Correspondence of ranks in the modern army to pre-revolutionary ranks

33
Correspondence of ranks in the modern army to pre-revolutionary ranks

Military ranks are the basis of the management system in the army and law enforcement agencies. They characterize the professionalism, degree of responsibility and official position of the person to whom they are assigned.

In Russia, such a concept as “military rank” appeared during the USSR in 1935. In the pre-revolutionary imperial army there were ranks instead of ranks.



Thus, the modern rank of private and corporal corresponded to the rank of the same name - private and corporal. At the same time, a sergeant in the pre-revolutionary Russian army was called a senior non-commissioned officer, and a junior sergeant was called a junior non-commissioned officer. At the same time, the senior sergeant was previously called a sergeant major. True, according to some experts, the latter was more consistent with the rank of foreman.

In turn, the rank of warrant officer is equivalent to the rank of sub-ensign, and senior warrant officer is equivalent to the rank of ordinary warrant officer. A lieutenant in the imperial army was called a second lieutenant, and a senior lieutenant was called a lieutenant.

Captains in the pre-revolutionary Russian army bore the rank of staff captain. Moreover, modern majors were then called captains.

The ranks of lieutenant colonel and colonel coincide with the ranks in the imperial army, as well as major general and lieutenant general. True, on pre-revolutionary shoulder straps, general ranks had one more star.

Colonel General did not exist in pre-revolutionary times. He corresponded to a general from a separate branch of the army - infantry, cavalry, artillery, etc.

The Marshal of the Russian Federation, in turn, corresponds to the pre-revolutionary Field Marshal General.

Finally, the General of the Russian Army has no equivalent among the ranks of the Imperial Army.

33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    10 January 2024 10: 49
    the rank of warrant officer is equivalent to the rank of sub-ensign, and senior warrant officer is equivalent to the rank of ordinary warrant officer.

    I remembered a joke that was common during my service in the SA.
    - What is the difference between a Soviet ensign and a Tsar’s?
    Tsarsky is blue-shaven and slightly drunk.
    Soviet - slightly shaved and blue-drunk. :)))
    coincide with the ranks in the imperial army, as well as major general and lieutenant general.

    The main confusion in ranks is why a lieutenant general is higher than a major general (although a lieutenant is lower in rank than a major) migrated to the Soviet, and then Russian, army from the tsarist army.
    But then, it seems, there were not enough ranks (the rank of major general was introduced by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1698, and the rank of lieutenant general was later introduced by his son Peter 1.)
    But why the confused legacy of the tsarist regime was transferred to the Soviet army is a mystery.
    1. 0
      10 January 2024 11: 09
      Quote from solar
      ranks - why a lieutenant general is higher than a major general (although a lieutenant is lower in rank than a major) migrated to the Soviet, and then Russian, army from the tsarist one.

      Everything is simple here. A major is one star; in the general's rank it is lower than that of a lieutenant general.
      1. 0
        10 January 2024 11: 20
        According to this logic, it was necessary to introduce not a lieutenant general, but a lieutenant colonel general :))
        1. 0
          10 January 2024 14: 39
          Hello!
          A lieutenant general is a lieutenant general. Tracing paper from British ranks.
          The British have a lieutenant colonel - colonel, a colonel - colonel.
          1. +1
            11 January 2024 11: 32
            Tracing paper from British ranks.
            The British have a lieutenant colonel - colonel, a colonel - colonel.

            This is the case with the French initially, not with the British. There is a lieutenant general higher than a major general in many countries due to tradition.
            There is another explanation for this discrepancy. The rank of sergeant was used in the sergeant-major combination as an assistant to officers of various ranks.
            The apparent inconsistency that a lieutenant general is superior to a major general (while a major is superior to a lieutenant) is due to the major general's descent from a sergeant general major, which was a rank subordinate to a lieutenant general (since a lieutenant is superior to a sergeant -major). Some countries (such as the Balkan states) use the rank of lieutenant colonel general instead of lieutenant general in an attempt to resolve this apparent anomaly. [1]

            Afterwards, the word major was removed from the lower ranks of sergeant-major, and from the upper ranks - sergeant - they became sergeants, majors and major generals.
            In the Middle Ages, in Western European mercenary and standing troops there were several gradations of sergeants:
            ...
            under the regimental commander (staff trumpeter with the rank of regimental sergeant major, who later turned into a major)...
            under the commander-in-chief (sergeant-general-major, later renamed major-general on duty).

            Over time, the term "sergeant" was dropped from both titles, leading to the modern ranks of major and major general.

            But there was no such tradition in the Soviet Army, since it was created independently of the tsarist one, so it was quite possible to remove the discrepancy. Perhaps they introduced it, focusing on Western traditions for convenience in contacts with the allies at that time.
      2. -3
        10 January 2024 12: 51
        THOSE generals knew the horse from the inside. Only. And in the USSR - engines of its own production, the USSR - Russian Federation can assign any ranks to the Strategic Missile Forces, Aerospace Forces and Navy. At least sergeant major marshal. 7 stars. These do not depend on farmans and plymouth shipyards
      3. 0
        13 January 2024 21: 29
        Nothing like this. The sizes are different. If you think like this, a major should be younger than a lieutenant, since he has 2 stars. Below I wrote why Mr. is younger than Mr.
    2. +1
      11 January 2024 13: 31
      The rank of lieutenant appeared much earlier than major. Initially: lieutenant - deputy commander. Lieutenant of the Royal Musketeers - did not command any part of the musketeers, but was the deputy captain. Lieutenant General - Deputy. general.
    3. -2
      13 January 2024 21: 25
      If it's a joke, then we should introduce a lieutenant-colonel general instead of a lieutenant general. A lieutenant colonel is still higher than a major. But seriously, major is an arbitrary pronunciation of the master. In the United States, Master Sgt. Ours often transferred him as major sergeant. But here the master is lower than the lieutenant. In addition, I read that if in France (in the old days) a lieutenant commanded a section, then the sections were divided into smaller ones, which were precisely commanded by the majors. After 1917, abandoning the titles of Tsarist Russia, the USSR adopted the titles of France. Even the battleship was given the name "Marat". The revolution in France was taken into account in revolutionary Russia.
  2. HAM
    +4
    10 January 2024 10: 58
    And Lieutenant Rzhevsky is the most famous of all times....
  3. 0
    10 January 2024 11: 02
    Interesting and educational. If only a continuation about the fleet would be logical. There are probably fewer differences there.
  4. +3
    10 January 2024 11: 05
    In the USSR, the same ranks were not only in the army, but also in the police, military forces and even the KGB.
    And in the Russian Empire there were army, guards, naval, and Cossack ranks.
    1. +1
      11 January 2024 20: 10
      Not always. In 1935, when personal military ranks were introduced, the NKVD ranks were two levels higher than the army ones: state security sergeant = lieutenant, state security major = brigade commander. They were equalized in 1943.
      Until 1943, doctors, lawyers, quartermasters and engineers also had their own titles: military technician, military engineer, military doctor, etc. with ranks. For political workers: political instructor, senior political instructor, battalion commissar, etc.
  5. +5
    10 January 2024 11: 19
    Very superficial, with some inaccuracies, probably ok for schoolchildren and women.
    The rank of captain in the imperial army, according to the Table of Ranks, corresponded to VIII class, the rank of staff captain corresponded to IX class
    1. +3
      10 January 2024 11: 53
      The rank of captain in the imperial army, according to the Table of Ranks, corresponded to VIII class, the rank of staff captain corresponded to IX class

      Everything is correct. The lower the class number according to the Table of Ranks, the higher the rank. The captain is taller than the staff captain.
      The author did not write that there was also a division into non-commissioned officers, chief officers (junior officer ranks, grades 9-14) and staff officers (senior officer ranks, usually grades 6-8).
      Staff captain is chief officer, captain is staff officer.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Табель_о_рангах
  6. +1
    10 January 2024 13: 18
    It can also be noted that there was, unfortunately, the disappeared concept of “qualification”, i.e. There could not be phony colonel-generals in nature; to receive, for example, a lieutenant colonel and standing in a staff position, the rank of colonel, you had to command a regiment for some time and only after that, the rank would be awarded upon returning to a staff position.. t .e. any commander had experience in commanding a military unit at his level, and did not grow from lieutenant to general of staff like some current “generals” ..
    1. 0
      10 January 2024 20: 22
      Well, did this system help them during the Crimean War, the Russian-Japanese War, the First World War, and even the Civil War?
      Yes, and the Russian-Turkish 1877-1878. ended as a result so-so....
      Here's the qualification......
      Battalion commanders at 50 years old.
      They gave the orders.
      1. -1
        11 January 2024 09: 04
        and what is better - colonel-generals who, while still a lieutenant, went to headquarters and already wear big stars, did not even command a battalion? Would they have been better able to command in the wars you listed? Do they understand combat officers better? and in general, who annexed Transcaucasia and Northern Asia? under whom did Russia have the largest territory in history? oh, it seems with them - right?
        1. 0
          11 January 2024 16: 29
          Well, firstly, all of Siberia was annexed not by the staff captain and entrusted to the Rzhevskys, but by wandering Cossacks.
          They're still bandits.
          But it was these staff captains and major generals who screwed up all these Baltic states, the Caucasus, Siberia and Central Asia in 1917-1920.
          And Stalin’s paint committees and political commissars brought all this back by 1945.
          Medical fact.
          1. -1
            12 January 2024 07: 31
            let me shorten the question then and be happy to compare it now and the royal army? wink and what is better - colonel-generals who, while still a lieutenant, went to headquarters and already wear big stars, did not even command a battalion? Do they understand combat officers better?
            1. -1
              12 January 2024 14: 05
              Well, what good could a young lieutenant in the tsarist army have learned over the last 100 years of its existence?
              Rich and noble in the guards regiments? Drink champagne, fuck ballerinas and play cards. They appeared in their companies once a week.
              Good COMBAT experience.
              Not rich and not noble in the regiment in Barnaul? March, drink vodka and dream of captain's shoulder straps for demobilization (read "The Duel" by Kuprin).
              They had no combat experience in modern IM warfare.
              And they didn’t want to analyze someone else’s.
              It’s funny: there was a General Staff Academy, but there was NO General Staff itself.
              The fleet, guards, and artillery were commanded by the king’s uncles, who stole half the money allocated for these types of troops.
              They were probably Ukrainians by blood.
              Here is the result: for the last hundred years, the imperial army has lost ALL wars.
              They coped with native armies of the 15th century level in Central Asia and Polish rebels armed with scythes.
              How the US Army dealt with the Panama Army.
              1. -1
                12 January 2024 17: 30
                1. why do you always prove to me that the tsarist army was very bad? I’m not talking about this at all, but specifically about the qualifications... is it better when there is a colonel-general who didn’t even command a battalion? or better yet, when one way or another he commanded a battalion-regiment, this is a specific question... yes or no..
                2. if your Russian army is so insignificant, then read the history - who created Russia in general and how many wars and victories there were, and not just look at the defeats.. Did the Russian (Tsarist) army create Russia? Not really
                3. do not forget that the Russian army before 1917, not equal to tsarism, accomplished a lot of things for the Glory of Russian weapons - both nobles and non-nobles... and there were parquet generals and non-parquet ones, but there was no general who received a rank without command before this regiment - division, is that bad? Not really
                4. And now the security forces are commanded by people who graduated from the General Staff? Not really
                1. 0
                  12 January 2024 21: 56
                  Well, about the qualifications.
                  The fact is that they DIDN’T COMMAND these units/formations/subunits, but WAS SITTING OUT THE TIME.
                  They had no incentive to improve in their profession. As a result, talented officers/generals and stupid people had the same career growth.
                  For the last 100 years, there have been no Murats, no Bluchers, no Rokossovskys, or even Chapaevs in the Russian army.
                  In PURE military terms, they are a gray herd.
                  This is what the RESULTS of the civil war showed.
                  Read about the Yegorlyk cavalry battle - the largest cavalry battle not only of civilians, but of the 20th century in general.
                  The Reds, who were in the minority and led by the VAKHMISTER, ransacked the qualification generals, including Kutepov, and drove them to Novorossiysk, where they drowned them in the sea (who did not escape).
                  Or even earlier - the completion of the Ice Campaign.
                  The Whites (cadets and officers, all lieutenants Golitsyn and cornets Obolensky) under the leadership of the “legend” of the army and society of the Republic of Ingushetia, General Kornilov, fought on the outskirts of Yekaterinodar with a hastily recruited crowd of tannery workers, demobilized soldiers and farm laborers under the command of a FEMALE SHER!
                  I repeat: FEDERAL SHER, Karl!
                  Without qualification for command of a platoon/company/battalion/star legion.
                  And without "military experts".
                  The whites were dispersed into back streets and the general was killed.
                  The Patamushtas knew nothing about the licensing system.
  7. 0
    10 January 2024 14: 07
    [/quote]At the same time, modern majors were then called captains. [quote]
    - wrong. A captain in the pre-revolutionary army was a chief officer, one rank in pursuit, and a modern major is a senior officer, two ranks in pursuit. These titles do not correspond to each other.
    For some reason, the author forgot about the naval officers; it was even more interesting there. But by and large, a worthless article. If we are to consider the topic, we must take it from Peter and further.
  8. 0
    10 January 2024 15: 22
    Well, well... and on what date were the titles taken from RIA????
    captain-lieutenant where????
    Prime Major where??
    Second Lieutenant...
    Fourier...
    Vice-sergeant of the life campaign....
    Captainarmus.....
  9. -1
    10 January 2024 21: 58
    Quote: S.Z.
    Interesting and educational. If only a continuation about the fleet would be logical. There are probably fewer differences there.

    Until 1907 (or 1909, I don’t remember exactly) there were only two senior officer ranks in the navy, midshipman, one rank, one star, and lieutenant, one rank, three stars. And two headquarters officer ranks, cap two, two gaps, three stars and cap once, two gaps without stars.
    Therefore, people who make fun of Lieutenant Schmidt, saying that he is already a grown man, and is still a lieutenant, are, to put it mildly, wrong. In lieutenants, i.e. as captain's assistants, they served for decades.
    Then terrible lieutenants appeared, droplets. Quite earlier there were cap three.
    By the way, the senior officer of Gangut, if I’m not mistaken, had the rank of senior lieutenant, this is on a dreadnought battleship!
  10. +1
    11 January 2024 12: 55
    The methodology itself for comparing the correspondence of ranks in the USSR and pre-revolutionary Russia by the number of stripes and stars on shoulder straps is, to put it mildly, very weak... Well, the article is appropriate.
    I expected more...
  11. -1
    12 January 2024 10: 11
    It seems to me that for many “generals” the title (synonym) of CONSTRUCTOR is suitable.
    The title must be EARNED. But how many “servicemen” DESERVE???
    How many people can honestly say:
    "I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SERVE, BUT SERVING IS SICKING..."
  12. -1
    12 January 2024 10: 11
    It seems to me that for many “generals” the title (synonym) of CONSTRUCTOR is suitable.
    The title must be EARNED. But how many “servicemen” DESERVE???
    How many people can honestly say:
    "I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SERVE, BUT SERVING IS SICKING..."
  13. -1
    14 January 2024 08: 21
    There was no rank of lieutenant in the tsarist army; there was a lieutenant. In the French army, the lieutenant comes after the major. Therefore, a major general is younger than a lieutenant general. The lieutenant general was retained in the Soviet army, and the lieutenant was replaced with a lieutenant. That is why this discrepancy appeared.
  14. 0
    15 January 2024 08: 02
    Quote: Alexandr Romanov
    There was no rank of lieutenant in the tsarist army; there was a lieutenant. In the French army, the lieutenant comes after the major. Therefore, a major general is younger than a lieutenant general. The lieutenant general was retained in the Soviet army, and the lieutenant was replaced by a lieutenant. That is why this discrepancy appeared.
  15. 0
    25 February 2024 00: 33
    It’s just that instead of a major general, we need to return a brigadier general. And there will be no confusion. Rear Admiral in the Navy and Brigadier General in the Infantry and Air Force. But for me, Major General is normal, there is no continuity.
  16. 0
    8 March 2024 00: 30
    A weak article and without arguments, a table of ranks of the Tsarist and Soviet with an approximate comparison is presented. As for the ranks of the “security forces”, it is not covered at all, and we should not forget that the ranks of the majority of the “security forces” have nothing to do with the military. Although we have a certain HERALDIC service which has been delegated the authority to determine military ranks and other ranks. It’s not even possible to put things in order...