I am the very model of medieval major generals...

[Teflon Billy]

People seem to be listing a lot of skills that no one ever takes as pre-req's for being a "General".

In my games all of the "Georgraphy", "Logistics" and what-have-you is left to a War Council: experts brought in to make sure Water gets to thirsty troops and that the wounded are seen to in a timely fashion etc.

The "General" Clay seems to be talking about is, in my campaigns, a High-Level, High-Charisma Fighter (I don't allow Paladins, and my homebrew clerics are closer to being Sorcerors than anything) with decent skill levels in Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate.

The General in my games though, is not a back-ranks type. He ususally leads the most expensive unit available (most often Heavy Cavalry) and uses his charisma and skills to rally broken units back into formation while leading his own unit in decisive frays (shattering shield walls and broken enemy units for the most part).

In my campiagn world, Fighting Men are inspired when they are led on the field by a Terrifying Example, rather than from the rear by a Calculating Puppeteer.

My General would look something like Fighter 10/Knight of the Purple Dragon 5

 

[adwyn]

IMC generals are usually fighters or aristocrats. Being a general means having a median level of competency and high levels of loyalty. Clerics sometimes become generals, but that always seems to come on the heels of or signify the coming of a theocracy.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

History is replete with examples of successful generals who led from the front (David, Saul, Abner, Patton, Alexander, Richard the Lionhearted) and those who led from the rear (Julius Ceasar, U.S. Grant, etc). Both models should also be valid in the game.

I would probably assign a general either Fighter/Aristocrat (4 levels of aristocrat add a lot of social capability to any fighter), Marshall, Aristocrat, Bard (probably only ranks in perform oratory), or Patrician (a class from Paradigm Concepts Players' Guide To Arcanis that's been growing on me recently) depending upon his style of leadership.

All successful generals would have a fair int and charisma and a good wisdom but would not necessarily be skilled warriors in their own right. Most would be good judges of character (sense motive) and able to inspire or bully their troops as the situation called for it (Diplomacy and intimidate). They might or might not have bluff and would probably have a few ranks in knowledge skills like geography and nobility and royalty but wouldn't necessarily be experts. They don't need to be experts in all those fields. They just need to know when to listen to the experts (and when to ignore them).

 

[kigmatzomat]

People seem to be listing a lot of skills that no one ever takes as pre-req's for being a "General".

In my games all of the "Georgraphy", "Logistics" and what-have-you is left to a War Council: experts brought in to make sure Water gets to thirsty troops and that the wounded are seen to in a timely fashion etc.

In my campiagn world, Fighting Men are inspired when they are led on the field by a Terrifying Example, rather than from the rear by a Calculating Puppeteer.

I don't see the skills as the pre-req, more the result. You don't need disable device, search, hide in shadows, etc to become a thief but you really should have them if you *are* a thief. Note I didn't say "rogue", I said "thief" and someone who steals things should be able to do certain things.

By the same token, a general should be able to do many things. He won't be the best person for many of the tasks, but he will be familiar with what is going on so he can maximize his troops. By the same token, a War Council are experts who provide counsel but it is up to the General to make the decisions. As a result, the general should gain basic insights from his counselors, giving him ranks in their skills. I imagine a career general will have many, many skills at 5 while his advisors have 15's.

The General in my games though, is not a back-ranks type. He ususally leads the most expensive unit available (most often Heavy Cavalry) and uses his charisma and skills to rally broken units back into formation while leading his own unit in decisive frays (shattering shield walls and broken enemy units for the most part).

I agree that most generals will be pretty tough in a fight (hence some fighter levels), but in non-barbarian settings the general should *not* be the baddest man in the army. He should be the smartest, cunning, and effective man in the army. Generals will probably be charismatic (most are, given the politics required to not have your career tanked)

Generals are force multipliers, not force additions. A good general can double or triple the effectiveness of an army which is, in the whole, far superior to adding any one sword swinger.

Part of the difference between "warrior" and "commander" is a commander mentally stays above the fight, detached enough to see the big picture and command their full force. Warriors may know tactics, but generals know strategy. Generals will have very large forces and you can't give commands in a radio-free world if you're swinging a sword. You need to give and process messages from runners, drummers, heliographers, and pigeonhandlers while keeping track of the events occuring near you.

No general in a medieval setting will be a REMF for long; you have to be right on the front so you can get intel as quickly as possible. In D&D terms, every 10' farther you are from the line adds 1 second to the delay in commands. Stay back 480' and it takes someone 4 rounds to run to you and 4 rounds to run back (48 seconds).

 

[Piratecat]

The General in my games though, is not a back-ranks type. He ususally leads the most expensive unit available (most often Heavy Cavalry) and uses his charisma and skills to rally broken units back into formation while leading his own unit in decisive frays (shattering shield walls and broken enemy units for the most part).

In my campiagn world, Fighting Men are inspired when they are led on the field by a Terrifying Example, rather than from the rear by a Calculating Puppeteer.

These are my captains. My Generals are usually the ones who figure out where to send these guys to do the most tactical good. In the same way that the Peter Principle says that people rise to the level of their incompetence, you don't want a really good fighter bossing around the troops... if he does that, he has no time to actually oversee the battle while he's kicking butt.

 

[Galethorn]

There's about four kinds of large-scale military leaders in my setting;

Combat General
These are the generals that lead individual armies into individual battles. This role is best filled with inspiring individuals, who can at least hold their own in a fight, since their main goal is to keep the men from faltering, since most battles don't really involve that much maneuvering once the two armies meet. Their main concern, other than keeping the men inspired, is tactic, rather than strategy. These guys are usually highly skilled warriors, either high- or low-born, depending on their prestige. For instance, a militiaman who lead victory after victory with small forces would probably be chosen before the king's son as an army general, unless the king's son was a very, very skilled leader.

Army General
These are the guys who are in command of a particular army, and keep track of logistics, strategy, and so forth. They don't have to be as skilled in combat as Combat Generals, but they usually have to be a lot smarter. Usually, Army Generals are also the ones in charge of coming up with strategy, as opposed to tactics. Most Army Generals are nobles/gentry/royalty, but the occasional 'learned knight' rises through the ranks to such a position.

War General
More often than not unskilled in personal combat, War Generals are the people whose only concern is the 'big picture'. Though they seldom even see the battlefields they send men into--at least while the fighting is going on--War Generals have perhaps the most important role in winning a war. While Combat Generals give inspiring speeches, and Army Generals decide which hill to attack from, War Generals decide which cities to besiege, where to send each army, and so forth. Only the smartest, most cunning individuals can guarantee success as a War General. Usually, War Generals come from the ranks of Army Generals who repeatedly brough victory, though often, the king himself will take this role, if he is skilled or stupid enough to avoid having others do this.

Hero-General
When a Combat General shows amazing faculty for strategy and logistics, or a War General happens to be a nigh-unstoppable warrior on the field, a Hero-General is born. These guys are the ones who plan out supply lines, map the perfect attack strategy, then lead the charge into battle. This king among generals will bring hope to the most hopeless situations, then lead his enheartened men to a total victory. Thes men are so rare that less than one is seen in every five major wars. However, when a Hero-General does arise, it almost always spells defeat for the other side. Hero-Generals come from all walks of life, and the only unifying characteristic is their bravery.


----------

So, Combat General= Duly experienced warrior. Army General= Smart tactician. War-General= Cunning strategist. Hero-General= 48-point stats.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I don't classify generals the same. Or more accurately, I don't think some of that is work for a General.

Tactical combat commander: Captains & Majors.
Unit size: <500 men
Typical mission: attack west flank, capture unwalled cities or small walled towns.
The highest rank most skilled fighters will recieve in most militaries. While many Fighters/Rangers/Paladins have the skills to command units of a dozen men (i.e. lieutenant), few will have the skills to manage the distributed combat that will occur at this level.
This is the highest rank likely to be routinely assigned combat missions. Barons (the lowest ranked of the typical lordly nobles) default to the rank of Major due to the troops they personally command and you'll note it is convenient that a Baron's ranking military man is often given the title of Captain.


local strategic commander: Colonel
Unit size: ~1,500 men
Typical mission: hold a pass, secure supply lines, prioritize cities for capture
Colonels have proven themselves as tactical commanders and have the logistical and management skills to handle larger forces with long term (i.e. strategic) projects. Colonels will more often than not signify the existence of an HQ, simply by the number of troops and supplies required. A colonel's command almost always requires a supply train.
Nobles of Count status or higher rarely have ranks lower than Colonel simply due to the number of troops they would personally bring to the field in the case of war and because it would be politically unwise to send out these nobles on patrol. Note that a Count will bring a few baronies worth of troops.
Truth of the matter is that many Counts will likely stay home to guard the county and protect his people while sending off Barons to represent them.

Regional strategic commander: General
Unit size: ~10,00 men
Typical mission: secure a region, siege a city
This rank is one not handed out lightly. The amount of destruction 10,000 men can cause is immense. (BTW a 10,000 man force was fairly common at least by the 1600's)
As a result it is as much a political appointment as a command decision. A ruler is often judged by his generals since they indicate the type of war he will wage.
Because of the communication issues, Generals will often be in the field near the battle, preferrably on high ground where they can see as much as possible. A general will see much fighting, though it should not often reach him.
Generals are always knighted and often made Thanes (i.e. the King "loans" him a title) with a rank equivalent to Duke. This ensures they are given the respect they need. Dukes also tend to "inherit" the title of General simply by fielding many thousand troops.
A duke will often take the field, allowing the majority of Counts to manage the homefront relying on a few combat-proven Counts for his HQ and a large cadre of barons for tactical commanders.


Overall strategic commander: Field Marshall
Unit size: ~20-50,000 men
Typical mission: invade a country, secure the western front
Most king's reserve this rank for themselves but those few leaders who find a commander able to handle the tasks are most grateful. The field marshall is often mobile, visiting regional HQs to get a feel of the front. Field Marshall's delegate to Generals and Colonels, providing tactical tips but leaving the actual tactical implementation of strategy to them. It is assumed they are competent which would make it rude to do otherwise and being rude to a proud nobleman is a great way to have him do something stupid in the name of honor. (Remember how I said it was a political appointment?)
Field Marshall's are virtually always given the the title of Duke and in many cases are given command of many of the king's personal troops, further solidifying their political rank. It's one thing to kill a messenger from someone of equal rank and deny knowledge, it's another to kill the Royal Guardsmen.