Jump to content

Talk:Corps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Move to Corps (Military)

[edit]

I'd like to move this page to Corps (Military) and make this a disambiguation page due to the different meanings of the word Corps which already have pages of their own - any opposing views? --Anarch 11:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the "links here", you'll see that all of the scores of references are to the military meaning, which argues that the military meaning should "own" the unmodified term, and that all the others should connect through a Corps (disambiguation) page, similar to how we handle topics like London and Paris. Stan 15:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Convinced. --Anarch 21:07, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

USSR entry

[edit]

Should the Soviet Union's subentry here be alphebetized, or should it be left tagged on the end since it does not exist any more? And does Russia now continue the old Soviet military doctrine and structure? Or should this entry be renamed "Russia" or "Russian Federation", as the main "inheritor" of the old USSR, with a caveat in the text as "under the old Soviet regime" or some such? SigPig 17:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Corps

[edit]

Although designated with numbers that are sometimes the same as modern U.S. Army corps, there is no direct lineage between the 43 U.S. corps of the Civil War and those with similar names in the 20th century

43 Corps in the Civil War? I only know 25 (and some Cavalry Corps, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimgray (talk • contribs)

You can find a list of corps in
  • Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., Civil War High Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3641-3. (pp. 857-64)
The highest numbered infantry corps was the XXV, but there were seven cavalry corps and some of the lower numbered infantry corps had multiple instances across the armies, primarily during the early days of the war. Not all of these corps were in existence simultaneously. Hal Jespersen 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the term "corps" in military use

[edit]

Aside from mention of the use of corps during the American Civil War, much of the article seems to be centered around the 1900s, particularly WW2. Did the use of the term "corps" for administrative units preceed its use for combat formations? Earliest use of the term "corps" as a combat formation I can think of is during the Napoleonic Wars, but etymology.com lists use of the term by the French as corps d'armée during the 1500s and modern use of the term starting 1704.[1] Anyone else have more book suggestions for researching this? --Edward Sandstig 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article on the US Marine Corps references a US Congressional Act of "Establishing and Organizing a Marine Corps" in 1798. Clearly, the statement, "A military innovation by Napoleon, the formation was first named as such in 1805," found at the beginning of this article is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.213.200 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 1805 as the first use doesn't seem right: another use seems to be the German Freikorps first formed in 1759. --YodinT 20:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example's

[edit]

Why is Pakistan the only example given here? i think there should either be more examples or it should be organised differently. 62.194.170.62 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command of a Corps

[edit]

How can the US Army have 4 corps and 6 4-star generals, but consider a corps only a 3-star command? 69.12.155.64 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 4 stars are used for various staff positions - one of the JCS and a few in various "Joint Commands" (which are lucky if they have one Army Corps in them), then a few elsewhere. There are a few dozen Lieutenant Generals, most of which also serve in various staffs. This kind of thing has caused criticism from some that there are too many generals (and officers) in the US Army's repetoire. Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

[edit]

Why is corps a proper noun (assume that's why it's capitalised throughout)? jimfbleak (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand why it was changed either. I only see "corps" capitalized when it's found at the start of the sentence or when it indicates a specific corps. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


the Patent Examining Corps is called that in US Government documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.181.196 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

[edit]

The article gives the pronunciation as 'corpse' but I've always heard it pronounced 'core'.

Dictionary.com and Wiktionary both seem to have it pronounced as 'core'.User:Boreas74 Talk 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corps. 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:

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) 03:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corps. 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:

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) 08:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Lede

[edit]

I just removed this sentence from the lede:

"For example, during the Korean War, the United States' X Corps – a field corps – included infantry units from the US Marine Corps and smaller units from many different administrative corps of the US Army."

That is a bad example, it does not show overlapping use. The X Corps was neither an administrative corps nor a distinct service, so the use of the term corps did not overlap. 91.10.50.106 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corps&oldid=1198089650"