"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.

Smallish off-brand fictional British intelligence organizations seem to be run by "the Brigadier" or "the Colonel" where their American counterparts are run by "The Administrator," "The Chief" or "Operations." ("The rest of you get out: this meeting is only for persons with one name!")

But especially in terms of Christie-era fiction, major or above probably denotes a terminal rank, and Brigadier a successful career. Colonel is the rank with social connections, because they're usually colonels of something--the West Yorkshire Fusiliers, say. Colonels and above are known quantities: If you don't know their history, you know someone who does, or can find out. Majors can be trickier.

"Captain" in mufti means something went wrong--resigned to avoid charges, debilitating wounds, or--very common in Interwar fiction--a "temporary gentleman" commissioned for the First World War, but dismissed in the post-war contraction. Quite often they didn't have the education, connections or income to qualify as gentlemen. See The Unpleasantness as the Bellona Club--or Lady Chatterly's Lover, as far as that goes. I've never seen hard numbers, but they seem to have made up a lot of the "Black and Tans" in Ireland, angling to fill vacancies in colonial police.

And of course there's always the Foreign Legion, but it seems (mostly) to be regarded as tacky to use previous ranks there.

Very rare to see an Army officer who got out as Lieutenant use the rank. Different on the navy side, of course.

And Burns, I think, means social rank, not necessarily military.

Not so much anymore but ranks of Colonel and above in Canada tended to linger post retirement – locally a major historical figure is Colonel Tom Talbot, who as I recall served as an Ensign in the regular army and the Colonel title came from his service in the militia

I found that in early US history as well, Frederick, and I think it's fair enough. No reason why someone who left the Continental Army as an ensign or lieutenant shouldn't be referred to as the colonel or general they became later in the militia. I get the feeling it died out in the US as Federal control increased in the 20th Century. Colonels weren't men of local importance any more, but someone the War Department thought might be useful--or someone the Department of the Army thought could readily be replaced by a regular when they mobilized the unit.

In fiction, senior officers are often wrong so the junior/maverick can be right—storytelling, not reality. In Christie-era work, "Colonel" or "Brigadier" is social shorthand. Junior ranks, the "Captain in mufti", often hints something went wrong.

Then there's the NCO layer. In reality, the sergeants are the continuity, experience and practical competence that make units function,regardless of who holds the commission. Fiction often centres on them because they stabilise things rather than create drama. However, retired NCOs rarely use their old rank: interesting.

So Burns still lands:
rank is the stamp—useful, visible—but not the metal underneath. "A Man's a Man for a' That"

(glad to see you read the world's greatest poet, RP)

While the South has Colonels, Nebraska has Admirals

My Uncle was one

I'm a Commodore! (Vanderbilt University Commodore, that is.)

As regards Burns, did he not write at a time when a commission in the British army was bought rather than earned by merit?

As for Christie, as mentioned previously, in the 1920's there would have been plenty of junior officers who had been commissioned during WWI, perhaps earned a promotion or two during their service (not that difficult, considering the attrition rates), and then returned back to civvy street with little more than an impressive sounding title. After WWII, there should have also been large numbers of de-commissioned officers returning to civilian life, though the habit of using the rank seems to have been less common.

As for captain, besides military title it can also refer to a person in charge of a civilian ship, large or small. Some such captains retiring to landlubber life might also retain the title.

In military historical sense, "great captains" can also refer to highly accomplished military leaders who commanded armies rather than companies. And as for term company, before 16th century it could be used for military units of widely varying sizes.

As for sergeant, isn't that a typical rank for main character in good old Commando comics? I have to admit that I did not unfortunately have access to those in my childhood.

Edit: miniature wargamers often tend to consider themselves as being "generals", even though the forces they command on tabletop might be much smaller than a brigade or division.

I do, and always will, refer to my wife as "the sergeant major" (but not within her earshot…)

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

Old (Australian) army saying- "The most dangerous situation you'll have to deal with is a Subbie* with a compass and ideas." It is a somewhat, but not total, exaggeration.

*Subbie=Subaltern, a collective term for 2nd Lieutenants and Lieutenants.

In Kipling's tales, such as "Only a Subaltern", the subaltern is drawn as a "White Man burdened with duty"**. They are often portrayed as innocent, young and hardworking, serving in India at great personal risk, culminating in an early death from disease or exhaustion while serving their men.

But, while they are officers, Kipling sometimes inverts class expectations. The subaltern learns his trade and his humanity from seasoned, often coarse, lower-ranked soldiers (like Mulvaney in the 'Sergeants Three' tales), emphasizing practical experience over upper-class privilege.

** not sure the average Indian of the time would have endorsed this

"did he not write at a time when a commission in the British army was bought rather than earned by merit?"

So-so true. Burns lived when purchase of commissions was still legal and possible--meaning an older officer could "sell out" in the absence of a pension system--but in wartime, any literate young person could obtain a commission without purchase, and advance by seniority, filling vacancies.

Promotion by "merit" is another matter altogether, and was usually regarded with suspicion. New regiments, sometimes, or leading a forlorn hope, if one survived. As Brother Parvus described it, "merit" meant influence, or utility to the king and his ministers. In North America, even the revolutionaries came close to mutiny when such a thing was proposed.

And of course in Burns' day, social standing was a mix of ancestry and money--the one compensating for the absence of the other.

So very different from our current enlightened times!

Exactly, RP. Or as Burns himself would have said:

"Then, horn for horn they stretch an' strive,
Deil tak the hindmost! on they drive,
Till a' their weel-swall'd kytes belyve
Are bent like drums;
Then auld guidman, maist like to rive,
Bethankit hums."

See not any different to a past Secretary of State or even Secretary of Transportation being called Secretary on a talk show. Generally in the western civilization anyone erning a post is still calked that position.

I have,of course, noted the American tradition of, as a courtesy, office-holders having the title for life.

Whilst not unheard of elsewhere, it may be more common to use "The Honourable" or "Excellency" as a honorific for superannuated politicians.

I think in Britain the use of rank outside a strictly military context is invariably much more about class and social status than anything honorary. It's use has therefore waxed and (now) waned in line with our concerns for, and markers of, those issues.

As Griefbringer notes, when Burns wrote ‘A man's a man for a' that' British army rank was purchased and therefore denoted a gentleman with a private income. Even after the purchase system was abolished an officer would still need a private income to buy his uniforms and equipment, and to maintain an appropriate lifestyle. ‘Officer' and ‘gentleman' therefore become synonymous, and this applies to the various militia/yeomanry/auxiliary/reserve forces as well. Use of, or reference to, rank therefore becomes a convenient shorthand for a man's place in the wider social pecking order. Note that this can work upwards as well as downwards. Well into the C20th many (most?) class-conscious Brits would expect to be commanded by man of appropriate social standing – no self-respecting farm hand is going to take orders from John the blacksmith just because he's got a bit of gold fluff on his shoulder!

As Robert points out, it all gets a bit awkward when rank and social status become misaligned during the world wars. It is still the case that Majors/Lieutenant Commanders/Squadron Leaders and above can use their rank as a courtesy title after retirement – and the retired major in the village is a very longstanding cultural trope. I've no evidence to back this up, but I suspect captains using their rank is a C20th phenomenon largely driven by working and lower middle-class men seeking to hold on to the social status and job opportunities their wartime rank conferred.

As for positive or negative connotations, I'd say a key distinction in British culture – IRL or in fiction – is whether the person is addressed, or referred to, by their rank or they themselves refer to it and insist others use it. The former generally suggests a respectful honorific (though in Britain of course all indications of respect must be tinged with at least a hint of mocking irony). The latter invariably marks the man out as a pompous arse to be ridiculed and disdained at every opportunity.

When I lived in Ogden, one of the Chinese restaurants had a letter posted on the wall appointing the owner a Kentucky Colonel. I think the owner viewed it as slightly amusing.

Here in the United States, we had an Indian war. One of the locals was elected captain by the members of his company. A month or two later, the company was disbanded, but he stuck around as a private, presumably learning the trade. Even if folks didn't call him "captain" anymore, locals knew about it. I'm sure it didn't get him elected to Congress, though it no doubt indicated he was a useful, contributing member of society. Later, we elected him president, which had nothing to do with being a militia captain.

Finally, the Hutt River Principality sold commissions in their militia. They closed down at the beginning of COVID; and apparently a number of people around the world had paid to become generals, admirals, colonels, majors or captains in their militia. No pay or troops to lead, just a nice certificate to hang on their wall.

Grelber