Talk:Troupes de marine

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / French 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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

Help

I thought that there were three separate things: Colonial Troops (other than the Senegalese or Algerian troops, which were always Army) which were moved about by the Navy, but did not storm beaches; Marine Infantry ("Fantassins marins," nicknamed "Marsouins"); and Marine Artillery ("artillerie marin," or so, nicknamed "Bigors"). The last two are indeed equivalent to what became the Royal Marines and the USMC. But in France, they have been subsumed under the Army, not hanging around the Navy. What is the author of this piece doing by confusing this with the descendants of the Colonial Troop forces? I can't figure it out. Further, there are specialized commando units, too. This is difficult to sort out by web sources in English or simple French (i.e., not an on-line volume of military history). --Sobolewski 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troupes de Marine are the same thing as Troupes Coloniales, just having been renamed, Zouaves and Tirailleurs were therefore part of it. Often, marsouins and bigors refer to the troupes de marine as "la coloniale", and most of the traditions of troupes de marine are indeed inherited from colonial traditions. I understand your confusion, but initialy, in the very olden days it was troops serving onboard ships, but were later transformed into troops who were specialised in combat on land and just travelling on ships, at that point a lot of people from the French colonies were enrolled in the troupes coloniales. --Blastwizard 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USMC is an entity with air,naval and ground force, TDM are not so separated from the Ground Force. If you want to compare the organization, you will compare USMC with the Gendarmerie Nationale which have sea, air and land competance but for police operation (so they aren't like the USMC on this point).

The comparison is at the level of its role within French armed forces not at the organisational point of view. As you pointed out, TDM are part of the French army like the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy and in that regard they differ from the USMC but they serve the same purpose. Blastwizard 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor marines to the TDM

I'm having a lot of trouble getting the dates and names of the predecessor marine organizations to the TDM straight. I was able to see snippets of Louis Beausza, "La formation de l'armee coloniale", Paris, L. Fournier et cie., 1939 on Google Books and think that it might have the best analysis. The other book that I put in the References section of the article - Arthur Girault, "Principes de colonisation et de législation coloniale", L. Larose et L. Tenin, 1907 has some information. Another source is "Journal du palais: recueil le plus ancien et le plus complet de la jurisprudence" By Ledru-Rollin, Cours, France, Cour de cassation, Cours d'ap in the discussion of 2 July 1840. The last two are completely readable on Google Books. I don't read French, so it would probably best if a French speaker checked this out. Jmosman (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page back to Troupes de marine, per the discussion below. If it's necessary to change the capitalization of the title, feel free to do so. Dekimasu よ! 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Troops → Troupes de marine — Naval troops is a made up and wrong translation —Blastwizard (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as an incorrect translation. 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google translates as NAVY TROOPS, while Babelfish gives MARINE TROOPS. 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back to Troupes de Marine (again). Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps to troupes de marine, see below in the comments section. Either is better than Naval Troops which is just plain wrong. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support to move back to Troupes de marine. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support to change back to Troupes de marine Chris DHDR 13:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This page was moved unilaterally to Naval troops from Troupes de Marine, this is plain wrong and misleading, as Troupes de Marine are not naval troops at all but, an amphibious or airborne branch of French army, specialised in overseas operations. Troupes de Marine is the only designation for this unit. In addition, there is no point to find an literal English translation, on the French wikipedia, the article on Royal Marines, is called Royal Marines and does not have a dubious translation in the title. Blastwizard 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but it seems to have been done already. Andrewa 11:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (note that this vote was originally posted here before the poll heading existed, and before Mesoso2 moved the page back to Naval Troops against the consensus that was already developing here against this action. It's now duplicated in the poll, but I think it should stay here too for historical reasons. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which takes precedence over this talk page.

Troupes de Marine MEANS Naval Troops, their function is irrelevant, it is the NAME. You cannot rename them.

French Wikipedia is irrelevant since they have their own set of policies.

Mesoso2 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be bilingual English and French, so I understand very well the translation issue, I also happen to have served in the Troupes de Marine. So please don't tell me I can't understand! You are making a personal attack and it's against the Wikipedia rules. The Naval Troops translation has been reverted to Marines several times including after a vote which means that it is not only me who disagrees with your translation. First Troupes de marine is a proper name and therefore shall not be literally translated, then if you read the article on Marines the definition corresponds exactly, therefore Troupes de marine are according to the definition in Wikipedia Marines. Then if you read a bit more thoroughly the Marines article, once again Troupes de marine are cited amongst other units, and it is actually some of the oldest Marine units.Finally both the words marine and naval exists both in French and English. In addition, are you going to do the same thing for the Spanish Infanteria de Marina? Blastwizard (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to my point that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Spanish or French, should need no transliteration. Therefore Naval Troops is not the correct title for this article. I would add that if the translation from English to French of Naval Troops would be Troupes navales whereas Marine troops would be translated as Troupes de marine. Blastwizard (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. Apart from one opinion which continues to dissent against all the evidence, we seem to have consensus. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not take precedence over this page. They're both important. The overall consideration is to arrive at a rough consensus, and we seem to have that... and it's to name the article Troupes de Marine. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (or perhaps Troupes de marine, see below. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Army naval ground troops - army units commanded by the navy (now part of the army again)... 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Should the m of Troupes de Marine be capitalised? I notice Blastwizard does this, and claims to have served with them. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in french, then the m is not capitalized, but since this is the English Wikipedia... whatever goes. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point, I use the non capitalised m to respect the French grammar. Now what would be interesting is to see whether the m is capitalised in English language documents. I would tend for the use of a non capitalised m, if we consider the expression as a proper noun. On the other hand, if there is precedence in Wikipedia of terms where the English use capitalised first letters in composed word in other languages then it's fine with me. On the French ministry of defense, the m is consistently in lower case, but in upper case when in regiments names like "Regiment d'Infanterie de Marine" which is abbreviated "RIMa" (note the lower case for the a), maybe the capitalisation serves the purpose of building the acronym. Blastwizard (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

USMC

This is not directly related to the article, but I wonder if somebody knows how the Troupes de Marine stack up against the USMC? Of the four main branches in the US military, the Marines are known to be the toughest, and "tough" is the word most Americans associate with the USMC. So I wonder if the Troupes de Marine are the "toughest" major branch of the French military and how they stack up in that same category against the USMC? Anybody?

Wonder what's the point of these kind of comparisons, anyway, the toughest unit in the French armed forces is certainly by far the Foreign Legion who really are in a league of their own. As for the Troupes de Marine (TDM), they are not really a major branch, but one of the speciality (like cavalry, infantry, artillery, ...) within the French army. As one of the first corps of French army to become fully professional (was semi-professional during the draft, but in large with professionals) it can be considered as one of the toughest wihtout belittling other units, and mainly because TDM are part of the spearheads of French army.

Ain't Marines

Fellow Troopers:

The Troupes de Marine are NOT Marines in the RM or USMC sense.

The REAL French Marines are the Fusiliers Marines, part of the French Navy. They wear naval uniforms and use naval ranks.

Sorry to disagree on that, as Marines are troops specialised in overseas operations, which is the role of the Troupes de Marine within French armed forces, whereas Fusiliers marins' main function is to protect French naval bases; the Commandos on the other hand are French equivalent of British SBS or US Navy seals. It is not because the fusiliers marins, wear naval uniforms and are part of the navy that they are marines, anyway USMC is not part of the US Navy either. But to be fair, fusiliers marins and troupes de marine were from 1622 (compagnies ordinaires de la mer) to 1856 the same unit, and were separated with the fusiliers marins for protecting naval bases and troupes de marine (troupes coloniales) for oversea operations. In addition, troupes de marine were for a long time under the supervision of ministry of sea before being transfered to the ministry of defense. --Blastwizard 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC) WHAT ABOUT THE TDM PARTICIPATE IN COUP DE FORCE IN AFRICA TDM IN AFGANISTAN ARE THE REAL MARINES YES IS A SECTION OF THE FRENCH NAVY CALLED COMMANDO MARINE GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TROUPES DE MARINES ALSO NO TDM ARE EQUIVALANT OF USMC OR ROYAL MARINE DIFFERENT UNIT FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES STILL OUR PARATROOPERS OUR TANKS AND ARTILLERIE ARE BELONG TO THE FRENCH TROUPES DE MARINE AND COMANDO MARINE ARE SOMETHING ELSE BELONG TO THE FRENCH NAVY ALSO NOTHING TO DO WITH FOREIGN MARINES EX COLONIAL TROUPER OH EXCUSE ME A MARSOUIN )[reply]

Intro changed to reflect this Lloydelliot10 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. If we refer to the definition given in the article Marine, the TDM better corresponds to this definition : "A marine is a member of a force that specializes in expeditionary operations such as amphibious assault and occupation. The marines traditionally have strong links with the country's navy.". The TDM are boat-transported amphibious troops, while Fusiliers-Marins are more similar to coastal defence troops. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that they fit the above description. The various Ma Regiments are spread through the French Army Bdes, with no common theme of specialising in expeditionary operations such as amphibious assault and occupation and with no common role connected to Naval/Amphibious operations. In what way is 3e RAMa for instance a marine unit? 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydelliot10 (talk • contribs)

They are mentionned as "marines" in the cited material. That's all that matters. The "incorrectly" has to go unless you can find and cite a source that says it. Otherwise it's opinion vs current source, in which case it's the later that matters. Don Durandal (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All TDM regiments are either airborne or amphibious, but not exclusively if they had to be employed exclusively for that purpose, they wouldn't do much, would they? As far as I know there are US Marines, Royal Marines and Troupes de Marine in Afghanistan, they are not doing any naval infantry job there but are still Marines. Blastwizard (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's unwrap this axle. There are Marines (USMC types) and marines (as in naval infantry). ("All Marines are marines, but not all marines are Marines.") In earlier discussion for this article there was a basis established to use the term "marine" as a common noun. Continuning to follow that usage will be clear. --S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the following link sets the argument once for all? | 3 Commando Brigade and 9eme BLBMA joint exercices. Blastwizard (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dardanelles fallacy disputed1

There is no evidence that any units of the Artillerie Coloniale were present at Gallipoli. Reliable sources that underpin this sweeping assertion have not materialised. Keith H99 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dardanelles fallacy disputed2

There is also a wild and sweeping assertion that two thirds of the Corps expéditionnaire d'Orient were composed of Troupes coloniales, and no evidence whatsoever to support this "theory". Keith H99 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]