Re: Re: Imperial Army ranks

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:21:33 +0000


On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 12:31:45AM +0000, donald_at_... wrote:
> In message <006e01c409da$468d4380$bb78fea9_at_computer> "Oliver Bernuetz" writes:
> > Commander Titles
> > Squad Company
[...]
> >Generic corporal sergeant, etc.
>
> Generic should be sergeant captain

Not exactly clear cut. Sergeant covers a multitude of sins, and the term 'captain' has connotations of "commisioned officer" that may be inappropriate here. But either set would do, if we take them with a suitable pinch of salt.  

> I'm quite happy with the idea although the table needs expanding to
> Regiment level and then generals which I think will be more important
> in this publication.

Regimental generic would most obviously be 'colonel'. (With due apologies to British Army, I think we can drop the Lt. <g>) I think ILH-1 gives the regional terms, sorry, don't have it to hand.

For generals, we're on rather thin ground. We have the DH terms, but even they are not really hierarchical. i.e., we can't meaningfully say a two star general is a major-gen, and hence a division commander, if there are no such things as "divisions", much less ones composed of subordinate units themselves commanded by a one-star general.

One questions arise is, where do vexilla commanders fit in? Are they considered "Warlords" in the Lunar scheme, just potentially with commands that are very much smaller than other such? Or do they have some distinguished status?

C,
A.

Powered by hypermail