Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) (06/21/91)
From: Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) Would someone care to explain why a Major outranks a Lieutenant but in the Civil War, a Lieutenant General was considered a higher rank than Major General? Before 1864, Grant had been a Major General: March 12th 1864, Congress promotes Grant to the rank of Lieutenant General, a rank previous held by no other officer since George Washinton in the Revolution. Grant is made Supreme Commander of all Federal armies in the East and West Theatres. * Origin: The GASLIGHT BBS! Network History Echo Moderator (1:391/1040.0)
rqdms@lims04.lerc.nasa.gov (Dennis Stockert) (06/22/91)
From: rqdms@lims04.lerc.nasa.gov (Dennis Stockert) In article <1991Jun21.014233.14421@cbnews.cb.att.com>, Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) writes... > > >From: Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) > >Would someone care to explain why a Major outranks a Lieutenant but in >the Civil War, a Lieutenant General was considered a higher rank than >Major General? [....] I'm not totally sure I understand the specific question you have, but in those services with this rank structure (in the U.S.), it's still the same today.... a major still outranks a lieutenant, and a lieutenant general still outranks a major general. The general officer ranks are, lowest to highest: brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general, and general (omitting the very rare top rank of 5-star general :-) As to =why= the apparent inconsistency of the relative status of the terms "major" and "lieutenant", I guess I'll leave that to the military history buffs (I =know= you're out there .... :-) *********************************************************************** * Dennis Stockert * Life is what happens to you while * * rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * you're planning other things - Mom * *********************************************************************** * No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of * * any respectable organization * ***********************************************************************
military@cbnews (06/25/91)
From: att!bcr!mruxb!patter I'll take a stab at this. 1. The brigadier general directly commands a brigade. 2. The major general has majors as his direct subordinates? 3. The leutenant general, on the other hand, is a "leutenant" or apprentice general?
awillis@gara.une.oz.au (Sir) (06/25/91)
From: awillis@gara.une.oz.au (Sir) In article <1991Jun21.014233.14421@cbnews.cb.att.com>, Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) writes: > > > From: Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) > > Would someone care to explain why a Major outranks a Lieutenant but in > the Civil War, a Lieutenant General was considered a higher rank than > Major General? Before 1864, Grant had been a Major General: > Basically the difference is that Major General is a shortened version of Seargeant Major General. This became to much of a mouthful though so they shortened it to Major General. *-- The Name is Willis, --* *-- Andrew Willis. --* *-- You can call me, Sir. --* *-- awillis@gara.une.au.oz. --*