Talk:Brigadier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Portal	Brigadier is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 2 UDA 3 "Emperor's New Clothes" link 4 A note: 5 bacon 6 Charles is King

[edit]

Was colonel commandant a rank in its own right? Or was it simply an appointment (or even just a descriptive label) of a colonel commanding a brigade? Franey 15:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An appointment. As was Brigadier itself until after WWII. -- Necrothesp 17:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, in the Royal Marines, brigadier didn't become a substantive rank until 1999 (same time as commodore became substantive in the RN). — Franey 12:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rank and temporary appointment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Not sure what you mean, since in this case they are entirely different things. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Brigadier may not have become a substantive rank until after WWII; but was it a temporary rank before then?

Rank is rank, even when not held substantively: an acting major outranks a captain, though both have the same substantive rank; substantive majors do not outrank temporary majors (though they are senior to them).

Conversely, an RSM is senior by appointment to many other WO1s, but does not outrank them.

So:

• did pre-WWII brigadiers outrank ordinary colonels?
• Or were they merely senior by appointment to them?

We may be able to apply a saluting test, if King's/Queen's Regs on saluting were the same then as they are now.

IIRC, officers of the rank of major or higher must salute their superiors in rank. Would a pre-WWII colonel be expected to salute a brigadier?

• if not, then Brigadier was indeed only an appointment;
• but if the colonel was expected to salute, then Brigadier was a rank, albeit one that could only be held temporarily.

— Franey 12:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have said that Colonels did indeed salute Brigadiers, but I'm not sure the basis of your argument is correct. Surely a Lance-Sergeant outranked a Corporal and a Lance-Corporal outranked a Private even at the time when both were only appointments? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they did, since L/Sgts were treated as Sergeants in every way and L/Cpls were treated as NCOs. The appointments they held were not the same as those held by WOs, where one WO1 never outranks another WO1 no matter what his appointment. Would this not have been the same for Brigadiers? -- Necrothesp 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Queen's Regs are explicit: a field officer must salute any officer superior in rank, not any officer merely senior to himself (except on the parade ground, where any officer must salute his senior, even if they're the same rank). Assuming King's Regs were the same in WWII (a reasonable though hardly unassailable assumption), then if a colonel was expected to salute a brigadier (away from the parade ground), the brigadier must have been superior in rank, and ipso facto Brigadier must have been a temporary rank rather than just an appointment.

What's your argument for saying that l/sgts outranked sgts, and old-style l/cpls outranked privates? They had greater authority and privileges, but neither necessarily implies an "outranking". (A battalion 2ic exercises command over its other majors, but does not outrank them, and may not even be the senior major; Eisenhower was for a while at once both Monty's commander and his junior in rank. As for privileged treatment: a modern Guards lance sergeant is a member of the Sergeant's Mess, but is otherwise just a corporal in fancy dress.) Moreover, l/sgts weren't treated as sergeants in every way: some jobs called explicitly for l/sgts rather than sergeants proper — e.g. section commanders in WWII glider regiments.

In any case, I don't think you can simultaneously argue that A outranks B, and that A is actually the same rank as B: it looks like a contradiction in terms.

Just to make it clear: I'm not saying that Brigadier was a temporary rank rather than an appointment; I'm just raising the possibility. I think we're going to need a military lawyer (preferably with a historical bent) to be certain. — Franey 15:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a military lawyer and I'm not arguing one way or the other. I too am merely raising the possibility that there may be a difference. This is the British Armed Forces remember - traditions do not necessarily follow either hard and fast rules or logic, and even the forces themselves are often unaware of the finer points (I've seen plenty of errors on official websites and in official documents). I think there's confusion anyway, since I've seen Lance-Corporal (pre-1961) described as both an appointment and a temporary rank. Another interesting one is Colour Sergeant: appointment of Staff Sergeant or actually a different but equal rank? I've seen both versions. This is a very confusing subject, as we both know. Out of interest, pre-1999, did an RN captain salute a commodore? -- Necrothesp 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UDA

Should there be a section on the UDA? There is no higher level section on any national army. The UDA is not a proper military force. Furthermore, the UDA does not use brigadier in any special way. I think the UDA does not deserve a mention, let alone an entire section.Mesoso 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Emperor's New Clothes" link

Rm the link; it was an extremely POV essay on how great the UK ranking system was, and how other countries' ranking systems as deviations from it were "wrong, stupid, pointless, and confusing". It adds nothing to the article. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note:

Brigadier, is originally a Dutch word. Randalph P. Williams 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the dictionaries. Do you have a citation? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bacon

i like bacon very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.26.96 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles is King

Charles of Grapeland is awesome. He is the coolest guy in the world. All the girls want him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.26.96 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)