Talk:Generalissimo

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

Simon Bolivar[edit]

Why not include Simon Bolivar who is also a fellow liberator of Generalissimo Jose de San Martin?, Simon Bolivar has Marshal Sucre as his Aide-de-camp (as stated here in this page that Generalissimos outrank Field Marshals and other 5 star ranks), isn't Bolivar qualified to be included in this list of Generalissimos? RA9Markus (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We just need a citation that says he help such a rank. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Philip of Schwarzenburg[edit]

on the wikipedia page of Karl Philip of Schwarzenburg itself it is said that he is a Field Marshal, but no "Generalissimo" was mentioned, so Im wondering why he is here in the Generalissimo page if in reality his rank is actually Field Marshal? MaharlikanBoi (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found two citation that refer to him as generalissimo: here and here. I will add one of them to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 Japanese Emperors (Meiji, Taisho, Hirohito)[edit]

These three emperors of Japan held a rank that is the same as a Generalissimo, it is called "Dai-Gensui" which is higher than a Field Marshal, The main wikipedia page of Dai-Gensui directly states that the aforementioned rank is the same as a Generalissimo, shall we add them here in the list too? RA9Markus (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about this Dai-gensui. It seems ceremonial as these three were nobles who did not actually lead the military. The president of the United States and other world leaders are considered "commanders in chief", but not added to the list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as for the Presidents of the United States are not military leaders, they do have the title as "Commander In Chief" but that is not a rank, its a designation, meanwhile "Dai-Gensui" is a legitimate rank for the 3 Emperors, tho not completely ceremonial since the Emperors still have powers based on the Meiji Constitution, having veto powers, exercising executive authority, appointing and removing officials from positions, and of course was granted supreme control of both the army and navy, Emperor Hirohito himself could have prevented Japan from joining the Axis and also a war against the US since he has the power to decline but because of his approval, Japan joined the war, on November 5, 1941, he had imperial conference about the operations of the war against the west, and had many meetings with his prime minister, Hideki Tojo, on how the war will be carried, this can be read on the main wikipedia page of Emperor Hirohito. RA9Markus (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Veto power is a political power and not an indication that these three were military leaders. If the criteria we use for inclusion on this list is too broad it will seem bloated and random. See WP:LISTCRITERIA. We should limit it to military leaders who were promoted to the rank or a few who were referred to historically as a generalissimo . Basically people who were famous as a generalissimo, not something else and incidentally also a generalissimo sorta kinda. I am already unhappy with some of the entries. That said, if you can present citations that say specifically that these three were generalissimos, then you can add them to the list. Perhaps consider putting all three on the same line, not separate entries for each. I won't remove them. But if others come along and establish consensus that these should not be on the list, they will be removed to keep the list concise. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I found is all based on the main wikipedia page of "Dai-Gensui" like this source "https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11605700" and there are other more with the same context that show similar information with the main Dai-Gensui Wikipedia page, but as we could see, the Dai-Gensui page mentioned that it is equivalent to a Generalissimo, and also, we could notice, it is also similar and equivalent with other Generalissimos with different language, like Korean's Taewonsu and China's Dai Yuan Shuai which is also listed here in the main Generalissimo wikipedia page, in these east asian languages, they're influenced together and have similar patterns such as the prefix Dai- in Japanese, Tae- on Korean and Da- in Chinese, the prefix refers to the word after it that it is supreme or utmost level, and we know that in this case, it is referring to a rank to the highest degree or level, which is a Generalissimo but in different language, if we couldn't consider the three japanese emperors as Generalissimos despite of having equivalent and same rank with other Generalissimo's like Taewonsu and Da Yuan Shuai, then we should also remove those Generalissimos in this page with the rank of Taewonsu and Da yuan shuai. RA9Markus (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with removal of equivalent ranks, however those people were specifically referred to in books and/or the press as generalissimos. I have updated their citations. I also added a citation needed to the Dai-gensui's Wikipedia article's assertion that it is equivalent to generalissimo. By the way, the 3 Emperors are mentioned in Highest military ranks#Japan. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://factsanddetails.com/japan/cat16/sub108/item508.html
I found this source which directly mentions Emperor Hirohito as a Generalissimo, "god-king-generalissimo" to be exact, which is usual since Emperors of Japan from Meiji to Hirohito are seen as Divine Gods that descended from God Amaterasu in the Japanese society. RA9Markus (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source is self published (see WP:SELFPUB) by Jeff Hays. However your persistence inspired me to look a bit myself. I found Hirohito And The Making Of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. I might get around to adding it in the week or so. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added Hirohito. Let me know if changes need to be made. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the other two emperors of Japan, Meiji and Taisho, be included too? Since they have the same rank that Hirohito has, it is logical if we include the predecessors of the same rank holder. RA9Markus (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Blaise-Nicolas-Le-Sueur/1080303/The-Japanese-Emperor-Meiji-(1852-1912)-wearing-Generalissimo-uniform,-photograph-by-Farsari,-from-L'Illustrazione-Italiana,-Year-XXII,-No-1,-January-6.html
I found this, not sure if this can be considered as a source but it refers to the uniform of Emperor Meiji as a "Generalissimo uniform" the same uniform Emperor Hirohito wore as the formal military attire during his time and his father's reign. RA9Markus (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reluctant. It is not a question of is it logical to assume they are Generalissimos, but was the word "Generalissimo" used specifically to referred to them historically. The citation you found is the picture used in the Emperor Meiji article. It attributed to Edoardo Chiossone and is used on his article page as well. The citation you gave attributes Blaise Nicholas Le Sueur so I would call it unreliable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Maria Morelos and Agustin Iturbide[edit]

Two Mexicans, the first one is Jose Maria Morelos who succeeded Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (which is here in this page) as the leader of the army that is initially led by Miguel Hidalgo himself, sources is these two: https://www.cultura.gob.mx/dgai/noticias-detalle/?id=43828&orden=1&ln=en

https://www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/people/history/mexican/morelos-y-pavon-jose-maria

While the other Mexican is the first emperor of Mexico, namely Agustin Iturbide, the one who ultimately liberated Mexico from the Spanish Empire, the sources is here: https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=sdHQPYcfj48C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=agustin+iturbide+Generalissimo&source=bl&ots=zF5E4PEWNl&sig=ACfU3U1psDo2RCdM4sL41JIg8-LtywhYHw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjynsrr7NL4AhWOCYgKHfnXC3UQ6AF6BAg3EAI#v=onepage&q=agustin%20iturbide%20Generalissimo&f=false

https://www.jstor.org/stable/157498

https://txarchives.org/smu/finding_aids/00127.xml

https://artsandculture.google.com/story/m%C3%A9xico-200-years-the-birth-of-a-nation-archivo-general-de-la-nacion/LgXhw4b3GIto7w?hl=en

https://chestofbooks.com/reference/American-Cyclopaedia-1/Agustin-De-Iturbide.html

Do you think this is reliable, and shall we add them here in the list of Generalissimos? RA9Markus (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks great. I went ahead and added them. Well done! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissimos with marshal rank[edit]

Im now hesitating and somewhat regretting adding hirohito, and also if we should keep east asian (no racism here, im an asian myself) and french generalissimos due to how their term works and function, like marshal is included in their title of "grand marshal" and no "general" is included in it with the exception of chiang kai shek's that has "jiang" which is the literal translation of "general" but how about the others that has "marshal" in their rank, like da yuan shuai, taewonsu, daigensui, which all includes the title of "marshal"

because if we consider "grand marshal" as generalissimos, then does Antonio Jose de Sucre, gran mariscal de ayacucho (grand marshal of ayacucho) is a generalissimo? And other marshals with the equivalence of that, also for the french, I dont get it how were they included when they literally hold the rank of "marshal" and not "generalissimo" and their commands is not somewhere near of a generalissimo too, any thoughts about this? RA9Markus (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say. I would prefer that only people known for being a generalissimo be listed. Looking at much earlier versions of the article, the list was only created to give some examples of famous generalissimos, but it turned into an attempt to be a list of every person who might possible be seen as a generalissimo. Applying Wikipedia's policies on having sources only narrowed it down to people who at least once referred to as a generalissimo. With people insisting we must have a world view so we should include people who were never generalissimos, but had some equivalent rank in another language the list has gotten longer. Taking a further step back one must ask is the article necessary at all. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article body is a whopping four paragraphs. Admiralissimo is worse with just one paragraph and and a seven entry list. I suppose it comes down to what makes the list useful. Does a particular addition add to the usefulness or not. I guess really this is the only list on Wikipedia that has singular officers who outranked all other officers in a particular armed force. Maybe we should think of spinning the list off to a stand along list and give it some name and criteria that makes a more useful list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we gonna remove some generalissimos that includes "marshal" in their rank or keep them in the list?
If the criteria we'll have is the former option, then we'll start removing the east asian generalissimos and the french generalissimos that has "marshal" as their rank?
RA9Markus (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't answer your question, I just ranted. At this point, if they have a citation that says they were referred to as a generalissimo, them they should be on the list. If they have no citation, one should check the article for a mention of generalissimo and a citation supporting it. I do not care to make judgment calls beyond citation being suitable and does it in fact say generalissimo. If we try excluding people because they do not seem generalissimo enough, then it is going to lead to silly arguments. Later perhaps I will take the time to review the entries on the list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it contradicting if we keep people listed here with a marshal rank which is widely accept by everyone, especially for the french generalissimos that holds the dignity rank of "marshal" and the rank of divisional general (major general) that was not even near of a generalissimo's? RA9Markus (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searches in Google Books show each of these have several references as generalissimo:
If we remove them, at some point people will come to the page and say "Look at all these citations! Put them back!". Logic matters little on Wikipedia, citations matter. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maximo Gomez[edit]

Dominican-born Military leader participating in three different wars, the most famous of which is the cuban war of independence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1ximo_G%C3%B3mez His rank indicates as "Generalissimo" RA9Markus (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea[edit]

I just reverted a mass deletion of the South Korean parts of the article by User:Footwiks and now opening this section to discuss the removal. His reasoning is that South Korea doesn't "officially" have a generalissimo rank; does the position of these individuals fall within the scope of this article or should they be removed as per Footwiks? ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to below article
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/036/0000023418?sid=104

군사혁 당시의 약속을 깨고 육군 대장으로 예편한다.
(means Park Chung-he was discharged as a four star gerneral)

Please refer to below article
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/001/0005740058?sid=100

8월22일 중장으로 예편했다.
(means Jang Do-young was discharged as a three star gerneral)

Chairman of the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction(국가재건최고회의 의장) is not

both Generalissimo and South Korean military rank.

Officially, Republic of Korea Armed Forces don't have Generalissimo and Field Marshal / General of the Army. Four-star gerneral is the highest military rank.

I also want to delete them in the list.

  • Yeon Gaesomun Military of Korea Goguryeo 642–665 Dae Magniji, overthrew Yeongnyu of Goguryeo and placed Bojang of Goguryeo, the nephew of Yeongnyu as his puppet and declared himself Dae Magniji (대막리지; 大莫離支) [53]
  • Yeon Namsaeng Military of Korea Goguryeo 665–666 Dae Magniji, succeeded his father Yeon Gaesomun, but was overthrown by his brother Yeon Nam-geon[54]
  • Yeon Nam-geon Military of Korea Goguryeo 666–668 Dae Magniji, overthrew his brother Yeon Namsaeng and was the last Generalissimo of Goguryeo before it fell against the Tang-Silla Alliance [54]

Generalissimo is the the rank of the modern military. Goguryeo is Korean ancient country in 37 BC–668 AD. We can't know the military rank of Goguryeo in detail.

I'm South Korean. Please believe me and don't waste your time.
Footwiks (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these individuals were added not because generalissimo was a rank, but because "a senior military officer becomes the head of state or head of government of a nation". I'll ping @Sunnyediting99: since he added all the South Korean entries to explain his reasoning. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean.
Park Chung-hee, Jang Do-young, Yeon Gaesomun, Yeon Namsaenga, Yeon Nam-geon - they are senior military officers and heads of government of a nation simultaneously.
In ancient countries, There are many national leaders who are senior military officers and heads of government of a nation simultaneously.
Do we have to list these national leaders in this article?
Firstly, We have to check out the definition of Generalissimo in this article.
Is definition senior military officer and head of government of a nation simultaneously?
I think that Definition of Generalissimo in this article is a military rank of the highest degree in the mordern military.
In this article, adding of national leaders who are senior military officers and heads of government of a nation simultaneously is the original research
Footwiks (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can see the points for Park Chung Hee and Jang Do-young's removal, specifically in that while they were military dictators, in that their positions they were senior military officers and heads of government of a nation at the same time. I think @Footwiks is right to remove Park and Jang.
However we actually do know the military rank of Goguryeo in detail, Dae Magniji (대막리지; 大莫離支; generalissimo). This was already in the Yeon Gaesomun wikipedia article before I had joined and according to the source that was put there <ref name="Kim">{{cite book|last1=Kim|first1=Jinwung|title=A History of Korea: From "Land of the Morning Calm" to States in Conflict|date=5 November 2012|publisher=Indiana University Press|isbn=978-0253000781|pages=50–51|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QFPsi3IK8gcC&pg=PA50|access-date=17 July 2016|language=en}}</ref> scholars do consider him a Generalissimo.
I can find more sources if you would like, but a lot of English and Korean literature both describe him as a Generalissimo. [1][2] (If we will use any of the sources please only use the first one, the second one is from KBS which is reliable but for some reason they keep not stating who wrote these articles). There's another source from the Korean Ministry of Culture itself that directly calls him "Generalissimo" though I will not be using that source since I know official government sources are frowned upon unless it's to directly quote a point.
So Yeon Gaesomun and his sons Yeon Namsaenga and Namgeon should be kept on the list given that the positions were an ancient equivalent of Generalissimo. It's not original research as Yeon is acknowledge via that title by both academics and also the Korean Government itself. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also an important point that needs to be addressed is that the term, as the Wikipedia defines it, "In the 20th century, the term came to be associated with military officers who took dictatorial power in their countries" hence why initially Park and Jang were included. I'm ok with removing them as I stated before if we want to play it strictly by title rather than the associations that the term has come with but for the Goguryeo example there is a clear title and also more importantly recognition from academics. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for historical figures predating both the creation of the term "generalissimo" and the current concept of a five-star general to be on this list. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, I think the best person to ping then might be @Aldis90 since I saw on the revision history of Yeon Gaesomun's wikipedia page in 2011 that Yeon had been added as a Generalissimo. I had included Yeon on the list given that I had saw he was listed as such on the page for nearly 12 years but had not been included on the list of Generalissimo. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to defination of Dae Magniji (대막리지) in the South Korean Doosan Wikipedia.
https://terms.naver.com/entry.naver?docId=534936&cid=46620&categoryId=46620
행정과 군사권을 장악한 최고관직이다.
=>
Means senior administrative official and senior military officer at the same time
We can understand the meaning of Dae Magniji (대막리지) as belows
(1) Prime minister and Minister of National Defense at the same time
(2) Senior administration Official and Highest Rank General at the same time
and so on.
That is to say, Dae Magniji (대막리지) is not sheer soldier.
I know that "Dae Magniji (대막리지)" was translated to "Generalissimo" in the English Book.
For English native reader's better understanding,
Translator just chose the English term - "Generalissimo" which is most similar in meaning to the "Dae Magniji (대막리지)"
This is not the reliable source. This is a just translator's original research.
I have a question, If Yeon Gaesomun and his sons are Generalissimos,
Are they the first Generalissimos in human history?
Did Korean ancient country - Goguryeo firstly create the position and concept of Generalissimo in human history?
This is clearly absurd.
I will say it again, What is the clear definition of Generalissimo in this article.
If Generalissimo's definition is senior military officer in the modern military.
We have to remove them on the list.
Footwiks (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point that you are saying, I also want to make it clear to ask if you are saying if I am doing original research or if the translator is? I specifically, clearly stated " I saw on the revision history of Yeon Gaesomun's wikipedia page in 2011 that Yeon had been added as a Generalissimo. I had included Yeon on the list given that I had saw he was listed as such on the page for nearly 12 years but had not been included on the list of Generalissimo." This was not my idea that Yeon was a Generalissimo, I added him and his sons because it had been on the page since 2011, 2007 if you include the Wikipedia page for original authors had made in 2007 and 2011 and that no one until now has disputed this point in the past 10-15 years. I want to clarify I do not believe Yeon or Goguryeo had the first right to the title, rather that I saw that it was listed in the entries for both Yeon and the Category that he had been on there for more than a decade and added him and his sons for uniformity.
I do think you make a compelling case and I am open to removing Yeon and the Goguryeo additions, though again the definition is somewhat muddied then for the Park and Jang cases because the meaning of Generalissimo has been muddied between the modern era. Also I do request that since you are requesting the change that you remove Yeon's Generalissimo section from his article as well as the category then if you want to go through with the change. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is as belows.
(1) Dae Magniji (대막리지) = Generalissimo
This is the original research and we don't have reliable source.
(2) Dae Magniji (대막리지). It's similar to the position and concept of modern era's prime minister and generalissimo at the same time.
That's a reasonable explanation and This explanation don't cause misunderstanding.
So Let's amend as belows
Yeon Gaesomun appointed himself the Dae Magniji (대막리지; 大莫離支; generalissimo)
=>
Yeon Gaesomun appointed himself the Dae Magniji (Korean: 대막리지; Hanja: 大莫離支, similar to the position of modern era's prime minister and generalissimo at the same time).
Go Jang, as King Bojang while wielding de facto control of Goguryeo himself as the generalissimo (Korean: 대막리지; Hanja: 大莫離支).
=>
Go Jang, as King Bojang while wielding de facto control of Goguryeo himself as the Dae Magniji (Korean: 대막리지; Hanja: 大莫離支, similar to the position of modern era's prime minister and generalissimo at the same time).
Let's remove Park, Jang, Yeon Gaesomun and his sons on the list.
What do you think of my opinion? Footwiks (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think that is a good idea, could we change the wording perhaps to "Dae Magniji (Korean: 대막리지; Hanja: 大莫離支, a position equivalent to a modern era dual office of prime minister and generalissimo)"
For the Generalissimo articles themselves, I agree, I think we should remove Park, Jang and Yeon's sons. Yeon himself I'm conflicted on removing completely, because he has been on the Wikipedia article for so long. Perhaps we could remove him from the list, but add him on the "See also" section at the end of the article with a brief description stating it is not Generalissimo but very similar to the position, something along the lines of.
Yeon Gaesomun of Goguryeo, who following a coup self-appointed himself as Dae Magniji (Korean: 대막리지; Hanja: 大莫離支, a position equivalent to a modern era dual office of prime minister and generalissimo).
Please let me know your thoughts. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am largely agreed on your idea. I amended article.
Please check out the articles and polish them.
Thanks! Footwiks (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have made a cursory check up and they seem good, ill let you know if they need any polishing later but good work! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Footwiks and Sunnyediting99: Glad we could find consensus! ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Surhone, Lambert (2010). Yeon Gaesomun: Three Kingdoms of Korea, Korea, Generalissimo, Goguryeo, Sin Chaeho. Betascript Publishing. p. Forward. Retrieved 31 March 2023.
  2. ^ "Yeon Gaesomun, Military Commander who Led Goguryeo to Victory over Invading Tang Chinese Forces". KBS World. Retrieved 31 March 2023.

Joseph Stalin[edit]

In the main page of Joseph Stalin, I reverted an edit that indicates that he is a marshal, not a generalissimo, but I changed it back to "Generalissimo of the Soviet Union" as I have done from the previous years, but the editors of the main page refuse to maintain or keep the rank, arguing that he rejected the rank, even though he adopted it by 1945, if he rejected it based on the editor in the main page of joseph stalin, then that means he should not be here in the generalissimo page if in the main page of joseph stalin he is not indicated as "generalissimo" RA9Markus (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generalissimo&oldid=1207381598"