army ranks [was: assorted comments]

[Joel S. Berson]

The duties (for British and colonial military) are described in
various military manuals of the 18th century (naming only the century
that I have perused a little).

In military or "command" contexts (such as commanding assistance in
apprehending a criminal), a colonial governor was referred to as
"captain-general and governor".

But where does the colonel fit into this hierarchy?  How is he
distinguished from the major?  (A question that actually bears upon a
current project of mine; I don't have a good answer.)

Joel

At 3/28/2006 08:47 PM, you wrote:
>Someone once explained army ranks to me this way:
>Back in the days of spearmen, when proper formation was a necessity for
>winning battles, the sergeant was the man who was responsible for lining up
>a company (or equivalent-sized unit, anywhere from 50 to maybe 200 men)
>properly.  Companies were formed into battalions, and the man responsible
>for lining up the entire batallion was therefore a
>more-important-than-usual sergeant, hence a "sergeant-major".  When that
>duty was given to an officer rather than an enlisted man, the officer
>dropped the "sergeant" part and became simply a "major".
>
>The man captaining the entire army was the captain-general, soon referred
>to simply as the "general", "general" in this case meaning he was the
>top-ranking captain in general charge of all the other various captains in
>the army..  His assistant was rather obviously the "lieutenant-general".
>The man who lined up the entire army was more important than a mere
>sergeant-major, and since there was only such, and in general charge of all
>alignment sergeants, he became the "sergeant-major general", later
>abbreviated to "major general".

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org