Field Command
Field Command is a brutal endeavour fraught with contradiction, and pain. Essentially there is leading from the front, and not leading from the front. They both have their merits, and their flaws. Leading from the front will inspire those under your command, as if you have done anything remotely correctly the dog soldiers, and ground pounders will see their leaders and take heart that if they are there, then all will be well one way or the other. Leading from the front inspires courage in your warriors, as they see you plunging headlong into the maw of terror itself. It is hard not to be inspired.
Leading from the back or from a command center is useful as well, as it hopefully allows the commander a wider view of the field, where they can overlook the battlefield in it’s entirety and make accurate decisions to ensure victory. This is likely to be less awe inspiring then a glorious dash from the front screaming forwards to victory and waving ones sword about. However, in mass engagements where working in concert is key, or perhaps protracted campaigns then perhaps leading from a war room is the better way to go.
I have seen both methods in action and have participated in actions using both methods. In many small skirmishes including a lightning raid in confined quarters, and a assault upon the vale to cleanse it I led from the front. Unit cohesion was maintained, and I was blessed in having two very powerful, inspirational, and competent seconds. I enganged in hand to hand directly when our line faltered, or the enemy began to turn the flow of the combat in their favour, this allowed me to direct the flow of combat, while also providing support, and inspiration when things began to go awry.
In a small action such as this, and by small I mean as in pure numbers, not small as in importance, it is easy to fade in and out of direct combat while not defeating the morale of the warriors around you. Also it is worthy to note, that the people with me were largely adventurers, and several other lords, and their households. All groups of people familiar with small unit action, and skirmish tactics, this key fact made leading from the front, and back feasible.
In the lightning raid, quick decision making, and leading from the front was absolutely necessary there was simply no time to adjust once we had committed to pursuit. Sitting back in that situation would simply not be applicable. The raid was ultimately successful beyond the scope of reason. That was due largely to the competence of those I led, and the utter direness of the situation. The pressure alone was immense and I believe that that desperation was what drove everyone to their apex of skill.
Field command does have no small number of pitfalls, and other hazards not limited to the enemy. And in my opinion these are much more difficult hazards to overcome. Spoils, Personnel, and Ego’s.
Spoils I have written a great deal on in another document, but for the purposes of this let us just say that dividing up the spoils of victory can be a time consuming, and highly annoying affair fraught with whining, bruised ego’s and pettiness. However for the wise commander, this can be a unprecedented opportunity to win the hearts and minds of your officers, and soldiery alike.
Personnel. This can be very tricky, but is a hazard easily overcome by getting to know those under your command. A commander who knows every name of his men will probably never really understand just how much that means to his soldier. It is a level of personal touch that all but a few commanders I have known have failed to achieve.
Often in times of war, we are forced to recruit unsavoury elements of society into our ranks, as many times we face threats greater than ourselves. Such as hordes of Undead, great tides of Orks, and other monsters. These types of enemies threaten not just a city, or a populace, but an entire region, and it’s way of life. Ultimately a thieves guild for instance requires people to steal from in order to eat, and continue…if the city in which, and the very populace upon which it makes it’s livelihood is threatened then that which threatens is the thieves guilds enemy as well.
Often times a kingdom under duress will turn and recruit its prisoners, or assign/offer military service instead of executing them or other sentences. In this case you know that you have some malcontents, law breakers, and unsavoury characters. However, if one is able to inspire, motivate, threaten those people you can hone them into a razor sharp tool to inflict untold suffering upon your enemy, while possibly saving them from the noose, and keeping the rest of the population safe as well.
Using your personnel is not much different from being a competent craftsman. One does not use blacksmiths tongs, to make a clay jar. One does not use a finely crafted kitchen knife to pick a lock. We have hands for the clay jar, and lock picks for the lock.
Placing your light fast skirmishing troops in the front ranks and expecting them to hold a shield wall against say, the Ninth legion of the Shadowshaper is what I would call a critical tactical error. Even if your skirmishers are the best of the best, they are still not the right tool for the job. If you have loners, and malcontents in your ranks it is best to utilize them for their strengths, and know their weaknesses. I have had several cases where adventurers or certain professionals refused to be commanded as a normal troop, or by other people. Rather than tossing them out of the unit, for instance, I opted to have them form a small group on me, and thusly I went from a singular warrior to a small retinue. The effect upon morale was greatly increased, as well as everyone’s survivability. On top of the fact that it was even easier to disengage, and take a look around and confidently, competently redeploy where I might best be used next, and or give a few orders, and them move on down the line.
There are other cases as well. For instance my rivalry with another knight is well known, we do not always if ever agree on the others methods…but we have an understanding. For example I know few creatures alive or dead, that are better suited to combating the forces of the undead. I would not presume to dictate to this knight tactics, and when presented the option it was not a difficult choice to place him, and his against the undead while myself, and those better suited to less conventional methods of combat handled what we are best at. Play to the strengths of those under your command, while understanding, and being aware of their limitations and weaknesses.
Ego’s. This in my opinion is the worst enemy of a command structure especially when dealing with mixed units. A local army will generally always respond better to a commander they know rather than an outsider, no matter how famous that outsider may be. This is not always the case however. When multiple commanders gather together it is crucial, pivotal even to decide a clear leader. When this is not done, ego’s get in the way, and good ideas are lost due to blindness and lack of vision. Politics, and the execution of a battle should remain utterly separate. After the battle is over and won there will be plenty of time to stab each other in the back, award medals to your friends, and downplay your rivals successes.
I have had the unrivalled joy of participating in a battle that had not just a local standing army, but several armies of differing races all united by a common goal. However. No clear leader was selected before hand and this lead to confusion, bruised ego’s all around, and a greater loss of life than was necessary. All of us in that room failed that day. The battle was won, but the cost was high, and there has remained some bad blood to this day which is unfortunate and could have been avoided. However this is a good case as the outcome could have been much, much worse. Despite that the leadership could not agree, the battle was won, because those in command, stuck together despite their differences, and were able to mesh in the heat of combat.
Had the leadership continued to quibble then the army would have faltered, and many, many more would have died.
It is difficult to relinquish command, but a wise, competent leader must have the confidence to know when they are outmatched, or that someone else may be better suited to a task then they are. This ties strongly together with using the right tool for the right job, and the principles I talked about under personnel. I would not send in a unit of heavy cavalry to sap a wall, and likewise not rely solely on the leadership of a bread baker to orchestrate a full scale battle in which, cavalry, artillery, ranged support, and naval combat were going to take place. Likewise, I would not send a flatbowman to prepare a masterwork meal…
I have drawled on, and on ad nausea at this point, and will simply leave the following footnote for those wishing to lead, or those that have as is most likely the case unwittingly found themselves in a leadership role due to either a loud voice, cunning insight, or the ability to inspire those around them, or some other combination thereof.
Burying, Cremating your soldiers, friends, Men-at-arms, Huscarls, squires, students, children. Is never easy, and should not be. Every loss is one less drinking buddy, one less to play a hand of cards with. Every loss is one more dead and gone, and eventually there will be no more. Do not squander the lives you hold in your hands, one day you may need them.
Field Command is a brutal endeavour fraught with contradiction, and pain. Essentially there is leading from the front, and not leading from the front. They both have their merits, and their flaws. Leading from the front will inspire those under your command, as if you have done anything remotely correctly the dog soldiers, and ground pounders will see their leaders and take heart that if they are there, then all will be well one way or the other. Leading from the front inspires courage in your warriors, as they see you plunging headlong into the maw of terror itself. It is hard not to be inspired.
Leading from the back or from a command center is useful as well, as it hopefully allows the commander a wider view of the field, where they can overlook the battlefield in it’s entirety and make accurate decisions to ensure victory. This is likely to be less awe inspiring then a glorious dash from the front screaming forwards to victory and waving ones sword about. However, in mass engagements where working in concert is key, or perhaps protracted campaigns then perhaps leading from a war room is the better way to go.
I have seen both methods in action and have participated in actions using both methods. In many small skirmishes including a lightning raid in confined quarters, and a assault upon the vale to cleanse it I led from the front. Unit cohesion was maintained, and I was blessed in having two very powerful, inspirational, and competent seconds. I enganged in hand to hand directly when our line faltered, or the enemy began to turn the flow of the combat in their favour, this allowed me to direct the flow of combat, while also providing support, and inspiration when things began to go awry.
In a small action such as this, and by small I mean as in pure numbers, not small as in importance, it is easy to fade in and out of direct combat while not defeating the morale of the warriors around you. Also it is worthy to note, that the people with me were largely adventurers, and several other lords, and their households. All groups of people familiar with small unit action, and skirmish tactics, this key fact made leading from the front, and back feasible.
In the lightning raid, quick decision making, and leading from the front was absolutely necessary there was simply no time to adjust once we had committed to pursuit. Sitting back in that situation would simply not be applicable. The raid was ultimately successful beyond the scope of reason. That was due largely to the competence of those I led, and the utter direness of the situation. The pressure alone was immense and I believe that that desperation was what drove everyone to their apex of skill.
Field command does have no small number of pitfalls, and other hazards not limited to the enemy. And in my opinion these are much more difficult hazards to overcome. Spoils, Personnel, and Ego’s.
Spoils I have written a great deal on in another document, but for the purposes of this let us just say that dividing up the spoils of victory can be a time consuming, and highly annoying affair fraught with whining, bruised ego’s and pettiness. However for the wise commander, this can be a unprecedented opportunity to win the hearts and minds of your officers, and soldiery alike.
Personnel. This can be very tricky, but is a hazard easily overcome by getting to know those under your command. A commander who knows every name of his men will probably never really understand just how much that means to his soldier. It is a level of personal touch that all but a few commanders I have known have failed to achieve.
Often in times of war, we are forced to recruit unsavoury elements of society into our ranks, as many times we face threats greater than ourselves. Such as hordes of Undead, great tides of Orks, and other monsters. These types of enemies threaten not just a city, or a populace, but an entire region, and it’s way of life. Ultimately a thieves guild for instance requires people to steal from in order to eat, and continue…if the city in which, and the very populace upon which it makes it’s livelihood is threatened then that which threatens is the thieves guilds enemy as well.
Often times a kingdom under duress will turn and recruit its prisoners, or assign/offer military service instead of executing them or other sentences. In this case you know that you have some malcontents, law breakers, and unsavoury characters. However, if one is able to inspire, motivate, threaten those people you can hone them into a razor sharp tool to inflict untold suffering upon your enemy, while possibly saving them from the noose, and keeping the rest of the population safe as well.
Using your personnel is not much different from being a competent craftsman. One does not use blacksmiths tongs, to make a clay jar. One does not use a finely crafted kitchen knife to pick a lock. We have hands for the clay jar, and lock picks for the lock.
Placing your light fast skirmishing troops in the front ranks and expecting them to hold a shield wall against say, the Ninth legion of the Shadowshaper is what I would call a critical tactical error. Even if your skirmishers are the best of the best, they are still not the right tool for the job. If you have loners, and malcontents in your ranks it is best to utilize them for their strengths, and know their weaknesses. I have had several cases where adventurers or certain professionals refused to be commanded as a normal troop, or by other people. Rather than tossing them out of the unit, for instance, I opted to have them form a small group on me, and thusly I went from a singular warrior to a small retinue. The effect upon morale was greatly increased, as well as everyone’s survivability. On top of the fact that it was even easier to disengage, and take a look around and confidently, competently redeploy where I might best be used next, and or give a few orders, and them move on down the line.
There are other cases as well. For instance my rivalry with another knight is well known, we do not always if ever agree on the others methods…but we have an understanding. For example I know few creatures alive or dead, that are better suited to combating the forces of the undead. I would not presume to dictate to this knight tactics, and when presented the option it was not a difficult choice to place him, and his against the undead while myself, and those better suited to less conventional methods of combat handled what we are best at. Play to the strengths of those under your command, while understanding, and being aware of their limitations and weaknesses.
Ego’s. This in my opinion is the worst enemy of a command structure especially when dealing with mixed units. A local army will generally always respond better to a commander they know rather than an outsider, no matter how famous that outsider may be. This is not always the case however. When multiple commanders gather together it is crucial, pivotal even to decide a clear leader. When this is not done, ego’s get in the way, and good ideas are lost due to blindness and lack of vision. Politics, and the execution of a battle should remain utterly separate. After the battle is over and won there will be plenty of time to stab each other in the back, award medals to your friends, and downplay your rivals successes.
I have had the unrivalled joy of participating in a battle that had not just a local standing army, but several armies of differing races all united by a common goal. However. No clear leader was selected before hand and this lead to confusion, bruised ego’s all around, and a greater loss of life than was necessary. All of us in that room failed that day. The battle was won, but the cost was high, and there has remained some bad blood to this day which is unfortunate and could have been avoided. However this is a good case as the outcome could have been much, much worse. Despite that the leadership could not agree, the battle was won, because those in command, stuck together despite their differences, and were able to mesh in the heat of combat.
Had the leadership continued to quibble then the army would have faltered, and many, many more would have died.
It is difficult to relinquish command, but a wise, competent leader must have the confidence to know when they are outmatched, or that someone else may be better suited to a task then they are. This ties strongly together with using the right tool for the right job, and the principles I talked about under personnel. I would not send in a unit of heavy cavalry to sap a wall, and likewise not rely solely on the leadership of a bread baker to orchestrate a full scale battle in which, cavalry, artillery, ranged support, and naval combat were going to take place. Likewise, I would not send a flatbowman to prepare a masterwork meal…
I have drawled on, and on ad nausea at this point, and will simply leave the following footnote for those wishing to lead, or those that have as is most likely the case unwittingly found themselves in a leadership role due to either a loud voice, cunning insight, or the ability to inspire those around them, or some other combination thereof.
Burying, Cremating your soldiers, friends, Men-at-arms, Huscarls, squires, students, children. Is never easy, and should not be. Every loss is one less drinking buddy, one less to play a hand of cards with. Every loss is one more dead and gone, and eventually there will be no more. Do not squander the lives you hold in your hands, one day you may need them.