"Six Stars"? Who Were They?

[Tartuffe52]

@Polycarp

General officer rank in the military of most countries is usually symbolized by insignia featuring one or more stars, Brigadier Generals (US), Brigadiers (UK), Rear Admirals (Lower Half), and the equivalent in other nations’ forces getting one star, Major Generals and Rear Admirals (Upper Half) getting two, and so on.

The guy who outranks a four-star general, though, is a Field Marshal, Fleet Admiral, Air Marshal, etc. (slight variations in translated title across national militaries). The US Army and Air Force is a slight exception: to avoid making Gen. George Catlett Marshall “Field Marshal Marshall,” our five star ranks were “General of the Army” and “General of the Air Force.”

A very few people in history were given a rank which outranks even the five-star generals, marshals, and admirals. The three I’m aware of all have some story or controversy attached to the name:

[ul][li]George Washington, made “General of the Armies,” but AFAIK all his subordinates were Lieutenant Generals or lower ranks.[/li][li]Jack Pershing was made “General of the Armies” and instructed to design his own insignia, but apparently never did so. He was alive but long since retired when we entered WWII, IIRC.[/li][li]Hermann Goering was created Reichsmarshall in Nazi Germany, and specifically made to outrank any Feldmarschall or Floetadmiral. Goering actually did not deserve the promotion in military terms; it was a political ploy.[/ul][/li]
There is always some interesting debate about whether Washington or Pershing was actually awarded a rank equivalent to six stars.

I’m curious as to what other examples of promotion beyond Field Marshal / Admiral of the Fleet happened in history, and any relevant stories behind them.

Note that this does not define being given a command that entitles one to give orders to men of one’s own rank. For example, Eisenhower as SHAEF commander outranked Bradley and Patton in terms of command, but held the same rank as they; it was task, not rank, that entitled him to give them orders.

Who else, if any, got this rank? Why? Is it subject to debate whether or not it really happened (as with Washington and Pershing)?

As you were undoubtedly aware, General MacArthur was in command of allied forces in the Korean War, he wore 5 stars. He was fired from his job by the Joint Chiefs of Staff all of whom wore 4 stars.

[Lazlo]

If I may be allowed a minor aside, what does SHAEF stand for? The H is throwing me for a loop. I thought it was Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces.

[Monty]

Do you mean SHAPE? That’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.

[Baron_Greenback]

SHAEF=Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force

[Lazlo]

Gotta love the 'Dope for instant gratification. Thanks!

[Martin_Hyde]

General of the Army is the highest rank that has ever been in “common usage.” Although it’s been a long time since we’ve been in a World War II level conflict the general consensus is the 5-star rank is to be reserved for major wars like WWII; and that Congress would probably bring it back if we were in WWIII.

Its primary purpose was indeed to create officers who were on par with European Field Marshals, the reason the rank was called “General of the Army” to my knowledge has nothing to do with trying to avoid “Field Marshal Marshall” but just simply because the term Field Marshal itself sounds very European and thus a more American rank name was preferred, and Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan had all successively held the rank “General of the Army” in the mid-19th century so there was precedent for using that rank.

I think theoretically General of the Armies is still the “highest rank” and clearly superior to “General of the Army” (5-Star). However it was clearly conferred as a “title” and not an operational rank. There is also a popular myth that Pershing was given this rank so that he would be equivalent to European Field Marshals and thus more on equal footing when dealing with other Allies. This was not the case, the rank was given after the war as a reward. During the war he was a Major General and later a full General. There wasn’t actually a need to promote him to the equivalent of “Field Marshal”, he was the commander of the AEF and he could be a colonel and still not be subordinate to a British Field Marshal.

It was clarified during WWII that yes, Pershing “outranked” every other officer in the United States military, including all of the 5-star generals. He was also given the right to design an insignia for his special rank, which he did not do. It could have been 6-stars, but it wouldn’t have to be, when Sherman was “General of the Army” in the mid-19th century (a rank not the same as the WWII “General of the Army”, but simply a special rank used during and after the Civil War to designate the highest ranked officer in the U.S. Army) he broke the convention of that being a 4-Star rank and made the insignia 2-stars with the U.S. coat of arms in between them.

There was thus, never any 6-Star general. Pershing wore 4-Stars, WWII era General of the Army was a 5-star rank. Washington had a title created for him during his lifetime roughly called “General of the Armies of the United States” but he was never promoted to that rank and when he died was listed as a Lt. General.

General of the Armies had no real function other than as a reward to Pershing and posthumously to Wasington.

The mid-19th century “General of the Army” rank is arguably the same thoeretically as “General of the Armies” because it was a special rank only held by one person at any one time and signified the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army. However it was a 4-Star rank initially and it had actual functional purpose in that the persons who held this rank (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan) were actually active military officers whereas Pershing held his rank mostly as a title.

[Loach]

@Martin Hyde

General of the Army is the highest rank that has ever been in “common usage.” Although it’s been a long time since we’ve been in a World War II level conflict the general consensus is the 5-star rank is to be reserved for major wars like WWII; and that Congress would probably bring it back if we were in WWIII.

Its primary purpose was indeed to create officers who were on par with European Field Marshals, the reason the rank was called “General of the Army” to my knowledge has nothing to do with trying to avoid “Field Marshal Marshall” but just simply because the term Field Marshal itself sounds very European and thus a more American rank name was preferred, and Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan had all successively held the rank “General of the Army” in the mid-19th century so there was precedent for using that rank.

I think theoretically General of the Armies is still the “highest rank” and clearly superior to “General of the Army” (5-Star). However it was clearly conferred as a “title” and not an operational rank. There is also a popular myth that Pershing was given this rank so that he would be equivalent to European Field Marshals and thus more on equal footing when dealing with other Allies. This was not the case, the rank was given after the war as a reward. During the war he was a Major General and later a full General. There wasn’t actually a need to promote him to the equivalent of “Field Marshal”, he was the commander of the AEF and he could be a colonel and still not be subordinate to a British Field Marshal.

It was clarified during WWII that yes, Pershing “outranked” every other officer in the United States military, including all of the 5-star generals. He was also given the right to design an insignia for his special rank, which he did not do. It could have been 6-stars, but it wouldn’t have to be, when Sherman was “General of the Army” in the mid-19th century (a rank not the same as the WWII “General of the Army”, but simply a special rank used during and after the Civil War to designate the highest ranked officer in the U.S. Army) he broke the convention of that being a 4-Star rank and made the insignia 2-stars with the U.S. coat of arms in between them.

There was thus, never any 6-Star general. Pershing wore 4-Stars, WWII era General of the Army was a 5-star rank. Washington had a title created for him during his lifetime roughly called “General of the Armies of the United States” but he was never promoted to that rank and when he died was listed as a Lt. General.

General of the Armies had no real function other than as a reward to Pershing and posthumously to Wasington.

The mid-19th century “General of the Army” rank is arguably the same thoeretically as “General of the Armies” because it was a special rank only held by one person at any one time and signified the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army. However it was a 4-Star rank initially and it had actual functional purpose in that the persons who held this rank (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan) were actually active military officers whereas Pershing held his rank mostly as a title.

General consensus by who? We will never see the 5-star rank again. The main reason for the 5-star rank in WWII was not the size of the war, it was the size of the military. Since there are now only a fraction of the number of divisions in the army, the rank is not needed. Now the term army is used to signify just a branch of service. Then it was used as a term for a specific unit, and there were many of them. 4 star generals usually commanded an army. A rank was needed to separate the officer who had command of several armies. There were just a shitload of 4-stars running around then. The military was huge and spread out. 5-star rank was necessary.

Yes there were other factors. Ike couldn’t be outranked by Monty. Ike needed to be at the same level as MacArthur. Ike was a colonel in 1940. MacArthur was a 4-star general and former chief of staff. And of course Marshall couldn’t be outranked by either of them.

There will never be a need for 5-star rank again, the military will never be that big. Even if there is a WWIII. Back in 1991 there was talk (not in the military) that Gen Powell would be given a 5th star as a reward. That of course didn’t happen because there is no need.

[A.R.Cane]

There is another factor that might be thrown into the mix that might explain Pershings promotion. There used to be a policy of bumping a retiring flag officer up one rank, as a kind of reward for service. I think this started out to reward top performers, or those who had distinguished themselves in some way. It eventualy became routine. I think the policy was stopped in the late 50’s or early 60’s., not sure when it got it’s start, could have gone back to the civil war, or beyond.

[Polycarp]

Martin, while I won’t dispute your point about American Europhobia, everything I’ve read about World War II, from Roosevelt biographies to military histories, suggests that the primary reason for not using “Field Marshal” for the five-star rank was Gen. George C. Marshall – some references saying he himself was vehement against it, others that it was a consensus by Roosevelt, Stinson, Marshal, et al. that it would be an awkward usage in Marshall’s case, so the rank for all of them was General of the Army.

Clarifying note: We still have multiple armies in the sense of “what a 4-star general commands, three or more corps taken together as a unit,” but I gather that they’re each composed of a few active divisions and numerous reserve divisions. How this relates to command of the active Army, I’m not clear.

[Raguleader]

@Polycarp

Clarifying note: We still have multiple armies in the sense of “what a 4-star general commands, three or more corps taken together as a unit,” but I gather that they’re each composed of a few active divisions and numerous reserve divisions. How this relates to command of the active Army, I’m not clear.

Back in WWII and WWI, did they have “Commands” like we do now? ie: Central Command, Pacific Command, Northern Command, etc.? A Command might just be the de-facto modern equivilant of an Army.

A random amusing note, while we may not currently have multiple Armies in the US Army, the Air Force does have multiple Air Forces. I think an Air Force is equivilant to a Division, but a lot of stuff doesn’t seem to transfer over directly, organization-wise.

[David_Simmons]

@Raguleader

Back in WWII and WWI, did they have “Commands” like we do now? ie: Central Command, Pacific Command, Northern Command, etc.? A Command might just be the de-facto modern equivilant of an Army.

A random amusing note, while we may not currently have multiple Armies in the US Army, the Air Force does have multiple Air Forces. I think an Air Force is equivilant to a Division, but a lot of stuff doesn’t seem to transfer over directly, organization-wise.

Not exactly, but there was something similar. ETO for European Theater of Operations (Northern Europe). The MED, Mediterranean Theater of Operations (North Africa, Southern Europe, Mid East). CBI, or China-Burma-India Theater of Operations. Southwest Pacific Theater and Asiatic-Pacific theater (Mid Pacific)

I think an Air Force within the Air Force is equivalent to an Army (or perhaps a Corps) within the Army. Within an Air Force were various Commands, such as Bomber or Fighter. Below that were Wings which were sort of like divisions and then Groups which were equivalent to regiments. However, the correspondence wasn’t exact.

[Loach]

@Polycarp

Martin, while I won’t dispute your point about American Europhobia, everything I’ve read about World War II, from Roosevelt biographies to military histories, suggests that the primary reason for not using “Field Marshal” for the five-star rank was Gen. George C. Marshall – some references saying he himself was vehement against it, others that it was a consensus by Roosevelt, Stinson, Marshal, et al. that it would be an awkward usage in Marshall’s case, so the rank for all of them was General of the Army.

Clarifying note: We still have multiple armies in the sense of “what a 4-star general commands, three or more corps taken together as a unit,” but I gather that they’re each composed of a few active divisions and numerous reserve divisions. How this relates to command of the active Army, I’m not clear.

There are no more armies in the old sense. There are only 10 or 11 divisions left. There were well over 100 during WWII. There are only a few corps left. Active duty generals do not command National Guard divisions unless they are activated. They used to have a thing called “capstone” where a NG division is slotted to be in an active corps when activated but that is a cold war hold-over (and the corps commander still wasn’t in actual command unless there was an activation). It diesn’t fit in the new concept of Units of Action and Brigade Combat Teams. Even still at the most now you will have one 4-star general in command of one Army in a particular theater of operation. Ike had multiple armies under his command.

[hajario]

@David Simmons

The, “it’s the position that counts” can get a little trickey. For example, the Officer of the Day (OD) is the base commander’s direct representative and has all the authority needed to maintain order.

Another example of this would be if there was a small army base. The base is small so a Colonel would be in charge of the entire base. Also located on the base might be the headquarters of some group that only has a few people on that base but also offices on a bunch of other bases too. The total number of people in that group could be much more people on the base where the headquarters is located so the group is headed by a Brig. General. Even though the BG is a higher rank, the Colonel is the one who gets to say what happens on the base.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Loach

General consensus by who? We will never see the 5-star rank again. The main reason for the 5-star rank in WWII was not the size of the war, it was the size of the military. Since there are now only a fraction of the number of divisions in the army, the rank is not needed. Now the term army is used to signify just a branch of service. Then it was used as a term for a specific unit, and there were many of them. 4 star generals usually commanded an army. A rank was needed to separate the officer who had command of several armies. There were just a shitload of 4-stars running around then. The military was huge and spread out. 5-star rank was necessary.

Yes there were other factors. Ike couldn’t be outranked by Monty. Ike needed to be at the same level as MacArthur. Ike was a colonel in 1940. MacArthur was a 4-star general and former chief of staff. And of course Marshall couldn’t be outranked by either of them.

There will never be a need for 5-star rank again, the military will never be that big. Even if there is a WWIII. Back in 1991 there was talk (not in the military) that Gen Powell would be given a 5th star as a reward. That of course didn’t happen because there is no need.

I doubt we’ll know in our lifetimes. I see no reason to set in stone the idea that 100 years from now there won’t be a conflict requiring a huge army. Technology, tactics, et al. are ever changing to assume the current state of affairs is permanent is foolish.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Polycarp

Martin, while I won’t dispute your point about American Europhobia, everything I’ve read about World War II, from Roosevelt biographies to military histories, suggests that the primary reason for not using “Field Marshal” for the five-star rank was Gen. George C. Marshall – some references saying he himself was vehement against it, others that it was a consensus by Roosevelt, Stinson, Marshal, et al. that it would be an awkward usage in Marshall’s case, so the rank for all of them was General of the Army.

Clarifying note: We still have multiple armies in the sense of “what a 4-star general commands, three or more corps taken together as a unit,” but I gather that they’re each composed of a few active divisions and numerous reserve divisions. How this relates to command of the active Army, I’m not clear.

Likewise in everything I’ve read I’ve never heard anything other than the “Field Marshal Marshall” thing is mostly urban legend. The rank “General of the Army” already existed prior to George C. Marshall being born as the rank superior to General, it really doesn’t make historical sense that the Army would invent the rank of Field Marshal.

[Loach]

@Martin Hyde

I doubt we’ll know in our lifetimes. I see no reason to set in stone the idea that 100 years from now there won’t be a conflict requiring a huge army. Technology, tactics, et al. are ever changing to assume the current state of affairs is permanent is foolish.

Ok I’ll change my answer from “never happen” to “extremely unlikely to happen”. I think it is more likely that the proposed Gen Powell situation would happen first, that is that the rank will be given for some bullshit political reason as a reward rather than for any real need.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Loach

Ok I’ll change my answer from “never happen” to “extremely unlikely to happen”. I think it is more likely that the proposed Gen Powell situation would happen first, that is that the rank will be given for some bullshit political reason as a reward rather than for any real need.

I think that just because there is an increasing reorganization of the military into smaller operational units there’s nothing to say that precludes the need at some point for a 5-Star general.

I mean, USCENTCOM covers Central Asia and the Middle East.

The current CENTCOM commander is Gen. John Abizaid. One of the persons under his commander is Gen. George Casey, who is commander of MNF-Iraq. The Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan, which is also ultimately under the authority of CENTCOM and Gen. John Abizaid is commanded by Lt. General Eikenberry. But it isn’t necessarily unlikely that the situation could be the force in Afghanistan is commanded by a full General. In which case Gen. John Abizaid would be directly superior to two full generals operating in different conflicts simultaneously. It isn’t really a stretch to argue someone in that position might be justified in being promoted to General of the Army.

[David_Simmons]

@Raguleader

A random amusing note, while we may not currently have multiple Armies in the US Army, the Air Force does have multiple Air Forces. I think an Air Force is equivilant to a Division, but a lot of stuff doesn’t seem to transfer over directly, organization-wise.

Well, I found an org chart for the Ninth AF in WWII, as of 6 June 1944.

Going up the echelon of command starting with Group = Regiment
Wing = Division
Command = Corps
Air Force = Army.

This also carries through. The commander of an Air Force reported to the Commander of Air Forces in Europe just as the commander of an Army reported to the Commander of Ground Forces in Europe and they both reported to SHAEF.

[Loach]

@Martin Hyde

I think that just because there is an increasing reorganization of the military into smaller operational units there’s nothing to say that precludes the need at some point for a 5-Star general.

I mean, USCENTCOM covers Central Asia and the Middle East.

The current CENTCOM commander is Gen. John Abizaid. One of the persons under his commander is Gen. George Casey, who is commander of MNF-Iraq. The Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan, which is also ultimately under the authority of CENTCOM and Gen. John Abizaid is commanded by Lt. General Eikenberry. But it isn’t necessarily unlikely that the situation could be the force in Afghanistan is commanded by a full General. In which case Gen. John Abizaid would be directly superior to two full generals operating in different conflicts simultaneously. It isn’t really a stretch to argue someone in that position might be justified in being promoted to General of the Army.

It is a pretty big stretch when you consider what the rank was used for originally. Centcom is set up as a shadow command, it has very few troops assigned directly to it (just like Southcom, Paccom etc). When there is a reason for it, such as the current conflict, then however many units are needed are attached to it. The chain of command should remain pretty clear without conflicts even though one or two of the subordinates have the same pay grade. After all the chief of staff is a 4 star also. In WWII Ike had 3 Army Groups which included 8 combined Armies. Each one of those armies probably came close to the total amount of soldiers in all of the line divisions we have now. Add to that the air and navy assests he controlled. He was in command of probably dozens of 4-stars and field marshalls. The difference in scale is truly amazing. There are 140,000 troops in Iraq and considerably less than that in Afghanistan. And Abizad wasn’t jumped up from colonel over all his peers to command them. It doesn’t compare.

[Martin_Hyde]

So? Why does it have to compare? Why do we have to follow the exact same practice as we followed in WWII? Scale isn’t really that big an issue to me, if there’s a clear need for higher levels of command and if making someone 5-Star general made things a bit more logical and concise, I’d advocate in favor of it wholeheartedly.

SHAEF wasn’t that different than an outfit like CENTCOM, by the way.