In the lunar empire the generic terms are in New Pelorian, using our RW terminology is a tad on the anachronistic side IMO.
> Not exactly clear cut. Sergeant covers a multitude of sins, and the
> term 'captain' has connotations of "commisioned officer" that may be
> inappropriate here. But either set would do, if we take them with a
> suitable pinch of salt.
Yes, a company commander in the Lunar army is not necessarily a noble. BTW, the concept of commissioned and non-commisioned is also not really fitting either. Basically look at the Roman system of creating tribunes and legatus from the various nobles in the empire. The lunars appoint nobles to regimental and army command but lower ranks are often _not_ of noble birth. It depends on the regiment. An elite cav unit might have _rankers_ who are nobles and who could quite easily push around a company commander of another newer and less respected unit who is not a noble.
It seems to me that everyone is trying to create a hierarchical, regimented system in what is effectively a chaotic amalgam of cultures and military styles. The lunars being the lunars simply adapt themselves too this and dominate it with their own veneer.
> > I'm quite happy with the idea although the table needs expanding to
> > Regiment level and then generals which I think will be more important
> > in this publication.
Regimental and army commander names are covered in ILH 1.
> Regimental generic would most obviously be 'colonel'. (With due apologies
> to British Army, I think we can drop the Lt. <g>) I think ILH-1 gives
> the regional terms, sorry, don't have it to hand.
I don't get this guys, there is _no_ generic term for a regiment in the Imperial Army. Each regimental officer _is_ identified by its culture, that is the whole point. I don't understand why you seem determined to drop the regional appelations and come up with an anachronistic generic term that doesn't exist in Gloranthan lexicons.
> For generals, we're on rather thin ground. We have the DH terms, but
> even they are not really hierarchical.
Because the rank is NOT hierachical. The NOBILITY and SOCIAL rank of the general determines both the position of the leader and his rank with regards other generals. Unless on express orders of the Ordenviru, as was Tatius being subordinate to a poxy provo and that is ALL about politics at the Empire wide level.
>i.e., we can't meaningfully say
> a two star general is a major-gen,
All a 2 star gen is is a warleader that has only been accepted by two cities of the Tripolis. He has the same authority over his army as a 3 or 1 star gen IF he has no troops from the missing cities with him.
>and hence a division commander, if there are no such things as "divisions",
There are no such things as divisions, brigades or any other operational body other than the regiment or army. These are products of relatively modern times and not common in ancient armies. Units like the Immortals or Hypaspists were oddities and were not standard and thus created no hierarchical ranks in the _rest_ of the army they belonged to.
> One questions arise is, where do vexilla commanders fit in?
A vexilla is effectively a regiment and is treated as such.
>Are they considered "Warlords" in the Lunar scheme, just potentially with
> commands that are very much smaller than other such?
Fereshori
>Or do they have some distinguished status?
The are special regiments, often of all arms, used mostly when a small force but one of mixed arms is required. Some vexilla survive a looonnng time and become a full regiment, though of vexilla origins.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail