>> I'm not familiar with the details of that programme, how many
>> captains are there? Up to about ten it's manageable, Broyan
>> has many more leaders than that.
>
>Not familiar with the "Sopranos"? Christ, next thing you are going
>to say is that you aren't familiar with "Deadwood".
The Cheapass game of that name? or another US TV series?
>Seriously, although I am very familiar with span of command theories
>of management, I suspect the forces at Whitewall function like the
>White Company of the 1360s:
>
>"The captain-general, who earned his position by means of respect,
>confirmed by election, presided over a well-articulated hierarchy of
>captains, corporals, and marshals. Smaller companies existed within
>the larger one. A unit might consist of as few as twelve lances
>(thirty-six men), with its own captain and treasurer who ensured a
>degree of autonomy at the micro level. It was up to the skill of
>the captain-general to keep these restless particles together. All
>decisions were arrived at by the common consent of the commander and
>a council made up of the leaders of the various contingents. Booty
>derived from pillage and plunder was carefully divided by the leader
>and the council among the company's rank and file."
>
>>From "The Devil's Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in Fourteenth-
>Century Italy" by Frances Stonor Saunders.
Which is describing a multi-level hierarchy. I'm working less on tha basis of management theory but the observable fact that every organisation develops a hierachy of decision making which works effectively up to about 10 subordinates per leader. Up to about 20 it works inefficently and above that it stops functioning at all. What in practice develops is another layer of maybe four or five who make the decisions with the leader and the main meeting becomes a way of communicating those decisions to the rest.
>Again, that's how it worked. Most pre-modern armies had a very flat
>structure: commander - captain - fighter.
That's the formal structure, although just about every army where I've seen a structure had a level between captain and fighter. Whether he had the title of fileleader, knight or whatever. In addition to that there is the informal structure which you find out from accounts of campaigns where particular individuals were appointed to positions of responsibility.
For a Heortling type organisation look at Bonnie Prince Charlie's army of 1745. Under the Prince were about half a dozen lords chosen for a combination of military experience and political standing. Under them were the individual clans and various other units like the Lifeguards. Some clans wouldn't serve under some lords or with other clans, while others insisted on serving on the right flank. Of course the lords squabbled among themselves as well.
>> So many disagreements that it becomes unworkable, there just
>> aren't that many hours in a day.
>
>I suspect that there are many councils of war (maybe even a daily
>occurence) where Broyan meets with the 50ish warband leaders and
>decides what shall be done. Sure in many cases Broyan will say
>something like "Korlmhy and Gustand - I want you to follow Kallyr
>and her bands against the Lunar camp while I lead my men against the
>seigelines. Gyffur, I want you to come with me."
I'm sure there are such meetings, what I dispute is that anything is decided there. Even with modern meeting protocol a 50 person committee doesn't take decisions. Broyan makes the decisions in advance in consultation with a small group of advisors. That inner circle are the effective leaders and most warband leaders will either be supporting one of those leaders or politicing to get themselves into that inner circle, maybe both.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail