Americans Don't Know Nothin' 'bout Canada

[danalwyn]

I have a stupid Canada question (to which Jackal probably knows the answer, but maybe somebody else does too):

Upon visiting the RCMP website, I note that in English RCMP stands for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (common knowledge). However, the French title is the Gendarmerie royale du Canada. Now, I can't speak French (I'm American after all), but the best translation I would give for this would be the Royal Canadian Military Police (military police is a bit of a misnomer, the proper English term for gendarmerie is gendarmerie and is used when discussing force organization in foreign countries).

Now, certainly the RCMP has acted as a gendarmerie force within its history, but it seems odd that the term "Mounted" has slipped out of the French version. Do the RCMP walk in Quebec? Is there a "mounted" connotation to gendarmerie in French from its original origins that lasts to today (as I said, I don't actually speak French)? Or is this just one of those "That sounds stupid in French" "Oh yeah? Well that sounds stupid in English" conventions?

In short: I know nothing about Canada and am reduced to asking stupid and totally irrelevant questions on the internet. This sums up a great deal of my life.

Comments

[silverjackal]

Good morning! Hopefully this answer is clear, as I was up all night (and outside) so I am tired today.

The French title, Gendarmerie, does indeed refer to military police, but that's because the current R.C.M.P. is a merger of two prior police forces. Previously eastern Canada (including Quebec) was policed by the Dominion Police (founded 1868), who also served as the civilian arm of the Canadian Military Police Corps, and were only "mounted" when necessary, not a mounted force per se. The R.C.M.P. were originally the North-West Mounted Police (founded 1873), and only policed *western* Canada. The Dominion Police and North-West Mounted Police were merged in 1920 to form the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so the French name hearkens back to the origin of institution in their part of the world. It's got nothing really to do with including or not including "mounted", but does show the history as proper gendarmerie.

Edited again to add that I should have spared you my inane babble and just linked you to an authoratative source.

[danalwyn]

Huh, I knew that the RCMP was the result of a merger, but I didn't realize that they did not have to change the name for the French version - although it makes sense.

"Military Police" is a really weird term in English since it refers both to "police who are also military", and "police who police the military". I think that's why most English-speakers have adopted gendarmerie as the proper term for those forces - just to avoid confusion. It's doubly confusing given that the term gendarmerie encompasses so many different types of groups.

Anyway thanks for the help. Also I hope that you had good reasons to be up all night, and outside. Take care of yourself up there - working again after an all-nighter is something I'm glad I can now avoid.

[silverjackal]

The origin of the term gendarmerie, so far as I know, goes back to (1) literally, armed men i.e. bearing weapons, which distinguishes them from unarmed police forces and (2) originally gendarmes were cavalry (i.e. military) who were called on to be police, so they were "military" police in the sense of being mounted military... and police, not police which were mounted/military. So the term gendarmerie has the implication of mounted in it, no need to state it separately. And damn it, I hope that makes sense. It does in my head, but sometimes my English is not so good. My apologies if not.

hope that you had good reasons to be up all night, and outside.

Excellent reasons, and it was a good night and has been a good morning. Except that my brain is functioning at perhaps 1/3 usual capacity, and tomorrow I will pay bitterly. (Because it always hits me worse after 24 hours, for some reason.) Still, sometimes such things are necessary, yes? Hopefully you are having a good day. Myself, I think I need yet more coffee...

Edited to inlcude a relevant link, and fix spelling.

[danalwyn]

Then this probably is a French thing, or at least an older English thing. I remember vaguely the derivation of gendarmerie from the French equivalent of men-at-arms, but the English equivalent is treated peculiarly as well. There are times when the term appears to refer, like the French version, to a mounted cavalryman, and there are times when it does refer to a fully equipped feudal warrior. Although a man-at-arms is usually mounted in practice, I was not aware that this was a necessity (for instance, texts will refer variously to mounted and dismounted men-at-arms, although this may simply reflect their current status at that very moment). This may be a great more evident if I used the French terms.

However, my knowledge of the source comes from books written much later then the period in question, and therefore not necessarily adherent to the original intent. Of course, given that the whole "police" thing was added later, well, that just confuses it in all sets.

Yeah, I know that thing where if you're up for twenty-four hours feels fine - until you crash. Then you crash hard. Hopefully you have time to get some sleep when that happens.

[silverjackal]

I think you are correct to ascribe it as a "French thing". It's one of those things, yes, where additional meaning is carried in the charge of the language, and not what the words literally say.

Also, I think in your interpretation you are missing the connotation of class. The gendarmes would have been of the nobility, not peasant cannon fodder. So by default they would be mounted even if they dismounted to fight under certain circumstances. And they were called upon to be police because they were themselves above the common run, and direct servants to the overlord. It was the same way in England I believe, with the local lord placing the trust for keeping order and suppressing or punishing crime in a trusted military officer of high rank, so that the first "ordinary" policemen were simply soldiers under his command.

For that matter, that connotation is perfectly apt for the early days of the N.W.M.P. All of the higher level officers were either upper class British, and/or British military officers. They eventually recruited enlisted men from the local citizenry, but the higher ups remained Lord Such and Such, the third son of the Earl of Whosis, and General Whatsit well into the modern era.

For the sleep thing, my system actually operates in a curious fashion (and always has). If I'm low on sleep I'll be fine the morning (and day) after the night where I've lost sleep, but I'll be exhausted the day after (i.e. after 24 hours have elapsed) even if I had extra sleep. And I'll continue to be tired for some days thereafter. I'm not one of those people who can cut sleep, and then just sleep for longer after to make up for it. It's not such a big deal these days, but I would have dearly loved that ability in University. As it is, I was obviously not one to leave everything until the last minute, and then stay up for days. My system simply doesn't work like that. I'd do better going into an exam not having studied, and having slept, than the reverse.

[danalwyn]

The class thing is actually what's bothering me, and that's because of imprecision in the English language. I'm not sure what men-at-arms actually covers.

Taking Henry's 1181 Assize of Arms, the requirements there are listed separately for knights, freemen (who own over 16 marks), and "all burgesses and the whole community of freemen". Like the Dutch levy, the English levy does not make a distinct requirement for a horse.

The problem is that this whole body is sometimes referred to as "men-at-arms" (I suspect substitutes were allowed). While I expect the Freeman was expected to have a horse, I'm not sure about all burgesses. Certainly the Dutch burghers did not. This may just be an indistinct feature of medieval English, but I don't think all freemen had a horse, which is why I don't automatically associate men-at-arms with mounted soldiers.

Then again, I'm probably using the word wrong. It probably does refer simply to mounted cavalry (distinct from knights), and thus refer to a knight and the knight's retinue in battle. I hate the imprecision of medieval documentation.