Red guys are the bad guys. Blue guys are the good guys. Everyone who has seen 'star wars', or played a world conquest computer game, knows that. If you've had a look at a British or American battlefield map since the Second World War, you'll know it too. Let's have a look at an example from a recent conflict (which we may have discussed before...) The Korean War:
'Bad guys' in this case are the North Korean army and their Chinese allies, they sit to the North in the red corner. NATO is holding the blue line, further South. NATO, of course, is always blue. It's a basic map marking format that enables commanders to immediately identify friendly troops and enemy troops. Whether it is fighting in the Balkans, Afghanistan, or Africa, it is blue. NATO countries are blue even when they act independently. Britain, as a NATO country, is therefore always blue. But why blue? British troops were blue in Second World War battle maps, before NATO was formed, so that's not the reason. It hasn't always been that way. This is a map from a battle that some of you may have heard of:
Waterloo, 1815. This is a section of a lovely British army map produced at the time by "an officer of one of the regiments on the service" (courtesy of Ashley & Miles Baynton-Williams). Here, the British to the North are in Red, and Napoleon's troops to the South are Blue. Just to muddy the waters, the Prussian troops to the North East advancing from Frichmont are Green... The reasoning is fairly simple at this very early stage in map marking: British troops wore red uniforms in 1815, French troops wore blue (by and large...) Thus it made perfect sense to colour them this way. And thus, British units on maps before the First World War were always red. During the Napoleonic wars, map marking made its debut. Wellington was diligent in their production, and he had officers ride around the countryside and produce drawings of the enemy positions in fine detail. The red vs blue tradition stuck, as we can see in this later map:
In 1843 the British fought two battles against the Mahrattas in India, at Maharajpoor and Punniar. British forces can be seen in Red again here, but I'm fairly certain the Indian forces never wore blue... By this time the tradition of 'our' forces in red and the enemy in blue had been established. Red was intrinsically the colour of the British empire. This worked fine when it was one army against another, but in 1854 the British took part in one of its rare coalition wars, allied to France and Turkey in the Crimean war. Things might have got confusing. In fact, Lord Raglan who commanded British forces (and who had served against the French during the Napoleonic war), insisted on referring to the Russians as 'The French' during the campaign. The French, still in Blue, were now friendly forces. So what colour should the enemy be this time? It was colourfully concluded like this:
On this British sketch map of the 1854 battle of Alma, the British right wing remains red, the left wing comprising the French and Turkish allies have been made blue (red right and blue!). Russian troops to the North have not been assigned a colour. If we look at this map compared to the previous examples at Waterloo and Maharajpoor, it is less clear exactly where enemy and friends are on the battlefield. This issue was not addressed again until the British and French next fought alongside each other, this time against Germany during the First World War. The French had always had the same idea, and began map marking at the same time as Britain (i.e. when they were at war with each other). For this reason, on historic French maps the friendly forces are blue, and the enemy are red. There were a series of discussions on the issue, and both sides wanted the colours to be the same for everyone, otherwise maps could not really be used interchangeably. So close was the co-operation between the British and French during the First World War, and so important was the staff work and planning, it had to be settled quickly. The French, being the dominant partner in 1916, won the day. Goodies are Blue and badies are Red. When the American forces arrived in 1917, they naturally adopted the same colours. In fact a similar red/blue divide had existed for them too: during the American civil war those were the colours of the two sides on most military maps of the day. When Britain and France fought again in the Second War, the colours had been set, and since the Western powers formed the backbone of NATO, blue remained a friendly colour. Helpfully, NATO has spent most of its time planning to oppose Soviet Russia, who can be no other colour but red on a map.
A simple detail with a rich history. The very essence of what we try to achieve at the mobile museum...
'Bad guys' in this case are the North Korean army and their Chinese allies, they sit to the North in the red corner. NATO is holding the blue line, further South. NATO, of course, is always blue. It's a basic map marking format that enables commanders to immediately identify friendly troops and enemy troops. Whether it is fighting in the Balkans, Afghanistan, or Africa, it is blue. NATO countries are blue even when they act independently. Britain, as a NATO country, is therefore always blue. But why blue? British troops were blue in Second World War battle maps, before NATO was formed, so that's not the reason. It hasn't always been that way. This is a map from a battle that some of you may have heard of:
Waterloo, 1815. This is a section of a lovely British army map produced at the time by "an officer of one of the regiments on the service" (courtesy of Ashley & Miles Baynton-Williams). Here, the British to the North are in Red, and Napoleon's troops to the South are Blue. Just to muddy the waters, the Prussian troops to the North East advancing from Frichmont are Green... The reasoning is fairly simple at this very early stage in map marking: British troops wore red uniforms in 1815, French troops wore blue (by and large...) Thus it made perfect sense to colour them this way. And thus, British units on maps before the First World War were always red. During the Napoleonic wars, map marking made its debut. Wellington was diligent in their production, and he had officers ride around the countryside and produce drawings of the enemy positions in fine detail. The red vs blue tradition stuck, as we can see in this later map:
In 1843 the British fought two battles against the Mahrattas in India, at Maharajpoor and Punniar. British forces can be seen in Red again here, but I'm fairly certain the Indian forces never wore blue... By this time the tradition of 'our' forces in red and the enemy in blue had been established. Red was intrinsically the colour of the British empire. This worked fine when it was one army against another, but in 1854 the British took part in one of its rare coalition wars, allied to France and Turkey in the Crimean war. Things might have got confusing. In fact, Lord Raglan who commanded British forces (and who had served against the French during the Napoleonic war), insisted on referring to the Russians as 'The French' during the campaign. The French, still in Blue, were now friendly forces. So what colour should the enemy be this time? It was colourfully concluded like this:
On this British sketch map of the 1854 battle of Alma, the British right wing remains red, the left wing comprising the French and Turkish allies have been made blue (red right and blue!). Russian troops to the North have not been assigned a colour. If we look at this map compared to the previous examples at Waterloo and Maharajpoor, it is less clear exactly where enemy and friends are on the battlefield. This issue was not addressed again until the British and French next fought alongside each other, this time against Germany during the First World War. The French had always had the same idea, and began map marking at the same time as Britain (i.e. when they were at war with each other). For this reason, on historic French maps the friendly forces are blue, and the enemy are red. There were a series of discussions on the issue, and both sides wanted the colours to be the same for everyone, otherwise maps could not really be used interchangeably. So close was the co-operation between the British and French during the First World War, and so important was the staff work and planning, it had to be settled quickly. The French, being the dominant partner in 1916, won the day. Goodies are Blue and badies are Red. When the American forces arrived in 1917, they naturally adopted the same colours. In fact a similar red/blue divide had existed for them too: during the American civil war those were the colours of the two sides on most military maps of the day. When Britain and France fought again in the Second War, the colours had been set, and since the Western powers formed the backbone of NATO, blue remained a friendly colour. Helpfully, NATO has spent most of its time planning to oppose Soviet Russia, who can be no other colour but red on a map.
A simple detail with a rich history. The very essence of what we try to achieve at the mobile museum...
No comments:
Post a Comment