The difference between a general and commander is more simple than you think, they are in two different ranks but the name commander can be used as a general too.
Yes, an admiral is more senior than a commander. In naval ranks, an admiral typically holds a higher position, often in charge of large fleets or naval operations, while a commander is a lower rank responsible for individual ships or smaller units. The hierarchy places admirals above commanders in terms of authority and responsibility.
no a lt general is higher
Yes, it is permissible to include more than one planeswalker in a commander deck.
Authority tends to be local in nature, however, the Secretary General of the United Nations has global authority. In any given country, there will be someone who is in charge of that country and whose authority locally is greater than that of the Secretary General.
The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.The Romans did not have a commander in chief as we know it, although at the time of the principate you could say that the emperor was the commander in chief. Their system worked differently than ours. For example, when there was trouble, the senate would appoint a general and give him a number of legions or give him the authority to raise new legions. The fellow appointed general was the commander in chief of the legions under his command, but of no others. Pompey and Caesar are examples. each man had his legions and was commander in chief of them and no others.
A person or some people that has more authority than you or has authority over you.
A game warden does not have more authority than the president. The president is the highest authority in a country.
Robert S. Garrett holds that distinction. The most important Southern General killed was Albert Sidney Johnson at Shiloh. At the time of his death, he was considered the best commander in the South, possibly the most talented commander in either army. Davis thought more highly of him than he did of Lee.
Their authorities are completely different. In general however, the FBI agent can have much more negative impact on the average person's life than a sergeant in the army.
No, he was the president through most of the war, thus he was the commander and chief of military services -- higher than a general.
As the "Commander-in-Chief" of all U.S. military, he overruled General Douglas MacArthur on aggresive campaign plans to capture and occuply North Korea rather than just stop North Korean incursion into South Korea.
No