Jump to content

Talk:List of British generals and brigadiers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources?

[edit]

This is quite ambitious, as there were over 1000 generals (brigadier-general and above) in the British Army in World War I alone. I know of some good sources for World War I generals. What sources are being used to generate this list, particularly the redlinks? Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambitious yes. Ian Robertson - The Times obituary. Ralph Vyvyan - wiki Vyvyan Baronets. Various google searches. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My World War I generals sources are here and here. The latter link will take you to the full list of generals during World War I if you haven't found it already. I would compare that list with this one, but there is no easy way to quickly count how many generals you have listed here. Personally, I'd divide it up into periods from the start of the British Army I presume you are going all the way back to Cromwell's New Army, or are you only going back to 1707? Apologies, I see you are going from 1707. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above well done for trying - it may be better to divide into time periods from Stewart times to 1899, 1899 - 1913, WWI 1914 - 1919 etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 cats which may help populate the list Category:British Army generals and Category:British generals I don't see why we have two cats mind when one would seem enough. There are also Category:British Army World War I generals and Category:British Army World War II generals Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I began with the contents of the first 2 cats. Assumed the second 2 were already included. Those with dates are ref 1, those with text are ref 2. All help welcomed. Should I be sourcing each bloke? - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I do when multiple sources are involved (most of the lists I've worked on have a single definitive and official source, which you should try and find here as well) is to allow the articles for blue links to confirm the dates and that they are a general (though you need to (a) check the link is correct and not to the wrong person or a disambiguation page; and (b) that the article itself is sourced). For redlinks, I think you should indicate which source you have got the name from. There is an editor (whose name I forget) who has been creating a lot of articles on British generals recently. User:Dormskirk I think. You could ask him for advice as well - I will drop him a note. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the most useful sources are the London Gazette, the Liddell Hart Archive and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I have created about 250 articles now on British generals and they are all categorised as Category:British Army World War I generals, Category:British Army World War II generals or Category:British Army generals so you should be able to pick them all up there. Please let me know if I can be of any more help. Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks etc

[edit]

It might be better to add ranks and a small line of who they were = Rodolph Ladeveze Adlercron - GOC Infantry Brigade and Calais Base during the First World War could be added. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

[edit]

I don't know if you intend to enter names under both surname and title for example Peregrine Bertie, 3rd Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven is listed under A for Ancaster with his surname being Bertie he should be under B. There are a few other listed by title as well --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not follow the rules on DEFAULTSORT? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size of eventual list

[edit]

I have doubts over the size of the completed list - with 2500 WW2 generals and 1000 WW1 it may be better to have lists for each letter List of British generals A - B - C etc - or as has been suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of British generals List of British general officers A - B - C etc You could even consider breaking down into conflict List of British general officers Second World War or arm of service List of British infantry general officers etc. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the figure of 2,500 WW2 generals from out of interest? That figure must surely include Brigadiers which would lie outside the scope of this list, and I certainly can't see H.M. Treasury agreeing to stick that many officers on the Retired List with a general officer's pension. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its taken from ref 1 over [1]b--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of those listed (1612 out of 2658) are Brigadiers, and therefore not generals. Many may well have risen to general officer rank after the war, but I doubt it. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this list which I have just found List of British Field Marshals which opens the door to lists of rank Maj Gen, Lt Gen etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that will be a concern. The question as to how to subdivide it should, I think, be discussed here. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale for distinguishing Brig and Brig-Gen?

[edit]

I'm a bit confused about why there is a statement about Brigadiers and Brigadier-General being different. Brigadiers are 1*, not 0*. ALR (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are different ranks. The format is taken from and consistent with List of Australian generals. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This perhaps reflects back to the question above, why list Brigadiers if they're not considered generals? It's notable that neitehr of the two articles concerned actually evidence the assertion that Brigadier and Brigadier-General are somehow different, although both agree that the grade isn't considered as a general per se.
If you're intending on including them regardless then it may be worth considering the title of the article and considering how to identify the difference over time. Historically when it was a non-substantive appointment, and currently when it is a substantive rank.
I'd also like to see something supporting this 0* point, Brigs are 1* officers, Colonels are frequently referred to as a 1/2 star. I suppose historically it's conceivable that the non-substantive appointment didn't bear a star-plate privelige, although that begs the question, why start at 2*.
ALR (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This begs the question as to whether the format at List of Australian generals and brigadiers is fit for purpose. In my opinion it isn't - it may be very compact (which I suppose is an advantage), but it's not very informative. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose Brigadiers are deleted from the article for all the reasons above an added bonus is that most are red links anyway and will tidy up the article. Any support For deletion or Against --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the introduction of the article I am currently confused whether it is supposed to contain brigadiers or not. What are your reasons for deleting them? How many are there? Instinctively, I would have thought there were enough at each rank to make a list in its own right. The difficulty with that is if someone attempts to look up someone in the list, it becomes very difficult if there are many lists to check. The rank listed is presumably their final rank, so trying to trace a reference to someone partway through their career makes them difficult to find in multiple lists. Makes the lists not very useful. I came here looking for brigadier f j anderson. So would he be here? Where will you put all the noteable brigadiers if deleted from this list? Think about what will happen in the future. Sandpiper (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that there is some confusion in some people's minds here about terminology. There is no distinction between Brigadier General and Brigadier. They are different terms for the same rank. In the UK at present, they are called Brigadier. In the USA, they are called Brigadier General. I believe that Australia used to call them B-G but have now followed the UK in referring to them as Brigadier. Whatever they're called, they are NATO 1* and any further distinction here is pointless. Furthermore, th statement in the article that "a "Brigadier" is not classed as a "general", whereas a "Brigadier General" is." is just plain incorrect. Ben.hastings (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Changed the text of the article following discussion with Army colleagues of mine. The term "Brigadier General" is in UK (and Australian) parlance simply an old term for what is now called a Brigadier. They are the same rank - that of a 1*. Furthermore, Kittybrewster's comment above that they are different ranks is simply incorrect. Ben.hastings (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that they are different (although equivalent) ranks. Greenshed (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there may have been distinct ranks of brigadier and brigadier-general in the East India Company armies. See e.g. John Philippart's biography of James Arnold in the East India Military Calendar, which says Arnold was promoted brigadier on 2 January 1815 and then brigadier-general on 14 September 1817. Opera hat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty interesting . Also if we were to exclude brigadiers and not brigadier-generals then we would have to deal with the problem of serving officers who presumably were regraded from brig-gen to brig when the rank change occurred (i.e. would they stay or go from the list?). Greenshed (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They would stay. It was (and is) the custom that if an officer served in a temporary rank and then retired before being promoted to substantive rank, he would be granted honorary rank on retirement. So those temporary brigadier-generals who were re-graded as colonels-commandant or colonels on the staff in 1921 would still have become brigadier-generals again on retirement if they did not reach any higher rank. Opera hat (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example Brigadier

[edit]

What do we do with e.g. Sir John Smyth, 1st Baronet? He was a Brigadier who was for a while acting Major-General. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Brigadiers will have acted as the higher rank cover for sickness,death etc. I do not believe we should include acting rank.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with including those with acting rank so long as this was noted. Greenshed (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Abraham

[edit]

This chap served in WWII but became a General afterwards. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With an appropriate reference, he could be added to List of British Army full generals. Greenshed (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split article

[edit]

In line with such articles as:

might it be appropriate to split out the full generals into their own article and potentially the Lt-Gen, Maj-Gen and Brig/Brig-Gen into their own articles as well? Greenshed (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But anyone who reached the rank of full General will also almost certainly have also been a Lieutenant-General and a Major-General, so a list of Major-Generals would be almost as big as a list of all generals. Opera hat (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the lists of major-generals and lieutenant-generals excludes those who were eventually promoted to higher rank but contains a note to that effect. Greenshed (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might have changed my mind on this last point. As regards full generals, see List of British Army full generals. Greenshed (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

[edit]

Can I know the rationale for the creation of this page? For instance Can I create a similar page for India? My Father retired as a BG. Would be pretty cool to have him in Wikipedia. How abour Burundi? Burkina Faso? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an inclusionist I would have no objections to an article titled List of Indian generals or perhaps better still List of Indian Army generals to specify the scope precisely. References to reliable sources would be needed. Greenshed (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Major General John LINDSEY (died Brighton 1820, promoted Major General 1812? Delahays (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is incomplete. By all means add him. Greenshed (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

[edit]

Is this article for general officers and brigadiers who have served in the British Armed Forces (of any nationality) or is it for British people who have attained the rank of general in any armed force? Greenshed (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, where di generals in the Indian Army pre-1947 fit in? Hamish59 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious solution would be have a List of British Indian Army generals. Additionally, if we decide this article is for British people who have held the rank general in any armed force then most or all of them (were they all British?) would also be included here. Greenshed (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections to making this list for British people who have attained the rank of general in any armed force? Greenshed (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Brigadiers

[edit]

Not that this article's scope isn't large enough already, but are we going to include (say) temporary Brigadiers or only those who held substantive appointments? Atchom (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See 'Example Brigadier', above Shipsview (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of British generals and brigadiers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CHA

[edit]

William Bower Anley - CHA, John George Erskine Wynne CHA, Francis Arthur Wynter CHA - What is a CHA? Shipsview (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commander, Heavy Artillery - a Brigadier-General of the Royal Artillery serving on the staff of an Army Corps. Opera hat (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Shipsview (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of British generals and brigadiers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FJ Moberly

[edit]

There is some information with a link to an obit in The Times here Jackiespeel (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_British_generals_and_brigadiers&oldid=1214236861"