Re: Warlords

From: Stewart Stansfield <stu_stansfield_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:27:54 -0000


Donald:
> 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....

&

> 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.

Aha, the Corps. The Heartland, Cavalry etc. Corps of the Imperial Army are essentially nominal and administrative units (in so far as they are repositories of force and not usually fieldable forces in as of themselves...except in extremis) that provide units to field armies. That they are commanded by 'full generals' with posts on the Ordenviru staff adds to such a character.

Thus to my mind at least the 'full generals' commanding the Heartland etc. Corps are supra-campaign posts (if not field commanders assumptive in time of peace), compared to the active field commanders of the armies. If only that a general away from the corridors of power of the Ordenviru to take charge in the field might be in a rather precarious situation politically.

Cheerio,

Stu.

Powered by hypermail