Stu:
> [I don't disagree with you in the slightest, Jeff. ILH-1 is
> officially clear on the fact. I'd also be especially interested to
> see if Martin has any further sub-system at the rank of Warlord,
> corresponding with the Tarsh War terms.
Warlord is an offical appointment, rather like the status of Consul in the Roman republic, only without a time limit. Basically when the Ordenviru, the Imperial high command, declares and army to exist (becoming the Army of <name place and region of authority>) then a Warlord is appointed, as Tarnils was made Warlord of Deezolas army. The person appointed to that position is typically a high ranking noble with military experience, but NOT necessarily so. Sometimes they are political animals first. Fazzur, frankly, was an odd appointment, caused by Tarshite lobbying more than anything.
The important thing to remember is that the status of the Warlord is dependant on the size and role of the actual army they command. The commander of the Army of Prax for example, is a politcal appointee - Sor-eel - and his power is relatively tiny when compared to Fazzur who commands the entire main theatre. FWIW I felt that Jorad Sideburn was field commander for Fazzur and Fazzur and then Tatius directed the strategic level events.
What you have then is a very, very tenous system of rank and priveledge, power comes by appointment, not seniority and fixed rank. This is at odds with the DHan system but entirely in keeping with the Lunar method which encourages competition among its leaders and ultimate fear and loyalty to the one constant in all of this - the Red Emperor.
With regards to staff officers, there aren't any. Or at least not as we would know them today. The staff any Warlord has is basically his personal house troops and loyal retainers. Think Caeser in Gaul or Belisarius in Italy. The heirarchy is actually very flat with almost no steps between Army command and regimental command. Like Caeser, many Warlords of Lunar origin would interrogate their own prisoners and scout themselves. Dara Happan General do not do that. They have a staff system of sorts but it is not designed to be in place for the purpose of efficiency and specialistion as we would expect from a modern RW staff, rather it exists to _seperate_ the General from the mundane and earthly (ie Lodrili) issues of running the army so that he may be more in tune with the heavens and have the eye of Polaris.
> I know moderately little about Tatius, but Peter is quite right when
> he points out that he might prefer the title 'Three/Two Star General'
> of 'General of Three/Two Stars' in polite company. Such ranks do
> remain in the character, if not official protocol, of the Imperial
> Army. Officially, Tatius is a Warlord, and that's that. But when
> dining with fellow Dara Happan officers, *please* don't call him a
> Warlord. His [port] glass will be set down with a frosty chink! ;)]
The Three Stars reference is relating to the Tripolis. A General of Three Stars is one who can command, by agreement, any regiment from the Dara Happan Tripolis. So in the past, each city approved or was forced to approve by the Emperor, the appointment. Note that the Dara Happans _are_ much more rank aware and if a General was NOT appointed to command a Alkothi regiment - ie he was a General of Two Stars - then the Alkothi regimental commanders could ignore him at their leisure. A fully appointed General of Three Stars is given High Magic powers by his appointment that allow him to _compel_ obedience. Remember that in Dara Happa rank carries _real_ magical power upon appointment.
And Stu is right, calling Tatius a Warlord would piss him off. He accepts the title but it is not his heritage. All New Pelorian correspondance sent to him would title him Warlord but that is why he has a Buseri translator to rewrite his messages into correct DHan terminology. Of course, there are _never_ any discrepancies between the original and the translation...
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail