The ILH-1 defines an army as several regiments typically more than 5000 troops and several armies comprise a corps. It then goes on to say a warlord (general) commands a full army and corps are commanded by a full general. In my view Jorkandros is one of the former and Tatius one of the latter. I see no reason why both should not be appointed by the Emperor. In fact this may be a way in which the imperial bureaucracy keeps some control over the army.
>The standing administrative bodies of the Lunar battalia are
>commanded by more honorary Warlords, who are perhaps even field
>commanders elect. Only in times of war are other Warlords appointed
>to command provisional and varyingly formed field armies from the
>Imperial Bodyguard, Provincial Army and Heartland, Cavalry, Hunter
>and Anirestyu Corps.
I've seen nothing to indicate that there is any standing administrative body higher than the regiment. Historically there were plenty of armies which didn't have such a thing.
>Again, IMHO, it is not otherwise a standing rank (except in certain
>special circumstances), but a position of authority granted in
>conflict by the Emperor to a higher ranking officer, who is to
>oversee a given theatre. Perhaps not too dissimilar to Dictatorial
>powers in some spheres: many rights of command in civil spheres in
>the theatre of ops, the right to select junior officers, aides and
>companions for a variety of subcommanding roles (exepting 'brigaded'
>units from the CoM and Sisters Army, probably), the right to appoint
>Feshori and grant Vexilla, etc.
>This might very much lead to a situation where, pending the intrigues
>and jockeyings of the Ordenviru and various Associations, a Warlord
>uses his power to secure his own circle of lieutenants for a
>campaign: "Fazzur's Ring" if you will.
>Therefore I wholly agree with Donald's points regarding varying
>authority and responsibility of subcommanders, but IMG at least the
>actual Warlord is a rarer creature. I favour a deflation of titlage
>and number in the Imperial Generality, keeping such for the very
>highest Imperial servitors.
I'm quite happy with either approach, it's only a matter of titles after all. On this basis Jorkandros isn't a warlord as he serves under Fazzur.
>Yet this creates a problem. Beyond Fereshori, there is no clearly
>defined mediate command level between the highest effective
>operational rank (be it Polemarch, Tribune whatever) and Warlord.
>The question is "What comes inbetween?" I have no hang-ups with this,
>as I personally like a system wherein:
>(i) there is no continuum between tactical regimental ranks, and
>supra-regimental operational and strategic ranks.
>(ii) name and imperial status is as much a rank and indicator of
>responsibility as any military convention. When his realm of command
>is known, Jorad Sideburn will simply suffice, with no call for
>a 'general rank'.
I think if you have a 'Warlord' rank you are going to have a name for the rank under that even if it's only 'Lieutenant-Warlord'. You also need some definition of seniority within those people otherwise the whole setup will fall apart if the warlord is killed.
>(iii) as supreme plenipotentiary, the Warlord has the right to define
>areas of responsibility for subcommanders, and appoint such. As
>effective plenipotentiaries of the Warlord, they are doing his, and
>therefore the Emperor's, will, and are obeyed accordingly. They have
>power through their warrant as a lieutenant.
I think Tatius might have this power but not that it is generally delegated - too much opportunity for a warlord to sideline people he doesn't like against the wishes of the Ordenviru.
>I agree that such appointments need some kind of a name (something
>akin to Fereshori), but as we seem to have very active Warlords,
>there need not be a plethora of such individuals. I also favour
>functional and situational titles, with purely functional and
>situational authority -- Master of Horse, Master of Wagons, Commander
>of the Left Wing -- over and above conventional military ranks.
>Though, again, I personally feel such would frequently be known by
>their names in most parlance, over and above some conception of rank.
>I can understand that such might be confusing to some, especially to
>those unfamiliar with the rather curious military practices of many
>of our antecedents, and favouring of a defined military chain of
>command, or at the very least nominal ranks!
>The above are just my thoughts, based on the Lunarcentric viewpoint,
>and can be modified by any manner of Solar etc. intrigue. Though ILH-
>1 is expressive, the notes on the Imperial Army are not extensive.
>Consider the above to be nothing more than Stu considerably
>interpolating and reading between the lines.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail