Talk:General

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

should not redirect as field marshal is difft

whats the difference? Dietary Fiber

Chinese Army has Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, General of the Army, and Field Marshal... Nazi Germany had same thing, except there were ranks above Field Marshal (such as the specialized rank given to Heinrich Himmler). ugen64 23:24, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Regarding the UK officer ranks template 2 Maybe time for disambig 3 General of the Army and Colonel General 4 General officer

[edit] Regarding the UK officer ranks template

Is this really a good idea? The world doesn't revolve around the U.K. The rank is in use in multiple services of multiple nations. -Joseph (Talk) 05:45, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Plus the template is nigh on unreadable. Seems pointless. -Joseph (Talk) 05:52, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Why is it pointless? Template:US enlisted ranks has been around since April and nobody has had a problem with it. james_anatidae 06:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. They should either all stay or all be removed. Given the existence of the US template, it's rather ironic that this one should face an accusation of being UK-centric. Indeed the world doesn't revolve around the UK, but neither does it revolve around the USA. And it's perfectly readable. -- Necrothesp 10:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. They should both not be included in generic ranks. -Joseph (Talk) 12:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe time for disambig

What do people think of turning this into a disambig page? I count at least four different countries that are mentioned here with only the pic of a US general displayed. Separate articles for each countries version of General might be in order. -Husnock 09:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General of the Army and Colonel General

As a five-star rank, General of the Army is effectively restricted to the United States, where it hasn't been awarded since 1950; the last incumbent (of a grand total of five) died over twenty years ago. (It apparently exists on paper in Liberia, but I suspect any attempt to actually use it there would be ridiculed by the outside world.) The other ranks listed on the General of the Army page are either four-star positions, or don't actually translate as "General of the Army" (possible exception: Armeegeneral).

Colonel General is likewise restricted to armies descended from the Soviet army, where it appears to be a three-star rank, rather than ranking above plain general (as the table has it). The equivalent North Korean rank of Sangjang is sometimes translated as Colonel General, probably because of the former close ties between the Soviet Union and North Korea rather than as a literal rendering of the word itself.

Neither can justifiably be included among "the more common grades of general", which the table is described as listing. — Franey 12:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

General of the Army is a pretty common term, often used to describe a senior most General and the rank is pretty considered as high as you can go on the General scale. As for Colonel General, that has been ever present throughout history and is still used today. True, most countries have it as an equivalent of a 3 star in other countries, but the countries which use it rate it above a regular General. The two ranks you speak of are just a little bit too common, I feel, to purge from the table. -Husnock 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Russian general ranks (translated) are Major-General, Lieutenant-General, Colonel-General, and General of the Army: there is no rank of "regular General". The ranks are inherited from the Soviet era, so I guess they are the same in other CIS countries. Colonel General seems to be confined to the CIS, and it's in the wrong place in the table anyway. If you have examples of any other countries that use the rank, especially above plain General, please name them.

General of the Army is a pretty common term, often used to describe a senior most General and the rank is pretty considered as high as you can go on the General scale: this is a bit vague. Who uses it in this way? Who considers it be "as high as you can go"? The only English-speaking countries I've found that have a rank of "General of the Army" are the U.S. and Liberia. Other countries (e.g. Russia, France, the DDR) do or did have ranks that could be translated as "General of the Army", but this seems to be their equivalent of the rank of plain, unadorned General, which they lack: "General of the Army" was originally used in this way in the U.S., too.

Based on the evidence, I simply do not accept your statement that General of the Army and Colonel General are common ranks — certainly not as ranks superior to plain General. If you know otherwise, please provide the facts. — Franey 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See my talk on Admiral. A non-partisan alphabet table of the many General ranks would seem to be the solution. -Husnock 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General officer

This article has to combine the overlapping concepts of general officer and the single rank of general. I suggest that since the single rank of general is always a general officer, but the reverse is not true, perhaps this article should, maybe, be titled "General officer". Any comments welcome. Mesoso 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)