RE: Re: Corps and armies

From: Simon Miller <simon.miller_at_...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:41:45 +0100

I feel in battle the number of sub commanders would depend upon the number of regiments present; a regiment being typically at full strength 1000 foot/500 mounted men. I don't think there is a battalion level, although sometimes detachments from a regiment will be sent on a mission (as in Tarsh Wars).

In smaller battles (say 4 or 5 regiment size) the general would direct the entire battle himself.
I picture the commander at his command post (perhaps a tent with a red flag like Caesar) sending staff officers with orders to regiments.

In the largest battles there might potentially be sub-commanders for each wing, the centre and reserve; I don't think there would be others. In some battles the centre (at least) might well be one long phalanx!

My instinct is that there are always regimental officers, staff officers and the overall commander; in large battles there would also be sub generals who might be drawn from the senior regimental officers present or alternatively from the most well connected staff officers.

Simon
simon.miller_at_...

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 30 July 2004 20:21
To: whitewall_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Corps and armies

Legates, surely, to handle brigade-size chunks, unless the army is one long phalanx.

That's two levels, and WB&RM implies that the Lunars have a battalion level as well; presumably most of their problems can be dealt with by a small number of battalions.

> >Donald comments:

> Having said this the army commander would very likely devolve the
command
> of the wings in battle to subordinates (tribunes or possibly senior
regimental
> commanders?), and would maintain a general staff to reduce the
administrative
> burden.
>
> Simon
> simon.miller_at_l...
>