View Single Post
Old September 27, 2006, 10:34 AM   #12
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
"The "Brits". How and why did the US military follow that logic? Can't we do anything without some kind of British influence?"

Well, let's see...

The United States army was established based on the British pattern.

The two ranks (lietenant gen. and major gen.) were both part of the British military structure, and had been since since the 1400s and 1600s, respectively. But, it's not just the British who have those ranks. The French, Germans, and Russians all have similar ranks that translate directly.

The Russians, Austrians, and Germans did throw in one other rank that no one else had, though -- Colonel General. The British did have that rank for a period of time, interestingly enough, right around the time when Major General was adopted (mid to late 1600s).

However, what puts the stake through the heart of your question is the US position of General of the Army.

The British don't have that position. They have Field Marshal, as do the Germans, French, Russians, etc.

However, had George C. Marshall not been the top dog in the military at the time the position was created, we well might have had the Field Marshal position. At the time, though, no one wanted to have to deal with Field Marshal Marshall.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03474 seconds with 8 queries