Re: Re Imperial Ranks

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:21:39 +0100

I think Svech/Mart -in and I are broadly on the same page here, but we may still be tripping over one or two bits of terminology and semantics...

> The whole point of my post was to illustrate that offical ranks above
> regimental and below the general of an army (whatever he is called) do
> no formally exist in the Imperial army, why? Because for such a rank
> to exist there must also be a formalised operational body that
> warrants such a rank. There is no such body in the Imperial army.

But there do _seem_ to be some such, to a greater or lesser extent; what about your example of the first post, the Warlord/Army of Sartar, being subordinate/to a component of the Warlord/Army of Dragon Pass? (The second isn't an operational unit, is that the point?)

Or likewise, we have Jorkandros, subordinate to Fazzur, commanding a multi-regimental force during the initial siege of Whitewall. (The latter's command isn't formalised? Or, he isn't actually a Warlord? Which may amount to the same thing, I suppose.)

Or indeed, are you just saying they exist on a case by case basis (this hierarchy there; this one here, for the time being); but aren't systematised? In the sense of, a unit of type [blah] is [farble] sized, and consists of [foo] [bars]. (Which is indeed clearly not the case.)

Cheers,
Alex.

--__--__--

End of Glorantha Digest

Powered by hypermail