>In my post, I don't argue against subordinate commanders, but there
>is a difference on how they might be chosen or function. I can see
>three big possibilities:
>(i) there is a standing system of 'general ranks' in the Imperial
>Army for senior officers, across several cultures--or just on a Lunar
>stage; 'generals' possess their rank, but the lack of organised
>brigades, divisions, etc. means that it is nominal only in times of
>peace. In war, some of this roster will be called to serve under a
>(ii) there is no standing system of ranks (outside of posts like Dean
>of the College of Magic, etc.), but the Ordenviru promotes several
>promising, capable or political persons on the eve of the campaign as
>subsidiary officers, under the Warlord (to try and insert a little
>Ordenviru control, perhaps).
>(iii) no standing ranks (as ii), but the Warlord himself possesses
>the powers to appoint subordinates in certain positions, as he
>wishes. Consider this an approach more in line with Roman Dictators
>There is also the possibility of mixing all three, particularly the
>latter two. (Oh dear) My mail favoured (iii), though I do think an
>interleavening with (ii) is useful. The Ordenviru might not wish to
>give *total* command to a Warlord, after all...
I agree some combination of ii and iii is most likely. ISTM there is a political element in many appointments so it can't be entirely the Warlord's decision.
I'd probably go with the Ordenviru appointing prior to the campaign after consulting with the Warlord and the Warlord appointing during the campaign subject to the approval of the Ordenviru after the event (which might take a long time if communications got lost). "Didn't you get my dispatch about Aurellius? he's been acting as Deputy Warlord since the death of Cassius."
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail