From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shamil Basayev[edit]

I have never seen any legitimate sources referring to Shamil Basayev as Generalissimo. He was declared as such by Dokku Umarov post mortem, but I'm not sure it's enough to put him in a list with well known Generalissimos. Can anyone provide sources? (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm deleting Shamil Basayev from the list. (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dudayev, Maskhadov and Basayev are post mortem generalissimos according to Chechen rebels, but the list seems to be too small yet to include them. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 06:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Spanish speakers[edit]

In written Spanish, isn’t the word generalísimo? The Lawless One (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Generalissimo[edit]

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)

D. Franco[edit]

"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)

Italian grammar[edit]

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)

Russian translation[edit]

"Generalissimus" - "Генералисснмус" is also the exact Russian word for "Generalissimo". I believe it was Aleksandr Zinoviev who labeled Stalin the "Yefreitorissimus" - "Ефрейториссимус" "the Corporalissimo" in one of his books, which I seem to think was "The Yawning Heights" but I could be mistaken. Hi There 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Severiano Javier Figueira Liste de Juncal[edit]

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).

Dictator vs. Supreme Commander[edit]

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)

Different Sections?[edit]

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)

Goering as Reichsmarschall?[edit]

I am wondering if Goering should be included in the list of famous generalissimos; having an extraordinary rank, he seems to fit the parameters. Perhaps someone more involved with this article would like to consider it. Oh wait! Reading, not the article, but the Talk Page here, it seems that he WAS included at once point but has been removed. I would think that it belongs. Hi There 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering he was the commander of Luftwaffe as a military leader (Flag Officer9, not just a political puppet who came to power after Hitler's suicide, I would think he would fit the suprememe military type of the Generalissimus.

Hitler, himself, would also fit the 'Banana Republic' Generalissimus mould, considering he was never a general officer before he became the supremem military leader of the Nazi Germany. --TLein 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Goering did not come to power after Hitler's suicide so that's not a consideration anyway. Also, who was the generalissimo under Mussolini? The first paragraph implies there was one, but no one is listed farther down. Also, the term has a somewhat negative tone in English, it's sort of like "military dictator", perhaps this can be added? And on Helmuth von Moltke the Elder's page there is no mention of any special rank other than field marshal. Historian932 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


The article intro contains the following statement: Joseph Stalin bore it as a title of rank, Generalissimo of the Soviet Union, above the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union, after being appointed to the position on June 27, 1945 (at the conclusion of World War II on the Eastern Front). On a semantic note, he didn't really "bear it as a title of rank" it WAS his rank. Nextly, in no meaningful way was he "appointed" to the rank; having absolute power he "appointed himself" or, in other words, "decided to assume the rank". Also, the expression "the conclusion of World War II on the Eastern Front" is very awkward: possibly one could say that "conclusion of the war against the Axis powers in Europe" but even this is not too good. Is there really any reason why it should not read "after the defeat of Nazi Germany"? Hi There 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the title was awarded after the defeat of Japan folowing the Societs' rather belated entry into the was in the Far East. I suspect that what is meant by "Eastern Front" i.e. as epxressed relative to the USSR, but therein is further support for changing it as it is not only clunky but aqmbiguous. Dainamo 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


The United States should really not be included. I have NEVER heard any U.S. general referred to as Generalissimo. It is simply not used to refer to members of the U.S. military, but is used exclusively for foreign generals in the U.S.

Wasn't Washington posthumously granted a rank superior to General of the Army? --NEMT 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He was posthumously granted the rank of General of the Armies. But it wasn't called Generalissimo. - Shaheenjim 22:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Good thing I came to check first. I was just about to comment on this as well. I think I'll be BOLD and remove mention of the United States. --MicahBrwn (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck. You're just flag waving americans who labeled generalissimo with a negative connotation and don't want to admit the US to it.
I agree that it should be, but if its retained, our selection of Americans seems bizarre. All Pershing did was command the American forces in France in WWI -- he was not the overall commander of the US Army (let alone the armed forces). On the other hand, our "generals in chief" as the term was in WBTS -- Ulysses Grant in the North and Robert E Lee in the South -- are not included. (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have hate issues about everything or just Americans? (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, General Pershing was given a rank, not a office like General-in-Chief, that was superior to the whole of the armed forces. Which was why he was given four gold stars, while Fleet Admiral, highest navy rank, or full General, highest army rank, also had four star, they were silver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE13:B370:1028:24B9:2010:BBF7 (talk)


I think the dates listed here are confusing. When I saw the one for Stalin i thought "... wtf? why is Stalin listed here as Generalissimo from 1879 to 1953. He didn't get power till 1925!" Maybe I'm just retarded but I think the dates listed next to the people should be the dates that they held the title, not their dates of birth and death. The title dates seem more relevant to the context of this article, and if the reader wants to know their DOB and DOD they can click onto the article. Thoughts? -Guest

German generalissimos[edit]

I think it is wrong to speak of the German "Genralfeldmarschalls" as Generalissimos. That title is actualy still a normal title, and if you look at the Wikipedia article "Comparative miliary ranks of World War II", you will se that "Generalfeldmaschall" equals the nato code "OF-10". That makes it the highest recognied "modern" military rank. Therfore the only Third Reich title candidate as Generalissimo is the even higer rank "Reichsmarschall des Großdeutschen Reiches" or Marshal of the greater German empire. This rank was the highest rank in the Third Reich, and was solely held by Hermann Göring. One can even dispute if this title is equal to Generalissimo due to the fact that the equivalent Soviet title "Marshal of the Soviet Union" was a lower rank than Joseph Stalin's title "Generalissimo of the Soviet Union".

This of course leaves the question: Should we apply the term Generalissimo to all ranks NATO code OF-10 or higher? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Life dates vs. "rule" dates[edit]

After some of the people cited in the list of Generalissimo, the life dates appear, whilst with others it's the dates for their respective "rule". This appears most notably for Spain, Poland, Russia and several others. I suggest that this is changed to either life dates consistently, or to both, citing "lived: x-y, in position: w-z". George Adam Horváth (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to make the same complaint. I have added the misleading-tag for now. Unless a central convention for this already exists, I second the above proposal. (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Seek explanation of some parenthetical expressions[edit]

In the list of persons who have been generalissimos, the names of two are preceded by parenthetical phrases:

Mexico, (even is named) Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna,
Japan, (even) Emperor Showa.

I do not understand what they are for. Have I missed something? PKKloeppel (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Criterion: either held rank of or at least known as generalissimo?[edit]

Surely the criterion to be listed in this article is that a person should have either held the rank of or at least been known as generalissimo. A lot of supreme commanders who had no such title are included here (I've just deleted Field Marshal Wellesely, Duke of Wellington). Pol098 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If this criterion is accepted a quick check to see whether someone's Wikipedia article contains the word "generalissimo" can be used to see whether someone belongs here. A global search of Wikipedia for "generalissimo" would give a shortlist of candidates. I've deleted Generalfeldmarschall von Moltke; please reinstate and complain here if this wasn't appropriate. Pol098 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese emperors are not shoguns[edit]

Before Meiji restoration, Shogun is the person with actual power even though he is nominally the Emporer's servant. While shoguns can be considered roughly equivalent to generalissimos, Japanese emperors are not. So that section should be deleted or changed to the Shoguns rather than the Emperors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Emperor was "Dai Gensui" (Generalissimo)UeArtemis (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No. The Shogun was. The emperor's position from the time of the Kamakura bakufu to the Meiji restoration was a religious/ceremonial head of state with no real power. Once the war had started in Manchuria/Manchuko at the start of WW2, Hirohito was again sidelined by a military junta - until everything went wrong and they 'needed' him in August 1945. (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Original Research - Nominating for deletion[edit]

The section Notable Generalissimos in World history constitutes Original Research in almost all of its content. I'll delete it in a few days if no valid sources are given to preserve it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it really? Data with no citations is not the same as original research ... please don’t delete it. Bossk-Office (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Bosk-Office. OR and lack of proper citations are not one and the same thing. However, for most of these cases there is not a single element to support their inclusion in the list, and many of them are evident miscaracterizations. Moreover, some sourced cases show truly OR (as in George Washington). So, it is not difficult to conclude that most of the listed elements are the outcome of OR by one or more users. I'll wait some more days for editors to source pertainng items (e.g. Franco, which everyone knows he was awarded the Generalísimo title), and then I will delete every unsourced item. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

After two weeks, I removed all the unsourced material from this section of the article. As for the rest of the article, it remains mostly unsourced as well for the moment being. I'm particularly unsure about the relevance of the articles listed at See Also. Any ideas about that? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

generalissimus vs. commander-in-chief[edit]

The lead section had this recent addition:

"(though with power not delegated from outside the military power structure, as commander-in-chief often is; i.e., an elected official)[citation needed]. " (by 22:15, 22 February 2011

I deleted this as it's not very clear.

However, did raise an interesting question: what is the difference between the two terms?

Bazuz (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Commander in Chief is the generic name for a head of the armed forces most commonly associated with a head of state. It is a position or appointment and does not infer a nor carry the substantive title or insignia of a specific military rank. Much in the same way a Chief of Staff as an appointment can and has been held by different substantive grades of general. Dainamo (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Office vs. Rank, many people in the U.S. could be called Generalissimo, every President as Commander-in-Chief, Washington as Lt. General and John Pershing as General of the Armies and every Chief of Staff, Senior Officer of the Army, or General-in-Chief. However, the President is Generalissimo by merit of his office as commander-in-Chief while people like Pershing, Washington and even U.S. Grant may be seen as Generalissimo based off of extraordinary rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE13:B370:1028:24B9:2010:BBF7 (talk)

No. That interpretation is pure rubbish. (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about this[edit]

I'm not sure about this page at all. There's a list here of over a dozen people who are asserted to have been called "Generalissimo" in their time (and the category linked to has about 40!) Is there any evidence for this? I can think of three, offhand, who've been referred to specifically by this title; is this page in danger of turning into a list of people who have held a particular military or political office, and are getting labelled "generalissimo" because someone somewhere thinks that's the English word for what they were?
How about requiring a citation for each one, attesting to the use of the term being applied to them?
And there's a claim in the "Usage" section that the word is Italian in origin; yet none of the people listed are Italians, here or in the category. More evidence needed? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for this? - "this"? What, specifically, are you asking for evidence of?
is this page in danger of ... - Only if no-one keeps an eye on it and if no-one reverts such edits.
How about requiring a citation for each one ... - Requiring a citation is pretty much standard wikipedia practise. So far five in the list have citations. All of the people in the list have WP pages, therefore one would expect that there is at least one relevant citation on each of those pages which could be used here.
And there's a claim ... More evidence needed? - More evidence of what?
BTW: You added "[dubious – discuss]" to "Generalissimo and Generalissimus are military ranks of the highest degree, superior to Field Marshal and other five-star ranks." - As you placed the tag, perhaps you should start the discussion?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
To take the last point first, I thought I already had started the discussion by opening this section, and that I’d said what I wasn’t sure about, but evidently not...
So, working back:
The definition at the opening sentence states that generalissimo is the highest military rank, which isn’t really the case. The highest position in the British military is Chief of the General Staff, and the highest rank is Field Marshal; there isn’t a rank above that. In the US, the top post is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the highest rank (above 5 star general) is General of the Armies. And there’s nothing on the Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers comparison page alluding to Generalissimo either; the highest rank there is OR-10 (equalling 5-star rank), and in some in countries the ranks only go to OR-9. Although the term was applied to Foch, as supreme allied commander in WWI (though as the page says his actual rank was Maréchal de France) that doesn't mean the term is now in general use; it wasn’t applied to the supreme commanders in WWII, for example, or in any other conflict since.
The evidence I felt was needed was to confirm that the term is Italian in origin. My dictionary only says the word is derived from “general” (the english word) and the latin superlative “-issimus”; and as the rank doesn’t appear in the list of Italian military ranks, (here) and none of the people in the list or the category are Italian, I’m questioning whether the term is Italian at all. Do you have evidence that it is? Or that it is an Italian rank? Do you know of any Italian generalissimo’s?
The other evidence I was wanting specifically was of the people listed (here and in the category linked to) being referred to as generalissimo’s, rather than some other title. Gamelin, for example, is referred to in the article twice as generalissimo, yet it also says his post was French Army commander in chief, and his rank was Général d'armée (incidentally, a 5 star rank). So either it's been put there on the assumption it’s the right term, or it's OR by someone. (On the mismatch in numbers, BTW; either the category is too big, or the list here is too small. Which do you think it is?)
I’m aware WP practice is to require citations; I put it like that as a polite way of suggesting we take a chainsaw to the article and strip out anything not supported by a reliable source. On that subject, the citations already there are hardly convincing: two are just footnotes (though citations for the use of the term with regard to Foch, and Chiang, should be easy to find; likewise for Franco). The ref for Kim Il Sung is the english version of a Korean daily; his Korean title was Dae Wonsu, (which translates as Grand Marshal) so it’s likely to be just the journalists notion of what the english should be, rather than what the english actually is. Have you seen him referred to in the english press as generalissimo? Maybe the reporter looked it up on WP! The ref for Ihsan Nuri is plain weird; he was leader of a revolutionary group, which is like using the term for the commander in chief of the IRA. Do you think the author was being ironic?
And my comment about the article being in danger of becoming a list of names derived from original research was, again, politeness; I’m inclined to think it’s already happened. And we need to beware of giving old words new meanings here; when the WP article on something comes top of a google search for a term, it lends some credibility to that meaning, which is something we really shouldn't be doing. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications and explanations. I agree with most of what you've said. I'll write a more detailed (and specific) answer later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The definition at the opening sentence states ... - There is a difference between rank and position ...
that doesn't mean the term is now in general use - It never has been "in general use".
The evidence I felt was needed was to confirm that the term is Italian in origin. - Fair comment. (There is considerably more evidence of Spanish language use ... )
I’m questioning whether the term is Italian at all. - Good question. I have no evidence of Italian origin or use.
The other evidence I was wanting specifically was of the people ... being referred to as generalissimo’s, rather than some other title. - Another fair comment.
So either it's been put there on the assumption it’s the right term, or it's OR by someone. - Another fair comment.
BTW; either the category is too big, or the list here is too small. - Another fair comment.
Which do you think it is? - Probably a bit of both! Short answer: I don't know. But like you, I think there's a lot of sloppyness that really should be tightened up.
I put it like that as a polite way of suggesting ... - Another fair comment. However, I'm a bit reticent here. I'd prefer to see [citation needed] than removal. (Unless, of course, it's obvious that the person was never a generalissimo.)
The ref for Kim Il Sung ... - Hmmm. Beyond my level of expertise, I'm afraid. But I find your line of reasoning easy to agree with ...
Do you think the author was being ironic? - I find it hard to tell!
And we need to beware of giving old words new meanings here - Another fair comment.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
So where do you want to go from here? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Where to go from here: good question!
I’ve requested citations for all the unsupported names (you’re right, we should do that first) and added an edit note, to be a bit pro-active on the issue.
I’ve also trimmed the "See also" section and moved most of the names to Highest military ranks, which (I think) is a more appropriate venue.
As for the rest it’d be good to make clear somehow that the term not in common use in English, and, as there’s something a bit banana-republicky about it, use of the term likely to be ironic (though I don’t have a source for that, unfortunately!) The title Grofaz springs to mind here; we could put that in the See also, I suppose. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
PS:I’ve also started checking the entries in the Generalisimos category. I'm planning to remove any where the term isn’t asserted, and to request citations on the pages where it is; I’ll put an edit note there, too. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds pretty good to me. You seem to be well on top of it. I'll keep out of your way. Good work. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sun Yat-Sen[edit]

This doesn’t do what it says on the tin; the entry in the List of.... section claims (effectively) that Sun Yat-Sen was referred to as Generalissimo in English. There was a request for a source, which has been deleted and replaced with a note saying he was "referred to as Grand Marshal", and a source that doesn’t say anything of the sort.
What is this supposed to mean? A Grand Marshal isn't the same thing as a Generalissimo, and anyway the source given doesn't mention either title. How does this help? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a citation that states he was given the title da yuan shuai and that it translate to grand marshal here. The article on da yuan shuai asserts that it is equivalent to Generalissimo and gives a citation to the book Wu Tingfang (1842-1922). I do not have access to that book to verify. Given what his actual position and authority was, it seems he could belong on the list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


Anthony Ulrich (1714-1774), Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, was a Generalissimus in a Russian army. RCNesland RCNesland (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, if you have a citation for that, put him in. Who did you have in mind, though? Your link is to a dab page.
What relevance is this to the discussion here, BTW? If this is a new topic it should be in a new section, so I suggest it be moved down the page a bit.Moonraker12 (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: I'm guessing it's this guy. If so, you'll need to put your source there, too, as the page has a citation request tag on it for this. Moonraker12 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


I'm planning a bit of a re-write here.
Both Generalísimo and Generalissimus re-direct here, but both have different connotations to the English term, I think. It'd be better if they both had sections here, rather than be jumbled up with the rest. And there are pages on the Spanish and Russian WP's to draw from.
If there are no objectiosn over the next few days I'll go ahead with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles John of Sweden[edit]

I notice that you’ve added Crown Prince Charles John to the list of generalissimos on this page, seemingly without regard to the edit note in the list section which points out that "The term "Generalisimo" is NOT a synonym for supreme commander, or commander-in-chief, and is rarely used in English", and "All persons listed here should be supported by a source which specifically refers to them by this title"
Karl Johan seems quite clearly to be covered by the former; and for the latter, the source you have provided (which is in Swedish and so cannot be verified here) is of no account unless it actually uses the term. I also note that you’ve edited the KJ page (here) to correspond to this.
So, do you have any evidence that KJ was ever afforded this title, in English or otherwise? (The Swedish WP article [1] does not say so)
Can you show that the title "Generalissimus" was ever used in the Swedish military hierarchy (again, the Swedish WP does not suport this, either here or here)
If you are unable to provide this evidence these contributions will have to be reverted. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That particular book can be found at the Military Archives of Sweden, and as far as I know, it its not availible online. Here is the specific catalogue post: searchUnitId0&page=4 searchUnitId0&page=4. And in that book Generalissimus is listed as a grade/rank above that of Field Marshals. In the volumes of this series published post 1818, when he became King, that title was no longer used and thus the category for Generalissimus was removed. The Swedish WP does not cover all aspects of Swedish military history. RicJac (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, he wrote this published document himself in 1813, notice the title (English: The Crown Prince Generalissmus, to the Army), from the National Library of Sweden database: RicJac (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)