This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've seen a post on alt.talk.royalty that describes captain-general as "something akin to principal field marshal", which implies that the position was (or became) largely honorary. Could the relationship have been similar to that between the Commandant General Royal Marines — the Royal Marines' professional head — and the Captain General Royal Marines — their titular, ceremonial head? Was the captain-general, in effect, Colonel-in-Chief of the entire Army?
Another possible parallel is Admiral of the Fleet, in the days when there was only one at any one time (at least up to 1805, and maybe later). He was the Royal Navy's senior officer, but he was not its commander-in-chief: that would be the First Lord of the Admiralty, if anyone could be said to be. (One divergence: promotion in the Navy above the rank of captain depended entirely on seniority, so you became Admiral of the Fleet simply by neither dying nor retiring. In the Army, however, that would only get you as far as (full) general: promotion to field marshal was in the gift of the king and his government, as was appointment as captain-general.) — Franey 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This list of Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces does not seem to be properly sourced. Indeed regiments.org gives a different list of Commanders-in-Chief which it terms "General-in-Chief Command" - see [1]. I am proposing to amend the list in the wiki article so it agrees more precisely with the list at regiments.org (which is repeated in other sources [2]). Does anyone have any views on this? Dormskirk ( talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How was Monmouth commander-in-chief after his death? Why would Feversham have been William's commander in chief? john k ( talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, why would Marlborough have been dismissed in 1708? john k ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The first line's: "the professional head of the British Army from 1660" is historical nonsense.
The British Army (and indeed the Kingdom of Great Britain) did not exist before 1707, so to suggest it had a commander is foolish and misleading. This error sets the scene for a fictitious list of Commanders-in-Chief, suggesting a continuum from 1606 to 1904. The list in fact comprises commanders of three separate armies: that of England to 1707, that of Great Britain to 1800 and that of Great Britain and Ireland.
(This error is equivalent to listing commanders of the US Continental Army by starting with the commanders of some colony years before the United States Continental Congress occurred, and listing half-a dozen names ahead of that of George Washington.)
Modifying this page to comment the changes from one army to another would not be adequate, as this would be no more meaningful than a list starting with the commander of the forces of Scotland and segueing that into the post-1707 list.
This page therefore needs to be split into pages for commanders of the forces of England, Great Britain and Great Britain & Ireland.
Unfortunately, this is beyond my editing skills. Help, please!
Not Proven (
talk) 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've seen a post on alt.talk.royalty that describes captain-general as "something akin to principal field marshal", which implies that the position was (or became) largely honorary. Could the relationship have been similar to that between the Commandant General Royal Marines — the Royal Marines' professional head — and the Captain General Royal Marines — their titular, ceremonial head? Was the captain-general, in effect, Colonel-in-Chief of the entire Army?
Another possible parallel is Admiral of the Fleet, in the days when there was only one at any one time (at least up to 1805, and maybe later). He was the Royal Navy's senior officer, but he was not its commander-in-chief: that would be the First Lord of the Admiralty, if anyone could be said to be. (One divergence: promotion in the Navy above the rank of captain depended entirely on seniority, so you became Admiral of the Fleet simply by neither dying nor retiring. In the Army, however, that would only get you as far as (full) general: promotion to field marshal was in the gift of the king and his government, as was appointment as captain-general.) — Franey 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This list of Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces does not seem to be properly sourced. Indeed regiments.org gives a different list of Commanders-in-Chief which it terms "General-in-Chief Command" - see [1]. I am proposing to amend the list in the wiki article so it agrees more precisely with the list at regiments.org (which is repeated in other sources [2]). Does anyone have any views on this? Dormskirk ( talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How was Monmouth commander-in-chief after his death? Why would Feversham have been William's commander in chief? john k ( talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, why would Marlborough have been dismissed in 1708? john k ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The first line's: "the professional head of the British Army from 1660" is historical nonsense.
The British Army (and indeed the Kingdom of Great Britain) did not exist before 1707, so to suggest it had a commander is foolish and misleading. This error sets the scene for a fictitious list of Commanders-in-Chief, suggesting a continuum from 1606 to 1904. The list in fact comprises commanders of three separate armies: that of England to 1707, that of Great Britain to 1800 and that of Great Britain and Ireland.
(This error is equivalent to listing commanders of the US Continental Army by starting with the commanders of some colony years before the United States Continental Congress occurred, and listing half-a dozen names ahead of that of George Washington.)
Modifying this page to comment the changes from one army to another would not be adequate, as this would be no more meaningful than a list starting with the commander of the forces of Scotland and segueing that into the post-1707 list.
This page therefore needs to be split into pages for commanders of the forces of England, Great Britain and Great Britain & Ireland.
Unfortunately, this is beyond my editing skills. Help, please!
Not Proven (
talk) 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)