yes, I read that in the history. The US 2nd Dragoon were formed to put down the Seminoles... they sort of succeeded... not a very auspicious beginning, either. It does, however, show the flexibility of the formations. Soldiers are often asked to do what they would not otherwise do. "War is Hell."

American Indians or Native Americans were some of the finest light cavarlymen to fight on horseback. Problem was that with the advent of mounted "infanrtymen", or those who are designed to fight on foot after dismounting, but are still trained and equipped to fight on horseback, a standard cavarly unit cannot match the dragoons in a head to head fight. Cavalry does do a better screening and reconning though.

I have to disagree with you, Rob. I wrote a couple papers on this subject when I was in college.

Almost all Native American tribes fought on foot. Many Plains tribes would ride to the fight on horseback, but would dismount to fight. The only tribe that preferred to fight on horseback were the Comanches. Unlike what is shown in the movies, the Apaches were more often on foot than on horseback. In more than one reference, I read that most Apaches would rather eat a horse than ride it.

Another myth is that Native Americans organized their warriors into some sort of units. Truth was, they formed groups of individual warriors. Each warrior decided when and how he would engage the enemy. War leaders were generally warriors who were respected for their bravery, experience and luck -- not necessarily their tactical know-how.

Also, it was important to the warriors to close with the enemy. "Counting coup" -- touching the enemy -- was more important than killing the enemy. It was easier to count coup on foot than on horseback.