The Marine Corps is a subordinate branch of the US Navy. This being the case, what is the historical basis for the Marines using Army rank titles (general, major, etc.)?
Sua
I will leave it up to others to give you the historical reason but I will try the common sense route. The Marines are most similar to the army in structure and operation. They are both ground fighting forces. It would not make any sense for the Marines to use the Navy’s rank structure at the higher ranks. Why would you promote someone to be an Admiral in the Marine Corps? I can see your point for some of the lower ranks but it was certainly much easier to copy what the army had already established as proper ranks for ground fighting forces. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the ranks for the 4 armed service branches:
I am probably not the best to respond to this either, since I was in the Army rather than either of the services under discussion. Let me begin by saying that Marines do not consider themselves or their service “subordinate” to the Navy. Affliated, perhaps, but definitely not subordinate.
Back to the OP, however, I think the rank thing goes back to the English who considered their Marines “sea-going soldiers”. The Marines’ responsibilities were felt to be not that of sailors but more those of their land-based bretheren. Their drills, their jobs and the like were all army-like rather than naval. And when a ship went into battle, their fighting techniques were done more like a land-based unit would function rather than how sailors might act.
I am willing to bet that originally Marines in England were land-based soldiers who were called upon to do marine-based duty. It would follow then that they would keep their soldier-type ranks.
Someone is going to jump all over me for this, but: TRADITION! The Royal Marines of the British armed forces predate the USMC. The Royal Marines use army rank, e.g. sergeant, private, lieutenant, captain, major, etc. The USMC simply followed the British pattern. The British used Army rank structure because the first organized marine forces were soldiers who had been assigned to serve on ships of the Royal Navy.
Incidently, their primary job in the Royal Navy was to suppress mutiny and desertion by shooting sailors and guarding the booze.
This site mentions it a little, basically what Spavined Gelding says.
Until about 1600, naval battles were like land battles fought on water. The idea was to board and take the enemy ships. The ships would be held together until one of the sides claimed victory. I remember reading a recount and it was like “we took their foc’s’cle and held it for two hours but could not advance. We were then repelled back to our vessel but managed to prevent their boarding…” this would go on for hours.
The soldiers and the sailors were two very distinct classes and they hated each other. The sailors’ job was to maneouver the ships into place so the soldiers could fight. Most of the time the ship was just sailing and the sailors considered the soldiers lazy bums who were good for nothing. Among sailors there was the insulting term “sojer” which would be used to call a slacker who would not pull his weight. The worst thing you could do to a sailor was to call him a sojer (soldier). Of course Soldiers thought sailors were cowards who lacked the courage to do the fighting. Sailors were subordinate to their own officers and soldiers were subordinate to their own.
So, ever since thouse days, the roles of navy and marines are quite distinct. Navy fight ships, marines don’t.
Not that this has anything to do particularly with the subject of the OP, but being an ex reserve officer in the Marine Corps, I feel it is my duty to inform you that:
The Marine Corps is older than the Navy.
That is one of the first facts they teach you.