Discuss @Thande 's latest article here
To be honest if I've managed to avoid anything factually incorrect I'll consider that a win, given there's a lot of people on here more versed in this subject than I am.Nice article. Of course, it's more complicated than that. The distinction between Corporal and Lance-Corporal, for example.
Just within Sergeant, one can have Colour Sergeant, Sergeant Major, Regimental Sergeant Major, and so on. With the Navy (British version), you've also got positions related to primary job - Cox'n, Bosun, and so on, and it all gets very confusing.
Pronouncing it coll-oh-nell was one of the linguistic cues used in Allo Allo to indicate when a character is speaking German.Since I'd long only seen the word in writing, it took me a while to realize that "Colonel" is actually pronounced curnell.
Doesn't the Bible (at least the translations I'm aware of) use ranks like "captain of hundreds" vs "captain of thousands" etc.?There’s also languages where they use a completely different system, but use a translation convention when translating into English rather than actually translating the ranks. Take the Israel Defense Forces, whose officer ranks are as follows if you translate them directly rather then by convention:
Master-Champion (Lieutenant General)
Champion (Major General)
Subchampion (Brigadier General)
Second Champion (Colonel)
Deputy Champion (Lieutenant Colonel)
Master-Captain (Major)
Captain (Captain)
First Deputy (First Lieutenant)
Second Deputy (Second Lieutenant)
And, of course, “Rav” - meaning Master or Head - almost exclusively means “Rabbi” in European language usage, even in Yiddish, despite its more generic use as here in Hebrew — except it does also mean Rabbi in Hebrew, meaning that someone could accidentally translate those (wrongly) as “Rabbi-Champion” and “Rabbi-Captain”.
The term used which is usually translated as “champion” is used in the Bible to mean both great heroic fighter and “Captain of One Thousand Men”, while the word translated “captain” is also “chief” or “chieftain” - just as captain originally comes from - and has been in some Bible translations rendered “lord”.
And there are a number of other languages that have something like this.
Doesn't the Bible (at least the translations I'm aware of) use ranks like "captain of hundreds" vs "captain of thousands" etc.?
It does, but that is in fact a different word — seren (סרן) is the word used in modern Hebrew, which has that meaning of chieftain/chief/captain, and is used in the Bible with that meaning occasionally, but usually (possibly exclusively, it’s been a while) referring to foreigners. The word used in “captain of hundreds/thousands” is sar (שר) which, despite its similarity in the Roman alphabet, is spelled differently and is not believed to be etymologically related to seren, last I recall. Sar also has the meaning of “prince”, with the implication of nobility in many instances. The messianic title “Prince of Peace” comes from this (שר שלום) word, in addition to the captain of thousands and captain of hundreds.Doesn't the Bible (at least the translations I'm aware of) use ranks like "captain of hundreds" vs "captain of thousands" etc.?
There is always that argument when using alternate terminology, of course, but I think it's sometimes not a conscious choice but writers genuinely thinking that's the only way there is to do ranks.My possibly unpopular opinion: I don't think using the English rank names is that bad, thinking from the perspective of a reader who'll likely be confused by (to give two examples) "Lineleader" and "Scriviner", but not "Lieutenant" and "Major" to describe the same people at the same level.
One thing to appreciate in the original series of Star Trek is that while they broadly used the standard U.S. rank structure, so much as could be seen, they did use some outdated ranks that were comprehensible - e.g., Fleet Captain Pike, Commodore Decker - and, well, since it isn’t supposed to really be that far into the future, and in our own timeline, it makes sense for them to use something broadly derived from the United States and NATO.There is always that argument when using alternate terminology, of course, but I think it's sometimes not a conscious choice but writers genuinely thinking that's the only way there is to do ranks.
Disappointing as they are in many ways, the Legends of Dune prequels do at least get some brownie points for an unusual rank structure--everyone has Spanish number titles from Primero for admiral/general through Segundo (captain), Tercero (commander or senior lieutenant), Cuarto, Quinto and Sexto (ensign).
The Romulans in their first appearance introduced the rank of centurion, of course, which ended up being used in a variety of different ways by confused novel writers in the ensuing years.One thing to appreciate in the original series of Star Trek is that while they broadly used the standard U.S. rank structure, so much as could be seen, they did use some outdated ranks that were comprehensible - e.g., Fleet Captain Pike, Commodore Decker - and, well, since it isn’t supposed to really be that far into the future, and in our own timeline, it makes sense for them to use something broadly derived from the United States and NATO.
They were also fairly consistent about not making alien fleets use the same structure - both Klingon and Romulan starship captains held the rank of “Commander”, for example, and their rank structures were different. With the exception of the Cardassians, the sequel and prequel Star Trek series have not been nearly so good about that, and, while they’ll retain consistency with TOS’ Klingons and Romulans, other newly introduced military characters from alien species pretty much to my recollection straight-up follow the NATO rank structure, probably most egregiously the Bajorans, differentiated from Starfleet only by the fact that they used NATO army rather than NATO navy ranks.
Actually, no, Star Trek: Enterprise did use a different rank structure for the Vulcans, but it was a slightly repainted Romulan rank structure, which, while clever worldbuilding-wise, was not particularly creative on their writers’ part.
EDIT: That being said, it’s certainly better to just use a system people will generally grasp quickly than to come up with something creative but incomprehensible; as many bad science fiction and fantasy works will show, it’s not as easy as it seems to come up with something consistent, comprehensible and creative.
And, of course, a corporal of horse equates to a sergeant elsewhere, while a sergeant could be subordinate to a staff corporal.One has to balance plausibility with confusion for the reader. OTL is inconsistent even within the same Army.
The guy with a rifle and no responsibilities in the British Army/Royal Marines (as chaps who might be engaged in a duffy) might be a:
Private.
Rifleman.
Trooper.
Marine.
Guardsman.
plus possibly other. That's the same rank in the (more or less) same organisation.
That being said, I do love alternative rank names.
I'm absurdly fond of Doctor Who: Inferno's "Brigade Leader".
Pronouncing it coll-oh-nell was one of the linguistic cues used in Allo Allo to indicate when a character is speaking German.
There's also the odd case of the Indian Army, where the officer ranks are Captain, Major, General, etc, while the non-commissioned ranks are Havildar, Risaldar, Naik, Subedar, etc.
Disappointing as they are in many ways, the Legends of Dune prequels do at least get some brownie points for an unusual rank structure--everyone has Spanish number titles from Primero for admiral/general through Segundo (captain or colonel, I think), Tercero (commander or senior lieutenant), Cuarto, Quinto and Sexto (ensign).
Doesn't the Bible (at least the translations I'm aware of) use ranks like "captain of hundreds" vs "captain of thousands" etc.?
So did a lot of medieval ranks. Vintenar=commander of 20, Centenar=commander of 100, and a Captain could be in charge of hundreds.To be fair, some Roman military titles directly translate to that (Centurion, Decurion etc.)
And in the 17th century a Sergeant-Major was just the same thing as a major-above Captain and below Lieutenant-Colonel.Nice article. Of course, it's more complicated than that. The distinction between Corporal and Lance-Corporal, for example.
Just within Sergeant, one can have Colour Sergeant, Sergeant Major, Regimental Sergeant Major, and so on. With the Navy (British version), you've also got positions related to primary job - Cox'n, Bosun, and so on, and it all gets very confusing.
IIRC that's only in the Horse Guards though. The other cavalry regiments did stints as dragoons at some point or another. Even though by the 18th/19th century dragoons were jack-of-all-trades medium cavalry(who could be payed less than proper Horse), they were still technically mounted infantry and had sergeants. Then they got converted back to proper cavalry and kept the sergeants...And, of course, a corporal of horse equates to a sergeant elsewhere, while a sergeant could be subordinate to a staff corporal.
And of course the British system is downright sensible compared to what the U.S army and especially Marines have.