Esther recently finished her PhD on first world war popular culture, and now, among other pursuits, she’s turned her attention to World of Warcraft and its constructions of war and conflict. Recently she’s written about the symbolism of the Horde’s Zeppelins versus the Alliance’s sailing ships, about the tension of deforestation, colonialism and exploitation from either side, and about the implications of a military parade by one faction during a peaceful Faire. When I checked out the PvP ranks – that is, the titles you get when you score points in player-versus-player fights, so by killing players of the opposite faction – I had to laugh at the way the same symbolism is expressed here. One of the lower ranks, for instance, is “Corporal” for the Alliance and “Grunt” for the Horde. Would you like to be a Grunt? Near the top of the scale, your Horde character might be a Warlord while your Alliance equivalent is a Field Marshal. See, I might rather be a Warlord than a Field Marshal. Sure, “Warlord” is what we always call the Other side’s bosses, it’s a little derogatory, they’re primitive, really, is what we’re saying, but it also sounds a lot more fun and powerful than the repressedly WASPish Field Marshall. I know very little about the miliary, but based on my vague understandings from popular culture and a war movie or two I’m convinced all Field Marshals speak British, are deeply boring, are sticklers for rules and very picky about tidiness and orderliness.

Now I’m wishing I knew more German and French so I could see what words they’ve chosen to use in the translations.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “would you be a warlord or a field marshal?

  1. Ali

    The Russian translation is interesting as well, particularly as Chechen leaders (Basayev, Maskhadov etc.) are talked about in the Russian press and by the populace as being warlords. while this is the enemy – and its ceratinly links to the tribal nature of the Chechen’s as a people – there does seem to be something definitive about the way that Russia perceives its enemies in that Marshalls are very senior officers in a formal army, but a warlord lacks that discipline.

    so prickly is this that they didn’t translate the ranks for the Russian version – just giving a rubrick making them out to be the same on either side (but if you understand enough English, you’d get what was going on…

  2. Greg

    “Marshall” is a higher rank than general in the UK, French, and German armed forces (and probably others too). But the US doesn’t have an equivalent rank (although Lee’s men used to refer to him as “Marsh Lee…”)

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.