>>> It certainly can't be worse than the Roman system for two
>>> consuls commanding the same army on alternate days.
>>?? The mind boggles. They really did this?
>Yes. It sometimes lead to defeat IIRC, when General's started battles in
>unfavourable tactical positions, because it was their day to command and
>they wanted to gain the kudos of victory. I think there would be more logic
>to the suggested Lunar approach, than the Roman!
And a simplification of the Athenian system where there were ten Strategoi who each took it in turn. This approach is nothing to do with effectiveness in command but a deliberate policy of restricting the power of individuals in a democracy. In fact there weren't many decisions for a commander to take with those armies and those there were would usually be taken in consultantion with the other commanders. You don't upset another commander when you'll be following his orders a few days later.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail