Talk:Private (military rank): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger (→Why...: new section) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
...are they called "privates," anyway? They don't have a lot of privacy, do they? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | ...are they called "privates," anyway? They don't have a lot of privacy, do they? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Perhaps I should have clarified that this is the English-language term. As I understand the tradition, when a medieval captain or other officer that did not have feudal followers needed troops, he hired "private" individuals for the lowest positions. In other words, they were from what we would call the "private sector", rather than experienced sergeants or officers. | |||
:I put this in simply not to have a redlink in a comment on an officer who rose from private to four-star general, which is impressive in any army. | |||
:Even in Britain, the term private is generic; they do have traditional titles for the particular kind of service. In French, I believe the equivalent is ''soldat'', and, in a few other languages that come to mind, they use a generic term that implies a fighting individual not having any leadership responsibility. | |||
:Many modern militaries use a term such as "recruit" for the very lowest, and, for a soldier that has basic profiency, may call them "lance corporal" or some other term that does not put them in the line of command, but gives more of a sense of being a professional. U.S. Marine and Turkish traditions, among many, come to mind, where the culture is that someone almost always steps up to lead when all the designated leaders are dead. This is practical as well as traditional; there's a maxim that soldiers without leadership are rabble, and rabble who face sodiers die. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 07:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:00, 11 December 2008
Why...
...are they called "privates," anyway? They don't have a lot of privacy, do they? --Larry Sanger 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have clarified that this is the English-language term. As I understand the tradition, when a medieval captain or other officer that did not have feudal followers needed troops, he hired "private" individuals for the lowest positions. In other words, they were from what we would call the "private sector", rather than experienced sergeants or officers.
- I put this in simply not to have a redlink in a comment on an officer who rose from private to four-star general, which is impressive in any army.
- Even in Britain, the term private is generic; they do have traditional titles for the particular kind of service. In French, I believe the equivalent is soldat, and, in a few other languages that come to mind, they use a generic term that implies a fighting individual not having any leadership responsibility.
- Many modern militaries use a term such as "recruit" for the very lowest, and, for a soldier that has basic profiency, may call them "lance corporal" or some other term that does not put them in the line of command, but gives more of a sense of being a professional. U.S. Marine and Turkish traditions, among many, come to mind, where the culture is that someone almost always steps up to lead when all the designated leaders are dead. This is practical as well as traditional; there's a maxim that soldiers without leadership are rabble, and rabble who face sodiers die. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)