"Military Rank as Reputation?" Topic

I'm reading Rabbie Burns, as you do.

"The rank is but the guinea's stamp…" — Robert Burns

Thought-provoking; particularly for an historical wargamer & history enthusiast.

We tend to treat rank as a neutral marker of authority. But culturally, it often acquires a tone—sometimes respectful, sometimes faintly ridiculous, sometimes even sinister.

Take "Colonel." After the Greek military junta of 1967–1974, "the Colonels" became shorthand for authoritarian rule—a rank turned into a political label.

In fiction, too, rank carries baggage. In the works of Agatha Christie, the "retired officer"—the Major, the Colonel, especially the Captain— who insists on the title, often signals a particular social type: respectable, clubbable… and sometimes not quite what they seem. Rank becomes a narrative device, not just a biography.

Even in real life, the continued use of rank after retirement can feel ambiguous. Is it simply earned honour—or also a social signal? (Perhaps no different from other titles—the long-retired professor, for example.)

So perhaps Burns had a point. Rank may denote position, but its meaning depends heavily on context—and can shift over time.

Interested in examples (any period) where rank carried strong positive or negative connotations, beyond its formal role.

(No offence intended—purely an observation on how rank is perceived.)

In the American South Colonel was a sign of respect and leadership. It did not have to actually be related to serving in the military per sec.

"Colonel of Kentucky" is an official honorific bestowed on people who "take a further step toward kindness, goodwill, and pride in the Commonwealth of Kentucky."

Colonel Sanders was one such honoree. So is Rob Halfard of Judas Priest.

Picking up on the "Colonel" examples—

I wonder if different ranks tend to carry different kinds of cultural baggage.

In the classic detective stories (thinking of Agatha Christie and others), the "Captain (ret.)" often feels like a particular type—officiously respectable, dependable on the surface, self-important. Often the suspect but only sometimes the villain.

Whereas "Colonel" or "Major" often suggests something more firmly establishment—clubland, authority, social standing.

And "General," at least in some accounts, can carry a different tone again—authority at a distance, sometimes competence, sometimes the opposite.

None of this says anything about the reality of those ranks, of course but it does suggest that we attach quite specific expectations to them.

In Doyle's Brigadier Etienne Gerard stories, the titular hero is brave, dashing & a complete dunce. There is an ironic contrast between his high rank & total naivety.

Have others have noticed similar patterns—either in fiction or in historical accounts?

The higher the military rank in Science Fiction, the more likely the character will be represented as rigid, inflexible, over-confident, and willing to put others in deadly peril against the much better advice of the lower ranking series hero/civilian hero. Not always, but often.

Also, lower rank heroes will be depicted as unconventional, willing to bend the rules, extremely lucky and/or competent, and a "maverick" who wins by the seat of his pants.

Occasionally you get a show that treats high ranking officers as experienced, principled, and wise. But in these shows, politicians become the "higher ranks" who are always self-centered, arrogant, and wrong.