>> > Generic should be sergeant captain
>
>In the lunar empire the generic terms are in New Pelorian, using our RW
>terminology is a tad on the anachronistic side IMO.
This was included in the table at Oliver's request to help those who aren't military historians. I don't think it should appear anywhere else and I have every intention of using the New Pelorian ones myself.
>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.
I agree the concept of commissioned and non-commissioned officer is anacronistic which was why I prefer to use the title captain as the equivelent for someone who commands a company sized unit.
>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.
Because not everyone wants to remember a dozen different titles for functionally identical positions. And it is useful to provide a modern equivelent for reference even when it isn't really accurate. One of the ongoing complaints about Gloranthan material is that there is too much detail and having to memorise or refer to the ILH to play a scenario that involves the Lunar army is precisely the sort of thing which puts people off.
>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.
So the hierachy published in Tarsh Wars is wrong, fine now we know.
>>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.
If you're refering to permanently established brigades and divisions I agree with you but from a practical command point of view there must have been some sort of command structure on campaign. Without it a force of more than a few units becomes unmanageable particularly when units are detatched.
Perhaps it is inappropriate to have more than one level of Warlord but the alternative is to list all the Warlords who appear by name and show their relative status at different stages. Certainly Tatius is going to need several to co-ordinate all the assorted units he controls by the end of the siege.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail