by InCamelot » Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:12 am
Shellackhead wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 am
InCamelot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:11 pm
But has anyone been able to pin down the function of the underboss so far?
The most common explanation is "they fill in for the boss", but then the need for "street boss" or "acting boss" still eventually came up in America.
Even 'acting underbosses' became a thing.
They don't seem to be another layer of insulation between capos and bosses, because capos often meet direct with bosses.
UB is really just there as a Vice President if you look at it that way, Only thing is that 9/10 the UB is a childhood friend/very tight with the boss. Obviously you have your gravanos who were very active in the scheming & earning side of things during his tenure.
I have to look more into vice presidents, but I think some have this question about them as well: I'm curious to know why a boss would bother having an underboss as an official position, and how has it not been rendered obsolete after all this time?
A lot of people say well they're a mouth-piece, or they're there when the boss isn't available. But years and years of having an underboss still created the need to have an acting-boss in some cases, a right-hand man in other cases, a driver, an assistant, etc.
The theory I had is the concept of an underboss in pre-contemporary times, is that they pad some sort of political concern the boss has. It is a little bit like a partnership (which is how apparently Chicago worked). That is how underbosses were still a thing through all these years.
The underbosses often (although not always) are politically fairly strong within their own family. I would go as far to suggest that if you look at who the underboss was, you get a glimpse into what the boss might be concerned about politically or even psychologically.
Could go more into it, but yeah. Look at some examples - see if they fit.
[quote=Shellackhead post_id=171806 time=1603879908 user_id=6593]
[quote=InCamelot post_id=171793 time=1603861915 user_id=4353]
But has anyone been able to pin down the function of the underboss so far?
The most common explanation is "they fill in for the boss", but then the need for "street boss" or "acting boss" still eventually came up in America.
Even 'acting underbosses' became a thing.
They don't seem to be another layer of insulation between capos and bosses, because capos often meet direct with bosses.
[/quote]
UB is really just there as a Vice President if you look at it that way, Only thing is that 9/10 the UB is a childhood friend/very tight with the boss. Obviously you have your gravanos who were very active in the scheming & earning side of things during his tenure.
[/quote]
I have to look more into vice presidents, but I think some have this question about them as well: I'm curious to know why a boss would bother having an underboss as an official position, and how has it not been rendered obsolete after all this time?
A lot of people say well they're a mouth-piece, or they're there when the boss isn't available. But years and years of having an underboss still created the need to have an acting-boss in some cases, a right-hand man in other cases, a driver, an assistant, etc.
The theory I had is the concept of an underboss in pre-contemporary times, is that they pad some sort of political concern the boss has. It is a little bit like a partnership (which is how apparently Chicago worked). That is how underbosses were still a thing through all these years.
The underbosses often (although not always) are politically fairly strong within their own family. I would go as far to suggest that if you look at who the underboss was, you get a glimpse into what the boss might be concerned about politically or even psychologically.
Could go more into it, but yeah. Look at some examples - see if they fit.