Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: awillis@gara.une.oz.au (Sir)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Confusion...
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.023901.26912@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 25 Jun 91 02:39:01 GMT
References: <1991Jun21.014233.14421@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: awillis@gara.une.oz.au (Sir)

In article <1991Jun21.014233.14421@cbnews.cb.att.com>, Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown) writes:
> 
> 
> From: Bob.Underdown@f1040.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bob Underdown)
> 
> Would someone care to explain why a Major outranks a Lieutenant but in
> the Civil War, a Lieutenant General was considered a higher rank than
> Major General?   Before 1864, Grant had been a Major General:
> 
Basically the difference is that Major General is a shortened version of
Seargeant Major General. This became to much of a mouthful though so they
shortened it to Major General.

             *-- The Name is Willis,     --*
             *-- Andrew Willis.          --*
             *-- You can call me, Sir.   --*
             *-- awillis@gara.une.au.oz. --*