The ILH-1 covers ranks up to Battalion/Regimental level in detail with titles for each of the main Lunar cultures as well as the New Pelorian ones. The Dara Happen appear to be derived from Greek and the New Pelorian from Roman. I'm not sure about the others.
>There are some directly relevant Greek terms that would fit most units the
>Lunar OOB:-
>
>Chiliarch - a commander of 1,000 infantry ? (Chiliarchia = 1000 soldiers)
>
>Hipparch - a cavalry commander- (Hipparchia ? a formation probably
>consisting of 512 cavalrymen - I?ve also seen this term used for the
>second in command of an army)
>
>For the less common 500 man infantry and 1000 man cavalry units there are:-
>
>Pentakosiarch ? commander of a unit of 500 infantry (Pentakosiarchia)
>Ephipparch ? commander of a unit of 1000 horse ? (Hipparchia = a
>formation of c1000 horsemen)
ILH-1 gives the term Polemarch for 1000 DH infantry, Kastarch for 500 DH cavalry and Tribune for the New Pelorian equilvents. I don't think we'll get anywhere arguing about these terms although Nick has dug out a use of Legate instead of Tribune in OiD.
>For the army command we have:-
>
>Polemarch ? Is a bit of a poser. A Polemarch was one of the magistrates
>of ancient Athens. Originally, the Polemarch was a commander of the army,
>but after 487/6 BC, when the Athenian magistrates were appointed by lot,
>the military duties were handled by the Strategoi. This office also had
>religious and legal functions. I would favour using this term for the
>overall army commander, rather than the regimental commander (which I
>believe from the discussions it might have been used for); Chiliarch is
>the most appropriate term for regimental infantry officers.
>
>Strategos - The term Strategos (plural strategoi) is used in Greek to
>mean "general". In the Byzantine Empire the term was also used in the
>to describe a military governor. Interestingly there were often multiple
>Strategoi with an army e.g. ?According to Herodotus, five Strategoi voted
>for the move and five voted against it, with Callimachus, the Polemarch,
>casting the deciding vote in favour of attack.? (Clipped from a source
>about the battle of Marathon). This would make the term very appropriate
>for the staff officers and sub-generals we talked about at the weekend.
>
>So in my worldview the Polemarch would command the army, assisted by a
>council of Strategoi; some of these would be career military men, and
>some civilian political appointees. Some would have been selected by
>the Emperor and court; others might be from the Polemarch?s ?ring?.
>The Strategoi would be assigned responsibilities (as Stu was suggesting)
>e.g. Master of the Camp, Commander of the Left Wing. One Strategos
>would be designated second in Command.
>
>Regimental Officers would also be likely to attend the War Council; they
>would mostly be Chiliarchs of the Infantry, or Hipparchs of the Cavalry.
> A Pentakosiarch or two from smaller light infantry commands might also
>be present.
>
>
>I?d be interested to see what people think; apologies in advance if there
>are gaps in my scholarship; it?s all Greek to me!
I think there's a problem with this approach due to the fact that you have tried to make a coherent system out of greek terms from three different periods - the Greek City States, Macedonia and Byzantine Empire.
In Athens 10,000 was a large army so the ten generals (or strategoi) of which the polemarch was one would be equivelent of the regimental officers and they took command in rotation. Other city states had fewer troops and I think different systems of command. All these generals would have experience as hoplites since it was an obligation of citizenship.
Alexander had several times that figure so his generals would include the polemarch of Athens and others representing those who contributed many troops.
By the Byzantine empire (7-800 years later) you have a more established army structure and any similarities in titles can't be assumed to refer to similar positions.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail