Talk:Brevet (military)

Origin of the term? Bastie 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The term's probably of French origin but I don't know if the French army applied the idea themselves. I would assume that the word has a common origin with 'brief' ('brevet', 'brevity'). CFLeon 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The current layout has the US first, but this is (apparently) not historically the origin of the term - as it was in use in other countires prior to this (c.f. in use in the UK during the reign of James II, see the wiki article itself) and possibly france/elsewhere, if CFLeon is correct. As a result I feel the article is not as clear as it might be - and is also mildly biased in that it assumes the USA is more important to the reader, whereas a neutral approach would be to list its use in order of the service/country that took up its use first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.95.148 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably is in this layout because when the article was first written, only info about use in the US forces was described, with the UK and other nations added later and tacked on. It has stayed that way most likely because the US section is the largest, most developed one yet. Moving them around by dates (or alphabetically even) seems logical enough, but the new layout would place tiny sections with those ugly "expansion needed" tags up front and in your face. It would create an unattractive layout in my opinion. I favor waiting until the other nations are flushed out more and then applying either suggestion. Thoughts? Kresock (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Certainly looks like a stub to me; what about brevet ranks in other armies? (Certainly the British Army had them, too.) If this is really all there is to say on the topic, it might as well be dicdef'd, merged into Military rank, or a combination of the two. Alai 04:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

In the British Army the equivalent term is "acting rank", and it is still used when a post requires a more senior person than is available. While in post the person wears the rank and has all the other privaliges associated with it (including pay AFAIK) and when they leave the post they return to their own rank. They can only ever have one acting rank as well as their "real" rank.TomViza 10:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's (n)othing wrong with being a great stub. This is a great stub: interesting, informative, concise. Ben-w 08:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing wrong with being a great stub, certainly, and the argument about other countries is a convincing one for leaving the stub tag on here. However, there is a growing habit on Wikipedia to automatically mark anything under about four paragraphs as a stub, when in many cases, all encyclopedic information has already been included. We're selling ourselves short, saying to the world, "this isn't a finished article, something's missing", when often it's not. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

What is the relationship of this article to the webpage http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/brevets.htm Seems like similarity in language, which came first? Perhaps cite this source as listing the Civil War brevet generals, which is kinda interesting. --User:Doncram 8 May 2006.

Got the following from the quoted sites; I do not have access to any of the original documants (I live in Africa, & neither US nor British citizen!). I hope you can do something with this, since the info is out there somewhere:

On Brevet Rank - It was never, as far as I can tell, a "temporary rank", i.e. one which expired automatically. Inherited from European continent armies. Abolished mid 1950s, see below. Frocking is presently done in the US Navy, Marines and Army.

Ref #1:http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/mil_hist_inst/o/offcr2.asc<br\>

OFFICER APPOINTMENT, PROMOTIONS, DEMOTIONS<br\> A Working Bibliography<br\> Glover, Michael. "The Purchase of Commissions: A Reappraisal." Journal of Soc for Army Hist Research LVIII (Winter 1980): pp. 223-235. Per.<br\> Hargreaves, Reginald. "Ladder to the Stars." Army 20 (Sep 1970): pp. 42-48. Per. Historical review of officer commissions and promotions.<br\> Karsten, Peter. "Ritual and Rank: Religious Affiliation, Father's 'Calling,' and Successful Advancement in the U.S. Officer Corps of the Twentieth Century." Armed Forces & Society 9 (Spring 1983): pp. 427-440. Per.<br\> Kester, John G. "Politics and Promotions." Parameters XII (Dec 1982): pp. 2-13. Per. Analysis and advice concerning top-level civilian involvement in military appointments & promotions.<br\> Lenney, John J. Rankers: The Odyssey of the Enlisted Regular Soldier of America and Britain. NY: Greenberg, 1950. 215 p. UB413.2L4. A history of promotion from enlisted ranks to officer grade.<br\> U.S. Forces, European Theater. General Board. "Reclassification and Demotion of Officers in the European Theater of Operations." Study No. 7, Bad Nauheim, Ger, 1945-46. 45 p. D769A5no7. Incl stats pp. 6-7, on officers below grade of general. USAMHI Officers-Promo RefBranch js 1985<br\> OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY, WWII<br\> A Working Bibliography<br\> The Officer's Guide. Harrisburg, PA: Mil Service PUb, 1944. pp. 377-382. U133A603. And 1945 ed, p. 28. Nice summary<br\> U.S. Army Field Forces. "Report of Army Ground Forces Study on Comparisons of General Officers and Colonels (Infantry)." Photostat, n.d. 67 p. UB413A3.<br\> U.S. War Dept. Bulletin No 8, 24 Feb 1942. p. 1. Circs. Reprint of Public Law 455, 77th Cong, "An Act to Provide for Temporary Promotion in the Army of the United States...,"<br\> _________. Commissioned Officers, Promotion in the Regular Army, Except in Medical, Dental and Veterinary Corps. Army Regulation 605-40, Mar 1942. 4 p. AR.<br\> _________. Commissioned Officers, Temporary Promotions in the Army of the United States. AR 605-12, Feb 1944. 6 p. With Change No 1. 2 p. AR. See also 17 Aug 1944 ed (6 p.) with Changed Nos. 2 & 3 (5 p.) and AR 605-10, 10 Dec 1941.<br\> _________. Medical Department, Standards of Miscellaneous Physical Examination. AR 40-100, Change No. 1, 5 Mar 1943. 2 p. AR.<br\> Examples: Omar N. Bradley was promoted to full general (temporary) on 12 Mar 1945. His permanent grade at the time was major general, dating from 8 Sep 1944.<br\> George S. Patton, Jr. was promoted to the temporary grade of full general on 14 Apr 1945, while his permanent grade was major general, as of 2 Sep 1943.<br\> Walton H. Walker was promoted lieutenant general (temporary) on 14 Apr 1945, while his permanent grade was colonel, from 1 May 1942.<br\> The following individuals held the permanent rank indicated when promoted to the new temporary (5-Star) grade of general of the army: Officer Promotion Policy p.2<br\> Arnold, Henry H. - major general, since 31 May 1941.<br\> Eisenhower, Dwight D. - major general (2 Star), since 30 Aug. 1943.<br\> MacArthur, Douglas - general, since 21 Nov 1930.<br\> Marshall, George C. - general (4-Star), since 1 Sep 1939<br\>. Reference: U.S. War Dept. Adj Gen's Off. Official Army Register, 1 January 1945. Wash, DC: GPO, 1945. BiogRm. Also 1946 ed, pp. 76 & 713. USAMHI Officers - Promo RefBranch js 79; dv 89<br\> BATTLEFIELD COMMISSIONS<br\> A Working Bibliography<br\> GEN/MISC<br\> Lerwill, Leonard L. The Personnel Replacement System in the United States Army. Dept of Army Pam No 20-211, Aug 1954. 492 p. Pam.<br\> Smith, Mark A. A Brief History of Battlefield Commissions in the Armed Forces. Natl Order of Battlefield Commissions, 1986. 2 p. BibFiles.<br\> See also: - Newsletters & material, Natl Order of Battlefield Commissions, MiscFiles.<br\> WORLD WAR I<br\> U.S. Army. Amer Exped Forces. General Order No 32 (18 Feb 1918), Para 11, Bulletin No 53 (6 Aug 1918), Para II, & GO 162 (23 Sep 1918), Sec VII. UBs.<br\> U.S. War Dept. Adj Gen's Dept. Comm on Classification of Personnel in the Army. History of the Personnel System. Vol 1. Wash, DC, 1919. UB337A46v1. Battlefield Commissions p.2<br\> WORLD WAR II<br\> Army-Navy Journal (1 Jul 1944): p. 1336. Per. Indicates 200 awarded in No Africa.<br\> Palmer, Robert R., et al. The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops. In USAWWII series. Wash, DC: Dept of Army, 1948. 696 p. D769A533v1pt2. See index.<br\> U.S. Army. First Army. First United States Army Report of Operations, 1 August 1944 - 22 February 1945. Wash, DC: GPO, 1945. Annex 1, pp. 16-17, 74-84. 03-1-1944v9, UH.<br\> _________. Forces in European Theater. General Board. Appointments and Promotions in the European Theater of Operations. Study No 6, Bad Nauheim, 1945-46. pp. 7-10. D769A5no6.<br\> U.S. War Dept. Commissioned Officers: Officers Appointed in the Army of the United States. Army Reg 605-10, May 1944. Paras 7e & 22b. AR. And Change 1 (Nov 1944).<br\> KOREA<br\> USAMHI Officers-Promo RefBranch dv April 1990<br\>

NOTE: FROCKING<br\> Frocking, an old naval custom, is a current US Army procedure for temporarily promoting officers and noncommissioned officers to higher rank without commensurate pay. See: U.S. Dept of Army. Promotion of Officers on Active Duty. Army Regulation 624-100, May 1979. Para 2-13. AR. No mention of frocking in same reg, Oct 75, with 4 changes (to Apr 77).<br\> _________. Message: Frocking of Senior NCOs, 27 Sep 1984. 3 p. Photocopy, BibFile(Officers).<br\> Frocking reportedly began after repeal of the legal basis of breveting (q.v.) in 1956. Many officers, esp general officers, have been frocked, notably in early 1970s.<br\> See also: - "Army Considers Major Changes in Officer Frocking Procedure," Army Times (1 Apr 1985), p. 3. BibFile<br\> (Officer-Promo) - AR 614-200 - "Brevets" (Officers-Promo) - Elting, Dict of Army Talk, p. 119 USAMHI Officers-Promo RefBranch dv Apr 1990<br\>

BREVET RANK<br\> A Working Bibliography<br\> A brevet promoted an officer to a higher rank but without commensurate pay, authority, and insignia. Brevet commissions functioned as honorary titles to reward gallant action or meritorius service. The American practice of breveting is traceable to the continental Army in 1775. A proliferation of brevets occurred during the Civil War and thereafter, accompanied by a lessening of the usefulness and significance of the honor. The Distinguished Service Cross and medal of World War I replaced, in effect, the brevet as a military award.<br\> See:<br\> Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles. Vol I. Chicago: UP of Chicago, 1938. p. 313. PE1625D56v1. Etymology of term.<br\> Farrow, Edeard S. Farrow's Military Encyclopedia. 2d ed. Vol I. NY: Military-Naval Pub, 1895. p. 235. U24A5F241. More descriptive of British practice than American.<br\> Fry, James B. The History and Legal Effect of Brevets in the Armies of Great Britain and the United States.... NY: Van Nostrand, 1877. 576 p. UB430F7. Standard authority on the subject incl detailed historical account and list of all brevets conferred, 1776-1877.<br\> Memorial to the Congress of the United States, from Officers of the United States Army, on the Subect of Brevet and Staff Rank. Corpus Christi, TX, 12 Dec 1845. 23 p. UB433M53.<br\> Povlovich, Charles A. "What Was Brevet Rank?" Trading Post (Jul-Sep 1987): pp. 48-50. Per/BibFile. Nice explantion & survey.<br\> U.S. Code. Vol 1. Secs 521-528 (1952). Cites statutory basis of brevet rank. U.S. Dept of Army. Office, Chief of Military History. "The Significance of Brevet Rank." Fact Sheet, 27 Mar 1959. 3 p. UB433A4. Brevet Rank p.2<br\> _________. Rank and Precedence. Army Regulation 600-15, Aug 1951. Para 2. AR. Indicates brevet rank still authorized, but 8 Aug 1955 ed does not.<br\> W.W.M. A Brief Dissertation on Military Titles and Brevet Rank by an Ex-Army Officer. Boston, Aug 1886. 7 p. LLColl, UHRm. Filed under "Military Titles..."<br\> Wiener, Frederick B. "Mex Rank Through the Ages." 2 pts. Infantry Journal LIII (Sep 1943): pp. 26-30 & (Oct 1943): pp. 57-64. Per. Historical survey of temporary rank, notably brevets. ("Mex"=Army slang term denoting such practices.)<br\> Wood, Henry Clay. A Plea for the Recognition of the Legal Rights of the Army Officers Confirmed to Brevet Rank, March Third, 1869. NY: Rankin, 1894. 15 p. UB433W6.<br\> Note: "Breveting" an NCO to officer rank first authorized in 1847. Such action could be taken by the President upon recommendation of the individual regimental commander when an NCO had "distinguished himself in the service." (See WD GO 9, 10 Mar 1847).<br\> Incidentally, Tasker H. Bliss was the last officer to be breveted. He retired at the end of 1917 as Chief of Staff and was then commissioned by brevet to full general. He served thereafter as US rep to Allied Supreme War Council. Peyton March, as the new Chief of Staff, filled Bliss's former position of full general rank. See: Wiener, cited above, Oct, p. 62.<br\>

Ref #2: British Ranks: http://www.regiments.org/biography/ranks.htm<br\> Rank. The use of titles insignia to designate relative military hierarchy of persons, with appropriate pay and other allowances.<br\> Acting Rank. Assumes the pay and allowances appropriate to the acting rank, but a commanding officer may order the holder to revert to previous rank held.<br\> Brevet Rank. Temporary rank without the pay and allowances appropriate to the rank. From the French "brevet", a letter authorising the holder to hold temporary rank. The British Army used brevet ranks extensively between the world wars, reinstated it in 1946, and finally abolished the practice in 1952.<br\> Local Rank. Temporary unpaid rank, usually granted for a specific operation or mission in a specific location.<br\> Substantive Rank. Fully paid and confirmed permanent rank.<br\> Temporary Rank (T.) Rank granted for a short duration, usually for a specific task or mission.<br\> War Substantive Rank (W.S.) Fully paid and confirmed temporary for the duration of war, after which holder reverts to substantive peace-time rank.<br\>

Ref #3 (also British): Fred Larimore: http://www.members.dca.net/fbl/glossary.html<br\> Brevet: The conferring of promotion in rank on an officer, usually for services, but with no right to extra pay.<br\> --Seejyb 21:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

SF A teams consisting of 1 Capt, 1 1st Lt., and 9 NCOs are often given temporary ranks as high as O6 when training units from other countries for political reasons (i.e. they're liasing with a Colonel.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've had a stab at expanding the UK section, unfortunately my understanding is largely based on Allan Mallinson's fiction books which scarcely count as reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, despite his own history as an army officer suggesting he might know what he's talking about. It's also more in line with the description in Purchase of commissions. I'll try and find some better sources, but would appreciate others doing the same (and tidying up my prose). David Underdown 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if someone could write a subsection on the U.K.'s use of "General in America" or "General (in America)" or "General (in America only)" which appears to be a form of breveting. I've discovered that a number of British Generals in the later half of the 1700s had some form of this rank: Brigidier General in America" or "Major General (in America.)" Were there higher and lower ranks than these? Did they get extra pay? Did they wear fancier uniforms than their regular ones or was there just a fancier insignia? Who bestowed the brevet rank, a senior regular officer in America, the staff in London or the King? Once back in the UK would a Colonel who held this rank still be honorifically addressed as General?

Should there be a seperate article on this so that articles on specific generals could wikilink to it like so "Richard Prescott served as Major General in America from 1777 to 1782 and then promoted."?

WikiParker (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a variation on local rank to me, rank taht counts for a specific area or operation only. It's more akin to acting in a given rank than a brevet promotion. Local rank could mean that you didn't receive the full pay of the rank you were holding, and could be given by the local commander, rather tahn necessarily requiring confirmation from London. I have seen cases of local rank being gazetted, for example senior officers of the Honourable East India Company's army being granted British Army rank to be valid in the East Indies only and such like. They would just have reverted to their "real" rank once the appointment was over I should think. At the period you're talking about "regmimental rank" was the most important thing, unless you engineered an exchange to a different regiment you could only be promoted if a vacancy existed in your own regiment, which is why brevet rank was important - it gave you a higher rank in the army as a whole, which could be useful if detached formations and so on were being formed. Certainly at this period Brigadier/Brigadier-General (and as late as about 1950) was strictly an appointment of colonels (and sometimes lt-cols), rather than a rank as such. Brigadiers were appointed for specfic purposes, and reverted to their usual rank once the need was gone. Only once you were promoted to major-general were you actually a general officer (and until the late 19th century at least, promotion from then on was strictly by seniority). Hope this is some help, I'm not aware of an article, and though I think what I've written here is correct, finding sources to actually put something together seems to be the problem. David Underdown (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brevet (military). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505161143/http://nps.gov:80/prsf/history/glossary.htm to http://www.nps.gov/prsf/history/glossary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919074554/http://alia.org.au/~kwebb/Brevets/ to http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/Brevets

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The "American Civil War" section needs work. The first paragraph needs to be moved down as it is out of order. There is supposed reference material in the second paragraph; "Brevet rank in the Union Army, whether in the Regular Army or the United States Volunteers, "during and at the conclusion of the American Civil War", may be regarded as an honorary title which "conferred none of the authority", precedence, nor pay of real or full rank."". Britannica states the opposite concerning brevets; "Frequently it carried with it the pay, right to command, and uniform of the higher grade.". There is a distinction between brevet commissions and brevet awards. Brevet commissions did carry with it, when accompanied by direction or approval of the President, pay commensurate with rank. The first session of the thirty-seventh Congess of the United States confirmed that brevet rank with command received commensurate pay and debated as to if certain non-combatant brevet rank should receive equal pay.

While there were numerous "brevet awards" many were not just honorary, meaning "the person bestowed does not have to carry out any duties", but is a title of authority, especially concerning combat officers.

In summation: I do not readily have access to the source "Warner, Ezra J. Generals in Blue, p. xvii" but such, content as exampled above, is against numerous other sources, and in fact actual history. Otr500 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brevet (military). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506054541/http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/04histoire/articles/articles_rha/ecolesuperieuredeguerre.htm to http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/04histoire/articles/articles_rha/ecolesuperieuredeguerre.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nps.gov/prsf/history/glossary.htm

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) 08:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply