Talk:Military rank

message: There are inconsistencies in the bit about Roman military ranks and much of it is disorganized and unclear. I don't know enough about the subject to reorganize it without accidentally creating a falsehood. 
Viviane Carstairs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman ranks

message: "In many navies the term rate is used to designate specialty, while rank denotes paygrade."  I say! "Many" navies? Hardly encyclopedic, old chap! Smacks of original research and all that rot.  Surely you mean "at least one English-speaking navy"?
The material on "mediaeval armies" applies, largely, to early-modern English and some continental armies.  With a few exceptions it is very, very inaccurate if applied to mediaeval armies.  --NetNus (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpickery

message: Just a request, can you put a complete list of ranks, like private or surgeon. -- Taku 21:36 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I don't understand the differences between CO, NCOs and men. is there a international rule when ranks become officer ranks?
I also am not familiar with the ranks..I'm not sure if this touches on Taku's comment, but I would like to see a list of ranks for US forces (by branch, and including abbreviations) showing their "designation of authority/level of 'power'"   ie LT = Lieutenent, CPT = Captain, Sgt = Sergeant, lowest rank, etc.   --- perhaps something similar to the charts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant but more descriptive  Cargilcm (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Random Questions 1

message: In the US military, Lance Corporal or Private are ranks.  Also, a warrant officer would not fill the billet of Seargent Major in the US military; a Sergeant Major would.  in the US military only and elisted soldier or Marine would fill such a billet.  There are other US-British differences throughout.  Some of the article is British oriented and some is US oriented.  I think the only way to solve this is to divide the info under separate British/Commonwealth Rank Structure  and a separate one for US and another for any other country.  Otherwise, a non-military reader from either side of the pond is going to be confused by the conflicting information.--Counsel 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely true. Most of this article is entirely UK/commonwealth-centric. Virtually none of it applies to the USA.138.162.128.55 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US v Commonwealth 

message: The recent changes improved a little.  Perhaps someone can explain the concept of "command authority" as used in this context.  In the United States Marine Corps, a Lance Corporal would be superior to a Private and a Private First Class.  Very often a lance corporal will be a Fire team leader (four marines) and would have the authority to issue lawful orders, as he stands in the shoes of the Platoon Commander, as it were.  Is this the concept that is refered to there.  Junior Marines are refered to as non-rates, but in determining who will lead in any situations, rank does matter.  Even within a rank, an earlier promotion date would be significant.--Counsel 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command Authority 

message: I agree with Necrothesp that this is not an article intended to give an exhaustive list of ranks.  The list as it stands, however, appears exhaustive with respect to British ranks, but is wrong with respect to US ranks.  For instance, it lists Company (Grade) Officers on the ground side as Captain, Lieutenant, and Second Lieutenant.  This is incorrect in the US.  There exists no "Lieutenant" rank in the Army, Air Force, and Marines, however there is in the Navy.  The Army/Marine/Air Force ranks include "First Lietenants" and "Second Lieutenants".  The ranks listed for the Air Force simply do not exist in the outside of the UK.  Have served as a U.S. Marine along side Royal Marines, I can attest to the fact that the differences are dizzying.  We need to achieve some sort of generalized accuracy without duplicating the country specific rank structure articles.  The fact that the list as it stands applies to the UK and not the rest of the world should be clarified in the article.  I think that many of the ranks should be removed and links to the country specific articles provided.--Counsel 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for army company ranks is actually Captain and Lieutenant, in various forms. These, or something very similar, are pretty much universal, so the best solution is probably to remove Second Lieutenant entirely and simply say that there are various grades of Lieutenant (since some armies have more than two). For the Navy, grades of Lieutenant and/or Ensign are fairly universal. The air force ranks certainly do exist outside the UK - a number of Commonwealth air forces still use the same system. I think their inclusion is valid, as they are a well-known variation on the standard army-style ranks used by most other air forces. -- Necrothesp 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused. The section in question is headed "modern ranks"; hence it's quite feasible for it to deal with modern ranks (there is another section for Roman ranks - and the article certainly needs expansion). The fact is that these ranks are not just used by "western powers", but by almost all militaries, either in translation or direct borrowing or common rendering (e.g. the rank of "Captain" may not be used in, say, Vietnam in a form recognisable to English speakers, but if someone fluent in both English and Vietnamese translated the equivalent rank into English he would render it perfectly accurately as "Captain"). This article is meant to be generic - there are specific articles dealing with each country. I don't think there's any problem with pointing out in general terms the ranks used by almost every armed service in the world today. -- Necrothesp 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhaustive List 

message: I removed these statements until someone can provide reputable sources for them:
:Field armies would normally consist of three tumens with attendant siege units grouped into independent minghans under a unified command staff led by an Orlok. In addition, the quartermasters of the Mongol armies carried the title of Yurtchi (a person in charge of yurts).
I left the arban/jagun/mingghan/tuman/ordu ranks, as there is little doubt about them (which doesn't mean they don't need references too). Please note that reference-free reprints of decades-old articles from SCA newsletters are not reputable sources. ➥the Epopt 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Mongols 

message: I have removed the following paragraph:
* "Many English-language military ranks descend from three sources of French-language origins. From renaissance mercenary titles come corporal (as thought "corps man," but actually from French caporal, "chief"), sergeant ("servant"), captain ("head man"), and general (a shortening of the term "captain general"). From the era of the Napoleonic Wars came colonel (head of a column) and marshal ("stable manager")[citation needed]. From World War II come a number of specialist ranks."
* "Corporal" originates in Italian caporale.
* "Sergeant" seems unclear, as its military rank context seems to originate in the 16th century, long after the establishment of the word in English. It originates in the meaning of "servant, soldier" from medieval Latin serviens.
* "Captain" originates from Late Latin capitaneus.
* "Colonel" originates from Italian colonello.
* "Marshal" originates in Germanic Frankish marahskalk.</br>
Only "general" seems to have a strictly French origin, altho' a case might also be made for marshal. While the rest of the terms (and indeed a goodly chunk of the whole English language) arrived via French at Hastings, it is incorrect to say the terms originated there. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "French" origin of military ranks 

message: Does anyone know when the modern system of ranks was developed? This article currently leaps from ancient times to modernity. I believe that if you go back to the English Civil War many, but not all, of the ranks were in existence. There was a Colonel Pride, anyway. But I think that at that time a rank would be purchased and not acquired through promotion. It would be good to know more about this. Itsmejudith 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for this. Itsmejudith 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of modern rank system? 

message: The Modern Ranks section covers all branches of the military, but in the Ancient and Medieval Ranks section, only the Greek Ranks sub-section even mentions ships at all, which were an important part of medieval warfare. 69.12.155.64 06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Naval Ranks 

message: It would be nice if there was some discussion of the functions of each rank.  This article does a fair job of that for General and Flag Officers; but after that it increasingly starts to merely list the ranks in order with increasingly less discussion of the functions of each rank.  For Field, Senior, Company, and Warrant Officers and Army NCOs and Enlisted Personnel this deficiency can be made up for to some degree by cross-referencing Military organization and the various rank-specific articles; but this is extremely laborious and does involve some guess work; and furthermore, there is nothing, absolutely nothing about the function of Junior Officers or Naval NCOs or Enlisted Personnel.  The rank specific articles on most Naval ranks merely point out that such a rank is inferior to this rank and superior to that rank and wears such and such insignia and bears these nick-names for these historical reasons; but, as to what they actually do: nothing.  The articles on Seamen and Petty Officers are slightly more informative, raising the issue of departments and muttering something vague about Petty Officers being supervisors in some way; but, still fall short of painting the full picture of what departments are on what ships and what jobs hold which ranks in each department.  There is a huge gap of knowledge here; and, I for one would greatly appreciate it if someone with this knowledge would step up and fill it in.
Finnbjorn (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's all well and good; but, what do they do? 

message: I was taught that rank names (at least in the US) were considered titles and as such were always capitalized, whether they were directly attached to a name or not (i.e. not just in "Sergeant Joe", but anywhere the word Sergeant is used referring to a rank).  Much of this page follows this convention, but there are sections in which the ranks are listed lower-case, and on another page a user recently lowercased standalone "admiral" and "captain", listing "wikigrammar" as his edit summary.  MOS:CAPS#Military terms also seems to claim they are not capitalized unless they are attached to a name.  This looks wrong to me.  Anyone else, especially anyone familiar with actual usage in military contexts, want to chime in?  Should these ranks always be capitalized, and if so, does this issue need to be raised at MOS:CAPS?  John Darrow (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Australian Defence Force we are taught that ranks are only capitalised when used as a proper noun, e.g. Lieutenant Rupert. But if it is being used as 'Rupert is a lieutenant', it is not capitalised. I'm fairly sure that concensus on wiki supports this, but I could be wrong. I've been surprised before. That's my take, anyway. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Unlike JohnDarrow,I was taught in US schools to "down style" whenever possible. Chicago Manual (15th ed), secs 7.16-7.24, uses the same principles Rupert summarizes: capitalize titles/ranks preceding personal names but not those in apposition (with some exceptions to avoid ambiguity and a nod to Britons' "more liberal use of capitals for titles than" CM recommends).  Decades ago, the Associated Press style manual used the same rule, with more room to capitalize titles used as stand-ins for naming the incumbents in important civil or ecclesiastical offices whose names and titles were previously stated in the article (eg, "the President [viz, Obama] said yesterday..." vs "the former president [viz, Bush] cut brush...")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.189.97 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of rank names 

message: The term for leadership "Drighten" in Old English is used, sometimes now by neo-Anglo-Saxon rune guilds (I believe the Stephen Flowers article speaks of it; though he uses it more as an occult title "Ipsissimus" type thing), but it was a leader/military head ranking. Something like this for Anglo-Saxon chieftain terms as held by the different migration period to medieval times names should be held. But anyone know knows anything of the "Drighten" (Old English / Anglo-Saxon military-lord type title) would be please asked to make a article on it. I was just assuming it to possibly be more broad as one in a set of titles like Erilaz/Earl, Thanes and the like; English/Teutonic/Germanic royalty names started from military names or house keeper groundskeeper type names. 4.242.174.238 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  medieval rank (English/Anglo-Saxon) 

message: Information on very early history is missing, i.e. before the Persians and Greeks. For example, what is the first known army to have used more ranks than "boss" and "non-boss", so to speak? -- 85.179.127.236 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest history? 

message: I have redirected ceremonial rank to Military_rank#Types_of_rank, similarly to honorary rank, which seemed logical, but the section does not currently mention ceremonial rank, and should. I'm not sure quite how to phrase the entry, or where to source it... help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceremonial rank 

message: The article tells us "(mainly the United States because "Marshal" is used as a peace officer's designation)" but there's no reference for it and, quite honestly, I don't believe it. Is there documentation that this is the reason the US doesn't have field marshals?
Second point, the field marshal the US did have was Douglas McArthur, who held that rank as commander of the Philippine Armed Forces when they were a possession. Might be worth mentioning that. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marshal in the USA 

message: Do we have any other sources (preferably from linguistic studies) for the etymology from Persian?
I ask because there is a differrent etymology given here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=rank
(previous unsigned comment by Teachercito on 2017 March 4‎ at 10:06)
:I question that myself, as the etymology is different in Wikitionary: 
::Etymology 2
::From Middle English rank ‎(“line, row”‎), from Old French ranc, rang, reng ‎(“line, row, rank”‎) (Modern French rang), from Frankish *hring ‎(“ring”‎), from Proto-Germanic *hringaz ‎(“something bent or curved”‎).
::Akin to Old High German (h)ring, Old Frisian hring, Old English hring, hrincg ‎(“ring”‎) (Modern English ring), Old Norse hringr ‎(“ring, circle, queue, sword; ship”‎). More at ring.
:WesT (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology