While it's pedantic, in sociology and related fields, status is almost always conceptualized in terms of peer-group connections anyway. So it would be incorrec

While it's pedantic, in sociology and related fields, status is almost always conceptualized in terms of peer-group connections anyway. So it would be incorrect to say that General John Smith had high status simply because he was a General. Instead, John Smith's 'status' depended on whether or not he was a peer of other high-status individuals. In other words, it was always a matter of 'who you know'. It's just that, as you pointed out, in the early stages of a new ruling regime or dynasty, being a General or holding a similar military position pretty much guaranteed that you had the 'right social connections'. This is true even if you gained those connections as a byproduct of your military rank. This is likely true even in many or most modern states.