Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Um, I was wondering if any of you would know ranking in
an army. Like example:
-Lord General or Lord Marshal
-Second-in-command (but what's the name for it?)
-Captain
-Sergeant (is Sergeant before Captain)
-And there's probably other that I don't know.

Can anyone help me please????

Thanks.

Unfortunately, all these names meant diferent things at different times in
different armies. Even in WW2, this was not standard. Almost any popular
history will give you a rough conversion and comparison chart between ranks
and rank equivalents in American, British, German and even German SS. I
have seen German Colonels commanding everything from regiments to divisions.
As another example, there were even Captain Generals in the Late Medieval
and Renaissance armies. He may, or may not have been the C-in-C.
Your best bet to understand the period you are reading is to read with close
attention, and try to get the _relative_ rank from the context.
If you can be more specific about which army in which period, it might be
easier to help you sort things out.

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: darkwildelfeyes [mailto:ekips_regit86@...]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:17 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Military Order
>
>
> Um, I was wondering if any of you would know ranking in
> an army. Like example:
> -Lord General or Lord Marshal
> -Second-in-command (but what's the name for it?)
> -Captain
> -Sergeant (is Sergeant before Captain)
> -And there's probably other that I don't know.
>
> Can anyone help me please????
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

To confound things even further. In Plantagenant England the
Marchall was the military chief, but the king led the army. The army
consisted of both feudal levies and mercenary units, and nobles at
the baronial class could purchase substitutes to take their place.
Of course the substitutes would be knights of lesser rank (usually
third sons of neighbors and such), so the feudal rank structure was
further skewed towards appointed men to lead all the leaderless
knightly substitutes who fought under no noble's banner. Thus
captains and companies were formed, much as with mercenaries, but the
members were in constant flux coming and going as the 3 or 6 month
term of services obligations expired and new ones were assumed. So,
to reenforce what has already been said, a captain might have as many
as 1000 knights and sergents under his direct command, or as little
as 50. When I did research into Henry II's PipeRolls (military
roster and general database of governance) William Marschall was
the "Marchall" of the army for most of the period from 1160-1181. He
oversaw the confinement of Richard, Geofrey, and Eleanor during
their "emprisonment" and he oversaw the annual muster of knights.
Interestingly enough, to make things absolutely unknowable, no where
in the pipe rolls are true figures given. Each baron is listed with
his knights, not his sargents or footmen and the like. The only way
to deduce these numbers is to look at total force numbers and
subtract out all the knights and other nobles. this leaves the
mercenaries and lesser men. Knight is seen as a private and anything
less than a knight was on par with subhuman. Funny how just 100
years later the yeoman archer was by far the most important part of
the army.

Hope everyone is as confused as is required to understand this period
of English Military heirarchy. :)

boyd


--- In WarriorRules@y..., "John Carroll" <johncarroll453@c...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, all these names meant diferent things at different
times in
> different armies. Even in WW2, this was not standard. Almost any
popular
> history will give you a rough conversion and comparison chart
between ranks
> and rank equivalents in American, British, German and even German
SS. I
> have seen German Colonels commanding everything from regiments to
divisions.
> As another example, there were even Captain Generals in the Late
Medieval
> and Renaissance armies. He may, or may not have been the C-in-C.
> Your best bet to understand the period you are reading is to read
with close
> attention, and try to get the _relative_ rank from the context.
> If you can be more specific about which army in which period, it
might be
> easier to help you sort things out.
>
> John the OFM
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: darkwildelfeyes [mailto:ekips_regit86@h...]
> > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:17 AM
> > To: WarriorRules@y...
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Military Order
> >
> >
> > Um, I was wondering if any of you would know ranking in
> > an army. Like example:
> > -Lord General or Lord Marshal
> > -Second-in-command (but what's the name for it?)
> > -Captain
> > -Sergeant (is Sergeant before Captain)
> > -And there's probably other that I don't know.
> >
> > Can anyone help me please????
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@e...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Howdy,
I suspect that a plethora of answers will flood in on your
question ...
but you've overlooked a major consideration here ... what
period are you talking about and which army -- as
organizations change radically both over time and from
nation to nation.
Since this is an ancients list, and you listed some medieval
titles, I'll assume you're looking for a generic ranking for
those armies. Of course, there really is none, as the
feudal bands as well as the liveried companies all had their
own organization and the leadership was appointed ad hoc
based on Royal favor, reputation, and social ranking. This
always led to command problems. A Favorite could be safely
ignored or even overruled by somebody with a great rep. On
the other hand a "simple knight" who had risen by
achievement rather than by heredity to high command could be
ignored by somebody with a real pedigree.
However, almost all organized armies from all periods have a
basic ranking differentiation. In modern terms, these would
be the non-commissioned personnel (non-coms) and the
commissioned personnel. Non commissioned folks tended to be
the actual leaders among the troops -- usually the guy
directly responsible for training, direction, and
co-ordination of the soldiers' activities. The modern
sergeant is paralleled by the Roman Centurion. Over these
guys would come a cadre of leaders from higher castes or
classes -- the Roman Tribune corresponding roughly with the
American captain or major for instance who coordinated the
clusters of men on the field rather than individual
soldiers. Above them were the historical "real commanders"
who often as not lost all real control above a sergeant's
normal responsibility once the two forces actually got in
close and personal! LOL.

Anyway, if you'd specify which army for which period, you'd
be swamped with detailed information and sources I'm sure.

Arthur

--
IN HOC MODO MILLIS FRANGITVR .

[Greg Regets]

The Holy Religion (Hospitalers) is ralatively easy to determine rank and titles,
but more complicated to determine what to actually call these men.

On top of the heap was a "Grand Master", and that was his title. History tells
us though that even the most glorious Grand Master of the Order, preferred to be
called Fra' or Father. You wouldn't call Patton, "Third Army Corps Commander
Patton" after all, he is just "General Patton". I suppose it was assumed that
men like LaValette were known to one and all, without elaborate titles.

Subordinate commanders were divided by nationality and the title given to the
man that commanded all troops of that nationality was "Pilier". Directly under
him, we have men that command the varios priories within that nation, their
title being Prior or Praeceptor (there are about ten spellings for this word).
No matter the title, it is relatively clear they were also called Fra' or
Father.

All this becomes complicated by three factors.

1. Sometimes the military contribution of an entire nation was one man, while
the contribution of one priory within another nation might be 2,000 men. In that
case, a 'Pilier', while technically outranking a 'Prior', was in actuality of
considerably lesser importance.

2. Many of these men had local titles such as Count, Earl and Duke. One would
suppose that even if they were of lesser importance within the order, if they
were an Earl, they would expect to be called as such.

3. The needs of the order seemed at times to completely outweigh the rank
structure. Sir Oliver Starkey, on Malta, was neither Pilier, or Prior, nor was
he a Duke, Early or Count, as a matter of fact he was a common knight,
relatively new to the order and was the only Englishman present on the island,
before the arrival of the relief force (which had two more Englishmen, haha),
and yet, he was Grand Master LaValette's second in command and of course
performed with great valor.

After the commanders came the members of the order, which were just called Fra'
or Father. I have never found any evidence that this order ever had anything
resembling sergeants. What is historically clear is they didn't take squires
(hard to believe), and in order to gain entry into the order, you were expected
to already be a knight in good standing. This makes this order considerably
different from the Templers and Teutonics.

Hope this helps ... Greg



----- Original Message -----
From: darkwildelfeyes
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 12:17 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Military Order


Um, I was wondering if any of you would know ranking in
an army. Like example:
-Lord General or Lord Marshal
-Second-in-command (but what's the name for it?)
-Captain
-Sergeant (is Sergeant before Captain)
-And there's probably other that I don't know.

Can anyone help me please????

Thanks.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Ok, I can't stand it. Especially the part about Lieutenant Colonel being an
'in-between' rank....

Today's Army from highest to lowest:

General (4-star)
Lieutenant General (3-star)
Major General (2-star)
Brigadier General (1-star)
Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Major
Captain
1st Lieutenant
2d Lieutenant

Warrant Officers are:

Master Warrant Officer 5
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Cheif Warrant Officer 3
Chief Warrant Officer 2
Warrant Officer 1

NCO's are:

Sergeant Major
Master Sergeant
Sergeant First Class
Staff Sergeant
Sergeant
Specialist
Private First Class
Private 2
Private

That's the US Army today. AF/Marines have same officer ranks. Navy all
different.

Lieutenant Colonel Jon Cleaves


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Silly me. Okay, what I meant really by rankings is titles given to
men in an army. Like, I've done a bit of research and I got a few
more titles.
-Field Marshal
-General
-Sergeant
-Corporal
-Lieutenant Colonel (Lieutenant General)
-Major (general)
-Captain
-Lieutenant
-Admiral

So yeah. I'd guess the time in history that I was really looking for
would be medieval times or perhaps even the Roman era.

Thanks.

Any help in ranking? Or perhaps I missed a few and they are not in
order?

[Harlan Garrett]

Jon:

You missed one rank ;-)

Corporal

Which is above Specialist and below Sergeant.

Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:45 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Military Order


Ok, I can't stand it. Especially the part about Lieutenant Colonel
being an
'in-between' rank....

Today's Army from highest to lowest:

General (4-star)
Lieutenant General (3-star)
Major General (2-star)
Brigadier General (1-star)
Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Major
Captain
1st Lieutenant
2d Lieutenant

Warrant Officers are:

Master Warrant Officer 5
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Cheif Warrant Officer 3
Chief Warrant Officer 2
Warrant Officer 1

NCO's are:

Sergeant Major
Master Sergeant
Sergeant First Class
Staff Sergeant
Sergeant
Specialist
Private First Class
Private 2
Private

That's the US Army today. AF/Marines have same officer ranks. Navy all

different.

Lieutenant Colonel Jon Cleaves


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Doug]

Now ya' gotta go over the rank insignia so the painters know what to
draw. Otherwise everyone will think that butter bars are some kind
of sex aid. Well, maybe for generals...

>Ok, I can't stand it. Especially the part about Lieutenant Colonel being an
>'in-between' rank....
>
>Today's Army from highest to lowest:
>
>General (4-star)
>Lieutenant General (3-star)
>Major General (2-star)
>Brigadier General (1-star)
>Colonel
>Lieutenant Colonel
>Major
>Captain
>1st Lieutenant
>2d Lieutenant
>
>Warrant Officers are:
>
>Master Warrant Officer 5
>Chief Warrant Officer 4
>Cheif Warrant Officer 3
>Chief Warrant Officer 2
>Warrant Officer 1
>
>NCO's are:
>
>Sergeant Major
>Master Sergeant
>Sergeant First Class
>Staff Sergeant
>Sergeant
>Specialist
>Private First Class
>Private 2
>Private
>
>That's the US Army today. AF/Marines have same officer ranks. Navy all
>different.
>
>Lieutenant Colonel Jon Cleaves
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/30/2002 00:07:44 Central Daylight Time,
Harlan.D.Garrett@... writes:


> You missed one rank
>
> Corporal
>
> Which is above Specialist and below Sergeant.
>
>

I did not. Corporal is a Specialist made into an NCO - they are the same
grade (E4). It is a locally bestowed rank. I figured it would be too hard
to explain things like that and first sergeant and command sergeant major....

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks so much for helping me out guys! Cuz, I wanted to get the
ranks and stuff right because I'm writing a story and I don't
want there to be any confusion. lol

Thanks again!

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated Sat, 29 Jun 2002 9:44:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, JonCleaves
writes:

> Ok, I can't stand it. Especially the part about Lieutenant
> Colonel being an
> 'in-between' rank....

YEP, like it or not its a tweener rank. 8^) But not to worry young soldier, you
will make O-6 and look back with fondness at your days as a tweener.;^)
Chris