Talk:Generalissimus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge this with Generalissimo? It's always spelled "Generalissimo" in English. --Jiang 08:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Jiang. The only use of this phrase I can recall (other than colloquial) is for Spain...perhaps leave the article here and make Generalissimo a redirect? I don't have strong feelings either way. Jwrosenzweig 08:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The other spelling is linked at Chiang Kai-shek. --Jiang 08:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hopefully this will work; I'm wondering if the histories should be merged though. - Hephaestos 08:14, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The D. Franco" -- is that an abbreviation for Dictator ? If so, why abbreviate it ?

Click on the D. :) - Hephaestos 08:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see, thank you. It is Spanglish for "El D. Francisco Franco" right ?

I have never seen Fidel Castro referred to as "Generalismo/Generalissimo", can someone provide some evidence ? Hauser 18:38, 2 May 2004 (NZEST)

He isn't. Neither was Pinochet. Removed those examples.

Roadrunner 18:19, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the rather long discussion at the beginning of the article regarding Italian grammar. It doesn't add much to the information and seems a little pedantic. Any thoughts?

Agreed, especially since "General" really was an adjective originally (see the Wikipedia article for "General"). Jbhood 08:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting discussion on Italian grammar now. Jbhood 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the deletion of the Italian grammar section and it should be noted that "Generalissimus", though nowdays rarely used in the English language is an equal historical term.RicJac 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Severiano Javier Figueira Liste de Juncal

The only reference I could find regarding this individual was this one. As it seems to be nonsensical, I've removed it. This page seems to have been removed from the live Wikipedia, so I'm pretty sure it's just a stupid vanity page thing.

Lankiveil 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Dictator vs. Supreme Commander

This article describes "generalissimi" of at least three distinct kinds: military commanders of exceptional significance, absolute rulers whose claim to legitimacy was/is based principally on their military background, and holders of the literal title "generalissimo", some of whom never commanded an army. I think it's appropriate to comment on all three in this one article but to disambiguate them to the extent possible. I've made an initial attempt. Comments? Michael K. Edwards 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the disambiguation you have made. It should be a long-term goal to have each specific Generalissimo/Generalissimus explained and properly sourced in one large section. The historical European/Asian usage of the term is by far more important and encyclopedic than the 20th century usage in banana republics, though this of course must also be explained properly.RicJac 13:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's silly to lump Anthony Ulrich II, who wouldn't have known what to do with an army if he had one, into the same list with Albrecht von Wallenstein and John J. Pershing. It's only marginally less silly to omit Dewey (supreme field commander who happened to get there by way of a naval career) and add Goering (whose climb to power had very little to do with his actual military career and whose title of Reichsmarschall was on par with Stalin's self-award of Generalissimus stature). I went to considerable effort to disambiguate the military and political-posturing senses of the word, and I think you are subtracting value by merging them. But I will leave it to someone else to undo the damage. Michael K. Edwards 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different Sections?

Why is there av division between "Famous Generalissimos" and "Supreme Field Commanders"? I'm merging those sections now.RicJac 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between generalissimo (absolute military ruler of a country) and generalissimo (supreme commander of armies in the field). The text you deleted from the preamble isn't so much an etymology as an explanation of the two English usages. Hence I've reverted your changes. Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)