I lined up British, New Zealand, and Rhodesian armies' officer ranks. No OF-9 or OF-10 in Rhodesia!
Is Wikipedia mistaken? It feels illogical for the Rhodesian Army to have Lieutenant and Major Generals, but no General?
8
-
2Any particular reason why it should?– JosJul 16 at 8:08
-
5Simple. The Rhodesian Army wasn’t large enough to warrant the rank of General (who usually commands a Field Army) or Field Marshal (who commands an Army Group or Front).– user22453Jul 16 at 9:19
-
Intriguing that Wikipedia has already altered the shape of the British crown. (I work for an organisation which uses it, and we haven't changed yet.)– Andrew LeachJul 16 at 18:07
-
1@RodrigodeAzevedo No, it's the crown which used in the royal cypher. It's true that kings tend to use the taller Tudor crown, but the shape is the monarch's personal choice.– Andrew LeachJul 16 at 18:27
-
1@AndrewLeach Wikipedia is a real centre for online heraldists, and I think people jumped at the chance to edit things once the new cypher was announced. The Wikimedia versions of the late DoE and late Queen's coats of arms were used by the BBC in their coverage of the funerals too. Whereas the guidance for changing it on physical items is that in general it should wait until they would otherwise be replaced.– dbmag9Jul 16 at 18:29
|
Show 3 more comments
1 Answer
The Rhodesian Army was small: too small to justify anyone holding the rank of General. They didn't have enough troops to form a General's command, which is usually a full Army or Army Group.
This is perfectly normal for small countries. The Vatican City military, the Swiss Guard, has a highest rank of Colonel, but with only 135 men, it's really a Captain's command.
answered Jul 16 at 12:53
-
1That is usual. Go to uniforminsignia.net, look for small countries and you will find many which do not have the highest ranks. I think the record is the Vatican: the commander of the Swiss Guard is a captain de facto, who is honorably called Colonel.– LuizJul 16 at 20:45
-