Appropriate Level for a Leader of 3,000 Cavalry

[Aaron2]

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.

Didn't you just say "Of course I'd love to see an example." Don't ask for examples and then insult those who give them.

Alexander conquered most of the known world leading from the front. His exploits are well documented (by both sides). In 334, at the battle of Granicus, he lead 35,000 troops while also participating in a breakthrough cavalry charge. His troops had a frontage of a little over 2 miles, of open terrain. Contrast that with the D-Day landings which had less then 2,000 men per mile of frontage.


Aaron

 

[green slime]

Didn't you just say "Of course I'd love to see an example." Don't ask for examples and then insult those who give them.

Alexander conquered most of the known world leading from the front. His exploits are well documented (by both sides). In 334, at the battle of Granicus, he lead 35,000 troops while also participating in a breakthrough cavalry charge. His troops had a frontage of a little over 2 miles, of open terrain. Contrast that with the D-Day landings which had less then 2,000 men per mile of frontage.


Aaron

But he didn't immediately engage the army in hand to hand fighting when the battle was started. Instead, he was hanging back gathering information, directing commanders, and saw a weakness, and decided to go for it. He knew that it would resolve the battle in his favour. By waiting, he gathered the information pertinent to the victory. By participating in the charge, he could see that it was executed as he desired, AND he knew it would serve as a personal inspiration to all his men. It also shows that he trusted his other commanders to not screw up in the mean time. Because he sure as hell couldn't tell them what to do while participating in a cavalry charge. So we know that when he sat in that saddle, he was convinced it would decide the battle.

I think you'll find most cases of ancient or medieval commanders actually joining the fray are in similar situations, or complete imbeciles/bloodthirsty twits.

 

[silentspace]

Basically, as I said before, I think the tactician-type leader makes some sense, and could make for some interesting game play.

But I think I have a counter-example! I'm not an expert though so I could be wrong. What about Ghengis Khan? In movies he's always a great warrior, and also at the head of his barbarian swarm. There are other Asian barbarian types as well, such as Attila the Hun. Could be they really didn't need advanced military tactics as such, and their plan was to simply overwhelm the enemy through sheer force (barbarian rage?). Like I said though, I'm no expert, and there's a good chance I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[green slime]

Basically, as I said before, I think the tactician-type leader makes some sense, and could make for some interesting game play.

But I think I have a counter-example! I'm not an expert though so I could be wrong. What about Ghengis Khan? In movies he's always a great warrior, and also at the head of his barbarian swarm. There are other Asian barbarian types as well, such as Attila the Hun. Could be they really didn't need advanced military tactics as such, and their plan was to simply overwhelm the enemy through sheer force (barbarian rage?). Like I said though, I'm no expert, and there's a good chance I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well, you are very wrong.

The Mongols won their battles through superiour manouevrability. Their combination of bows and horse riding meant that they had no desire for fighting mano-a-mano, but instead fought their battles by approaching the enemy army, firing on them, then withdrawing. Usually this lead to some frustration on the part of the European Knights, who then tried to give chase, and once seperated from their main army, were cut to pieces. Whole armies were destroyed in this fashion.

Not a raging barbarian in sight. No "sheer force". Merely smart tactics against a well armoured foe.

 

[cptg1481]

Last One I Promise

This is becoming silly....Ok, I have not cited sources....umm, not really relevant here I think. I'm not about to go looking up references and such...Its a game folks. Anyway, it is clear you do not accept my points and I would guess that enough material exists out there you to counter any point I make with a book title just as easy as I could find one to counter each of yours given the desire to do so. My real life beckons!

I know what I know, and that is one can not effectively lead, that is effectively maneuver and control the actions of a large number of troops, while engaged in a struggle for his life at the front. This was just as true on a stone age hunting party, as it was in antiquity, as it is now, and as it always will be. Been there done it. I will not debate this point with someone who's never been there.

In my studies of history I have found that if one selects the right sources and strategically disregards others he could make anything appear true. Its as easy as twisting statistics to reflect the desired outcome. Cynical, you bet....there is little if any real verifiable truth to most historical texts. History is an art not a science. There remains no one alive who can validate your claims or mine. Books written by historians then and now always have an agenda therefore the information therein is suspect at best. As for wars and the accounts of them, they were and are written in most part by the victors of said battles and maybe even scribes in the employ of all those spectacular generals of history themselves. Suspect at best again. Sure they were great their scribe wrote it down right here, see?

Enough said on that...you either accept what I say or you don't, however, I doubt that you are likely to accept it under any circumstance. So I'll not further waste my time.

To get back to the original question which was the most appropriate class or combinations thereof for a leader of a unit of 3000 men. Appropriate to me being the combination most likely to produce a favorable outcome - in this case victory.

I still say that at this level (3000 soldiers) a Fighter/Expert with a heavy dose of skills like tactics, logistics, training and strategy is the best possible solution. If the Marshal class is appropriate that's fine...don't have it myself so can't recommend it. Sure there are exceptions to every rule and there are likely to be a good many charismatic sword swinging generals out there who just like to mix it up with the bad guys. However, at the rear of that battle, if he wants to win that is, there is someone who is making the decisions about what to do next. Therefore he, the one making the decisions about where, when, and how to deploy the troops in response to the enemy army's actions is actually the one "leading" the army/unit not the hot dog at the front. He's simply fighting in a battle not leading an army/unit in battle.

This is mostly a stylistic debate, the originator of of the question can determine what is appropriate in his world from the responses given to his question.

S'mon and I have hijacked this horribly and for my part in that I am sorry....It was my intent to give you a good first hand account of what works in combat and what doesn't not a history lesson from books. Take it for what its worth...use it or don't...it matters little to me.

To S'mon, perhaps I used poor word choice that led you to be so defensive about you position, this got way out of hand. I don't validate my experiences for anyone....you either accept my position or you don't. I think of it like this...I can't site a book and a page that contains the workings of the internal combustion engine but I can tell you that American cars for the most part suck. Believe it or don't perhaps it'll save you some money in the long run. I can't give you a book that says we won the Revolutionary War either but that does not make it a false statement - I just know we did. You either believe me or you don't. I could care less either way. I got tied up in this due to momentary insanity...can't think of any other reason I'd care about your responses, this is my first and last debate here.

So originator, take care, hope you have the information you need to make a good effective combat leader...just remember the best fighter may not always be the one who can keep a unit together and ensure that the victory conditions are met by responding to the actions of the enemy with decisive and well thought out actions/counter actions. This is especially true if the same good fighter is surrounded by mêlée combatants fighting for his life at the front.

Captain G.


Since I am not going to look up and annotate my posts with footnotes, one can add In My Opinion (IMO) to everything.

 

[cptg1481]

Careful Now Where are your footnotes?

But he didn't immediately engage the army in hand to hand fighting when the battle was started. Instead, he was hanging back gathering information, directing commanders, and saw a weakness, and decided to go for it. He knew that it would resolve the battle in his favour. By waiting, he gathered the information pertinent to the victory. By participating in the charge, he could see that it was executed as he desired, AND he knew it would serve as a personal inspiration to all his men. It also shows that he trusted his other commanders to not screw up in the mean time. Because he sure as hell couldn't tell them what to do while participating in a cavalry charge. So we know that when he sat in that saddle, he was convinced it would decide the battle.

I think you'll find most cases of ancient or medieval commanders actually joining the fray are in similar situations, or complete imbeciles/bloodthirsty twits.

Hey you can't chime in without footnotes and a bibliography.....seriously though kudos to you this is what I was trying to say and couldn't manage to scratch out of my head in like three pages of text....huzzah!

They do join in but after they know whats going on. Which is most likely the majority of the battle spent on the hill overlooking the masses. Plying tactics, ensuring logistics are where they need to be, deciding when and where to commit the reserve and bamm!!! Now we have them lets go guys....ye hah!!!!!

Thanks for bringing a spark of hope to a doomed thread.

 

[S'mon]

But he didn't immediately engage the army in hand to hand fighting when the battle was started. Instead, he was hanging back gathering information, directing commanders, and saw a weakness, and decided to go for it. He knew that it would resolve the battle in his favour. By waiting, he gathered the information pertinent to the victory. By participating in the charge, he could see that it was executed as he desired, AND he knew it would serve as a personal inspiration to all his men. It also shows that he trusted his other commanders to not screw up in the mean time. Because he sure as hell couldn't tell them what to do while participating in a cavalry charge. So we know that when he sat in that saddle, he was convinced it would decide the battle.

I think you'll find most cases of ancient or medieval commanders actually joining the fray are in similar situations, or complete imbeciles/bloodthirsty twits.

Alexander is perhaps the paradigmatic example of effective heroic leadership - both executing effective command and control over his army _and_ entering the battle personally at the critical point, as you say. Roman leadership was unusual in being primarily non-heroic, much more similar to modern leadership, although Roman commanders did occasionally enter the battle personally; either at the critical point (like Julius Caesar), or in pursuit of personal glory (to a Roman commander the highest victory was to kill the enemy commander in personal combat, this was almost never achieved), or to ensure an heroic death when all was lost (eg Catiline).
Post-Roman warfare reverted to the heroic style, with the leader expected to be a 'warlord' skilled as much or more in personal fighting ability than in tactical ability. Tactics were not dead; an effective medieval leader still maintained a fair degree of c&c over his army, but were secondary to the setting of an heroic example, which could often work to the detriment of good tactical sense. The emergence of standing armies, increasing army size and perhaps the development of gunpowder as an effective battlefield weapon in the early modern era ca 1500-1700 saw the end of the heroic leadership style and the emergence of the modern concept of the command officer.

 

[S'mon]

Well, you are very wrong.

The Mongols won their battles through superiour manouevrability. Their combination of bows and horse riding meant that they had no desire for fighting mano-a-mano, but instead fought their battles by approaching the enemy army, firing on them, then withdrawing. Usually this lead to some frustration on the part of the European Knights, who then tried to give chase, and once seperated from their main army, were cut to pieces. Whole armies were destroyed in this fashion.

Not a raging barbarian in sight. No "sheer force". Merely smart tactics against a well armoured foe.

The Mongols were horribly efficient, pragmatic killers, as well as being exceptionally bloodthirsty and incredibly ruthless. They used the same herding tactics used to control their herds on the steppes to control and slaughter the disorganised mobs that usually faced them on the battlefield. In terms of tactics, the feudal medieval armies of eastern Europe that they defeated so easily fitted the 'dumb barbarian' stereotype much more closely than the Mongols ever did.

IMC the 'Mongol' culture is by far the most feared force on the planet, with a well-deserved reputation as being practically invincible in their chosen form of battle - maneuver warfare on level terrain.

In FR the Horde series rather did the Mongols a disservice - their highest spellcaster was 9th level! Matching an almost entirely 'historical' Mongol army vs the worst excesses of FR high magic (Cormyr's 300 high level War Wizards for a start) seemed a mite unfair.

 

[S'mon]

Getting back to the original point of the thread:

For the highest level character in a force of 3000 I'd suggest 11th (regular soldiers, 75% 1st level) to 12th (veteran soldiers, 50% 1st level), for level-distribution reasons suggested above. If the 3000 are mostly farmers with a small core of regular troops the leader may be much lower level, though, and if they're ultra-elite it will be higher. Eg if all are level 4+, with 50% 4th, the highest level NPC will be 15th level.

For a typical quasi-medieval setting the highest level character may well be the army commander, either the local senior noble - duke, king etc, or a marshall appointed by the king. Theoretically he could be a junior commander or even an adventurer type in a strike team/bodyguard unit under the commander's control.

Example - IMC with a culture similar to Europe ca 1500, the army of the Southern Scornic League, a collection of small Italian-style city states, was recently mustered for war, comprising 1800 mostly veteran troops. The overall theoretical commander, Margrave Kanor, is an 8th level aristrocrat, but he's well aware that he himself is a politician not a warrior, so to lead the army he appointed Captain Sigurd (PC), a 12th level Fighter-Barbarian-Warlord, an experienced military commander who is also among the greatest warriors in the realm. Several other powerful warriors (PC & NPC) not suited to a command role were appointed to a strike team charged with eliminating the enemy commander, a tough Cambion (half-demon) named Harecules.

 

[Darklone]

I suggest you have a look at the KPG if available for the various knowledge (military tactics, military logistics and military strategy) skills...