MILITARY RANK WORDS: How to say 'lieutenant' and why army hierarchy is all wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- In this etymological march through the army ranks I'm rewriting the military hierarchy. I've come up with a new order for the rankings of officers and soldiers based entirely on what the titles actually mean.
Check out my 'New Military Order' and while you're at, discover:
📗 Why LIEUTENANT is pronounced loo-tenant and lef-tenant/left-tenant
📗 Why COLONEL is spelt in that confusing way
📗 What links a SERGEANT with a butler
📗 Why a FIELD MARSHAL should actually be the lowest rank
📗 Where one should place one's PRIVATES
Check me out on Twitter & TikTok:
/ robwordsyt
/ robwords
==CHAPTERS==
0:00 Introduction
1:10 LIEUTENANT - How to say it (loo-tenant v left-tenant)
3:52 COLONEL - Why it's spelt like that
5:21 SERGEANT - Why it means servant
6:23 MAJOR - What it means
7:12 CAPTAIN - Its Latin origins
7:38 CORPORAL - Nothing to do with corporal punishment
8:16 GENERAL - Why it's so vague
9:09 PRIVATE - Why are they private?
9:57 FIELD MARSHAL - Why they're just a horse servant
11:02 Final Rankings
I remember a guy in basic training asked the drill sergeant why a Lieutenant General outranks a Major General, but a Major outranks a Lieutenant. The drill sergeant told him "to confuse the enemy."
It is because "major general" is actually a shortened form of "sergeant-major general" dating back to the English civil war.
Also Captain in Navy is much higher rank than Captain in the other branches of Military so up there with Army Colonel. However Army Captain is below Major which is below Colonel.
When I was a youngan new to to the army (I was only 18), I remember walking along the Admin area at the School of Ordnance (near Albury in Australia), and saw the RSM coming towards me with some bearded Naval attachment. I had never seen Naval rank like that, so not knowing what it was, I braced up, gave a booming, "Good Afternoon RSM Sir!" The Naval person, commented in a calm but carrying voice, that "Young soldiers don't seem to recognise Naval Ranks. Perhaps they need instruction on how to recognise a Navy Captain." The RSM replied in an equally calm but carrying voice, "Our young Soldiers know how to show their respect, SIR, and they WILL learn fast!" I learned.
EDIT: He was a decent RSM.
And I was an Army Brat before that, so I knew the difference.
but the best joke from training camp is when
if a sergeant or an officer asks you:
"how will you recognize the enemy?"
The correct answer is:
"By the dark circles around the eyes, because the enemy never sleeps"
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
This is fucking hilarious
An old observation: In the army, privates sleep in general quarters while generals sleep in private quarters.
Quite interesting.
every new english learner's nightmare 💀
@@agb5003 Don't even get into cricket!
Lol
@@worldcomicsreview354
_Don't even get into cricket!_
How's that?
Hello, Rob, from Utah, USA. I am a 70-year-old English language lover from a very young age, though I thought it made me an oddball. At the age of 8, I started keeping notebooks of words I wanted to know, not just their meanings but origins too. I read dictionaries for fun! In high school I enjoyed reading grammar and English usage books, and later became a magazine editor. Discovering your channel was like finding a group of kindred spirits, both you and your subscribers. Their comments add so much to my enjoyment of your channel. Thank you!!!
Me too ❤
Word nerds unite! ;)
Care to share some of your favourite words and their meanings from over your many years?
Any antiquated fallen out of common parlance words that would be interesting to have in my back pocket or should a comeback? Thanks!
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
I got through the set of Encyclopedia Britannica by grade 5, reading every article that interested me. I used to copy pages out of the Oxford Concise onto foolscap as punishment for acting up in elementary school. I've read hundreds of novels, thousands of magazines, and been on the internet since 1987. I never thought about becoming an editor. Kudos to you for finding employment that matched your interests.
It's very interesting that the military officers in ancient Chinese has a title called "si ma" 司馬, which means, "in charge of horses", which means in charge of war. And the highest military officer was called 大司馬 "da si ma" or great sima. So it corresponds well with the word "marshal". I think the people understood that horses meant war and it so those in charge of the horses are in charge of war.
There are lots of places in the Old Testament too where horses are used in idiomatic or symbolic language about war.
Back in the day, horses were the equivalent of modern vehicles like tanks and planes. Being in charge of the horses means you command cavalry, which is a more powerful force than mere infantry.
Horses meaning cavalry would make sense.
The Chinese part is interesting. But being in charge of horses doesn't make you a leader, etymology-wise. You are still just handling horses, not wo:men. A scientific book about war would be more suitable than the bible, which is just an unscientific cooking book about things "god" doesn't want you to do. "God" being some people who definitly know "what's best for you" ;) One of them was a cow farmer named Jehova and his secret boyfriend Joshua, so they demanded that you don't eat pigs, only cows.
It is also said that this is why Charles V spoke to his horse in German.
Actually, a horse muster would typically be placed above a servant on the hierarchy. Same with a falconer. The lord's beasts were extremely expensive, and the education required to keep track of them extraordinarily expensive to.
Marschall was once ,marhalalasc'. In english mare is still used , and in german Mähre ( a bad / old horse).
I thought that too. The stable keeper would be only given slight more authority compared to servants, but much more important of a job. Depending on the leader, the horses would be either more important than significant ranks in the hierarchy, or only above sergeants.
@@markdavis7397 : Formerly, about 500 years ago , my german homeregion was Duchy Württemberg. The position of Herzoglicher Stallmeister ( Dukal Stablemaster) was hold not by a commoner but by a knight. Also this position was in those days seen important in military hirarchy. With ,stable of Duke' was meant ,All horses owned by the Duke', so in case of war a ,horse reserve'.
@@brittakriep2938 Mähre is a female horse which has given birth.
@@Fucoc : German word for a female horse is Stute, a male horse a Hengst. I know that in very old days Marha was a male horse, and Mähre a female horse. But being not interessted in horses, also when my ancestors did farming ( up to 2001), before buying first tractor they had no horse, only cows to pull wagon and plough, so i personally know Mähre ( Schindmähre) only as a word for bad quality/ old horse. Note: A Schinder was once a man, who had to take away dead annimals from settlements and towns.
The Marechal was the royal stablemaster and therefore a very important person in the army in which the cavalry were the most important troops. Just like the majordomus wasn't a simple house servant.
Wouldn't that be a Quatermaster? That was the rank of Ulysses S. Grant before he became president. In the US that is a very high rank.
@@demaris7598 similar, but not the same. the quartermaster is responsible for the quarters. the place the soldiers live. the stablemaster is responsible for the stable. both are of course important positions, but they take care of different parts of the whole
i always found it funny though, because the corresponding title to quartermaster in the swiss army is just the guy who is responsible for stocking up the supplies for the kitchen and such. they have a "powerful" role because they can get favours from the soldiers by giving them the food they want, but that's about it lol
When he brought up the Marshal and horse connection, I immediately thought of "mare", because it's a horse. Wonder if that's etymologically relevant.
@@jurgnobs8178 Never watched them, but isn't that where "Q" gets his name from in the James Bond movies?
Forget the cavalry. Even in a pure infantry army, you need to transport supplies, tow wagons, outfit scouts... It's the chief of the car pool, car acquisition, and, especially, car breeding, car foal training. Keeping track of the breeding performance of stallions and - to a lesser extent, i.e. once a year - mares so your cars are always the strongest, sturdiest and healthiest and have top notch tires, with the character they need for their task (from gentle and subservient for pack cars to aggressive in combat for "combat walkers" to evil and devious against passers-by for semi tractors) also was a key part of the job. Those who let a stable boy do all this quickly found themselves on the receiving end of a neigbour's invasion.
PS: That also required for you to help improve "farm tractor" performance, and keep track of horses stabled in farmsteads and posts, as in case of war, you needed so many horses you couldn't stable them all in the castle in peacetime.
Hey! French military officer here. I do believe that Marshal has more to do with a wrong translation of the word "Maréchaussée", which was in medieval time France's brand new military police, (that then became the Gendarmerie). They typically held a superiority over the regular soldiers. Now I do agree that we have the word "Maréchal" which is included amongst many ranks in our military (Maréchal Des Logis Chef, equivalent to Chief Sergeant, for instance). They were first introduced to the Cavalry regiment and then spread throughout the ground branch of the French army. A Maréchal Des Logis was a soldier with higher responsability and with the rank equivalent to a Sergeant.
Great video!
This is pretty interesting. In Austria there is still the rank of a Feldmarschall, wich is - like the british army - one of the highest possible ranks. Germany had this rank too, up til WWII (I think we don't use it anymore, but I'm not totally sure tbh.). Back in school I learned that those ranks came from "Marstall", which is actually a term still used in Germany, referring to a breeding stable. The "Marschall" was the highest ranking worker in a Marstall - so definitly in a higher postion than a common servant. He had to look after the horses, but also commanded lots of personell. Plus, keeping the horses in shape was a pretty important thing back when horses where the main means of transport and combat. The term "field" then just reffered to a Marschall who travelled with an army - complete with his stable boys, I would guess.
In German there is another similar word, Seneschall, which meant the highest ranking official of the king's household. "Schall" in this regard seems to refer to "servant of a noble man; official" more than to "servant" as a member of a low-rankig group. Seneschall and Marschall both where servants of high-ranking nobles only.
But to be honest, this connection to the French military police makes a lot of sense, too. Especially given how fancy French was for a while among higher European classes.
The importance of marechal did tend to line up with the importance of cavalry over time, though. Though cavalry have been important since ancient times, they really shone more around the time of the industrial revolution. Since the only thing that really topped the idea of cavalry (counting in tanks here) was when planes came into play, which was pretty recent all things considered (within the last ~100 years), the fact that the head of the cavalry was also considered one of the top, or the top rank, makes some sense. It just hasn't had time to change.
In the Netherlands we still have a Maréchaussée, which are a kind of military police force.
No it has not. The marshal is from German origin: marahscalc. The head of the cavelery and one of the most important offices in the court was already established in merowingian and frankish times, where the marahscalc or marshal became essentially the military leader just under the king, due to the significance of horses for military campaigns.
I completely agree with the “leader of the horses”, just under the King, controls the battle field. Why would they relate the sound “mar” with horses? Because the most formidable weapon on the battlefield “Mars” was a horse. As a side note; I believe the title of “Field Marshal” is typically a war-time promotion. Don’t think four star generals are given that the fifth star during peacetime.
I am a military man and i found this interesting. I have often said as much about military titles. Great video. In the french militay, a major is a WO1 (RSM). The British major is a field officer, above captain below colonel, which in the french army is commandant.
its interesting because Komandan is an Indonesian word for a leader of a military corps or a military organization (I cant really give an opinion because I am not in military)
God loves you all! The Father sent the Son to die for you and your sins so that you could experience freedom to the fullest! Believe in Christ's death and resurrection (which sealed the work done on the cross) for your salvation and the forgiveness of sins!God loves you all! The Father sent the Son to die for you and your sins so that you could experience freedom to the fullest! Believe in Christ's death and resurrection (which sealed the work done on the cross) for your salvation and the forgiveness of sins!
A warrant officer?
WO1 = juniormost?
RSM = royal Saudi marines?
In France?
Somewhat cryptic to the uninitiated, Gunner.
I'll note that that army categorization of field vs general officers is very useful, but _field_ doesn't translate well to the Navy, where there's a big gap of vagueness between junior officers (JOs) and flags.
@@MRVIDEOMASTER-yw1qwWhat has that got to do with anything?!
Will Jesus present the military cross.
John 16. 3
Only joking it’s all bull.
@@77thTromboneidk a warrant officer here is a CWO
6:10 "sergeant" is the soldier who had their own equipment for the battle, so you don't have to arm him. Usually this also meant that this person had their share of battles and experienced to some degree, so you can trust them with commanding your newbies.
So perhaps it came from the fact that a soldier who could provide their own equipment probably *had* a servant, rather than being a servant?
@@aprildriesslein5034 not necessarily. A mercenary who participated in couple of battles AND survived AND won, is going to be both well-equipped and experienced, but is unlikely to have battle servants of their own.
There's nothing wrong with "servant" part. Even in our days we say that someone has "served in military" and assume the person has battle experience, not that the person was in slavery.
Servitude was prestigious in feudal period. You either serve or you are nobody.
Oh so maybe they aren't "someone who serves" (all soldiers are doing that), but "someone who has served" (ie, has prior experience)
it was essentially a case of evolving military roles, sergeants or serjeants genuinely did used to be servants noblemen would bring with them on campaign, who would fight in the battles as well (something modern people don't realise is pretty much all the random hangers on in a mediaval army had a side role as soldiers)
as they were people attached to a nobleman and working mostly full-time, the servant job would become less and less important and the "mostly full time, privately equipped soldier" part would come more to the forefront, with them often equipped similarly to knights in the late mediaval age and probably not working as anyone's servant anymore. as armies became more modern, this fell out of fashion, but the concept of taking your longer-term but still common-born soldiers and placing them in higher up positions persisted, evolving eventually into usually a role of responsibility over a small unit of privates or a minor administrative role
I had heard from a friend in the military that "sergeant" came from the combination of "serre" (squeeze) and "gens" (people) in old french and thus that they were the one that were responsible to "hold the formation" making sure that every soldiers under them used the right formation and that it was "tight" and orderly.
The word sergeant has a parallel in the word deacon, from the Greek diakonos meaning "servant," but not just any servant-a trusted servant, a minister in the service of a magister (whence master). Deacons were the executive assistants of bishops, who are still addressed as despota or "master" among the Orthodox today. As the servants of bishops, deacons had considerable authority. Likewise, sergeants, as the executive assistants of captains, had considerable authority over the men in the ranks.
It depends. As Wikipedia aptly mentions, “[serjeantry] ranged from non-standard service in the king's army (distinguished only by equipment from that of the knight), to petty renders (for example the rendering of a quantity of basic food such as a goose) scarcely distinguishable from those of the rent-paying tenant or socager”.
I can see how this came about. A Sgt is, in many ways, a trusted servant to the officers above him. He is responsible for carrying out their orders and making sure those below him do what's required.
@@rjstewart I remain, sir, your most obedient servant.
@@janami-dharmam considering I retired a corporal, "Yes Sergeant! Thank you Sergeant!"
You are a Sergeant, arent ya? 🤣 Is just for fun. We still respect... your service.
Regarding the phantom F in Lieutenant. I remember from school (in Sweden), there was this scietific method called "hermeneutik", which is pronounced hermen(ef)tik and not hermen(eu)tik. "Eu" becomes "ef" for some reason.
Also, a therapist in swedish is written "terapeut", but pronounced "terapeft".
It does seem to be a trait in germanic languages to implant an F in certain spelled words
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 actually letter "u" didn't exist back then, so to write it out, it would be "v" as in:
"lievtenant", or "hermenevtic" so I guess it is plausible than what Oxford said
@@benginaldclocker2891 That seems plausable! V and F are obviously very similiar in pronounciation.
It's probably straight from the Greek, where eu is pronounced "ef" or "ev".
@@beeble2003 Ah that would make sense of course. Didn't know that!
Love this, it's really confusing for recruits. A corporal is sometimes called a bombardier, a sergeant is sometimes called a corporal of the horse and privates have a multitude of names. (Guardsman, Fuselier, Gunner etc).
Rob, would you consider doing this for ranks in the Navy? I know that 'admiral' has a very interesting etymology. Maybe there's some other interesting ranks there. Great video!
Agree, especially with the British inter-service nickname for the Royal Navy being 'Matelot', from the french.
Good idea
That would be quite petty
Agreed. A Captain in the Army is going to probably be in charge of 30 to 100 soliders. A Captain in the Navy (or as we write in Canada Captain(N) ) would be in charge of a ship and her entire crew.
Something with poopdeck? 😜
The reason for the confusion is that many two word titles were shortened to single words. Privates were at the bottom of the ranking system because as non-professional soldiers all the professional servants/soldiers would be placed above them. A Corporal-Private might be selected from among the privates to serve as a chief of these lower ranks, but the pros were always going to outrank them in the overall system. In particularly large groups of privates, they could also insert another level to supervise the smallest possible unit, a lance, hence Lance-Corporal-Private, which is between Private and Corporal. Also, sometimes privates are split into Private-First-Class or Private-Second-Class etc. Among the pros, sergeants might be placed to supervise different aspects or sizes of units, so there could also be Staff-Sergeants, Gunnery-Sergeants, First-sergeants, Range-Sergeants etc. The sergeant above all the others was always going to be the major sergeant, or, turned around Sergeant Major. The equivalent in some systems is a Chief-Sergeant. Now we get into the people who could actually give orders, aka the officers. The head of a unit was a Captain. In a navy, this remains the equal of a Colonel, since the unit of command is pretty much always a ship. (And with the insertion that the person running just part of the ship was a Commander.) In the army, however, captains could could command different size units. A small unit would be commanded by a regular old Captain. A larger unit would be commanded by a Major-Captain (later shortened to just Major), and the head of a really big unit, a column, was a Colonel. Each of these could have a stand in, so Lieutenant-Captain (later just 1st or 2nd lieutenant) or Lieutenant-Colonel. The general is still the head of the whole army, but as there are different sizes of army (the smallest being a brigade) so Brigadier General being the lowest ranking general, a Major General commanding a larger unit, and THE General being the top of the whole thing. The boss also needs a stand in, who is the Lieutenant-General (and leads to the strange fact that a Lieutenant-General outranks a Major-General). We don't have Field Martials in the U.S., so that one I can't explain. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that in both the Roman army, and later with medieval knights, senior soldiers were identified by the fact that they were on horseback.
A field marshal is equivalent to the US 5 star general - and is likewise only used in wartime - I think the last holder was a royal. I've always thought the rank title is fairly obviously derived from the holder being the marshal (organiser) of the whole army in the field of battle.
We don't have field marshals in the U.S. since the term was never really needed, as horse warfare wasn't as encompassing and we just developed the cavalry for this purpose. Marshals instead usually referred to civilians instead, such as fire marshals, parade marshals, and even U.S. marshals since horses historically played a huge part in those positions and the execution of them thereof.
The type of position that field marshal was was instead called a general of the army since such a soldier commanded an entire army, which is the size of unit bigger than division, which succeeds brigade. The term historically started with Washington, then with Grant during the Civil War, which had been previously offered to Lee. It was later used with Pershing during WWI, during which time he was allowed to design his own rank insignia. In WWII they decided a rank equally a field marshal was necessary, especially due to allied nations having to work together martially. This led to the chief of staff, the commanders of Pacific and European theaters, and one other general promoted to this rank. Bradley was also promoted 6 years later while chief of staff so that MacArthur, who was technically his subordinate due to position, wouldn't outrank him.
Great comment
@@jonathancrew8992 Traditionally the rank of Field Marshal has only been used when someone commands several armies, such as in the case of multi-national operations. I believe the last British one was F.M. Inge, who was made a lord after he retired but came up through the ranks in traditional fashion. The U.S., having been prickly about multi-national command didn't have the rank until WW-II. The first one (what we call a 5 star) was George Marshall, and he didn't want to be called Field Marshall Marshall, so they invented the title "General of the Armies", but for the same purpose. Eisenhower and Mcarthur also then formally held this rank in the U.S. Retrospectively, Pershing from WW-I was awarded the same rank, since he served the same function, but he didn't really have the title at the time. Congress then eventually passed a law saying that George Washington was our highest ranking officer ever and also be awarded the title General of the Armies, but, in reality, he never commanded a multi-national force.
@@seandobbins2231 Thanks. See my other comment on Field Marshals above. My understanding of why they never formally called it this was that when the 5 star rank was introduced Gen Marshall was going to be the first one, and he didn't want to be Field Marshal Marshall. :-> Don't know if that is really true, but it is certainly a fun story. Congress in 1976 passed a law to clarify that Pershing was the same rank as all the other 5 stars and that Washington holds the same title "General of the Armies" but outranks them all. (technically Washington was called just a Lt. Gen or Gen at the time and he never commanded multinational forces)
I have to tell you that this is a subject I usually find intensely boring. But you present the subject in a way that has me listening intently, and I am legitimately interested. I love your videos, keep up the good work!
I love this channel, as etymology has always been a passion of mine. I learn something new every time Rob posts a video. I wish there were hundreds more, all about 20 minutes long, so I could detox every day with a few RobWords. Keep them coming!
Fun fact: the reason why a 'lieutenant Colonel' in the US Army has its own command position (where logically a colonel's lieutenant would probably be more of an Executive Officer) is because in the past, Colonels would delegate so much authority to their Lieutenant Colonels that the LTC's ultimately became the defacto heads of their organizations, and colonels eventually got slotted up to a higher echelon.
We hated LtCols in the USAF, especially overseas, they usually had a chip on their shoulder for being a half step away from promotion to colonel or the reality of retirement constantly hanging over their head.
A rank invented due to systemic laziness? Murica right there
@@AedanTheGrey The rank of lieutenant colonel has existed in the British Army since at least the 16th century
It comes to mind that 'one who looks after horses' in the figurative sense can also mean the commander of a cavalry unit, which is a little more prestigious.
I think it was just the care taker of the emperor's stables, wo was likely an experienced cavalry commander and thuss bacame the main military advisor of the emperor even at a time when officers (especialy of such high rank) didn't yet exist
at first it meant "look after the horses" there is also "maréchal des logis" (marshal of lodgings) which is in charge of a unit (like a sergeant). "maréchal du roi" which was the commander of the king's cavalry, then several ranks were created with the name but without links to horses like "marechal de France" which is the highest military grade of the country. (and a couple of others)
A bit of trivia. The roman officer in charge of the horses was the 'comes stabuli' - count of the stable. It was part of his job to chase and apprehend law breakers. Hence the term constable for a policeman.
I just want to point the position of Magister Equitum or Master of the Horses who was the lieutenant of Roman Dictator as well as the commander of old King of Rome’s bodyguard/ Cavalry. During the age of the horse, they were most often ridden by noblemen rather than mere peasants and servants. So it would make sense that that Marshal (or horse-servant (btw everyone was a servant to the king)) would be the highest rank officer in the military.
@@coleball6001 You're contradicting yourself. Marshal was not a rank in the Roman military. Magister, as you say, Master, is not a servant.
Anything referring to the Etruscan kings that ruled over Rome before it became an independent state would be generally frowned upon in the Roman republic.
I wish I was still in the army, I'd show this presentation as often as I could! Lowly Servant, Greater Servant...I cried tears.😂
Here in the US, Field Marshal is not a rank, but a command position. We also divide our troops into officers and non-commissioned troops. The top few ranks of non-commissioned troops are considered non-commissioned officers but are lower in authority to any commissioned officer (for the most part). Of course, there are times where, based on orders, even a lowly private can order a general around.
We have field marshals in the U.S.?
@@mwduck war time position.
@@ianbelletti6241 Do you have an example of that?
@@mwduck it's just like 5 star general is a war time commission. Field marshal only exists when we are at full scale war.
@@ianbelletti6241 Do you have an example of an American field marshal? 28 years in the military and a master's degree in military history, and I've never run across one. Maybe I've missed something.
I love how simple these videos are, no quick cuts or any crazy editing. It's a video style you don't see enough on UA-cam.
I've just found them, and they're compelling.
Over-editing makes many otherwise good channels unwatchable. It’s become so bad now.
It's simple. Rob is prepared and knows what he's talking about.
It’s like old UA-cam
And none of those inane stock video clips thrown in everywhere apparently because somebody somewhere decided that they "punch up" the show! If you mention that something is puzzling, you must insert a clip of a person scratching their head. Ugh!
A funny side note, when the Americans first created the five star rank in WWII (or WW2 for the Brits), equivalent to a British Field Marshal, the first to be promoted to this rank was George C. Marshall. They were going to make him a Field Marshal, but he said he did not want to be "Field Marshal Marshall" or "Marshal Marshall" so they called him "General of the Army".
That sounds laughably apocryphal af. Citation desperately needed.
Be a little incorrect to call him a "Field Marshal" anyway since he commanded from Washington and not in the field.
@@richsackett3423 Wikipedia provides several citations in the article entitled "General of the Army (United States)" (Skip down to the "World War II and Korean War era" section, as that's what discusses the modern 5-star title.)
Flashbacks to Catch 22
@@keltzy Major Major Major!
As a retired Lieutenant Colonel, I remember explaining ranks to my kids and wife, as they lived and grew up on bases too. For a while we were assigned on exchange with the Canadian AF and we had Brit pilots with us in the US so we learned the variations and got used ti being called a Leftennant Colonel for a bit 😂
In general the lieutenant term works correctly because it’s tied to another rank: lieutenant commander below commander, lieutenant colonel below a colonel. Makes sense. My daughter asked why, when the insignia are the same (like the oak leaf or the bar) the gold one is lower ranking than the silver one. That came from back when they were brass, and they just got shined up in the 70s I think. But like the English language itself, ranks are all a mixture of ancient Roman, French, German, and English history.
Silver outranking gold actually has nothing to do with brass, that's a common misconception. Battle Order made an excellent video explaining the history behind gold and silver rank insignia in the US.
ua-cam.com/video/etRrNETXVc0/v-deo.html&ab_channel=BattleOrder
Put simply, it was a matter of contrast. In 1872 the military standardised on gold epaulettes with silver insignia to contrast. That's also why generals have silver stars instead of gold, though that's been the case since 1832. However by 1872, through a quirk of uniform and insignia history, the only thing that distinguished a Major from a Lieutenant Colonel was the colour of the insignia. So the higher ranked Lieutenant Colonel got the higher contrast silver insignia while the lower ranked Major got the lower contrast gold insignia. And that precedent of silver outranking gold was then applied when the 2nd Lieutenant required a rank insignia around WW1. Before that the distinct difference between an officer uniform and an enlisted uniform meant the 2nd Lieutenant was identified by their lack of insignia. When uniforms became more or less the same the 2nd Lieutenant now needed an indentifying insignia and the most efficient way to do that was making a gold version of the 1st Lieutenant's insignia.
Very interesting analysis! I remember my mum correcting me for saying "LOO-tenant", saying it was American English, but in those days, there were so many American films on TV.
I was corrected as a kid for using the word recon at a British army open day. Turns out we use recce (reccy?) but I'd never heard it in films or games by that point.
@@jaymz6473 I got a lesson in British English from an Egyptian consultant who told me I was using American English medical terms. Patronizing bugger, as he started the conversation with "Are you American?" with a smile on his face.
A quick note from someone with some military experience: sergeant-major and major are not interchangeable. Sergeant-major refers to the senior warrant officer of a unit (eg. company sergeant-major or regimental sergeant-major). The placement on the list is quite in keeping with sergeant major. I'm curious where you would place a major (without the sergeant part of the etymology).
Major in itself doesn't work as a rank etymologically. It just means larger or bigger. Larger or bigger what? This naturally leads to the conclusion that Major is an abbreviation for 'something'-major. The most common rank with Major in it is sergeant-major, but maybe there was once such a thing as a Lieutenant-Major or a Captain-Major, in which case it could make sense.
On another note, I always found it funny that Major-General is a lower rank than Lieutenant-General but Major is a higher rank than Lieutenant-General.
@@mariusdufour9186 Neither does "Lieutenant" - in whose place are they issuing orders: a colonel, a captain, a sergeant, or someone else?
To some extent you end up with something like the company-grade, field-grade, and general-grade officer hierarchy.
@@jmsloaneo Indeed, you could very much have lieutenants at several levels as a prefix. A Lieutenant-major would be the second to a Major, Lieutenant-Captain second to a Captain, Lieutenant-General second to the General etc.
Cirporal.comez from Lance Corporal....one who literally had a Lance broken on their body. And hence means veteran. A private would get guidance from a corporal
Therevis a pattern of Captain > lieutenant > sergeant major that carries through the ranks. A captain was the head if a company... a unit whosesize varies greatly but somewhete bewteen 30 and a hundred. Roughly comparableto the ronan Centurion. The lieutenant was his stand in or second d in command officer. The sergeant major his senior non-aristocrat.
The pattern is repeated of Colonel. Colonel has a lieutenant Colonel and a regimental sergeant major. Thus last one us the officer rank of Major's origin.
And we have the same at general. Hence lieutenant general and major general both being lower ranks than full general.
Brigades git brigadier and fleets git commodore both of which are now subsumed into general/admiral ranks.
@@mariusdufour9186 major general is actually an abbreviation. Originally it was sergeant major general. That is why major general is a lower rank than lieutenant general.
The only one I disagree with is Corporal. Because to be the head is only as important as what you're the head of. Are you the head of the whole army or are you the head of a small squad? And that's precisely what a Corporal is. He's (or she is) the head of a small squad. The word is correctly used and respects its etymology.
Honestly, I believe that the British ranking system is mostly correct.
Privates were, as the name suggests, soldiers that have been hired, and had no real loyalty to a noble.
Corporals (and by extension Lance Corporals) were the head of a group of private soldiers.
Sergeants (or to use the older, but still in use, spelling or Serjeant) were servants of a lord or monarch, and thus were trusted more than Privates, who were essentially mercenaries.
Staff Sergeants are just a superior Sergeant.
Warrant Officers are as their name suggests, thus need no explanation.
Lieutenants were those who took control when their superior was unavailable.
Captains were the chief of a larger group of soldiers, and Majors (which I suspect is, like General is for Captain-General, shortened from Captain-Major), are merely a superior Captain.
Colonel and Brigadier are leaders of a column and brigade respectively.
The General ranks are a bit out of order, with a Major General being below a Lieutenant General. Ideally, it would be Lieutenant General, (Captain-)General, and then Major General.
Field Marshals can actually be split up into its component words. Field, obviously being an area of open land, which battles were usually fought on, and Marshal, which was a high officer of the royal court, thus making a Field Marshal a high officer of a battlefield.
@@Kingpin_Gaming_UK The General ranks are not out of order. You have to look to the origin of the ranks to understand why a Lieutenant General out ranks a Major General. The order of the General ranks are Brigadier General, Sergeant Major General, Lieutenant General, and Captain General; later the words Sergeant and Captain were removed, thus turning them into the ranking system that we now know as Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, and General.
@@jasonpenn5476 The "General" is dropped from "Brigadier" too in the UK and some other countries (including Australia) that formed part of the UK colonies. In the UK, a one-star is a Brigadier (Army and Marines), a Commodore (Navy), or Air Commodore (Air Force)
@@jasonpenn5476 In this light I always thought Lieutenant just means "Almost", Almost a captain, a Colonel or General
@@jasonpenn5476 Where would Colonel-General fit in?
A Sergeant in motion outranks a Lieutenant who doesn't know what's going on
This video is sooo satisfying. Not only for getting answers to most of these frustrating questions; the man's demeanor is very charming.
I recently learned that the history of the word "samurai" ( 侍 ) also had humble beginnings, meaning something like "servant" not unlike the original sense of "sergeant". Japanese hired warriors like English "privates" but only much later came to be known as "samurai" and even later still did it acquire the modern meaning of a heavily trained, armored warrior. Even in their hayday, I think they were called something else, like "Bushi" ( 武士 ) from the Chinese kanji characters for "martial" and "soldier".
You can see it in their code of conduct too! It's "bushi-do" meaning "the way of the warrior" instead of samurai-do.
@@bmanpura they had no code of conduct. Buishdo is a myth. Written after the age of bushi
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl This is correct. Also, the samurai were principally tax collectors who actively boasted about their poor abilities with their swords. The reason for that being that if you had skill with your sword it meant you sucked with your bow. And when you have one man with a sword fighting five peasants with pitchforks, it becomes really obvious why they would be much better off as mounted archers for the majority of their duties. Which is what they were.
*heyday Also, the word "knight" (cognate with German Knecht) comes from the Old English cniht, which meant boy or servant. (Note: "Chinese kanji characters" is a tautological phrase, as "kanji" means "Chinese character/s")
@@DieFlabbergast lol, now I imagine the noble title of knight as being first attributed to a mounted warrior's servant who took the warrior's place after his death, but wasn't granted the proper title because he wasn't of noble birth. So they kept calling this mighty warrior a "knight" (Knecht/servant) to annoy him and remind him he's still a peasant. 🤣
In German, knights are actually called "Ritter" which is a variation of "Reiter" (rider), or an abbreviation of *berittener Krieger* ("mounted warrior"), although it was also applied to any armoured warrior of noble standing, probably because the first Ritter did usually dismount from their horses before battle and fought on foot, just like the other soldiers.
Fighting battles on horseback became a thing later, initially they only used their horse for easier travel (a well-rested warrior is a much stronger warrior, I suppose. A lot of soldiers in those days actually died of exhaustion (and disease), rather than wounds received in battle) and maybe for scouting.
The reality of how these ranks came to be is just as interesting as your tour through etymology. The Field Marshal ultimately derives from the title 'Magister Militum' in ancient Roman armies through the Frankish title 'marescalci' meaning Master of the Horse.
When armies first became more organised than medieval hosts, a Colonel was the commander of a regiment, with a Lieutenant Colonel and a Sergeant-Major as second and third in command. That also explains why a Lieutenant-General outranks a Major-General, when a Major outranks a Lieutenant, as the original titles of General officers were Colonel-General, Lieutenant-Colonel-General and Sergeant-Major-General. Over time the colonel and sergeant titles were dropped to leave General, Lieutenant-General and Major-General. Similarly the Sergeant-Major became simply Major (presumably around the same time the non-commissioned rank of Sergeant-Major came into being).
At company level, you have the Captain, originally Captain-Lieutenant before 1772 in the British Army, then Lieutenant, then until 1871 the junior commissioned rank was Ensign in the infantry, or Cornet in the cavalry (dating from the time when each company carried its own flag, the job of these officers). Following the reforms they became 2nd Lieutenant, and Lieutenants became 1st Lieutenant.
The Sergeant was originally servant to a knight in the Middle Ages, and was a more important position than now (sorry Sergeants!). Later, along with corporal it was a rank bestowed upon veteran soldiers who could be relied upon to command small bodies of men within the company. At a guess I would suggest that old meaning, of being servant to a knight, is why the third in command was originally the Sergeant-Major as noted above.
Now try understanding the Roman ranks. Augustus? Nah, I don't get it!
@@kebman Augustus was an Imperial title used only by the emperors. The title saw frequent use there were two or more emperors were simultaneously in charge of the empire, and was used to refer to the junior emperor. The title was lesser compared to Caesar which was used to refer to the senior Emperor. Like Caesar Augustus was originally a name, specifically the name of the second Emperor of Rome.
This comment I think really sums up why the ranks seem so screwed up. Basically, many of the ranks have sub-ranks, but over time, many of the sub-ranks fell out of common use, and the name was reduced to only one portion of the original, unintentionally leaving a tangled mess.
In ancient Rome a Magister Militum was not Master of Horse - that was a Magister Equitum. During the Republic in times of emergency the Senate would appoint a Dictator (a magistrate who had the powers of a king, but who's term was limited to 6 months maximum). As his second-in-command a Magister Equitum would also be appointed to command cavalry. Dictators (and Magistri Equitum) became obsolete under the early Empire, but in the late Empire the title of Magister Equitum was revived - this time the commander of cavalry under a Magister Militum (infantry commander; miles = foot soldiers). Master of Horse was thus always a senior subordinate role - although I guess field marshals are that too.
.
@@leemoore5751 Yes indeed. That's why I specified it was the Frankish title 'marescali' means 'master of the horse' rather than the Roman. In medieval armies (whether early or late) the cavalry component was in almost all cases the dominant arm. There are a few exceptions to that, the Anglo-Saxon and Norse perhaps.
As a former US service member, and a new etymology nerd, I looked into half of the ranks you covered before watching. I definitely enjoyed learning more about the history behind these ranks and your new rank ordering!
major on its own does not refer to a sergeant major. The rank Major is a commissioned officer rank sitting above a captain but below a lieutenant-colonel and is not to be confused with the appointment of sergeant major. If we are talking specifically british army, its important to note that the position of sergeant major is not a rank but rather an appointment. those referred to as sergeant major will most often hold the rank of warrant officer.
I truly love the pace at which you speak. Every word is calm and articulated. Pitch is right between newscaster and infomercial. I think you might get a great boost in subscribers if you make a few longer videos about the changing of the english language in India and the United States.
It's funny how apparently German stayed more true to the etymological roots of their rankings. From bottom to top:
- Rekrut: french recrue, latin recrescere, grow back
- Soldat or the unit type, e.g. Panzergrenadier, Fallschirmjäger, Kanonier, etc. Should be obvious: italian soldato, latin soldarius, warrior
- Gefreiter: describes a soldier that doesn't need to stand guard. Literally means "freed from [(guard) duty]"
- Obergefreiter: Ober= above, i.e. above gefreiter
- Hauptgefreiter: Haupt = Head, i.e. the had of all Gefreiten
- Unteroffizier, or older Unterfeldwebel: Unter = below/sub-, i.e Sub-officer or sub-feldwebel
- Feldwebel: Feld = Field, Webel -> Weibel = an usher, from old high German weibôn "to move back and forth"
- Oberfeldwebel: See above
- Hauptfeldwebel: See above
- Leutnant: Well duh, same as Lieutenant
- Oberleutnant: See above
- Hauptman: Haupt and man, i.e. Headman. Yes, it's that simple.
- Major: At first looks like the same as the English equivalent, but it's more complicated. It comes from Meier, which was the head of a Meierei, which is the governing agent of an estate. The long version then is "Hausmeier", which is a translation of maiordomus (custodian/head of the house). The major was then the custodian/steward of the regiment and tasked with daily government and inspection of the field guards, where his alternate name "Feldwachtmeister" (field guardian master) comes from. He reported directly to the regimental commander, the Obrist.
- Oberstleutnant: Deputy of a Oberst
- Oberst: Newer spelling of Obrist, which means "the highest",
- Brigadegeneral, a general that leads a brigade
- Generalmajor. See above
- Generalleutnant, see above, the deputy of a general
- General: Shortened version of "Generaloberst", usually also had their unit type attached, e.g. General der infanterie
I left the whole "Stabs-" rank out because they are just silly and were introduced because the German army needed more ranks for longer serving soldier. Usually Stab/Staff positions were of higher esteem and you could slap "staff" to your rank.
Older armies had different ranks, which I left out for brevity but which are nonetheless interesting.
Fascinating.
I guess that the English "wobble" comes from the same place as "Webel".
I like the idea of reporting to a Wobbler
Yes but maiordomus also comes from the same latin maior as in greater - the greater servant of the domus = home. In german speaking lands there was also a vicedomus - basically the substitute duke, because the Habsbourg Emperor was duke in many lands, and he couldn't be everywhere at once.
Why the Obrist? Oberst makes perfect sense, but Obrist is just weird innit? It's also funny how the german rank of General Oberst (lit. The Highest General) was translated in many european countries as Colonel General - e.g. the russian army still has a general pukovnik (smth like that)
If there ever will be a EU army, we should adopt German rankings. 😉
Shouting at your subordinates is also much more satisfying in German. 😋
In greek, ypsilon (Y, υ) can have three different pronunciations depending on its placement. It can be pronounced as an e (ee sound) if it's at the beginning of a word or after a consonant but if it's between two vowels the pronunciation then changes to either a V (vee sound) or an f (in greek φ). So in greek if we kept the lieutenant spelling as is, the word would be pronounced lee-ef-tennant, or if we remove the i at the start, leftennant.
This characteristic of ypsilon is somewhat maintained in some greek derived words in english, like in leukemia (λευχαιμία, lefchemia) which however is not pronounced in English as an F but rather an oo sound (loo-kemia). I'm not entirely sure if this property of ypsilon is present in any other language or latin, and I highly doubt that in the case if lieutenant greek had anything to do with it since the word does not exist at all in greek and most military terms are derived from France and Britain, but I think it's interesting to point out nevertheless seeing as how both English and French are highly based on Latin and Greek.
While you're right that the Greek "eu" pronunciation likely didn't influence English directly, it did influence EUrope (hehe) as a whole. For example, all Orthodox Slavic countries call our continent "Evropa", not "Europa". As far as I know, this comes from the Greek influence, and so Greek could have influenced other languages in a similar way.
If, however, the Orthodox Slavic pronunciation of "eu" as "ev" has nothing to do with Greek, then we can maybe surmise that "eu" -> "ev" might just be a common pattern in general?
I was puzzled for many years about whether first lieutenant was the rank that one held before or after being a second lieutenant. My dad eventually became a placeholder colonnello. Thanks, Rob, for sorting out that one for me.
As an ex-serviceman (I hate the word veteran) of the ranks, I am amused, educated and most of all very pleased with my newly aquired promotion.
Concerning lieutenant, "eu" in Greek ("ευ") is pronounced either "ef" or "ev", when I remembered that (and that happened very late considering I am Greek) it made things easier for me about the whole lieutenant thing
I thought that as well with those 'eu' and 'au' sounds shifting to ef, ev and af, av. It might be a general shift in Indo-European speech patterns that happen over time.
[f] is the voiceless version of [v]. They are both labio-dental fricatives: the lower lip is placed against the teeth and turbulent air flows through. The difference is that the vocal folds vibrate for [v], but not for [f]. You can probably feel the difference by placing your hand over your Adam's apple when you make the sounds.
@@robertjenkins6132 yes, just like t/d, th/th, p/b, etc :-)
In the Hangul writing system they also use very similar characters for each pair
Are there two greek letters with similar use here? (Like the three o's) I can't see your assertion being true otherwise: Europa and Euler are most definitely not pronounced today "Efrope" or "Evler". Please explain further...
@@Dranok1 it was a way I ended up to better memorize the word.
And when I realized it, I felt stupid for the time it took me because this is exactly how I would have pronounced the two letters in my native language
At the military academy I attended, we've had a brief history about ranks and how they slipped and slided over the years and how ranks were squeezed in below or above the original ranks (for example why the Captain in a Navy is more equal to a Colonel of the ground troops whereas their Captain is more equivalent to a Lieutenant of the seas) pretty much like in your video. It's an interesting topic. Also, why a Sergent can have "Major" in his title (as in "Sergent Major", as that position was originally held by a Major) and many other transformations and mutual influences of other armies of other nations.
It's a very interesting topic.
(Sadly, I never got further than Lieutenant, so all I am is a placeholder ...or for the Americans, an occupant of a toilet ;-) )
Maybe thats why 2nd LT gets no respect. He gets everyone lost on land nav because he cant find his way out of the toilet.. 😂
@@SitNSpinRecords that was meant as a general notion to how the Americans pronounce "Lieutenant" (loo tenant - which is the occupant of a toilet) so the same should then be true for a Lieutenant General? ...someone how "generally doesn't find his way out of the toilet?" ^.^
I’m fucking dead, and you killed me with that last sentence 😂😂😂😂
When you mentioned about Sergeant Major also being shortened to just Major... Sergeant Major in the British Army is actually a position held by a non-commissioned officer of the rank Warrant Officer Class 2 (one rank about Staff Sergeant, and two ranks above Sergeant), and has nothing otherwise to do with the commissioned officer rank of Major.
Yeah, he conflated all Majors into one. In Italian "Maggiore", has two functions, as a noun refers to the commisioned rank Major. But as an adjective, can be associated to other lower ranks, making them +1 basicly. So you can attach it to "Caporale" ("Caporal Maggiore" outranks a "Caporale") and to "Sergente" ("Sergente Maggiore" outranks a "Sergente"). I don't mean you can attach it to all ranks, of course.
And BTW you don't short "Caporal Maggiore" to "Maggiore", but to "Caporale" when you address them, precisely to avoid confusion with the officer rank.
In modern french, "maréchal" is a prestigious military rank like the english equivalent "marshal", but it is interesting to note that we still have the old "horse carer" meaning in the word "maréchal-ferrant", litterally "ironing marshal", wich means someone who puts horseshoes on horses!
I think Maréchal fell out of favour at some point of French history though, but I can't remember why...
Marha Skalkaz, honestly Frankish rocked.
In a noble's private military, the man who shoes his warhorse is pretty damn important.
Lǣfan meant “to stay”, and these tenants (which as you noted in old French meant “holding”) would imply that the leftenant stayed around holding the fort/land after their superior moved on. That seems most likely to reflect a translation of the function of that person to stay and hold, not just hold a place. Of course, if they stayed, the term could have been a derogatory twist on the word to emphasize that the lieutenants overstayed their welcome.
So they are the ones literally "left tenant" in a back-line position... Makes sense.
This needs to get bumped
In french, lieutenant means "tenant lieu de", which is "someone doing a duty / accomplishing a role in place of (in lieu of) someone else". A lieutenant replaces/represents someone else.
I suppose it was often the older or injured soldiers who were left behind to guard the castle, so perhaps it implied those who weren't fit to march long distances but could still hold off an attack.
Field Marshal: since the roman times it was common for them to remain on horse with a command view of the battle, as opposed to foot soldiers that had no strategic view.
I remember trying to figure out the military rankings when younger and being very confused. This was way more sensible and enlightening.
When my father was in the army in the 1920s & 30s he was told that a horse (he was a blacksmith btw) was worth more than a soldier. You could then get a soldier for a shilling a day - a horse was much more expensive.
Yea I was thinking the Field Marshal would be surrounded by the most horses with elite soldiers on top.
A claim is attributed to Goering saying that they didn't use gas as defense due to fear that a retaliation by the same means would kill all of their horses, which their entire logistics had depended on.
Who cares about the soldiers, the horses must keep on marching.
Shakespeare knew this as well. ("My kingdom for a horse!")
About the value of horses in that period, there is a song by Eric Bogle about anzac horses that were shot by the army to not have them stay in Palestine (ua-cam.com/video/hniMrGeF4us/v-deo.html) They might be valuable, but when the alternative is that they are owned by an arab person, you better kill them.
That's the thing, not only were horses more valuable, the time in which the term marshal originated, troops often were on horseback, not to mention that cavalries tended to be at the front of a charge of which the marshal commanded. A field marshal was basically the one who commanded the field.
Sergeant Major and Major are two very different ranks, not synonyms
But with the same linguistic and historical origin. Rob _does_ gloss over the distinction in a very confusing way though. Or is confused by it himself...
In the US, Sergeant Major is a separate rank from Major, and is the highest enlisted rank. They usually wield a lot of authority because their commanding officers rely heavily on their experience and expertise. The Army even has a position called Sergeant Major of the Army, who by protocol is treated on par with Generals and above Lieutenant Generals.
I'm an Aussie and I am guessing he is British, so I stopped watching as soon as he contracted Sergeant Major to Major, as is they were one and the same. Perhaps he corrects it later in the video but I can't be bothered watching any more.
About seven minutes into the video you suggested that sergeant, major, lieutenant and colonel were pretty close to the actual rank structure in the British army. I'd like to respectfully suggest that it might be closer to: sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major, then colonel. This is a quibble though; the video really was outstanding. I'm working on a science fiction book in which I needed to rank personnel in a far future military, and this is exactly the information I needed. Very much appreciated!
Absolutely brilliant! I work for Defence Australia in a civilian capacity and have never really understood the hierarchy; now I am *totally* confused!
OTOH, I *fully* agree with pronouncing 'lieutenant' as leff-tenant, because I don't know anybody who wants to be thought of as a victim of constant diarrhoea.
I have a little issue with your ranking of major. When you were discussing it, it was in the context of the non-comm sergeant major. But the way you have it written, and later discussed, it seems you were referring to the commissioned officer major rather than the non-comm.
Yeah, I don't know why he conflated Major and Sergeant Major. Following his methods, Sergeant Major really belongs just above Sergeant, and Major should go just below Captain.
I came here to point out his error, but you beat me to the punch.
Yep, loved his video otherwise, but I was going to point this out. As a couple of you have said, he conflated Major and Sergeant Major, maybe through simple ignorance of military rankings, so that he didn't realize that these were two different ranks. As you said, a commissioned and a non-commissioned officer.
In the french armed forces, major is the highest NCO rank (it used to be called sergent-major) so that could explain the mix up
'Major', like 'General' did not start out as a rank, but a modifier to a rank.
A sergeant was the right hand of the captain. A sergeant-major was the highest ranking sergeant when units bigger than companies were around (battalions and regiments).
When you had a Captain-General, his immediate right-hand man would be the sergeant major general. Then sergeant was dropped for the commission rank and 'general' was dropped for the non-commissioned rank.
If memory serves 'Lieutenant General' was or nearly was original a vice regal rank - someone who ran an area for the crown. However, it may have been a 'place holder' for the Captain-General instead. Either way, it explains why Lt Gen outranks a Maj Gen
I never knew I had such an interest in words until Rob stormed into my feed. Thanks for some very well presented videos with information I never knew I needed!
Love this show,
Thanks for not having background noise while you're speaking!
Love the videos. I was taught that Lieutenant was pronounced "Loo-tenant" because he was acting in "lieu" of his superior. A Lieutenant acted in lieu of a Captain, a Lt. Colonel acted in lieu of a colonel and a Lt. General acted in lieu of a General. A Sergeant was a "servant" to a commissioned officer (i.e. a Lieutenant). A Major was simply the most senior of the Captains so when the brass wanted a sit-rep from the front, the most "Major" of the Captains was called back.
Much more correct than Rob. Thanks.
This makes so much more sense now, thanks.
That is what I heard too. I am not sure where from but it makes sense to me. Apparently Lieutenant Command was different. It came from Lieutenant Commanding.
The word "sergeant" as a military is much older than than idea of a "commissioned officer", so that's clearly a historically inaccurate rationalisation. And "major" is in fact not actually "captain-major" originally, but "sergeant-major". Nor does the rank insignia of a major remotely resemble that of a captain, as would be expected if that were that case.
Originally a regiment had a single (sergeant-)major, who was the third-ranking officer (this is long before any distinction of "warrant officers" and the like. These days in some armies major is the normal rank of a company commander, a job originally done by captains (and still the case in other armies), so it certainly _seems_ like they're just more-senior captains for most purposes, but that's not how the rank originated historically or linguistically.
Your logic about the "lieus" is about right though. The British-English _spelling_ has changed according to the more recent French one, but it's kept its older pronunciation. Presumably US pronunciation has changed just to follow that spelling, or maybe under direct French (or even German) influence, or by the naval version which at one point had a much reduced "f", though these days seems to be much the same as the army one.
The reason why a Lieutenant General is senior to a Major General is originally Major Generals were known as Sergeant Major Generals but as happened previously with other tiles I.e. Major Captain to Major, the title was reduced - please see Queens Regulations ( British Army)
The reason ist that the Lieutenant General is the deputy, place holder for the actual general. The rank of lieutenant general is older than the rank of major general.
I served 10yrs, been out for 6 so far and today I finally found out what the heck is going on with the word Colonel! THANK YOU LOL
Also love that Lieutenant is a place holder cause it makes the joke You can't spell Lost without LT even better 😂
Big points earned for using Michael Palin's sergeant major marching up and down the square one of my favorite Monty Python sketches. I recently discovered this channel and I am enjoying it. Thank you for research and time spent making videos. Cheers!
Michael Palin is actually dressed as a Colour Sergeant, senior to a Sergeant but junior to a Sergeant Major and historically responsible for a regiment's flag called the Colours. This flag was used as a rallying point during battles up to the 20th Century. To lose the Colours during a battle was a great disgrace. They still exist today and are sometimes paraded but are no longer taken into battle.
I retired from the Regular Force (Canadian Forces) as a "Master Corporal." Not so high on our list, but right near the top on yours: between Corporal, and Captain. Thanks for the promotion!
Hello! I only just recently found your channel. As a German and Spanish speaking person I never thought that it would be so interesting to learn about english words and where they originate from. You are doing a wonderful job explaining and I thoroughly enjoy the content.
Thank you ☺️👋
The Lef- pronounciation comes from the reference of how officers are supposed to stand to the left of every other officer they are junior to, which in the case of lieutenants is all officers above the rank of lieutenant. That is why Lieutenant gets pronounced Left-tennant
I've always assumed the term Left Tenant for a Lieutenant, originated from the Tower of London. The commander of the Tower had his quarters in the Left Tower and as the representative of the King, he was the King's Left Tenant.
Very possible. Clean explanation.
I've been in the Army for 19 years. This is absolutely fascinating!
In general, I agree, with some objections.
First, every head has a lieu-tenant. You have a lieu-tenant to the General Head, the Lieutenant-General. You have a lieu-tenant to the Head of the Columna, the Lieutenant-Colonel. And you have a lieu-tenant to the capitan, who is so common, that you don't even bother with being more specific, so you call him a lieu-tenant. And the corporal - pardon! - the caporal is not a head of something, just someone more headish than the others, something capural. So the corporal is the lowest rank who can give commands, and he is outranked by everyone else with the right to command. And the major? He is the primus inter pares, the one a little higher than his peers, the major head, one higher than the other capitans.
Agreed. When he took Sergeant Major and just dropped Sergeant that through me for a loop. Major and Sergeant Major are completely different ranks.
@@Shalom_Mike Threw, not through. Not sure if I trust your analysis of words.
This makes a lot of sense.
@@Shalom_Mike Originally, they were the same rank. Originally a sergeant major was the sergeant of the whole unit commanded by a colonel. And a sergeant major general was the sergeant of the whole unit commanded by a captain general. Over the years sergeant major and sergeant major general became officers and the sergeant part was dropped.
@@leesweets4110 Perhaps, but he is very right about the ranks and Rob doesn't have a clue.
In German medieval times, and probably in Western Europe as well (anglo-saxons might be different) , a maior was the 1st peasant in a village and was reporting to his feudal lords in regards to all the administrative issues. So there are indeed arguments for putting such a person in context of a higher low-rank position - but also in a lower high-rank Position as that maior evolved into the major who managed entire towns and cities.
I can see sergeant making sense, as a sergeant is technically the servant to a lieutenant and runs the admin of the platoon. It’s really the first rank you’d interact and directly assist an officer as an enlisted person
Very interesting re-ranking of Field Marshal. In the french army we also have this ambiguity :
"Marechal" or "Marechal de France" is the highest rank (7 stars). The last one died in 1967. But you also have "Marechal des logis" which is the equivalent of "Sergent" in the mounted units (white arms in French ground army such as Cavalry, Train(sportation), etc.) So they really were in charge of taking care of horses.
I was given another etymology of "sergeant"; during middle age, infantry was formed with common people with rather low military education, called "gents" in french, by opposition with cavalry which was noble recruits. So this normal guys had to be managed by professional soldier. During maneuvers or battles this soldier's duty was to tighten the column, (= "serrer la colonne" in french). They were placed on both side of the column of "gents" to squeeze them to stay close.That is why this soldiers were called "serre-gents", "sergent" today.
Check out French Police ranks....They are all over the place.
Marechal is one of those Frankish words meaning horse servant but not in the sense of someone who looks after horses - ie a stable boy. It means a servant as in retainer, warrior who rides a horse so actually is another word for knight or household cavalryman. So Field Marshall is actually the senior knight on the field, the one in charge of the other knights who of course are all nobles making the Field Marshall the senior person in the army outside the presence of the King or other great lord.
Also, being in charge of the king's stable was kind of a big deal back then, considering how precious horses were.
I wonder is it could come from sieur (de) gents?
As a German-American who grew up in a bi-lingual environment and also learned basic French in high school, I have always been fascinated by history and the words we use.. very cool
Interestingly some of the ranks are the same (or almost so) in both languages, but there is also the German Oberst (Colonel I think), Feldvebel (Sergeant) and Gefreiter (Private). Not sure, I am Canadian of half German origin.
@@kenkur27 Indeed!
Oh, I visited Vancouver, BC once. It truly felt like a very special place :)
I always love your backgrounds in your videos, so unique
I came across some people saying that the reason for the English pronoucing the rank Lieutenant as leftenant was the rank represented aomeone who was left in tendancy of command when the actual leader was absent, MIA or KIA.
I grew up in a military home (US Air Force) and couldn't understand why while a Major outranked a Lieutenant, a Lieutenant General outranked a Major General.
As it turns out, the 2-star used to be a Sergeant Major General, which would understandably have a Lieutenant General over him. But as the "Sergeant" part got dropped in the late 17th century, we retain only Major General.
Indeed. The word General came from captain in general, when several companies had to led by a rank higher then captain.
Lieutenant General out ranks a Major General because the Major General derives from the original Sergeant Major General. Sergeant Major being subordinate to a Lieutenant.
@@keithdodds7369 did you just reply with to my post with the same exact answer I gave? I'm so confused...
There will be a lot of comments I am sure - but your assertion that sergeant-major is often referred to as major is very wrong. sergeant-major IS what you explained - a greater sergeant. A major is referencing some other rank now lost linguistically - but possibly captain-major. Sergeant-major represents the senior of the enlisted ranks - while 2nd lieutenant represents the lowest of the commissioned ranks - by concatenating a word across that boundary you will ruffle many a feather.
Having examined your proposition, as a former military intelligence LINGUIST sergeant in command of my private's operations on behalf of our lieutenant under orders from his major whose subordinate assistant was a captain, I find myself somewhat at odds ... with myself. Thank you. Keep up the good work. Obey God. Amen.
What a clever idea for a deep etymological dive! I had always wondered about "privates" and "generals"! Thanks!!
Interestingly enough, there are two marshals in French military ranking. the most famous one of course is "Maréchal de France" which contrary to common knowledge is not a proper military rank (though deemed the highest) but an "honorary distinction" which can be given to any soldiers or officer for his distinguished service. The other one is "Maréchal des Logis", which is the equivalent of staff sergeant in specific corps like gendarmerie, cavalry and artillery. How do I know it? My dad used to be one in the French cavalry before WW2 and one of my nephews was one too, much later, in the French gendarmerie. Was because he sadly passed away in 2020 while serving on the frontline during the first wave of the Covid pandemic.
In the Italian Armed Forces there are two-three variation of the Maresciallo rank, but they are all "sub-officer" ranks, above sergeant. We use 'maresciallo' in the higher sense when referring to foreign high ranking officers, though.
Marshall Ney, the bravest of the brave!
Both informative and extremely amusing. This is becoming my favourite (note British spelling 🙂) among many English language channels I follow.
Not sure if you have done a video about Tanks yet, but I was a tank crewman in the US Army. The terms used for the tank come from both horsemanship and navy ships.
So glad I found your channel. Love your videos!
The word "Soldier" is in and of itself quite interesting. As a Swedish person, the meaning is quite obvious if you think about it (the Swedish word being "Soldat"), in that it refers to a paid warrior, someone who gets a "sold"(a somewhat older word in Swedish, but a word that is still being used today from time to time) to fight, as opposed to someone who fights for his liege.
I think the etymology of the English word "Soldier" is the same, if memory serves me right, and probably go back to Old French.
And ultimately to Latin: solidus, a Roman coin.
@@AlaiMacErc
Cool! I've learnt something!
"Soldier" comes from the French word "soldat" and "sold" comes from the French word "solde" (military pay name in French), but it also means "sold to someone" from Old French verb "solder" meaning "to sell".
Fun fact: "soldat" (the original French word) is used in both Swedish/Norwegian/German/Danish and "soldaat" in Dutch :)
@@aleajactaest7242
Interesting! Thanks for the info!
could "Place Holder" also be a reference to lieutenants role during battle where they would (amongst other duties) be responsible for keeping formations orderly and filling gaps left by casualties?
I think it comes from the fact that in old armies an Lt. would be "placeholder" for company captain (not to be confused with captain-general which was a higher rank) as the commanding officer for the times the captain was for what ever reason unavailable.
I recently heard someone say - make sure you know what you are talking about before you respond to any post. Consequently, despite initial misapprehension I completely agree with your analysis 😅😂
As a trilingual and a former US Marine, it all makes sense now.
Sir your list is legit 👌🏿 🙌🏿
There's a lot of interesting history in how military ranks and titles came about. Sergeants having the job of being professional soldiers for their liege is why they ended up being a higher rank than the privates hired on short contracts. It makes sense, in that context, to put the men who drill and train as their job in charge of the potters, carters, bakers, and cobblers who have signed up without prior experience for adventure, loot, or just loyalty. Historically Sergeants were in charge of tutoring the men below them in military drills, and then would often spend most of their time during a march or battle making sure the men are in the proper formation and lined up correctly to cover each other.
I'd contend with your assertion that this reflects what the words "actually" mean - as the word "actually" actually means 'currently, in reality, actively'.
Therefore the words "actually" mean what they usually, currently mean today. You've ranked them not by 'actual' meaning but rather by original, historic, ancestral or ancient meaning.
If we're going to word nerd about things!
Please do one of these on the words of military formation: Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, etc. Also would love to see an explication of nobility: Count, Duke, Baron, Prince, etc. I Enjoyed this.
Major and Sergeant Major are two distinct ranks in the US Military. The former is part of the OFFICER ranks, while the latter is part of the ENLISTED ranks. In the Enlisted ranks, the Sergeant Major is the highest rank (Pay grade E-9), while a Major is the greatest Junior Officer rank (O-4).
The Household Cavalry has a rank of (Regimental) Corporal Major instead of Sergeant Major & Regimental Sargent Major.
As told to me: a Regiment Sargeant Major was berating a newly-promoted 2nd Lieutenant over some minor infraction of military procedure. A 2nd Lieutenant _nominally_ outranks the RSM, but certainly has nothing like the authority the RSM carries.
*RSM:* "I call you "Sir" & you call me "Sir". The difference is, you mean it, & I *DON'T."*
That is absolute gold.
There're similar stories in the German army as well. I once heard that a Oberstabsgefreiter (OR-4) berate a Leutnant (OF-1) because the Leutnant did some weird shit. Problem was: the enlisted, was also the driver of the Batallion commander, a Colonel.
On a separate occasion I saw a newly promoted Obergefreiter (OR-3) berate another officer because that one walked behind a counter in the medical bay. He got promptly thrown out because in that case the enlisted outranked the officer.
In the household cavalry regiments, Regimental Corporal Major is WO1/RSM equivalent and the sergeant Major/WO2 equivalent is Squadron Corporal Major. No sergeants at all are used.
The reason why the RSM can take a very junior commissioned officer to task is because the RSM speaks for the Colonel of the regiment on matters of discipline and the CO always backs up his RSM.
On one occasion the CO came into his headquarters building with his belt buckle off to one side. Upon noticing this the RSM said, "You're improperly dressed, Sir!"
Without missing a beat the CO replied, "No I'm not, Sergeant major, every body else is!"
From that moment on all ranks had to wear their belt buckles off to the side.
I even heard that in the US Army Sergeant Major make up the duty roster and a lot of new second lieutenants had to clean the toilets.
Several people already mentioned that Major and Sergeant Major are very different.
Even more confusing is that, although Major comes two steps above Lieutenant, a Lieutenant General outranks a Major General. The reason is that the latter was originally a Sergeant Major General. I'd love to see how you would fit those into your hierarchy.
lol thats confusing
He missed out Brigadier too.
I started watching this video ready to criticise you but I watched it all the way to the end and you’re absolutely right.
Great and interesting video 👍🇬🇧
Shortly after World War Two my Dad knew a guy who had written "General Factotum" in his passport as his profession. Although he was in fact just an Odd Job Man, this Latin rendition of his trade didn´t half get men standing to attention for him.
Interesting order. It's amazing though, that General is still near the top of the rankings. I feel for Field Marshals though.
As someone who was a trooper (private equivalent), a corporal, a lieutenant and a captain, this was an interesting take and makes a lot of sense. I'd like to note however that in current use sergeant major isn't a rank. it's a position that basically means the senior sergeant or major sergeant if you like.
Ah, so you got a headstart as trooper, and got promoted several ranks to corporal, then demoted to lieutenant, then promoted again to captain. :)
Yep, Sergeant Major is an appointment, the rank is either Warrant Officer Class 1 or 2, depending on the appointment.
Sergeant Major *is* an enlisted rank (E-8) in the US. Most appointees to First Sergeant are E-8. “Command Sergeant Major” is E-9.
@@mikerowave7303 Correction, in both the US ARMY and the US Marine Corps a Sergeant Major is an E-9.
@@DavidEvans455 my bad (Shame!), you are absolutely correct. E-8 is of course Master Sergeant, which are the typical appointees to First Sergeant. Doh! I’m 20+ years out, but no excuse. Thanks.👍
I heard that 'Leftenant' came about because the majority of personnel were right handed. So swords were worn on the left side of the body. That meant when passing that rank of person (towards eachother), you should pass them on the right, so the swords don't clash.
This could be a load of crap...
The only thing I will say as someone who came out of the British army around 18 months ago and has only just found your channel. Love it by the way. Is that Sergeant Major technically isn't a rank it's actually an appointment. The rank is Warrent Officer 1st and 2nd class. Second being the rank where you could become the Sergeant Major of a Sqn or equivalent, I was an Engineer so we have Squadron's. Anyway Class 1 would be incharge of the Regiment so would be Squadron Sergeant Major and Regimental Sergeant Major respectively. Bit of extra info is that, they can also do loads of other jobs within the rank too. We normally call them Q, boss of the Kitchen is Q Spoons, boss of the Gym is Q muscles and boss of transport is Q wheels.
I have found "Loo-Tenant" is sometimes the preferred pronunciation of the rank in the context of some Maritime forces. The Australian Army for example has Lef'tenants and Lef'tenants General. The Royal Australian Air Force has Flight Fef'tenants....
In contrast, the Royal Australian Navy has Loo'tenants and Loo'tenant Commanders.
I'm ex-RAN, you are correct, however we were taught to pronounce it with the emphasis on the TE (not the beginning of the word) ie. Lu-TEnant. I think they just didn't want us to sound like we were Americans lol.
The Canadian Forces use the exact opposite. Air Force and Army use the American pronunciation, Navy uses the British.
If you're going to do this, you should follow up with a sequel regarding the actual origins of the ranks. For instance, how Major was considered an outgrowth of Captain (in fact, it was initially an unofficial title for a very senior Captain - if Captain is "head," Major is shorted from "big head") or how Major, in the French Army, is at the top of the non-commissioned officer ranks. For a wordsmith, there's a LOT of richness and history to explore there, and you're missing a lot by not jumping down that rabbit hole.
It also explains why a Major is considered a field-grade officer in the Army, but Lieutenant Commander (formerly, "Lieutenant, Commanding") is considered a junior officer in the Navy (the equivalent of the Army's company-grade officers - first and second louie, and Captain).
For General, you're SUPER close. Consider that, at the time, "general" meant more similar to "universal" or the OLD meaning of "catholic." That is, "over all." That is to say, a Captain General was the Captain in charge of the whole shebang (or, more specifically, a campaign). There were many Captains, but only one Captain General. And his Lieutenant was the... (wait for it) Lieutenant General. Not that he was the Lieutenant over the whole thing - but that he was the Lieutenant to the Captain General. It's a bit more complicated, but Major General is similarly derived from Sergeant Major General - when Sergeant was a title, not a rank.
And just for fun, why doesn't the US have Field Marshals? Blame GEN. George C. Marshall. When they were handing out five-star ranks, Congress decided "Marshal Marshall" didn't sound very dignified. So... General of the Army it is.
Except that's _not_ the origin of "major" at all. Historically it's derived from "sergeant-major" -- notwithstanding that later becoming a very different rank. If it were, you'd expect some similarity between the insignia, and for it _also_ to be a company-grade officer.
Incidentally, I don't think the British Army formally makes the company/field-grade distinction any more, at least in those terms. Possibly because its company commanders are now generally majors, ironically enough. But that's not the historical or linguistic derivation of the rank.
the whole "why is a major general lower than a lieutenant general" question goes back to the late middle ages/ renaissance when there were private armies all over Europe, each led by its own captain and his two assistants [the lieutenant & the sergeant major] - when a monarch would hire several of these private armies for his own purposes, he would of necessity have to designate an overall commander (the captain general) who would have his overall assistants (the lieutenant general and the sergeant-major general), and making sure the various other captains knew who was giving orders etc - that's highly simplified but generally accurate, so next time a US two-star starts feeling his oats at your cocktail party, remind him his title is simply "biggest of the big servants" and ask him to get you another drink.
It is interesting to me as a former Blue and Royal we by tradition never used the rank of Sergeant for the reason that you point out the link with servant. We used Corporal throughout with the equivalent rank to sergeant being Corporal of Horse, this continued right up the ranks with the Regimental Corporal Major replacing the more usual RSM.
there are 2 majors in the military ... A Major - between colonel and Captain and a Sergeant Major - technically below a lieutenant. But you only have one major in your list ... ? then theres warrant officers, staff sergeants .. and a plethora of others, I was a Bombardier (private) in the artillery ...
bahmbahdeer or bomm bah tee ay?
@@brucewelty7684 Yes and Oui!
In the UK's Royal Artillery a bombardier is equivalent to a corporal, not to a private soldier, who would be called "Gunner". Thus, Gunner Bloggs is promoted to Lance Bombardier, and later to Bombardier Bloggs.
Though my military career, I understood the meaning of "general officer" to refer to the idea that more junior officers focused on a military specialty - cavalry, artillery, infantry, engineers - but once one rose to a certain level, one couldn't be so specialized anymore. We need general officers to coordinate all of the arms.
A synonym for "general officer" is "field-grade officer." Does that comport well with your explanation?
@@alexmuenster2102 They're not synonyms - at least in the U.S. Army. (That said, I should caveat all this by pointing out that any rational and comfortable generalization about military ranks is probably at least partially wrong, as so much of what we do is as much a muddle of passed-on tradition from multiple sources as it is carefully thought-out organization. So while my comments reflect my experience in the U.S. Army, you really need to dig into medieval military organization and even the French Revolution to see how particular ranks emerged and morphed.)
In the army, the first three ranks (2LT, 1LT, CPT) are "company grade" or "junior" officers, leading platoons and companies. The next three (MAJ, LTC, COL) are "field grade" officers, leading battalions and brigades and serving as staff at all levels. "General" officers command at the division and higher. While field grade officers are relatively senior, they usually still command branch-specific tactical units. An infantry LTC will command an infantry battalion, an MI officer will command an intelligence battalion, and so on.
An interesting case is at the brigade, which is commanded by a colonel, a field grade officer. It's the same echelon as the regiment, which we don't much use anymore. The difference between a regiment and a brigade is that a regiment is a fixed unit with permanently assigned combat elements, whereas a brigade is a headquarters and support elements to which combat battalions are assigned as needed. Brigades tend to be larger and more flexible than regiments. You could probably argue that its commander should be a 'general' officer, while a regiment's should be a 'field grade,' but in practice we use a colonel for either.
There's also another structure in which there's a "brigadier" separate from a "brigadier general," and it's considered the highest field grade rank rather than a general officer. I had a Bosnian brigadier in my grad school who fit this category.
Okay, sorry, a lot more than you asked.
Hi there, SSgt Jones from the SANDF, something of interest to add, there are 2 Corporal ranks . In medieval times, the Corporal was the head of a group as you say, and was mounted . When his mount was killed in battle, he became a "Lanced Corporal", essentially being demoted to Lance Corporal and fighting on foot .😂
Great! It's only today I got to know the etymology of certain words though I had known many earlier. Thank you for the great job!