Appropriate Level for a Leader of 3,000 Cavalry

[Vaxalon]

Once officers rise out of the junior ranks they do mist of their fighting with a radio and a map.

I don't think that leading from the rear is really appropriate for one of the good guys, and for most of the bad guys, in a fantasy environment.

Look at the big battle where Sauron gets toasted, in FOTR.

Sauron.
Isildur.
Elrond.

They're all right up there.

Realistic? No, probably not. But versimilitude is what you're after.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think that leading from the rear is really appropriate for one of the good guys, and for most of the bad guys, in a fantasy environment.

Look at the big battle where Sauron gets toasted, in FOTR.

Sauron.
Isildur.
Elrond.

They're all right up there.

I agree - leading from the rear in a fantasy RPG context has connotations of cowardice, just as in its source material of myth, legend and fantasy fiction. Who leads from the rear in fantasy? Bureaucrats, weak (and probably corrupt) nobles, fat merchants who hire mercenaries to do their fighting for them. The brave king is always up there hacking at the foe mano-a-mano. An heroic setting needs heroic leaders. If your setting is a grittier one, based on say medieval Italy or something like the Warhammer FRP Known World, it may be different.

 

[cptg1481]

Rolling Eyes

Dude,

You either accept it or not.....a few examples does not history make. The heroic kings you mentioned are the exceptions not the rule. Also first or original source documents written by say the court historian would obviously make the king out to be a hero. I am not trying to show off but rather to qualify my statements with my credentials…and my personal experiences of combat. You may do whatever you wish for your game and there is nothing wrong with it at all. The highest level fighters make good leaders and unless you are using a system that rewards tactical and strategic skills and knowledge any experts would be wasted anyway.

Anyway, having been in combat at the small unit level (SF sniper team in Honduras and Iraq) and a leader of troops in combat (Platoon/Company Commands) and multiple officer positions at BN and BDE level, I can tell you this… If the commander rushes to the front and either fires away or hacks away at the enemy he will quickly loose touch with all but the very few soldiers near him. A leader needs to have as broad a sphere of influence as possible, and unless denied this sphere by the enemy this sphere would need to be the entire battlefield - or at least the entire area occupied by his unit if he is a subordinate leader of some type. A leader engaged in direct combat for his life would have little to no visibility of what his subordinate units are/are not doing – say a sphere about 20-30’ around him in personal melee and line of sight when not. How, I ask, when decisively engaged would he be able to gather, interpret, make decisions and/or issue any necessary orders for his subordinate leaders to follow? Who decides where and when to commit the reserve forces when you are up at the front hot dogging and have a limited view of the field? Who decides what units need to withdraw and when if you can only see the one you are with? Who decides when and where to commit key resources to tip the tide in your favor if you don’t even know how much of what you have left (since you are busy with hand to hand fighting)? When you lead your first company/platoon in combat get back to me and let me know how its done....because I had a hard getting a full and complete picture of my platoons and their status even when I wasn't decisively engaged in personal combat. I know its even more complicated at higher levels....a company has like a 8 man staff, a Brigade....similar to the element in question has about 100 soldiers on staff to make sure the commander has the best information available to make his decisions. Note: The commander makes these decisions, not the staff; he can not make these decisions if he’s up showing off fighting one on one combat with the enemy.

Any commander that becomes decisively engaged in personal combat will soon find that his highly trained army/unit and plans (which never survive first contact) will degenerate into an unorganized mob unable to exploit weaknesses in the enemy’s lines etc. Therefore my friend totally combat ineffective. The same would apply in modern as it has applied in any army. In the absence of cohesive leadership and effective orders most units just hold their position at best and retreat at worst. Now sure a charismatic leader can by a strategic appearance on the front rally the troops and make a recovery from a bad situation in some circumstances, but while he’s there with that one platoon/company the other companies are on their own, fighting, say in the case of a 3000 man cavalry unit, 10 separate battles for their own survival instead of one cohesive one for to win the day.

Bottom line is, a huge battle without a qualified leader (not he best sword swinger but one who can make tactical/strategic decisions regarding the employment of units to exploit weaknesses of the enemy) in the rear gathering information, making decisions and relaying supplementary commands to his subordinates is little more than the unorganized grab-ass of a bar fight in large scale.

You can find examples of heroic leadership all day, however, doctrine and theory demand that someone.....usually the units leader must have an overall "view" (not necessarily visual but an informational view anyway) of the battlefield and all of its subordinate parts - fire (artillery, archers), maneuver (fighting units - cavalry, infantry, and such, and support (logistics, intelligence and medical to name a few). Furthermore he must take that information and make decisions about how to react to the enemy’s movements and exploit any weaknesses. Now he could delegate this authority to a subordinate, but being responsible for the overall outcome of the battle I'd say that would be rare indeed. Especially true in a time when failure often lead to the ultimate punishment - death.

A leader who rushes to the front to engage in direct combat at any level above say a platoon is in effect derelict in his duty. I expect my leaders to lead not to be the best shot. It’s gravy yes to be good at soldier and individual skills but I’d rather have them qualified and capable to make the key decisions that would guarantee the success of our overall mission.

Captain G.

Last post for me this is tiresome!

 

[silentspace]

This kinda implies that Norman Schwarzkopf is a Fighter and Colin Powell (or Wesley Clarke) is an Expert!

Damn you S'mon! Now you have me thinking about what class/level/abilities George Bush, Arnold Schwarzennegger, and Britney Spears have!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

cptg -- Dead on. If I had a nickel for evey time I had to tell one of my platoon leaders to quit fighting his tank and start fighting his platoon ...

That said, it's a fantasy game, so we can play with the concept of heroic leadership, and ignore the fact that the leader really doesn't have full situational awareness, nor an instantaneous ability to communicate with every element on the battlefield (though his player does, from his exalted position looking down over the battle mat). Or then, maybe he does -- after all it's magic!

An interesting discussion, though I've lost the connection between this and appropriate stats for the commander of cavalry. Heh -- that's why I prefer fantasy settings for my games, rather than moderen ones -- I'm much more willing to suspend disbelief in an area further removed from my professional experiences and opinions.

Edit: Back on topic, I'd say the Marshal class from the Miniatures Handbook is a decent starting point for fantasy commanders, if you're willing to step beyond core classes. He's not the best warrior, but his abilities are keyed toward making the rest of his warriors fight better.

 

[dcollins]

I am not trying to show off but rather to qualify my statements with my credentials…and my personal experiences of combat.

So it sounds like you don't actually have any sources for your assertions about middle-ages warfare, you're just assuming that your personal expriences in the 20th century are the same as how all combat was ever carried out. Times change, you know.

 

[S'mon]

Dude,

You either accept it or not.....a few examples does not history make (snip)

Dude, you still haven't given me any support for your assertions, and as a wise chap told me today, appeals to authority as in "I'm X, therefore Y is true" is a straw man argument. Given that neither of us has direct experience of medieval warfare, I would find some cited sources a lot more impressive than your insisting over and over at great length that medieval leadership was non-heroic in nature, without any evidence to support this.

(edit: facetious remark deleted) I think you may be confusing "this is what happened in a medieval battle" with "this is how to win a medieval battle". The simple fact is that the level of tactics displayed in medieval warfare was extremely low. I'm sure they would have been well advised to follow your advice on effective command and control. But they didn't.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I base my 3E military structures on small units, using the fundamental belief that most medieval structures are based on familial/noble/charismatic bonds. As such you end up with lots and lots of small squads that have varying respect for the chain of command. I also don't activate "conscripts" except during full-fledged wars. Most concepts of noble obligation requires providing so many troop-days of support annually, so a standing force of warriors should be available during most minor skirmishes.

Barons (the most common noble with sizeable landholdings) are somewhere between captains and majors depending on the actual size of their holding (aka the number of villages). Each village provides a squad of troops with the local sheriff/huntmaster/etc as their jr officer. A more prosperous baron's personal squad may be knights or trained fighters. These act as bodyguards more than anything else.

Counts are colonels with multiple barons reporting to them.
Their guard will definitely be knight-grade combatants and occassionally will act as overwatch ofbBarons or will take command of baronial squads if the baron is incapacitated.

In some places a King is someone who controls 2 or more counties, others will add the marquis or duke at mid-levels.

Nobles are officially in charge but there are times where they will hire or have on their staff an official general who is usually knighted or given titles of their own. Generals vary in quality but typically have 1/3 - 1/2 their levels as fighter just to deal with the constant challenges from the sensitive nobles who think they're being slighted. I've got a "super-expert" class in my game, but here I'd give the general Rogue just for skill points.

Generals should be tactically as good as the liege and at higher levels almost twice as good with the exception of the "hero" grade noble.

Typical village squad
grunts W1 x12
seargent 2nd W3 x2
Jr. officer (3rd level Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue)

Typical Baronial squad
men at arms W2 x 12
seargent 2nd F3 x2
Baron (varies: slackers are W1/A2; dedicated intellectual barons are W1/A2/E2 and warrior barons F3/A2, P3/A2 or R3/A2)

Typical Count squad
men at arms F2 x 12
seargent 2nd F5 x2
Count (varies: slackers are W1/A2; dedicated intellectual Counts are W1/A3/E3 and dedicated warrior Counts F4/A3, P4/A3 or R4/A3)

 

[kigmatzomat]

I forgot to mention the number of units each noble could rally.

Barons have 3-12 villages (12 villages really means a town or city) meaning they have 3-12 squads + their personal retinue with the norm being 7 squads total.

Counts generally have 3-6 barons reporting and have personal holdings equivalent to one or two large baronies (10-30 villages). A count can rally ~20 squads and his personal retinue. He can call on ~30 addditional squads through the barony.

Dukes will have ~4 counts and will control a count's worth of personal territory. so 30 private squads and up to 100 subordinate squads.

Marquis/Prince/Low King have ~3 dukes and their own dukedom; 40 private squads and 300 subordinate squads.

High King/Emperors will have 3-6 Princes and their own princedom for 50 private squads and 1500 subordinates.

This gives a High King about ~23,000 troops he can call up and a likely populace of a half million (~5% troops). Remember that of that 5% the vast majority are only soldiers for 3 months out of the year so it really isn't one person in twenty walking around in armor.

Once you begin conscripting people the numbers get huge. IIRC, the hundred years war had armies of up to 100,000 on each side, though they were rarely at any one place.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Given that neither of us has direct experience of medieval warfare, I would find some cited sources a lot more impressive than your insisting over and over at great length that medieval leadership was non-heroic in nature, without any evidence to support this.

Well, I can't provide any direct quotes but every army has had two ways to communicate & rally: sound & signal. Insignias on banners were used in medieval times (post dark ages & roman times) to indicate rally points and unit locations. Every coat of arms, tartan, and crest that predates the 1900s was used in battle to help units regroup. It's a big basis for the concept of "capture the flag" since if you take their flag they are only able to retreat.

Retreat was of course one of the set signals from bugles/drums/horns/bagpipes. Most mobs would use horns for attack and retreat. An actual army could give commands to individual units, although the medieval unit tended to consist of dozens or hundreds of individuals and you probably wouldn't have more than three or four units from a given side.

I think you may be confusing "this is what happened in a medieval battle" with "this is how to win a medieval battle". The simple fact is that the level of tactics displayed in medieval warfare was extremely low. I'm sure they would have been well advised to follow your advice on effective command and control. But they didn't.

I disagree that it was by low by requisite. Romans had fairly complex field maneuvers with their phalanxes. Then there were the phoenicians, the spartans, and the greeks, all who had expert tacticians. Matter of fact, many of which were considered field reference manuals until the early 1900s and are likely still studied today. Hannibal and Alexander both leap to mind.

Did most societies use tactics? Nope, but 90% of medieval "armies" were really an assortment of various squabbling tribes/clans. They were not "armed forces" with a true chain of command; "attack now/attack later" was often the most control a clan chief had on his troops. Assasinate the clan chief and the mob disintigrates; assassinate the general and the army soldiers on, likely less competently, but still keeps going.

Forgotten realms is an idealized version of arthurian england, pre-western asia, egypt, and Alexander's empire. With the exception of the Hordes (which are very mongol), every region can be considered to be at its cultural zenith. As such, tactics should be the norm.

A 3E renaissance-level campaign should be closer to modern tactics thanks to instant communication via sending, message, lessser telepathic bond & other magical means. Even ring-gates work better at passing messages back and forth than anything medieval.

FR is *very* magic rich so in this setting modern tactics are particularly worthwhile. And since IIRC the FR society has been strifed by war for many years without a Dark Ages for several centuries combat tactics should be honed to a razor's edge.