Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Probably a true triviality, but just something I've wondered about.

I would have thought it was because those ranks were, in some ways, related to the nobility/royalty, and Americans would have wanted to shy away from them. Of course, on that level, you'd think the Soviets would have completely steered clear of that, but Zhukov, Voroshilov, etc.?

Really something I know *absitively* nothing about. Perhaps we have some experts on the 17th to 19th centuries among us who do.

Interestingly enough, just now, I looked up Constable of France on that fount of all knowledge, wikipedia, and it was abolished by my hero, Cardinal Richelieu.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Probably a true triviality, but just something I've wondered about.

I would have thought it was because those ranks were, in some ways, related to the nobility/royalty, and Americans would have wanted to shy away from them. Of course, on that level, you'd think the Soviets would have completely steered clear of that, but Zhukov, Voroshilov, etc.?

Really something I know *absitively* nothing about. Perhaps we have some experts on the 17th to 19th centuries among us who do.

Interestingly enough, just now, I looked up Constable of France on that fount of all knowledge, wikipedia, and it was abolished by my hero, Cardinal Richelieu.

It is a title that is rooted in feudalistic structures, because it originates in a rather lowly occupation, that being the person that takes care of the horses and everything to do with that. That shifted from its original meaning towards 'commander of the cavalry' and later on to a general high-level command position.

Etymologically, it is related to the term mare for horse, that is nowadays used disparagingly, but used to be more generic (and can be found in other languages, like the german Mähre which is also a pejorative). An old name for horses stables is mar(e)stall, which lead to the occupation marstaller which evolved into marshall, or the french maréchal, which described someone who was taking care of horses and the related buildings and tasks. Interestingly, Mahrstall as a term exists in German as well, again as a term for horses stables. On top of that, in the Holy Roman Empire, we can exactly trace how Marshall shifted from a low position to its current meaning: there existed certain offices at the court of the HRE (the so called Erzämter literally Arch-Offices as in Arch-Angel) that started out as actual jobs, with the Hofmarschall among them - over time, these shifted from actual hands-on occupations to purely ceremonial titles that were exclusively awarded to nobles that had the Kurwürde, i.e. electors for the Kaiser. Sort of like the Groom of the Closet etc. at the English court, these 'lowly' titles were used to honour the closest confidants of the Kaiser, and thus in the case of marshall got elevated considerably.

Tsagualsa wrote:

It is a title that is rooted in feudalistic structures, because it originates in a rather lowly occupation, that being the person that takes care of the horses and everything to do with that. That shifted from its original meaning towards 'commander of the cavalry' and later on to a general high-level command position.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Probably a true triviality, but just something I've wondered about.

I would have thought it was because those ranks were, in some ways, related to the nobility/royalty, and Americans would have wanted to shy away from them. Of course, on that level, you'd think the Soviets would have completely steered clear of that, but Zhukov, Voroshilov, etc.?

Really something I know *absitively* nothing about. Perhaps we have some experts on the 17th to 19th centuries among us who do.

Interestingly enough, just now, I looked up Constable of France on that fount of all knowledge, wikipedia, and it was abolished by my hero, Cardinal Richelieu.

It is a title that is rooted in feudalistic structures, because it originates in a rather lowly occupation, that being the person that takes care of the horses and everything to do with that. That shifted from its original meaning towards 'commander of the cavalry' and later on to a general high-level command position.

Etymologically, it is related to the term mare for horse, that is nowadays used disparagingly, but used to be more generic (and can be found in other languages, like the german Mähre which is also a pejorative). An old name for horses stables is mar(e)stall, which lead to the occupation marstaller which evolved into marshall, or the french maréchal, which described someone who was taking care of horses and the related buildings and tasks. Interestingly, Mahrstall as a term exists in German as well, again as a term for horses stables. On top of that, in the Holy Roman Empire, we can exactly trace how Marshall shifted from a low position to its current meaning: there existed certain offices at the court of the HRE (the so called Erzämter literally Arch-Offices as in Arch-Angel) that started out as actual jobs, with the Hofmarschall among them - over time, these shifted from actual hands-on occupations to purely ceremonial titles that were exclusively awarded to nobles that had the Kurwürde, i.e. electors for the Kaiser. Sort of like the Groom of the Closet etc. at the English court, these 'lowly' titles were used to honour the closest confidants of the Kaiser, and thus in the case of marshall got elevated considerably.

Much appreciated, and it certainly answers the first half of the question, but what about the second half? The Soviets, who wanted nothing to do with Czars and their tripe altogether, nonetheless kept this rank?

If memory serves (dim, old memories) didn't it have something the do with placating the army during WWII? Didn't they bring back this rank, essentially as an honorific, somewhat like they re-created the old Guards regiments into Soviet Guards?

Pretty much just stroking the egos of the army?

Again, I'm reaching here.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Probably a true triviality, but just something I've wondered about.

I would have thought it was because those ranks were, in some ways, related to the nobility/royalty, and Americans would have wanted to shy away from them. Of course, on that level, you'd think the Soviets would have completely steered clear of that, but Zhukov, Voroshilov, etc.?

Really something I know *absitively* nothing about. Perhaps we have some experts on the 17th to 19th centuries among us who do.

Interestingly enough, just now, I looked up Constable of France on that fount of all knowledge, wikipedia, and it was abolished by my hero, Cardinal Richelieu.

It is a title that is rooted in feudalistic structures, because it originates in a rather lowly occupation, that being the person that takes care of the horses and everything to do with that. That shifted from its original meaning towards 'commander of the cavalry' and later on to a general high-level command position.

Etymologically, it is related to the term mare for horse, that is nowadays used disparagingly, but used to be more generic (and can be found in other languages, like the german Mähre which is also a pejorative). An old name for horses stables is mar(e)stall, which lead to the occupation marstaller which evolved into marshall, or the french maréchal, which described someone who was taking care of horses and the related buildings and tasks. Interestingly, Mahrstall as a term exists in German as well, again as a term for horses stables. On top of that, in the Holy Roman Empire, we can exactly trace how Marshall shifted from a low position to its current meaning: there existed certain offices at the court of the HRE (the so called Erzämter literally Arch-Offices as in Arch-Angel) that started out as actual jobs, with the Hofmarschall among them - over time, these shifted from actual hands-on occupations to purely ceremonial titles that were exclusively awarded to nobles that had the Kurwürde, i.e. electors for the Kaiser. Sort of like the Groom of the Closet etc. at the English court, these 'lowly' titles were used to honour the closest confidants of the Kaiser, and thus in the case of marshall got elevated considerably.

Much appreciated, and it certainly answers the first half of the question, but what about the second half? The Soviets, who wanted nothing to do with Czars and their tripe altogether, nonetheless kept this rank?

If memory serves (dim, old memories) didn't it have something the do with placating the army during WWII? Didn't they bring back this rank, essentially as an honorific, somewhat like they re-created the old Guards regiments into Soviet Guards?

Pretty much just stroking the egos of the army?

Again, I'm reaching here.

Not exactly my area of interest, but according to wikipedia you've basically got it correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_the_Soviet_Union
With the small divergence that they did not exactly keep the rank, but re-established it after a period of abolishment between the revolution and the lead-up to WW2.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

It is a title that is rooted in feudalistic structures, because it originates in a rather lowly occupation, that being the person that takes care of the horses and everything to do with that. That shifted from its original meaning towards 'commander of the cavalry' and later on to a general high-level command position.

The short answer is that American ranks were based on those of England, which diverged significantly from Continental traditions.

The Founding Fathers shared the British aversion to a large standing army (many of their ancestors came to the colonies during the upheaval of the English Civil Wars), and there was a notion that a military rank should be a purely functional title rather than an empty honorific. Thus, the Army and Navy often had few if any "flag ranks" for the first century of its existence. (During the Civil War, Union naval commanders were literally called "Flag Officer" because "admiral" hadn't been established.)

Tsagualsa wrote:
Not exactly my area of interest, but according to wikipedia you've basically got it correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_the_Soviet_Union
With the small divergence that they did not exactly keep the rank, but re-established it after a period of abolishment between the revolution and the lead-up to WW2.

Russians have some serious love of gold braid. And big decorations. So many, many medals.

They also have "unit inflation" like no one else. For all their vast manpower, they had seriously undersized command elements, which is why their divisions were smaller than just about everyone else's. That's why in most WW II games, Soviet "armies" are equivalent to Western "corps." And then you have "fronts" as well.

So all those gazillion units need heap big generals and marshals to command them.

Because America had the best Marshal and we only needed the one

I'm also not joking.

No seriously.

The US did not have a consistent standing military for much of its history. It would have military forces and structures, but these tended to come and go and rapidly change as time or need shifted. When the military was taking its modern form in the 1920s and 30s, marshal was a word that went around as it was a common rank used in military circles. The US never adopted it though, and all talk of such ended in the 40s as the Allies were structuring the command structure of the allied forces.

It was tossed because it would make the leader of the US Army Marshal Marshall.

Also Marshall didn't like the whole plan for other reasons cause he was a man's man and he didn't care how many stars were on his uniform XD

And that's why American generals became known as 'X Star General' rather than using terms like 'field marshal' common to other militaries at the time.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because America had the best Marshal and we only needed the one

I'm also not joking.

He's got a point.

The equivalent to Field Marshall in the US military is a "five-star" general/admiral. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think it requires congressional authorization to make one, and that hasn't happened in a long, long time.

For one thing, the person in question would need to actually win a war. 'Nuff said.

Well in WWII it was really more about egos between US and British military leaders. Well, mostly politicans were the ones getting their panties in a bunch about it.

Some people were worried that Einsenhower, who had already been picked as overall allied commander for the European theater could hypothetically be overruled by British officers who theoretically outranked him.

This mostly came down the number of stars on people's uniforms. At the time the US only had 4-star generals (the legalities and laws thing is... I'm not actually sure? It's just not part of the events as I remember them).

The US had already promoted Will Leahy to the rank of Five Stars and made him Admiral of the Navy (the first flag office of the modern American military). Leahy didn't want this to start a fit between the branches and suggest FDR promote the rest of the Joint Chiefs to equal rank. That's when Marshall got involved and thought the idea was silly and they were professionals.

The end result though is that Marshall was also promoted to Five Stars when he became General of the Army and sort of super-five star when the position of Chief of Staff of the Army was formed. Eisenhower was likewise promoted to General of the Army so that he would be equal in rank to Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and thus not be in a position his British counterpart could try to overrule his command (which was mostly silly paranoia as I understand it, tensions aside Montgomery wasn't going to try and usurp command of the combined forces from Eisenhower).

EDIT: The other side of things, Leahy's promotion, was a direct result of that in at this point in time American leadership was already deeply distrustful of Douglas MacArthur and his habit of 'crossing the rubicon' into politics while an active service officer. FDR and his advisors absolutely did not want MacArthur to be a higher rank than anyone, which is why Leahy, and then Nimitz were always promoted over MacArthur so they would have command authority over him.

We have Marshals.

 Adeptekon wrote:
We have Marshals.

Pretty sure he means as a military rank.

In the US, Marshal is more of a law enforcement thing (US Marshals, Air Marshals, municipal or county police in some places).

The only Marshal I know of in the US military is the Provost Marshal, who is the head of the military police.

 LordofHats wrote:


EDIT: The other side of things, Leahy's promotion, was a direct result of that in at this point in time American leadership was already deeply distrustful of Douglas MacArthur and his habit of 'crossing the rubicon' into politics while an active service officer. FDR and his advisors absolutely did not want MacArthur to be a higher rank than anyone, which is why Leahy, and then Nimitz were always promoted over MacArthur so they would have command authority over him.

Considering some of MacArthur's later opinions and utterings: Good Job, well spotted.

 LordofHats wrote:
Well in WWII it was really more about egos between US and British military leaders. Well, mostly politicans were the ones getting their panties in a bunch about it.

Not quite.

In the US military (and most others, I assume), when you have two people of the same rank, date of rank resolves the tie-breaker in who outranks whom.

With a bunch of four-star generals being needed to lead an unprecedentedly large American war effort, untangling all of that would have been a monumental headache. One can say "Well, just write an order putting Ike over everyone else," but that was tried in the Civil War and failed miserably.

So creating a "super-grade" was a manageable solution because it unquestionably put them over all others, and allowed order of promotion to "reset" seniority.

A five-star people frequently overlook is "Hap" Arnold, who was both a five-star in the Army and later the first General of the Air Force.

I was a staff-puke in the army (Intel), just at brigade level, and frequently saw screaming matches between lowly majors and lieutenant colonels.

That was only the peace time army, but I often wondered how far it would go if these guys were in the field and things were all of a sudden going really bad all at once.

I think the issue becomes, not so much "Hey! We may be both majors, but I have date of rank on you!" and more like, who are the troops going to follow when both guys have gold oak leaves on their collars?

Date of rank is all well and good, but, when one sergeant, corporal, or even private, is told by an officer to take an other officer's sidearm and keep him under guard until the MPs arrive, I think he's much more likely to listen either to the officer he knows, or the officer who is OBVIOUSLY of higher rank, than he is to care about who got promoted first.

Don't laugh. That kind of thing can become a serious issue when some kind of battlefield catastrophe is taking place, and two officers are in a screaming match.

HUGE front lines directly connected to the logistical

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

Much appreciated, and it certainly answers the first half of the question, but what about the second half? The Soviets, who wanted nothing to do with Czars and their tripe altogether, nonetheless kept this rank?

If memory serves (dim, old memories) didn't it have something the do with placating the army during WWII? Didn't they bring back this rank, essentially as an honorific, somewhat like they re-created the old Guards regiments into Soviet Guards?

At first, the soviets did indeed completely dismantle most ranks within the army. IIRC they actually got rid of pretty much all ranks and tried a "command by committee" approach. Basically units would elect a commander and all commanders would then form a super committee that would command the army. Needless to say it was... ineffective. So they fell back to the old system because at least it had structure.

And while there were some idealists in the Bolshevik ranks, it bears reminding that this is Russia. Corruption and power hording is a cultural trait, so them having some titles that were practically nobility makes sense. To think that as a group they had any adherence to their on-paper ideologies is naivete.

Great video here on the topic.




TL DR is that the Mongols are to blame.

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC they actually got rid of pretty much all ranks and tried a "command by committee" approach. Basically units would elect a commander and all commanders would then form a super committee that would command the army. Needless to say it was... ineffective. So they fell back to the old system because at least it had structure.

IIRC, they basically tried to get rid of the entire idea of an officer corp, but they adopted a grade system that was basically an officer corp in disguise. The wild and wacky idea of command committees was abandoned fast as the Russian Civil War forced the Red Army to get serious.

They switched back to a more conventional and official system during the reforms in the 30s. I think Marshal of the Soviet Union was introduced at a rank at this time? My only reference point for this is that I know Mikhail Tukhachevsky held the rank before Stalin's great purge in 1937, so it had to have been introduced in the mid-30s since they didn't use any official ranks before then.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC they actually got rid of pretty much all ranks and tried a "command by committee" approach. Basically units would elect a commander and all commanders would then form a super committee that would command the army. Needless to say it was... ineffective. So they fell back to the old system because at least it had structure.

IIRC, they basically tried to get rid of the entire idea of an officer corp, but they adopted a grade system that was basically an officer corp in disguise. The wild and wacky idea of command committees was abandoned fast as the Russian Civil War forced the Red Army to get serious.

They switched back to a more conventional and official system during the reforms in the 30s. I think Marshal of the Soviet Union was introduced at a rank at this time? My only reference point for this is that I know Mikhail Tukhachevsky held the rank before Stalin's great purge in 1937, so it had to have been introduced in the mid-30s since they didn't use any official ranks before then.

Yeah, in 1935, same point in time where ranks were officially reintroduced. Mostly for practical and sanity purposes, as you said.

Ok so the Marshal is the guy who commands the army in leu of the King.
The US does not have a king so they went with giving their generals stars instead, to denote their seniority.

The soviets after their disaster with disassembling the Tsar's Military system were basically just like: Well, it worked, and our current state of things does not, so we'll just put it back together exactly how it was.

The US was building a brave new nation essentially from scratch and it could be built from the ground up. The Soviets inhereited a sprawling behemoth that was in a very precarious position as it was and were like, well gak, at least it kind of worked before, we'll go back to how it was and then modify it from there.
Hope this helps!

Tsagualsa wrote:
Yeah, in 1935, same point in time where ranks were officially reintroduced. Mostly for practical and sanity purposes, as you said.

Communist China went through the same process. Twice.

The revolutionary cadres eventually adopted Soviet-style ranks and organization, but during the Cultural Revolution all that was rejected and the PLA eliminated ranks, with only command assignments giving authority.

After getting thumped hard by the Soviets and the Vietnamese, ranks were restored.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

Much appreciated, and it certainly answers the first half of the question, but what about the second half? The Soviets, who wanted nothing to do with Czars and their tripe altogether, nonetheless kept this rank?

If memory serves (dim, old memories) didn't it have something the do with placating the army during WWII? Didn't they bring back this rank, essentially as an honorific, somewhat like they re-created the old Guards regiments into Soviet Guards?

At first, the soviets did indeed completely dismantle most ranks within the army. IIRC they actually got rid of pretty much all ranks and tried a "command by committee" approach. Basically units would elect a commander and all commanders would then form a super committee that would command the army. Needless to say it was... ineffective. So they fell back to the old system because at least it had structure.

And while there were some idealists in the Bolshevik ranks, it bears reminding that this is Russia. Corruption and power hording is a cultural trait, so them having some titles that were practically nobility makes sense. To think that as a group they had any adherence to their on-paper ideologies is naivete.

Great video here on the topic.




TL DR is that the Mongols are to blame.

Love this vid!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

Much appreciated, and it certainly answers the first half of the question, but what about the second half? The Soviets, who wanted nothing to do with Czars and their tripe altogether, nonetheless kept this rank?

If memory serves (dim, old memories) didn't it have something the do with placating the army during WWII? Didn't they bring back this rank, essentially as an honorific, somewhat like they re-created the old Guards regiments into Soviet Guards?

At first, the soviets did indeed completely dismantle most ranks within the army. IIRC they actually got rid of pretty much all ranks and tried a "command by committee" approach. Basically units would elect a commander and all commanders would then form a super committee that would command the army. Needless to say it was... ineffective. So they fell back to the old system because at least it had structure.

And while there were some idealists in the Bolshevik ranks, it bears reminding that this is Russia. Corruption and power hording is a cultural trait, so them having some titles that were practically nobility makes sense. To think that as a group they had any adherence to their on-paper ideologies is naivete.

Great video here on the topic.




TL DR is that the Mongols are to blame.

Love this vid!

Just to add my 2 cents...

"Be My Little General"

Brigadier General (1 star)
Major General (2 star)
Lieutenant General (3 star)
General (4 star)

The Field Marshal equivalent rank is General of the Army, no one has been awarded it since 1950.

In response to the need for coordinated staff work, the concept described by Admiral Leahy as a "unified high command" was adopted by the United States in 1942. That group came to be known as the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. This first Joint Chiefs of Staff worked throughout the war without legislative sanction or even formal Presidential definition, a status that President Roosevelt believed preserved the flexibility required to meet the needs of the war. The first members of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were the "opposite numbers" to the British Chiefs of the Army, the Navy, and the Royal Air Force (an autonomous and coequal military organization): Admiral William D. Leahy, President Roosevelt's special military adviser, with the title of Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy; General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army; Admiral Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Fleet; and General Henry H. Arnold, Deputy Army Chief of Staff for Air and Chief of the Army Air Corps. Each member was promoted to Five-Star rank in December 1944, when the grades of General of the Army and Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy were established.

Adding clarification


At the end of World War II, the need for a formal structure of joint command was apparent and the wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff offered a workable model. The first legislative step was the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 which formally es tablished the Joint Chiefs of Staff and laid the foundation for the series of legislative and executive changes that produced today's defense organization. The most recent major congressional action is the 1986 Department of Defense Reorganization Act, commonly known as the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

LordofHats wrote:
The US did not have a consistent standing military for much of its history. It would have military forces and structures, but these tended to come and go and rapidly change as time or need shifted.

Just to build on this. . . The US has pretty much always had some form of military. Until the 20th century, the pattern was to have a cadre of officers, and a very small NCO corps, for instance, the army would be a few thousand strong. Usually, the NCOs were veterans of whatever previous conflict we were in (didn't take long to recycle through them, we've pretty much always been fightin' someone) were taken as the best of the best, and were kept in uniform to train the next call-up for forces. So you'd have this tiny cadre doing the prep-work, requisitioning arms, or securing contracts for such, should the need arise, then we'd get into a fight, a call would go out, we'd balloon the army out to however big it got, ship them out, and then kick most of them out, keeping essentially another core cadre of veterans capable of training the next call-up. Rinse and repeat.

The one branch this didn't quite exactly play out this way, IIRC, was the navy, because it was pretty hard to keep boats operational, and its even harder to kit them out in a hurry. . . so it was better to just keep the boats going and thus they were a bit bigger than the other branches for a long time

NapoleonInSpace wrote:
I think the issue becomes, not so much "Hey! We may be both majors, but I have date of rank on you!" and more like, who are the troops going to follow when both guys have gold oak leaves on their collars?

Date of rank is all well and good, but, when one sergeant, corporal, or even private, is told by an officer to take an other officer's sidearm and keep him under guard until the MPs arrive, I think he's much more likely to listen either to the officer he knows, or the officer who is OBVIOUSLY of higher rank, than he is to care about who got promoted first.

Don't laugh. That kind of thing can become a serious issue when some kind of battlefield catastrophe is taking place, and two officers are in a screaming match.

Having done the combat tours, and seen similar shouting matches over trivial BS, I think you're forgetting a 3rd option. . . The respect of the troops. There were a couple officer types who absolutely did NOT have my respect, whether through incompetence, lack of charisma, or whatever, they couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag, and its small wonder they ever got to where they were (the BN CDR my 2nd tour to iraq was an Intel officer who had around 20 years, but OIF 07-09 was his first oconus trip, much less first deployment. Mofo had spent his entire career in strategic postings until big army basically said "if you want that bird, you WILL go tactical for a spell" and yeah. . . it was an absolute crap deployment)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just to build on this. . . The US has pretty much always had some form of military. Until the 20th century, the pattern was to have a cadre of officers, and a very small NCO corps, for instance, the army would be a few thousand strong. Usually, the NCOs were veterans of whatever previous conflict we were in (didn't take long to recycle through them, we've pretty much always been fightin' someone) were taken as the best of the best, and were kept in uniform to train the next call-up for forces. So you'd have this tiny cadre doing the prep-work, requisitioning arms, or securing contracts for such, should the need arise, then we'd get into a fight, a call would go out, we'd balloon the army out to however big it got, ship them out, and then kick most of them out, keeping essentially another core cadre of veterans capable of training the next call-up. Rinse and repeat.

It's a little-known fact that the wartime armies were also segregated from the "regulars." In the Civil War, there were two sets of ranks: permanent ones and those offered to "U.S. Volunteers." This is how you saw guys with two stars on their shoulders turn into majors after the war ended.

The same thing happened in WW I and WW II. The regulars looked after their own.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Just to add my 2 cents...

"Be My Little General"

Brigadier General (1 star)
Major General (2 star)
Lieutenant General (3 star)
General (4 star)

The Field Marshal equivalent rank is General of the Army, no one has been awarded it since 1950.

If anyone is wondering why a "Major General" is subordinate to a "Lieutenant General" when normally a Major is senior to a Lieutenant, it is because originally the rank was "Sergeant Major General" and "General" was "Captain-General". At some point, the excess verbiage was dropped.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


The one branch this didn't quite exactly play out this way, IIRC, was the navy, because it was pretty hard to keep boats operational, and its even harder to kit them out in a hurry. . . so it was better to just keep the boats going and thus they were a bit bigger than the other branches for a long time

Yes, though it should be noted that the Navy was, until during and after WW2, chronically underfunded at every point we weren't in an actual war. The navy the USS Constitution and her sisters were part of was fully disbanded after the Barbary pirates and the war of 1812 was over. It was a miracle that the USS Constitution was saved. The navy got legitimately huge during the Civil War as well, and was immediately cut down to almost nothing afterwards.

It wasn't till the late 1800s that we really committed to having a permanent navy of any size, and it was still utterly anemic compared to the amount of maritime commerce the US did. Once ironclads and pre-dreadnoughts were the norm at least the Navy did command a decent, if still quite tightly controlled, budget.

But it was a bit better than the army. Late 1800s era army budget basically treated ammo for target practice as an optional activity, IIRC at one point it was 5 rounds a year you got to train with.

During the Civil War the US Navy was briefly the largest Navy in the world, even larger than the Royal Navy. Then it was drawn down.

 LordofHats wrote:
During the Civil War the US Navy was briefly the largest Navy in the world, even larger than the Royal Navy. Then it was drawn down.

By numbers or tonnage? The craft used in the US civil war had a large proportion of coastal or riverine vessels (like Monitor), whereas the Royal Navy obviously had a preponderance of large, ocean going ships to police its thalassocracy (like... Warrior, to keep the ironclad comparison going).