Talk:Spanish Legion

Sex, drugs and violence

I have just heard Nacho Vidal talking about some September day when legionnaires celebrate bringing drugs and whores to the barracks. Somebody with more knowledge should clarify what is real and what legend.

I have also heard about raids against Muslim neighbourhoods in Melilla. --Error 23:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Error! As to the raidings, they did happen up to the 80's (don't know as of today) My recollection from talks with former legionaires was that they where considered "a matter of honor" (i.e. only as revenge/police action after an actual or alleged mistreatment on a legionarie or related person), and the only weapon the "honor code" allowed was the belt (i suppose more than one knife would be also present ...)

What I heard should be the 1990s. --Error 23:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't have any reference about a September celebration, but drug abuse (topically marihuana, called "grifa") and whoring were part of the "clasical" legionary way of life from the start, and, at least, tolerated even in the most prudish times (the 40's and 50's)----Wllacer 16:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Vidal, on that day a plain soldier could go to an officer and challenge him to a boxing match to settle accounts. Sort of Saturnalia. --Error 23:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

With the September 20 reference you found, the feasting Vidal describes seems more than plausible, but i very much doubt it's allowed now (It's too "unpolitically correct" for the times).

The tradition of boxing to settle matters between two legionaries is as old as the Legion (probably even older) Personal grudges can be damning for the whole unit in "live or death" situations elite soldiers are expected to endure; therefore the founders instituted boxing as a mechanism to avoid them. Disputes btw. legionaries should be settled not thru intervention of the Chain of Command, neither let them pass unresolved, but openly thru a fist fight (kind of a duel). It was expected that afterward, both would go out together friendly and get drunk. Such a fight between a soldier and an officer could therefore happen --Wllacer 12:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Foreigners in the Spanish Foreign Legion in the '50s-'80s

I Salute all!

Im curious to know whether non-spaniard soldiers were served with the Tercios during the Cold War?

The reason Im asking is that I heard a couple people saying, that "most expatriates then gone for the French Foreign Legion, but a handful also to Spain - and that was the harder way..."

Anyone who can tell if there were any other nationalities? (i hope its not secret)

User:Rabapone

I don't know the details but there were people from Spanish Guinea. --Error 00:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Add to the list germans, belgians ( both a lot after 1945), french (some after the 60's), south americans (lately the most common ones) and morocans (only after 1956. At least with initial morocan nationality, but now most reared in Spain) I coudn't find any list of nationalities, and AFAIK foreigners were always a minority--Wllacer 09:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

THX for Your Info!

Well, I'm particularly interested in that any east-european nationalities ever served in this once "Men's last Refuge" Spanish Foreign Legion? You know I'm hungarian (which is a once-Warsaw Pact, now-NATO country), and I served Hungarian Army (Honvedseg), and i did met people telling me, that a number of hungarians, slovakians, czech, polish and alike served in the Tercios.

Somehow i am interested in the Cold War period of Europe, ant particarly in the history of the Spanish and French Foreign Legions, and the Rhodesian Ligth Infantry, etc. that was a _possible_ 'hiding place' for many of east-european dissidents and expatriates who were forced to run from the communists.

And one more question: is there an english-language discussiopn group of the Spanish Foreign Legion ?

thx: User:Rabapone

Requested move

Spanish Foreign Legion → Spanish Legion – The current official name is Spanish Legion. This is reflected in the Spanish version of the article already. The article was unilaterally moved from its original title (i.e. Spanish Legion) by someone back in July as a matter of personal preference without any discussion.E Asterion ^{u talking to me?}

The result of the discussion was to move. - Bobet 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose - Because in English is largely known as "Spanish Foreign Legion".--Kwame Nkrumah 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This name is incorrect at the present time. For example, NATO does not refer to it as Spanish Foreign Legion but Spanish Legion. The entry Spanish Foreign Legion could stay as a redirect even if it is an anacronyism. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: But you agree with me that this new "Spanish Legion", whatever its official name, is the same as the unit commonly known as "Spanish Foreign Legion", and that no other unit can be called "Spanish Foreign Legion" now, don't you? In this case, the commonest name in use i "Spanish Foreign Legion", and this should be the name of the article.--Kwame Nkrumah 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: No, "Spanish Foreign Legion" is not the commonest name (neither in English [1][2] nor Spanish [3][4]). Even if it was, there may also be more "hits" for Rhodesia but we still call that country "Zimbabwe". This is an encyclopedia and needs to be accurate. The Spanish Legion was formerly known as Spanish Foreign Legion. IMHO, the article should reside at Spanish Legion and a redirect created for Spanish Foreign Legion, the way the articles were originally set up as. I will try to place a Request for Comments and contact people previously involved with the article too. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support: return to page's original and accurate name. (I wonder if a vote is even necessary to undo a move that had zero legitimacy to begin with.) Kwame Nkrumah's argument about the most common name, besides ignoring which name is actually correct, is disingenuous in that most English-language literature concerning the Legion addresses its role in the Spanish Civil War - i.e. uses 1930s nomenclature. As previously stated, an extension of this method would result in renaming "Canada" to "Dominion of Canada" and similar nonsense. Albrecht 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - searching the original article title reveals that the article was originally called the Spanish Foreign Legion, (its original name) which is what is known as to the English speakers here on English Wikipedia. Whatever NATO calls it is not relevant. And what's wrong with the Dominion of Canada?--Tomtom 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you read further up, you should convince yourself that Foreign Legion is not even the most commonly used form in English. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Irrelevant? Somehow, I think the NATO designation should hold more weight than, say, what some random guy on Wikipedia decided. And if you're not convinced, I'd also take a look at what the Spanish Army itself calls the unit. [5] Albrecht 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. (Nominator's) --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The Google test spanish.foreign.legion+-wikipedia vs. spanish.legion+-wikipedia gives 10 to 1 results in favor of the simpler name. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support unless there is a much more compelling argument against (like if it turned out that the bulk of the pages in the spanish.legion+-wikipedia test were false positives). If the Google test coincides with the current official name, it's hard to see the basis for claiming that the historical name is more common, though of course it should still be preserved as a redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever. I don't care as long as there are redirects. --Error 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fort Bragg

I doubt that a Spanish unit is stationed at Fort Bragg. --Error 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not that. The text is not very clear but it says the Legion have trained in various different areas, including SERE at Fort Bragg. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Berber Mistic?

Under Esprit de corps, what is 'Berber mistic a way', is it supposed to 'a mystic berber way'? Lilaac (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The First Carlist War (1833-1840)...

The reference to the First Carlist War and the French and British (and Portuguese) units in Liberal service is a bit nonsensical. The Carlist raised a foreign battalion as well, made up for the most part of turncoats from the French Legion. There have been over the centuries many foreign units in Spaniard service, for instance the Walloon Guards, the Swiss regiments and even the so-called Royal Legion, a monarchist French emigré unit in the 1790s. Is the deployment of foreign legions in Spain in the 1830s a precedent to the Spanish legion raised in 1920? And why not, for instance, the French invasion of 1822 to restore Ferdinand VII as an absolutist monarch and Philip V's Flemish regiments? In the 18th century there was at times a Regimiento Real Extranjero (Royal Foreign Regiment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

List of nationalities

This article could be improved by adding a list of all nationalities that served in the Spanish Legion since 1920. As a guide, see the article about the French Foreign Legion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.66.90 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is incoherent and inaccurate

I am in no way an authority but even with the most basic aquaintance with the subject one can see the problems.

To begin with, the terminology regarding the name of the Legion is confused and contradictory.

Tercio/Tercios

The name at formation was Tercio de Extranjeros (The archaic term Tercio (lit. 'third') revived from the C17th and for which the origins are disputed, has no exact translation. I think it is better translated as "Regiment of Foreigners" (or even "Foreign Regiment"). "The Foreigners' Regiment" would be rendered asTercio de los Extranjeros.)

The reference to Legion Extranjera is therefore unhelpful without explaining how and when the name of La Legión was applied formally (clearly it was used informally from the beginning by Milan-Astray whose 1923 account of the unit's formation was titled La Legión.

The inserted disquisition on the etymology of extranjera would belong in a footnote, if it weren't incorrect and contradictory. Extranjera is clearly an adjective, the name being taken from the French Légion étrangère on which the Spanish Legion was originally modelled. To have the meaning attributed, I am fairly sure extranjera would require a preposition and take the masculine form. In any case, the distinction is too slight to contribute much to a reader's understanding. The dual-meaning of 'composed of Foreigners' and 'to serve abroad' is inherent in both the French and Spanish title.

It is also unhelpful in the next heading- 'Early Campaigns'- to refer to "the tercios" without explaining the development of the Legion from being one Regiment- the Tercio de Extranjeros with three banderas- to a Legion of several numbered Tercios, each functioning as something between a Regiment in U.S.terminology and a Brigade group in British parlance, with several banderas- each with its own identity- under command.

Bandera, another archaic military term , is better translated literally as 'banner' or 'standard.' Deriving from the medieval term baniere or 'banner' and referring specifically to the standard of the commander (or 'banneret'), the term was used to describe the basic unit of the larger 'battle'/battaille/bataglia, hence its eventual replacement by the word bataillon or battalion ('little battle').

A short section on these archaic terms used by the Legión, perhaps with a reference to the halberd, crossbow and musket in the unit's badge, might be appropriate.

Order of Battle ("Units comprising modern Spanish Legion")

This is a mess. The list of units and sub units needs to be tabulated properly to give a clear sense of the hierarchy and organisation of the units. The Spanish version will provide a suitable template. There are also errors: "Legion Brigade "HM King Alfonso VII"" should read "Alfonso XIII." The half-translations of the unit names are clumsy. Brigada de la Legión, Tercio de la Legión and Bandera de la Legión are clear enough. It's probably not necessary for Bandera to be preceded by Legión every time (or vice versa). It isn't written that way on the Legión website.

I don't think "procession" is a verb - as "in every Holy Week a platoon of legionnaires disembarks to procession the Christ of the Good Death" ('Present role and deployment').

"To process"? " To carry/ to bear aloft in procession?"

"Disembarks" may be accurate but it introduces a maritime note which is confusing. Was the Malaga contingent posted to Marocco? Why do they have to come by sea? Too much information. "Returns" would probably suffice.

That's enough to be going on with.

JF42 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Civil war record

Their Civil War history seems to be glossed-over. There must have been some historic engagements. Valetude (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish Legion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150413052727/http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/20150403_1_Coaltion%20Build_Partner_Capacity_Operations_continue_in_Iraq.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/20150403_1_Coaltion%20Build_Partner_Capacity_Operations_continue_in_Iraq.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223220854/http://www.ejercito.mde.es:80/organizacion/legion/principal.htm to http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/principal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spanish Legion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114104110/http://www.lalegion.es/1/11.html to http://www.lalegion.es/1/11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118085108/http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/igresaresfacil.htm to http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/igresaresfacil.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217064009/http://www.lalegion.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Acredo to http://www.lalegion.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Acredo
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.santacruzchronicles.com/scw1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/legion/principal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Traditions - marchpasts

Could anyone who knows this subject well please clarify the final bullet point under Traditions? It currently reads "Formerly the Legion did its marchpasts in the same way as the rest of the Spanish Armed Forces, today, all officers and the colour guards only do a hand salute and eyes right when marching past. When on the halt and giving full salutes, they only do a hand salute." This helpfully tells me that in the past they did something unclear in the same unclear way that the rest of the army did it, but that now they do the unclear thing differently!!! Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)