In message <cebj3q+osqu_at_...> "Stewart Stansfield" writes:
>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.
Have you any source for this idea that the Corps are administrative
bodies rather than appointments for a particular campaign?
I can see the necessity of corps commanders on campaign - a general
doesn't have time to command all regiments individually. However
administering a number of units with home cities spread across the
empire doesn't seem to make much sense - the Cavalry Corps being
the most extreme example with Rinliddi winged lancers, Carmenian
Cataphracts and Char-un all being administered together. It makes
more sense to me that regiments are adminstered locally by the city
they're raised in although if they are posted away from home for a
long time they start recruiting locally and changing their nature.
--
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/