This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military rank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mreynolds12.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)Cargilcm
"The Chinese People's Liberation Army of the 1960s and 1970s is a rare example of a military which attempted (quite unsuccessfully) to abolish rank."
In May 1965, the military grade and rank systems were officially abolished and replaced with the State administrative cadre (officer) rank system (guojia jiguan xingzheng ganbu jibie zhidu). Officers were called cadre (ganbu) and enlisted members were called soldiers (zhanshi). All military personnel wore the same hat (Mao hat with a red star) and plain red collar tabs...The only difference between a cadre and soldier was that a cadre’s jacket had four pockets and a soldier’s had only two breast pockets, and the material was different... [1]
...Along with these new emphases, Deng reduced the PLA's numbers by one million in 1985, restored ranks to the PLA in 1988 (Mao had abolished them in 1965)... [2]
...The year 1965 saw drastic changes in China's military organization and leadership. The impact of these changes upon strategic thought remains obscure. On 22 May, the system of ranks which had been in effect for a decade was abolished... [3]
- Hope these help. SigPig 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Many Colonial units in the US Revolutionary War elected their officers as well.-- Counsel 18:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet Red Army also tried this, unsuccessfully, during its very early history. — Michael Z. 2006-02-22 19:42 Z
The first table seems to say that a Battilion consists of "Staff adjutant or Second-in-Command". Why is the battilion column doubled there? Confusing.
Added a bit on british commonwealth style warrant officers, I'll try to re-write the entire section so it makes a bit more sense to non-americans, etc. -- Halabut 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The British Army doesn't use the US-style star system, but the Royal Navy certainly does on the gold shoulder-boards of ly Commodores and Flag officers below Admiral of the Fleet, since 2004.
This was explicitly done in an effort to reduce confusion between the Royal and US Navies. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 13:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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. 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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, I would agree that they are commonly used in western powers today, but an article titled merely "Military Rank" should apply to militaries in general. How much of the information would apply to Roman Legions or Mongol Armies. My point it that the article just seems a little to narrow.-- Counsel 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, to dig this up again, but I think that the table should be edited to reflect the fact that the ranks (especially airforce) are simply common Commonwealth ranks, and not common anywhere else to my knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.35.207 ( talk) 06:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
this is a list that comes in mind, must be other terms as well (like reconnaissance, aide de camps, transport, etc). Sources? check a dictionnaire -oops!- mean a dictionary.
Shame On You 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There are some very strange statements here :- like the word colonel not existing pre-napoleonic times !! Dictionary .com and other etymological references suggest a date of first use around 1530-1540 and not 1790ish. Facius 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-Just a few things: I'm not fluent in french, however (on the list above,) I believe that 'classe', which I assume you are intending as,for example, a class of soldier, actually refers to, for example, the people participating in a classroom (class of children.) Also, why was 'unity' included in that list? Stev1233 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed these statements until someone can provide reputable sources for them:
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)
ώ I thick you should compare all military ranks that are Modern ranks}}
I have removed the following paragraph:
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)
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)
I have merged in most of the orphaned Ranks and units page, which covers a lot of the development of modern ranks. Anklefear 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I beleive the term Sergeant is equivalent to Sir Gent i.e.( Gentry or of Gentle Birth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.68.247 ( talk) 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Very educational. Good Job. Montenegro Police Department ( talk) 23:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military rank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mreynolds12.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)Cargilcm
"The Chinese People's Liberation Army of the 1960s and 1970s is a rare example of a military which attempted (quite unsuccessfully) to abolish rank."
In May 1965, the military grade and rank systems were officially abolished and replaced with the State administrative cadre (officer) rank system (guojia jiguan xingzheng ganbu jibie zhidu). Officers were called cadre (ganbu) and enlisted members were called soldiers (zhanshi). All military personnel wore the same hat (Mao hat with a red star) and plain red collar tabs...The only difference between a cadre and soldier was that a cadre’s jacket had four pockets and a soldier’s had only two breast pockets, and the material was different... [1]
...Along with these new emphases, Deng reduced the PLA's numbers by one million in 1985, restored ranks to the PLA in 1988 (Mao had abolished them in 1965)... [2]
...The year 1965 saw drastic changes in China's military organization and leadership. The impact of these changes upon strategic thought remains obscure. On 22 May, the system of ranks which had been in effect for a decade was abolished... [3]
- Hope these help. SigPig 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Many Colonial units in the US Revolutionary War elected their officers as well.-- Counsel 18:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet Red Army also tried this, unsuccessfully, during its very early history. — Michael Z. 2006-02-22 19:42 Z
The first table seems to say that a Battilion consists of "Staff adjutant or Second-in-Command". Why is the battilion column doubled there? Confusing.
Added a bit on british commonwealth style warrant officers, I'll try to re-write the entire section so it makes a bit more sense to non-americans, etc. -- Halabut 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The British Army doesn't use the US-style star system, but the Royal Navy certainly does on the gold shoulder-boards of ly Commodores and Flag officers below Admiral of the Fleet, since 2004.
This was explicitly done in an effort to reduce confusion between the Royal and US Navies. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 13:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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. 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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, I would agree that they are commonly used in western powers today, but an article titled merely "Military Rank" should apply to militaries in general. How much of the information would apply to Roman Legions or Mongol Armies. My point it that the article just seems a little to narrow.-- Counsel 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, to dig this up again, but I think that the table should be edited to reflect the fact that the ranks (especially airforce) are simply common Commonwealth ranks, and not common anywhere else to my knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.35.207 ( talk) 06:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
this is a list that comes in mind, must be other terms as well (like reconnaissance, aide de camps, transport, etc). Sources? check a dictionnaire -oops!- mean a dictionary.
Shame On You 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There are some very strange statements here :- like the word colonel not existing pre-napoleonic times !! Dictionary .com and other etymological references suggest a date of first use around 1530-1540 and not 1790ish. Facius 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-Just a few things: I'm not fluent in french, however (on the list above,) I believe that 'classe', which I assume you are intending as,for example, a class of soldier, actually refers to, for example, the people participating in a classroom (class of children.) Also, why was 'unity' included in that list? Stev1233 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed these statements until someone can provide reputable sources for them:
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)
ώ I thick you should compare all military ranks that are Modern ranks}}
I have removed the following paragraph:
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)
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)
I have merged in most of the orphaned Ranks and units page, which covers a lot of the development of modern ranks. Anklefear 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I beleive the term Sergeant is equivalent to Sir Gent i.e.( Gentry or of Gentle Birth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.68.247 ( talk) 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Very educational. Good Job. Montenegro Police Department ( talk) 23:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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)