Difference between revisions of "Talk:Command Hierarchy"
m |
(→Reliability: Tom's arguments not valid) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
This Background Information page may be of some help [[Medieval_Warfare]], though it's a little rough and ready. | This Background Information page may be of some help [[Medieval_Warfare]], though it's a little rough and ready. | ||
I am currently studying the medieval period at university, and, while it varied from army to army, things were never as organised as the modern, Clausewitzian army is. If the king was weak, he took orders from his generals, and if the general was weak, his knights might not bother to turn up.--[[User:Egregious|Egregious]] 23:49, 5 February 2008 (CET) | I am currently studying the medieval period at university, and, while it varied from army to army, things were never as organised as the modern, Clausewitzian army is. If the king was weak, he took orders from his generals, and if the general was weak, his knights might not bother to turn up.--[[User:Egregious|Egregious]] 23:49, 5 February 2008 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Soo, we try to fit BM to english/friench version of feudal relations in Europe, huh? Actually, it is only one version of many existing that time in Europe, not very efficient one to be honest. BattleMaster in the recent form worked in the Central Europe feudality system: all knights called to war by the King and leaded by the King himself. Read about "Pospolite ruszenie" in Poland, just as an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pospolite_ruszenie). And when it was also the working REAL SYSTEM, then the argument "in_Middle_Ages_people_did_not_act_that_way" is NOT VALID anymore. [[User:Anna|Anna]] 00:18, 6 February 2008 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 01:18, 6 February 2008
"if you don't see shared scout reports of the neighbouring regions when you log in, scout and share the reports" One presume the exact wording on the standing order itself should be a bit more IC than that...--Fodder 22:21, 5 February 2008 (CET)
Second-in-command: (nobody) and this poor guy don't have place in the militar hierarchy? he can really help marshall... Vecchioratto 22:31, 5 February 2008 (CET)
Reliability
I would gladly like to see any HISTORICAL SOURCE on which Tom supports his visions about command chain. The fact is that the King could always override the orders of his dukes, and believe me, it was never in the form of request.
Additional note, the General never send requests. He ORDERS. It´s not like "oh the general requested us to attack France, but we don´t fell like it since only our marshal can order us". No. The General does not have time to have knights thinking if they want to attack or not. The General orders. He can stay on the front lines, and issue orders to the army. His captains and Marshals would make sure the orders were followed, but he would never request things. Anna 23:14, 5 February 2008 (CET)
This Background Information page may be of some help Medieval_Warfare, though it's a little rough and ready. I am currently studying the medieval period at university, and, while it varied from army to army, things were never as organised as the modern, Clausewitzian army is. If the king was weak, he took orders from his generals, and if the general was weak, his knights might not bother to turn up.--Egregious 23:49, 5 February 2008 (CET)
- Soo, we try to fit BM to english/friench version of feudal relations in Europe, huh? Actually, it is only one version of many existing that time in Europe, not very efficient one to be honest. BattleMaster in the recent form worked in the Central Europe feudality system: all knights called to war by the King and leaded by the King himself. Read about "Pospolite ruszenie" in Poland, just as an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pospolite_ruszenie). And when it was also the working REAL SYSTEM, then the argument "in_Middle_Ages_people_did_not_act_that_way" is NOT VALID anymore. Anna 00:18, 6 February 2008 (CET)
