Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

Disproportionate Casualties

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by lyonheart   » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:52 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Darman,

No, since the church is generally responsible for education the British 'public school' system never got a foothold on Safehold. ;)

While there probably is some kind of secular finishing school for aristocrats in Charis as well as every other country, the fact that it hasn't been mentioned implies it isn't popular with the public or frowned on by the crown for various reasons; possibly for indicating too much money or privilege in a society like Charis's that is increasingly based on merit.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the training for young aristocrats might come from being fostered to relatives or friends to learn how to manage their estates etc, rather than relying on some namby-pamby school to teach them how to be a man [ie an aristocrat].

Regarding Charisian or Chisholmian aristocratic officers, remember Duke Eastshare, and Earl High Mount [or Duke Halbrook Hollow], while Sympkyns is common born as were all but one of the 6 generals at the high level allied meeting at the beginning of September in LaMA.

DE still personally prefers aristocrats for many things, but has never shirked from seeing that the army is truly independent of any such taint.

One reason for ICA officer and NCO casualties to be a high fraction of all casualties is simply because there are so many of them; if you check the TO&E you'll find the ratio to be very low as opposed the very high ratio's in the Go4 armies.

So in that sense, given the low ratio's of men to NCO's and officers in the ICA, their casualties should be higher, so while the ICA's 'disproportionate casualties' may indeed be high, but not necessarily for the reasons you initially thought.

L


Darman wrote:
Thucydides wrote:Strangely, in our own world the British Royal Family are also examples of warrior Kings and Queens.

I'm not entirely sure why this would be strange. It has always appeared to me as though RFC has always preferred England's monarchy to any other. And, speaking as an American, if i were to be forced to live under a monarch, England's monarchs ain't all that bad. Mostly for the above-mentioned reason that they all serve their nation in some capacity or another. This is something I always respect in politicians, and the monarchs have one disadvantage over politicians: they don't choose to run for election, they are born into it.

Does Charis have any sort of public school system like England did? That would encourage young men to attempt to emulate the heroism of the past, and probably lead to more officer casualties.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by Thucydides   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:56 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

Darman

In the 20th century, we witnessed the destruction of monarchies and Empires. The vast majority of these may have had Sovereigns who were notionally and constitutionally the Supreme Commanders or Leaders of their military forces, but very few of them actually served in anything more than a notional capacity.

Outside of the British Royal Family, only Kaiser Wilhelm II spent a lot of time in military matters, but (especially after reading Margaret MacMillan's "The War that Ended Peace") it seems he only "played" soldier rather than actually serving (one unedifying duty of the General Staff was to arrange the annual War Games so the Kaiser's side won regardless of whatever inept decisions he made in the field).

So while it would be quite understandable if members of the British Royal Family were to appear in formal occasions in Field Marshal's uniforms and only review the troops on special occasions, they really do "walk the walk".
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by saber964   » Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:53 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2423
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

Thucydides wrote:From the Textev and by implication throughout the story, the Charisians are certainly a culture where officers "lead from the front". Even in the Merchant Marine, the ships owners were usually with the ship rather than waiting by the docks for their cargos to arrive from far distant ports.

And the Imperial couple certainly are fine examples of the "Warrior King/Queen" archetype, an example the nobility would certainly take into account when deciding which fashions to emulate. Who would want to appear in the Imperial court without having served in some leadership capacity? No one would take you seriously.

Strangely, in our own world the British Royal Family are also examples of warrior Kings and Queens. HRH Queen Elizabeth II served in an auxiliary capacity during WWII, while her father the King was a naval officer who served on a capital ship during the Great War. Her son Prince Andrew was a Royal Navy helicopter pilot and flew behind a British aircraft carrier during the Falkland Islands war towing a huge radar reflector to draw away any missiles aimed at the carrier. Young Prince Harry has served in combat in Afghanistan (currently as an Apache helicopter pilot). Henry V must be smiling somewhere.

While this might not be reflected in British society in general, the example of the Royal Family does resonate among the members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

How this would play out in the story is hard to say. The Imperial forces use mobile warfare and "open" tactics, which make units and men less vulnerable to enemy fire in general, and they are fighting against an enemy who is many generations behind in military tactics and technology, so in general their officers and NCO's should be taking casualties at about the same rate as their men (percentage wise). Inept or incautious leaders will suffer Darwinian selection, so as time passes, casualties among officers and in general should decrease.

A lot more than that Queen Elizabeth II held a commission in the British Territorial Army as an ambulance driver and commander IIRC she held a Colonels rank. Also Prince William is a FltLT RAF currently assigned to a SAR unit in Wales and Prince Charles is a Captain RN (ret.).
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by AirTech   » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:41 am

AirTech
Captain of the List

Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:37 am
Location: Deeeep South (Australia) (most of the time...)

saber964 wrote:A lot more than that Queen Elizabeth II held a commission in the British Territorial Army as an ambulance driver and commander IIRC she held a Colonels rank. Also Prince William is a FltLT RAF currently assigned to a SAR unit in Wales and Prince Charles is a Captain RN (ret.).


And she is probably the only head of state who could change the oil (and do the rest of the servicing) on her daily ride. (As this was part of the basic training for a driver in WW11). (A skill set more women should have, and certainly more heads of state, and she was the driver for getting her children's hands dirty and making them work their way up).
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by OlorinNight   » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:15 am

OlorinNight
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:10 am
Location: Bruxelles (Belgium)

Thucydides wrote:Darman

In the 20th century, we witnessed the destruction of monarchies and Empires. The vast majority of these may have had Sovereigns who were notionally and constitutionally the Supreme Commanders or Leaders of their military forces, but very few of them actually served in anything more than a notional capacity.

Outside of the British Royal Family, only Kaiser Wilhelm II spent a lot of time in military matters, but (especially after reading Margaret MacMillan's "The War that Ended Peace") it seems he only "played" soldier rather than actually serving (one unedifying duty of the General Staff was to arrange the annual War Games so the Kaiser's side won regardless of whatever inept decisions he made in the field).

...


It seems to me that, regarding WWI, you are also forgetting about King Albert the First, King of the Belgians, who took command of the belgian army when the Germans suddenly invaded the country for refusing to submit to their demands....
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by Randomiser   » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:33 am

Randomiser
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Scotland

saber964 wrote:A lot more than that Queen Elizabeth II held a commission in the British Territorial Army as an ambulance driver and commander IIRC she held a Colonels rank. Also Prince William is a FltLT RAF currently assigned to a SAR unit in Wales and Prince Charles is a Captain RN (ret.).


Oh it goes a lot further than that. The Queen's father and his 3 brothers all served in the Military, 2 of them for over 10 years each. Also her husband was in the Navy for 10 or 11 years, having been top cadet of his year at Dartmouth Naval College, and saw active service in 3 different theaters in WW2.

Prince William has recently left active service, and I'm not sure but I think Prince Charles only got as far as Lt Commander while on active service. His only command was a minesweeper.
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by rafael   » Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:14 pm

rafael
Captain of the List

Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:19 pm

Thucydides wrote:Darman

In the 20th century, we witnessed the destruction of monarchies and Empires. The vast majority of these may have had Sovereigns who were notionally and constitutionally the Supreme Commanders or Leaders of their military forces, but very few of them actually served in anything more than a notional capacity.

Outside of the British Royal Family, only Kaiser Wilhelm II spent a lot of time in military matters, but (especially after reading Margaret MacMillan's "The War that Ended Peace") it seems he only "played" soldier rather than actually serving (one unedifying duty of the General Staff was to arrange the annual War Games so the Kaiser's side won regardless of whatever inept decisions he made in the field).

So while it would be quite understandable if members of the British Royal Family were to appear in formal occasions in Field Marshal's uniforms and only review the troops on special occasions, they really do "walk the walk".


Th Czar was also into military affairs even if that meant parades and interfering with the command staff. one thing that helped the revolutionaries was that he left the capitol laving his wife in charge. She took the advice of an unpopular peasant with odd sexual tendencies this helped the revolution that overthrew him.
Top
Re: Disproportionate Casualties
Post by Thucydides   » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:52 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

This being the Internet, I was content to give a few examples of how the British Royal House has served as "Warrior Kings/Queens" in modern times, in distinct contrast to their royal cousins, who often only "played" at war, and who's service generally caused headaches for the professional officers on their staffs.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, leadership from the front, while dangerous, is also needed in this pre radio age military (much like Union and Confederate officers of the Civil War era needed to be so close to the front that they often had horses shot out from under them, if they were not killed outright). Only from the front can they see the situation and take action right away.

Since they are using more modern, "open" formations and tactics, I will stand by my prediction that the casualty rates for officers and NCO's will not be disproportionately higher than that of the men.
Top

Return to Safehold