Talk:Davion Brigade of Guards

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Unpopular Guards[edit]

Can somebody confirm the changes, that where done by an anonymous user recently? I looked into the old Davion sourcebook and could not find any hint that the Guards are an unpopular command. Harry 08:09, 22 May 2012 (PDT)

Pretty absurd... I vote we roll this back. ClanWolverine101 08:30, 22 May 2012 (PDT)
Actually it isn't "quite absurd", but it is mentioned in detail in the unit describtion of the Chisholm Raiders RCTs. In addition, many of the Davion Guards were relegated to second-line assignments according to the storyline. For example, the supposed-Elite 1st Davion Guards RCT invaded just 2 planets (Shensi and Tsitang) during Operation Rat, both of them were defended by local conventional militias only. Other Davion Guards units like the Heavy Guards were used as reserve units. Obviously, the AFFS did't trust in the Davion Guards combat efficiency. Even if I agree, that's just an assumption...
By the way, this is pretty much the case in almost every single engagement of any Davion Guards unit written in the BT universe. The only real exception are the 4th Davion Guards during the FedCom Civil War.
Having read through the Chisholm Raiders entry again, Marshal John Chisholm is described as a generally cantankerous individual who couldn't be ignored because his complaints were "accurate enough often enough to be valuable". That's a bit of a step away from his comments being the complete truth at all times. The same paragraph that quotes his complaint that the Davion Guards were "a collection of old women and weak little boys" also describes the Davion Guards as "the elite Brigade of Guards". If you're using Chisholm as an example of someone cashiered from the Brigade for talking out of house, the first problem is that the entry on him just describes him as having a 40 year career in the AFFS, without confirming if any of that time was spent in the Brigade of Guards itself.
The fact that the Brigade of Guards didn't engage in as many combat actions as some other formations during the 4th Succession War or were reserve units doesn't mean that their combat efficiency wasn't trusted unless you can find a canon source to confirm that. You've formed the opinion that they as they were kept in reserve, it must be for poor performance; I could equally argue that they were kept in reserve as an elite quick-reaction force. Both are opinions, both lack sources to back them up, and both are equally invalid. Delta Company are one of the units used extensively in the Warrior series of novels without facing a defeat - and they're from the Light Guards.
The HD(TFS) deployment table on p. 136 lists the 2nd Davion Guards, 5th Davion Guards, Light Guards, and Assault Guards as veteran and the 1st Davion Guards, 4th Davion Guards, and Heavy Guards as elite. The 3rd Guards are missing, which is odd, but the only other formations listed as being elite-rated at the time are the 1st New Ivaarsen Chasseurs, 7th Crucis Lancers, 6th Syrtis Fusiliers, 1st FedSuns Armoured Cavalry, 12th Vegan Rangers, 1st Kestrel Grenadiers and Team Banzai. That means that at least 30% of the elite-rated regiments in the AFFS at the time were from the Brigade of Guards, with no other brigade managing to field more than a single elite-rated regiment.
The Brigade of Guards is consistently mentioned in Historical: Reunification War as an elite formation, too. The 20 Year Update shows much the same level of experience amidst the Brigade as the House book does. The entries on the various regiments within Field Manual: Federated Suns give a number of comments about exemplary performance - in fact, the write-up for the 3rd Guards specifically talks about their "stellar" performance during the 4th Succession War. The Brigade of Guards was also a big part of Operation MATADOR in the closing stages of the Jihad - which again seems to have gone well. Field Report: AFFS also describes the Brigade of Guards as the best of the AFFS, and details them being in the thick of the fighting throughout the Jihad, with several regiments being rapidly rebuilt and thrown straight back in again and with the formation being a priority for rebuilding post-Jihad.
Having been through a number of the Historicals publications and the Jihad books I have handy, I can't find anything that substantiates your opinion that the Brigade is a poorly-performing elitist organization that deliberately conspires to push out naysayers through administrative action. BrokenMnemonic 06:28, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
I have just been rereading the Chisholm Raiders entry myself and agree with BrokenMnemonic that it is the opinion of one man rather than of the whole Federated Suns military --Dmon 06:34, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
I still disagree. John Chisholm is the only example that is mentioned in any sourcebook, but thats, because he is the most famous. In addition, the entry also states, that he was quite accurate. Additionally, that the Davion Guards are unpopular is also indicated by Stackpoles Warrior Triology. The Davion Guards are usually described as to be known to be extremely arrogant.
In addition, the Guards reputation exceeds the Guards combat history by far. Actually you can't deny this according to the storyline! As for their use as a mobile reserve you mentioned above, only the Guards were used once to back-up front-line forces on Sarna. As I mentioned above, the so-called premier unit of the AFFS, the 1st Davion Guards, were just deployed against local militia. In addition, the AFFS was pretty well-informed about the deployments of the CCAF during Operation Rat. The Capellans also lacked sufficient jump-ships. There would be no use for a mobile reserve of 8 full RCTs. Especially since mobile reserve units are usually used to make break-throughs and not to back up the defense...
As another example, the 1st Guards performed exceptionally poor on An Ting during the War of 3039. In fact, the Historical states, that the "fanatical" 1st Guards lacked the motivation to dispatch an Ryuken unit (which was outnumbered 2:1 by the Davion units btw). As for Operation MATADOR, the Davion Guards are a hodgepodge of several destroyed units and only a Davion Guards unit by designation.
Since most of the newer publications (including the Field Manuals or the Field Reports) are written according to the respective faction/successor state's point of view (that was pointed out by the authors in the BT-forum). In addition, both the 3rd and the 7th Crucis Lanciers are also supposed to be the best AFFS units, depending on the source you're looking at. Thus, it doesn't approve your statement!
So we know Chisholm's opinion, which (according to the canonical sources at hand) is neither completely accurate nor can it be dismissed as entirely inaccurate. For the article at hand, this means that Chisholm's opinion may be worth noting, but should be clearly marked as just that - Chisholm's unverified opinion which clashes with the Brigade's reputation as elite.
(I haven't read the relevant entries yet, and this answer is based solely on the discussion above.) Frabby 07:56, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
We also know, that the Davion Guards have a mixed military history at best. In fact, very many of their engagements ended desastrous for the AFFS...
We know, that the AFFS used militias as front-line forces instead of deploying Davion Guards units, too.
We know, that the units ratings in the Field Manuals and the Field Records are often exagerated as well.
First of all : Respectfully, please register and login. Its kinda a big deal for us, as it helps editors and admins address eachother from a position of respect.
Second, while Stackpole's trilogy may have made the Davion Guards sound arrogant, this is typical of most elite brigades (Sword of Light, Steiner Royal Guards, Liao Death Commandos).
Third, while many publications (and parts of publications) are subjective, what is not are the unit quality ratings. 20 Year Update, Objective Raids, Field Manuals and other works consistently rate most of the DG regiments as Elite. (I realize this is not true 100% of the time.) You claim those are exaggerated: Where is that stated? Even Katherine's FM: Lyran Alliance acknowledged the First and Second Royal Guards weren't elite, despite their reputation.
Fourth, John Chisholm is NOT FAMOUS. I barely remembered who he was. Its possible he was critical of the DG because he was pro-Katherine, though I'd have to re-read the material to say more on that.
Respectfully, you seem to be cherry-picking isolated elements to put a specific "spin" on this matter. Sarna wiki tries to be non-subjective. This is not always the case, obviously, but that is our goal. Please take a step back and consider the goals of the wiki, rather than the opinions and biases of a single editor. ClanWolverine101 09:00, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
Just some thoughts, that should end the discussion:
1. This is the personal opinion of a single man, who lived hundred years ago.
2. He is just frustrated with the Davions and wanted to insult the Guards (and the whole AFFS, because they are among the best of them).
3. The Guards are not less successful then other units. Which century old unit has always won?
4. You wrote all of this because of a single line you digged out of a very old sorcebook? There are many more quotes, that claim exactly the opposite. Even the old Davion Sourcebook itself says otherwise.
5. The Davion Guards are among the best rated units in the Innere Sphrere. How is that, if they are so bad and unpopular?
6. Of course they may be arrogant, but thats because of their prestige and the knowledge that they are highly skilled.
Now some of my personal opinions: Maybe there is some truth in your thesis, but there is no source that proves it. This is not the place for made-up stories, especially not in the general description of a page. On the other hand, I think your part is well written and it seems that you know something of the universe. Just write something thats plausible. Harry 10:36, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
I'm afraid I agree with ClanWolverine101; I believe you're selectively cherry-picking facts to support your opinion. Firstly, it's spurious to say "the storyline shows that the Davion Guards are incompetent" for at least two big reasons: firstly, there has never been a complete storyline for BattleTech, let alone for any of the units or formations there. If you believe there has, then please provide me with a list of the combat operations performed by the Davion Guards and their results during the Age of War, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Succession Wars. The BattleTech storyline has largely been focussed on the era from 3015-3130, and the Davion Guards have centuries of history before that. Secondly, if the storyline supported the idea that the the Davion Guards constantly underperformed, then there would be a specific pattern backed up by in-canon sources. There would be reports in the unit profiles stating that the units had underperformed. No unit in BattleTech wins all the time. The Sword of Light regiments are considered the best of the best in the DCMS, and yet they've all suffered losses.
As I mentioned above, the article on Chisholm's Raiders doesn't state that John Chisholm was correct 100% of the time; it implies that he was right more often than he was wrong, but that's a long way from him being completely and unilaterally accurate. You've chosen to interpret the fact that a criticism of the Davion Guards being the straw that broke the camel's back and saw him retired means that the criticism was justified, despite the article indicating that Chisholm was a 40-year antagonistic discipline problem for the chain of command.
Turning to Operation Rat, the Davion Brigade of Guards fought on Shensi, Algol, Aldebaran, Styk and St. Andre in the first wave, which the text notes was intended to cripple the Capellan command structure and destroy the CCAF's most powerful units. Of all the worlds attacked in the first wave, the only ones that didn't have a Davion Guards unit involved were Poznan, Gan Singh, Liao and New Hessen - or, put another way, more than half of the targets for the first wave were hit by Davion Guards units. Every world was hit by at least 2 if not 3 units, so presumably from your own comments above, those units that went into combat alongside the Davion Guards were also the incompetent and least-trusted - after all, it makes eminent sense when launching an invasion to lead with incompetent units. Or, alternatively, if the opening blow is as important as the text implies, it was also important enough that half of the premiere Brigade of the AFFS was involved in it. 50% of the Brigade of Guards was committed to the first wave; no other brigade had more than 2 regiments or RCTS assigned. In Waves 2 and 3, the entire of the Crucis Lancers brigade fought, but the Davion Guards were still involved in the battles for Tsitsang, Ningpo, Hunan, Slocum, Kawich, Azha, Basalt, New Aragon and Algot. If the Guards were so incompetent, why were they fighting on so many worlds when the Deneb Light Cavalry and Avalon Hussars had only 3 units between them involved in the fighting? Why not rotate the Brigade of Guards to backfill for the Hussars and Light Cavalry, and have them fighting instead?
As for the second half of the war, the second volume of the Atlas doesn't give a planetary breakdown for attacking units, and only includes descriptions of a few of the key worlds targetted; with some 40 worlds seized by the Federated Suns and no detail on who landed on most of them, what comment can you make on the performance of any of the units made?
Next, and I notice you still haven't commented despite this being mentioned by others, the listings given in the House Davion (The Federated Suns), 20 Year Update, Field Manual: Federated Suns and Historical: War of 3039 all consistently give the units within the Brigade a rating of Elite or Veteran throughout the time period covered by those books - the same books that cover the storyline you keep referring to? War of 3039 shows the Brigade of Guards winning on numerous worlds during the War of 39, often taking only light damage in the process - and this is a war the Federated Commonwealth lost. Again I ask if the brigade is such a poorly-performing unit, where is it reflected in the unit's stats? Where are the entries in the detailed description for the units in Field Manual: Federated Suns talking about their historically poor performance? Where are the canon sources saying "and the AFFS decided to deploy the Remagen CrMM instead of the Davion Heavy Guards because of the Guards poor performance"? Or are you trying to argue that the fact that the AFFS deployed some Militia units in the 4th Succession War while there were still uncommitted line units available a sign that the militias were more combat effective than every single other line regiment not chosen? I only see 2 militia units deploying in waves 1-4, both rated regular; presumably, by your own criteria, those militia were more combat-effective than the FedSuns Armoured Cavalry, Kestrel Grenadiers and 6th Syrtis Fusiliers, all of whom are rated as Elite formations compared to the regular rating given to the militias?
In response to your third point, that "We know, that the units ratings in the Field Manuals and the Field Records are often exagerated as well." That's the first time I've ever heard that statement expressed; please provide examples of where unit ratings are consistently exaggerated in field manuals or field reports, or a statement from TPTB stating that this is the case. From what I can see, unit ratings fall under the game rules area of the modern sourcebooks, not the fluff sections, and represent fixed data points, not a popularity contest.
Last but not least, given that you seem determined to hold to your opinion despite the points raised here, why don't you go to the CGL forum and ask in the Ask the Writers or Ask the Lead Developers to clarify the history and performance of the brigade? The fact that the vast number of texts repeatedly refer to the Brigade of Guards as an elite formation with a glorious history, with the only critic you've found to date being an outspoken discipline problem noted for complaining about everything. BrokenMnemonic 11:34, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
I certainly disagree. First of all, I might wrote the story from an anti-Davion-Guards point of view, but I didn't even exaggerate anything. Actually every one of my arguments is according to the BT-storyline. You are basing almost all of you're statements on assumptions. For instance, that Marshall Chisholm was having discipline problems as mentioned above is a pure assumption. According to the sourcebook, he was quote "one of the annoying people who critize and complain to much" but that "no one could really ignore him because the Marshalls complaints were accurate often enough to valuable". There's actually not a word mentioned of dicipline problems or insubordination in any way!
In addition, there are also absolutely NO indications that the Davion Guards are popular command, but it is mentioned a few times that they aren't. In addition, in far more than half of the engagements mentionend pre-3060 of any Davion Guards unit in any BT-product ends disastrous or almost desastrous as I mentioned above. However, some of you stated, that Davion Guards units were pretty successful during the 4th Succession Wars (which are pretty well documented, of course). Though its right, that the Davion Guards units conquered several Capellan planets, the Davion Guards outnumbered their opponents usually AT LEAST three to one and faced less experienced foes. In addition, they were usually heavily reinforced. The only notable exception from the otherwise desastrous combat records of the Davion Guards are the 3rd Guards, which defeated a Northwind Highlander unit during that conflict.
The statement that the unit ratings of the FM:U -especially of the AFFS by the way- are exaggerated was posted in the BT-forums by an author after very many complains that the state of the AFFS was extraordinary unrealistic. Do yourself a favour and check it out by yourself since I am not your errand boy.
Consequently, I am going to rewrite the article as soon as possible. However, I'll rewrite the article from a more neutral point of view.
Since especially ClanWolverine101 qualified himself both as incompetent and a fanboy (I read quite a few of his postings not related to this article) quite well I am not going to read his posts anymore!— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by (talkcontribs) .
To whomever you are: In virtually every publication save one, the Davion Brigade of Guards are described as an elite formation. This is not an opinion, this are the facts presented by actual publications. You've attempted to counter with exactly one in-universe perspective in one book. You then cherry-pick other books, saying they lost here and there. You then follow this up with personal attacks, again without signing your work.
This wiki will not be vandalized by anyone. Please review our policies - they are based on references and citations, not personal points of view. ClanWolverine101 18:33, 22 June 2012 (PDT)
I am with you CW, you give the right words.--Doneve 20:01, 22 June 2012 (PDT)
Upps! I forgot to say, hey mister [unsigned], CW is a long time member, he write very well [articles], and has the right view what go's in the BT universe, you talk him a Fanboy, you are not a "FANBOY"?--Doneve 20:21, 22 June 2012 (PDT)
Excuse me? You know CW a long time, so has to be right? I am supposed to laugh now, right? CW also doesn't have a "right view on the BT universe" because he has the very same opinion than you have. I documented every single one of my arguments, you guys based your statements almost exclusively on assumptions. In addition, I didn't cherry-pick anything. That's pretty much the whole officially released combat record of the Davion Guards prior the Clan Invasion. Do yourself a favour and check it out by yourself. It's basically the same with the statements of Marshall Chisholm and in the Stackpoles novels, but I agree, that the Davion Guards are unpopular is quite exaggerated, and I am not going to write that again. However, there are still no records claiming that the Guards are popular, but quite a few, that they aren't.
Besides, I admited, that I wrote the article from an anti-Davion-Guards point of view and that I am going to rewrite it from a more neutral point of view. However, I didn't rewrite the article yet, so what do you guys complain about? Furthermore, you're the ones vandalising since you guys deleted the article despite you have no valid arguments (ok, you didn't have quite a few argument at all, but a bunch of assumptions and thesis), so do yourself a favour and be quiet!
Finally, what does CW qualify as a fan boy? In short, statements like quote "Pretty absurd... I vote we roll this back" before he even checked anything. What qualifies him as incopentent? Pretty much, check it by yourself... If you'll need any help, I'll be at your disposal, though, since I don't think, you're going to critisize your good ol' pal...
"The statement that the unit ratings of the FM:U -especially of the AFFS by the way- are exaggerated was posted in the BT-forums by an author after very many complains that the state of the AFFS was extraordinary unrealistic. Do yourself a favour and check it out by yourself since I am not your errand boy."
Actually, that isn't the way this works. I point out a cited BT source - Field Manual: Updates - to support an argument. If you want to rebutt that argument, you need to actually cite a source. The onus is on you to find and reference it; "someone said something on a forum, go and find it" isn't a valid form of reference for a wiki. There are plenty of examples here on Sarna of where the BTech line developers comments have been specifically quoted to support points, and those quotes are referenced back to their posts via weblink. If you want your statement about all of the ratings for the AFFS in FM:U to be accepted, you need to go and find that quote and link it, otherwise it's simply going to (at best) be marked as "citation needed" by the editors here, and at worst, it's going to be rolled back as an attempt at vandalism. BrokenMnemonic 01:06, 23 June 2012 (PDT)
"I don't know" isn't an argument either. But I agree and I'll keep that in mind when I will rewrite the article. However, I didn't state that in the original article but only in the discussion page. That's still quite a difference. In addition, there are still plenty that some units deviate from official recordings. For example, the 10th Lyran Guards are considered one of the most elite RCTs in the Inner Sphere, but have a Veteran rating. Besides, I wrote the original article from a staunch anti-Davion-Guards point of view, but I am not going to do that again, as I already mentioned above. So please try to relax in the first place.
As the one who reverted your edit of the article I feel like I should mention why I did so. It's obvious (as you said repeatedly)that you wrote the article from an anti-Davion Guards point of view, the problem is that you chose only one obscure source to dictate the entire article around. Several editors here are giving you a multitude of sources pointing out that the Davion Brigade of Guards were indeed an elite command and were consistently mentioned as being the best and most fanatical of the AFFS. A reference to this being the overview of the DBG in FM:FS, it spells it out right there as just one example. But I digress, your consistently ignoring facts given to you by other editors who aren't attacking you for fun but are attempting to maintain this site as a reliable source by mentioning that your overview of the DBG does not seem consistent with the canon universe and seemed rife with personal opinions taken from nitpicked sources without looking at the whole picture. If you wish to re-write the entire article then I would just advise that you may want to include all the relevant canon information. If you really have your heart set on including Chisholm's opinion perhaps make it a note at the bottom. DeSaints 03:28, 23 June 2012 (PDT)
As a bystander who also writes articles and edits here at Sarna, I and everyone else are bound by one of the main premises: work by consensus. Consensus in this case is that the opinion of one field commander who dislikes the Davion Guards is not enough to overturn all of the other published material from FASA, WK, or CGL, all of which stands in contradiction to the opinion of the honorable Mr. Chisholm. It's clear that the publishers just wanted his opinion to show what enemies of the Davions thought, or rather HOW they thought. In this case, he is a bitter and spiteful individual (that's not my opinion, either, that is what I see from what has been put up here by the unsigned anonymous user). We should write an article about Chisholm and how he hates that guards, but at best, he is a footnote on the main Davion Brigade of Guards page as a "hater". Nothing wrong with haters, somebody has to get their tails kicked by the big guys and live to spout off their opinion. Regardless of that, consensus is that this article is not about Chisholm's opinion, it is about what the Davion Guards have actually done. --Rebs 10:51, 23 June 2012 (PDT)
To Mr. Unsigned - First - Yes, the Tenth Lyran was not listed as Elite (uppercase "E") in the books, though it was called elite (lowercase "e") in the novel narratives and so on. That can be typical, yes. The Steiner Royal Guards are mostly Veteran, and the Sword of Light regiments, depending on their era, could range from Elite to even Green in the manuals. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that you are taking one mention in a single book to paint an entire brigade, a brigade that we can find a hundred other sources to indicate was the best in the AFFS. Please read the Davion Brigade of Guards entry in the FM:FS book, for example.
Second, you call me a "fan boy" because I called your rewrites absurd. You are correct that I should have broken down why. One mention in one book from an in-character perspective that is by all accounts biased does not negate the endless sources that list the DBG as the premier brigade of the AFFS. Some of those sources are already cited in the article. As DeSaints said, if you really want to put Chisholm's view point in a note in the bottom, fine. I don't necessarily think its the best use of the article, but at least its something you can actually cite, rather than a "OMG - the Guards lost this battle during this war - they're now unpopular!"
Third, you call me incompetent. Why? Because I disagree with you? Because I actually provide detailed references in my articles? Because I try to write from a neutral perspective? Because I listen to my fellow editors and the admins?
Fourth, please do not attempt to rewrite this article. As I said above, vandalism will not be tolerated on this wiki.
ClanWolverine101 11:09, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Anon, consider this a warning. Keep the conversation to the subject of this article or disciplinary action will be the result. --Scaletail 18:42, 23 June 2012 (PDT)