D&D General General or Lord?

[rgoodbb]

I am designing an NPC who is an army General and also an Earl. He is back home from the wars but it is still wartime.

How would one address this man in the real world? Which title do you think fits best?

Lord
General
Lord General
Other

Thoughts? Ta.

 

[dave2008]

Lord General sounds good to me, but I have not idea how something like that is handled IRL.

 

[jasper]

It depends if title stacking is used, and when. His Lordship RGOODB General of Rotten DM Army. Or which office you are trying to get the attention of. Hey General Rgoob the evil gnomes are attacking. Psst Psst Lord rgoob your fly is down. Or you could steal some titles from the SCA. Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. (sca.org)

 

[Oofta]

Depends on the setting. Traditionally there were no standing armies and nobles were responsible for fielding troop from their domain. Sometimes they would lead the army themselves or they would appoint someone. Very different from our modern army where there is a funded military service.

So is this person also a ruler of some sort? Then lord (or appropriate title). Is running the armies their occupation? I'd go with general.

 

[Morrus]

IRL military rank goes before the honorific in the U.K.

Admiral Sir John Smith
Captain Sir Thomas Moore
General Sir ... etc.

Then again you also have things like Lord High Admiral and Lord General as the name of a specific position.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Technically it would be 'General Earl of X' and less formally just 'Lord X'. You certainly wouldn't create hybrid titles such as 'Lord General', though it sounds cool so perhaps in a fantasy world they might do that.

 

[Morrus]

Technically it would be 'General Earl of X' and less formally just 'Lord X'. You certainly wouldn't create hybrid titles such as 'Lord General', though it sounds cool so perhaps in a fantasy world they might do that.

Sure you would!

 

[Dioltach]

From extensive reading of novels and diaries set in the Peninsular Campaign, I'm pretty sure you'd address them by their title, not their military rank. Even in a military situation.

 

[Morrus]

From extensive reading of novels and diaries set in the Peninsular Campaign, I'm pretty sure you'd address them by their title, not their military rank. Even in a military situation.

Depends who they are. Prince Harry was Captain Wales, for example.

 

[akr71]

This thread got me thinking about the etymology of military ranks and how long they've been in use (only a few hundred years). I stumbled on this article, which I thought was interesting. An excerpt below:

Generals are, in general, the general head of the army. It is a shortening of captain general, which was formed along the same lines as attorney general and Estates General and other post-positive adjectives. Generals are therefore generic and genetic, ruling over a genus of soldiers