Talk:List of British Army full generals

Order

The list of Royal Air Force air chief marshals, list of United States Army four-star generals, list of United States Navy four-star admirals are all ordered chronologically by date of promotion to the rank, though sortable by surname. Shouldn't the same format be used here? I'll start adding in more dates. Opera hat (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically would be better, in my view. I just did not have all the promotion dates when I started the list. Greenshed (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There are rather more names now than there were in 2012. I don't think it will be possible to reorder the entire list in one go. Opera hat (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a sortable table! Hamish59 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it not sorting? Opera hat (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I've just added some generals who were promoted in 1793, but I've omitted several (Mariscoe Frederick; Robert Dalrymple Horn Elphinstone; Sir Alexander Maitland, 1st Baronet; Sir Charles Thompson, 8th Baronet; Henry Fletcher (1764-1803); John Hale (British Army officer); Francis Craig (British Army officer); William Tayler (British Army officer)) as they are currently red links. Is this list intended to cover just those full generals who have articles on wikipedia, or all full generals? Opera hat (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All full generals. I strongly suspect that anyone who made it to full general is notable enough for an article. Greenshed (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that means there would be thousands of entries on the list? Opera hat (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I had guessed that it would be somewhere under a thousand. Perhaps we will need to break it down by century once the list gets long. It seems arbitrary to exclude those who have (not yet) got their own biographical article. As far as I know there are two Army appointments currently available for full generals and a handful of 4-star tri-service posts. Working on an average of three full generals serving at any one time with a tour length of two to three years and allowing for the fact that the Army was considerably larger in the past and has exisited for a little over 300 years, several thousand still seems like a lot but I must admit that my pre-20th century knowldge of the British Army's organization is somewhat limited. Greenshed (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At least until the later part of the 19th century, promotion through the general officer ranks was by seniority, not by appointments or commands held. If an officer lived long enough or was promoted early enough, he could reach the rank of full general without having held even a battalion-level command (e.g. Thomas Myddelton Biddulph, promoted to general in 1877). The first (1851) edition of Haydn's Book of Dignities has six two-column pages of full generals from 1690 to 1846 starting here. I've a copy of the 1894 edition. Opera hat (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As at July 2015 we are at 1376 full generals. More than I thought we would find. Not being sure about how good our post-1845 coverage is, I am wondering if we will get to 2000 generals (excluding future promotions over the long term of course). Greenshed (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently we're on 1,854 generals and still going. Greenshed (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates

Need to take account of Old Style and New Style dates. Greenshed (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gazette dates

Notices in the London Gazette for eighteenth century promotions often do not give the exact date and sometimes were some weeks later. I think it's a mistake just to use the date of the Gazette in which the promotion was published. The Army List for 1779, for example, gives earlier dates for the 1772, 1777 and 1778 promotions than those currently given in this list. Opera hat (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was of the understanding that the gazetting of a promotion marked its coming into force and so even if other dates are given elsewhere, it was not official until it was gazetted. Greenshed (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if that might be the case now, I don't think you can assume it was so in the eighteenth century. Charles Otway, Lord Cadogan, James St Clair and John Guise were promoted generals in March 1761 but as far as I can tell this was not gazetted at all; would you argue from this that these promotions never "came into force"? The date by which generals took seniority and by which they were listed in the Army List was the date on their commission, so I'd say this is the date we should use here as well. It's also the date used by the biographical sources already cited in the list: the ODNB (which says of Sir William Green that "on 1 January 1798, he attained the rank of full general" though it was not published in the Gazette until the issue of 6-9 January, and of William Haviland that "[h]e was promoted full general on 17 February 1783"; the relevant notice was in the Gazette of 18-22 February) and Heathcote's British Field Marshals ("Sir George Howard was promoted to general on 29 August 1777" - published in the Gazette of 2-6 September - and "Montandre was promoted through seniority to general on 27 October 1735" - published in the Gazette of 16-20 December). Opera hat (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know of any reference which properly nails down this issue? I agree that the ODNB usage is indicative but it would be nice to know definitely, including if at some specified point the authoritative document changed from being the Army List to the London Gazette. I would still like to note any discrepancies in the "Notes" column. Greenshed (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. From much trawling of the London Gazette archive it seems that the Gazette started regularly publishing general officers' promotions from about 1714 (though with some gaps as noted above) but that these notices did not start giving the exact dates of these promotions until about 1800. So for most of the nineteenth century onwards we can just use the date given in the Gazette. In the eighteenth century: the printed Army Lists only began annual publication in 1754; these are available online (I linked to the 1779 list above and one or two are on google books) so we can use the dates given there, noting differences with the Gazette if you want. Earlier than that: the Secretary at War kept handwritten lists which are held at the National Archives at Kew and so are not a source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Haydn's Book of Dignities (which I've added as a citation to some entries in the list) gives lists of generals which for the most part match the Army Lists, but I've not found it to be particularly reliable for the early 18th c. promotion dates. Opera hat (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: when using the London Gazette for 19th/20th/21st century promotions we should use the date given in the Gazette not the date of the Gazette issue itself. For example, on 16 June 2012 it was announced that the Prince of Wales had been promoted to Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force. This was not actually gazetted until 7 December 2012, but the Gazette notice said that these promotions were to be dated 16 June. They clearly took effect from the earlier date as Prince Charles wore his MRAF uniform at the unveiling of the Bomber Command memorial on 28 June 2012. Opera hat (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, in the eighteenth century the London Gazette usually reported the mere fact of an officer's promotion without giving the exact date. In these cases it's fair enough to give a second reference providing that date, if known. But for entries in this list (like all the generals promoted in 1837) where a citation to the Gazette already gives the full date, I don't see the point of adding a second reference to an inferior source like Haydn's Book of Dignities. Opera hat (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The advantage is that Haydn's Book of Dignities lets the reader know (if they click through) that the list is (probably) complete. With only individual pages of the London Gazette there is always the possibility that some have been missed. Greenshed (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

John Barclay (Royal Marines officer)

Was John Barclay (Royal Marines officer) actually a British Army general? Seems unlikely but see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aURnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA321#v=onepage&q&f=false. Greenshed (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

From the 1750 to the 1830s the only general officers in the Marines were actually Royal Navy officers who held these appointments as a sinecure. The highest rank a Marine officer could attain in his corps was that of colonel commandant—the Marines were similar to the Engineers and the Artillery in this respect. Any higher rank held by Marine officers was in the Army (holding their commissions from the Crown rather than from the Admiralty). I think it was only in the 1860s that general officers began to be appointed in the Corps of Royal Marines itself. Opera hat (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, here's the Army List for 1791, showing the senior Marine officers as John Mackenzie and Henry Smith, who are colonels-commandant in the Marines but lieutenant-generals in the Army, while the sole Lieutenant-General of Marines is the Royal Navy admiral Samuel Barrington. Makes perfect sense! Opera hat (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This might be usefully added to the General (United Kingdom) article. Do you have any sources which explain this directly? Greenshed (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

After 1846

I am right in thinking that the only freely available versions of Haydn's Book of Dignities stop with generals' promotions in 1846? As we are nearly at that point, I am keen to work what the best way to proceed with chronologically completing the list. Is the best thing to buy a later edition of the Book of Dignities? Greenshed (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You could probably get a copy of the third edition, which was reprinted in 1969, for about £25. It lists the full generals promoted on 9 November 1846, 11 November 1851 and 20 June 1854 on p. 863. The Gazette references for these promotions are already linked so you could add the rest of the names for these dates from the notices in the Gazette. After 1854 major-generals, lieutenant-generals and generals are all given together on pages 876 to 935, which ends at 31 December 1888. I've added all the full generals listed from page 907 onwards.

Another option would be to get the names from Hart's Army List, published annually from 1840 to 1915 and available at archive.org. Hart's has generals on the active list, the retired list and (for Indian officers) the unemployed supernumerary list, so if you didn't mind going through every issue to see what names had been added that year, you could have a complete list up to 1914. The official Army Lists for 1914–1919 and 1939–1945 are also at archive.org. Opera hat (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Does you last point mean that we can work out when generals came off the achive list / retired? Greenshed (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Opera hat (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth adding that information at some point (perhaps when the basic list is complete?). Greenshed (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice you've found an online copy of the 1890 edition; good job. Opera hat (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Elias Lawrence and William Hallett Connelly

Although Elias Lawrence and William Hallett Connelly are listed at https://archive.org/stream/bookofdignitiesc00haydrich#page/883/mode/1up as being prompted to full general on 20 June 1855 the London Gazette has then both down as RM lt generals at the same date - https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/21735/page/2457 - therefore they are not listed here. Greenshed (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Parke

Thomas Adams Parke is not listed here as although Haydn's Book of Dignities (1890) p. 883 lists his promotion, the London Gazette lists his promotion as being in the RM (see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/21966/page/472). Greenshed (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Menzies

Sir Charles Menzies (p. 883 of 1890 The Book of Dignities) is also RM - see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22019/page/2376 Greenshed (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is more than 300k

This article is far too large. It needs to be rewritten in Summary style. How best to split it I leave to others, but perhaps a useful divider would be:

• Up to the end of the Napoleonic wars (1815)
• Since the ed of the Napoleonic wars.

That has the advantage of splitting the list roughly in half and 1815 seems like a good year because there were no new general that year.

Any way I am just passing through so I will leave it to others to summarise the article. -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary style does not apply to lists. Also, per WP:SPLITLIST, "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact". I am not convinced that 1815 would be that good but happy to take other views. Greenshed (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a long article though (currently it's the 332nd longest article in the English wiki). Greenshed (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to split out the Indian Army generals. Greenshed (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

John Tulloch, CB

Haydn's Book of Dignities has a John Tulloch, CB receiving a promotion to full general on 6 March 1868 (https://archive.org/stream/bookofdignitiesc00haydrich#page/886/mode/1up). I can neither find a corresponding London Gazette entry for this promotion not anything relating to a General John Tulloch with dates that fit in wider sources. In 1867, the LG does note that there was a Lt-Gen John Tulloch CB who had recently died (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/23222/page/983). I am inclined to think that Haydn's Book of Dignities is in error. Does anyone else have any other sources? Greenshed (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The LG has Lt-Gen Alexander Tulloch receiving a promotion to full general on 6 March 1868 (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/23366/page/1978). They are probably the same individual. Greenshed (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)