|
Post by Minister on Jul 31, 2004 10:36:48 GMT -5
I've opined on the Lord Commander Solaw/Warmaster thing allready, so I'll not repeat my view.
On the General bit, it is common to abreviate a specific rank when either being informal or when you're not entirley sure as to the rank (calling someone "admiral" when they're a vice admiral, for example), so it's not definitive.
|
|
|
Post by Brusilov on Aug 1, 2004 22:04:36 GMT -5
Indeed you would definitely call someone by a short version of his tittle.
I agree entirely with Minister on the whole idea of Crusade. It was the Macharian Crusade, hence Macharius was Warmaster. However he seemed to have prefered to retain his title of Lord Commandr Solar.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 1, 2004 22:53:04 GMT -5
I treat the title 'Warmaster' in the same way as you might call a renowned officer of any rank a 'Leader' or a 'Hero' - it's not a rank, it's a colloquialism for a theatre commander - be he a Lord Commander or a mere General.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Aug 1, 2004 23:06:08 GMT -5
In the piece of fluff I'm referring to though, it's not just Macharius calling Sejanus a General for short. Sejanus is referred to as a General by the writer, and he's quoted as 'General Sejanus' in two places. As far as I know, GW doesn't normally abbreviate ranks in quotes such as that. Feel free to believe that he was in fact a Lord General, but keep in mind that no one seems to have any sense of certainty that they have read this..
And just to throw in my ten cents, I also side with Minister in the question of Warmasters and Crusades.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 2, 2004 3:37:35 GMT -5
I'm just not convinced that a simple General is important enough to lead such a huge army group. Besides, Lord General Sejanus just sounds so much more grand...
As for the 'Lord' prefix - can we take this to be referring to the officer in question being assigned to a region rather than a formation? Lordship suggests a feudal domain, which fits rather nicely with the duties of a Lord General...
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Aug 2, 2004 4:10:59 GMT -5
I'm just not convinced that a simple General is important enough to lead such a huge army group. Besides, Lord General Sejanus just sounds so much more grand... Everything sounds grand when you put Lord General in front of it. And I really don't know anything about General Sejanus' army group, so I couldn't say whether it makes sense or not. By the way, I believe Sejanus was made a Saint after this war. Or perhaps he was just named after Saint Sejanus. Makes sense, but then again I don't know enough about the IG to tell you if this fits.
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Aug 2, 2004 11:21:19 GMT -5
I agree entirely with Minister on the whole idea of Crusade. It was the Macharian Crusade, hence Macharius was Warmaster. However he seemed to have prefered to retain his title of Lord Commandr Solar. And just to throw in my ten cents, I also side with Minister in the question of Warmasters and Crusades. ;D And I'm quite sure that none of Macharius' Generals have ever been called anything but plain Generals, but it does make sense to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 2, 2004 21:54:03 GMT -5
You're probably right about the General thing, now I look it over. Particularly now that I'm blathering about feudality in the Guard, a roving officer in command of an army group is more likely a mere General.
|
|
|
Post by Brusilov on Aug 2, 2004 22:15:20 GMT -5
According to my own structure of the Imperial Guard, Sejanus should indeed have been a Lord General, provided he was given command of a theatre of operations. In my vision, the title of Lord General is given to any general officer in charge of a theatre of operations, usually a system or at best a couple of them. Consider him as the commander of an army group or something like that...
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 2, 2004 23:06:47 GMT -5
They weren't, particularly. The Army Groups were roving forces that attacked sequentially then moved on - not a particular region's defensive power.
The way I see it, the realm of officership falls into three categories - formation, domain and theatre.
Formation is the fixed structure of the guard - an Army, Division and so on, which has a commanding officer. Fairly straightforward.
Domain is an established region such as a sector in peacetime - the (Guard only) forces there are under command of an officer responsible for defensive deployment - often having some jurisdiction over the PDF too.
Theatre is an active warzone - a Crusade or an area within one, where the officer in command is a combined arms rank, often referred to as Warmaster due to their special dispensation to use any and all forces in the region.
Now, I see 'Lord' titles as referring to an officer of a Domain, in the feudal sense. The Lord General or Lord Commander has power over all the ground forces within his region, regardless of size, unless he is directly overruled by someone who outranks him.
Regular officers, those without a Lord title, are formation commanders - Armies, Divisions and Brigades. They go where they're told under the command of a Lord officer
Warmasters are any rank, but generally a Lord of some description, tasked to an active warzone with all forces in that warzone under his direct command - can only be overruled by the Lord Commander Militant of the Imperial Guard.
|
|
|
Post by Brusilov on Aug 3, 2004 21:32:00 GMT -5
I generally agree with you Sojourner. Here is how I see your three seperate structure would work: - formation officers: Major-General (brigade), Lieutenant-General (division), General (corps) - theatre of operation: Lord General, Warmaster - domain: Lord Commander (sub-sector), Lord General Militant (sector)
Being back at home, I had the possibility to check my copy of the IIUP and the sectorial commander is Lord General Militant, probably shortened as Lord Militant. The book also notes "or equivalent" which means the title given is the general one but localised versions could exist (as always in the Imperium)
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Aug 4, 2004 8:56:19 GMT -5
I'm unconvinced on the merits of adding another Lord COmmander title. Besides that, there's a certain level below which, most of the time, any Imperial Guard permanantly in place will be a vestigal structure and persons placed within the PDFs, and my opinion is that this level is the sector.
|
|
|
Post by Brusilov on Aug 5, 2004 10:31:33 GMT -5
On the contrary I argue that in fact the Imperial Guard does not as such exist at this level. In fact it would be the General Staff of the Imperial Guard, under the control of the Departmento Munitorum. As I said there are no such thing as IG general officer, each and everyone of them is a Munitorum officer
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Aug 6, 2004 8:54:23 GMT -5
Thing of it is, Bruslov, the General Staff are Imperial Guard officers. They are merley a different branch from the regiments.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 6, 2004 14:03:50 GMT -5
Apologies for butting in to your argubate, but are we any closer to determining a structure which is integral with the concept of 'culture' and the current discussion on Education?
|
|