english terms / translation army parts


Advice


Cheers all

For an ongoing project I need verification or corrections on the following:

An army is split into divisions
A division is split into battalions
A battalion is split into regiments
A regiment is split into companies
A company is split into platoons
A platoon is split into squads
A squad can be split into patrols

Special function units where needed


In short, it's never that simple. For example, the American military uses the Division as the standard administrative unit, while the British/Commonwealth system uses the Regiment. Patrols are a functional 'unit' composed of whatever is at hand or needed to complete a patrol, not unlike the German kampfgruppe or battle-group on a smaller scale... anyhow it's complicated.

You aren't going to find a standard system, as it all changes by nation and date. Though if you're looking for something that would work for a medieval-style army you're way off; these are mostly modern or at least ancien-regime systems.


Feudal would be pretty much a Liege-Lord and whoever's sworn to him, I would guess.


I'm hoping to get a base that can be transformed into what ever is needed at any time...

Also it's annoying as a gm (even though the ppl I play with aren't native English speakers either) to make mistakes like saying that companies are gathered into platoons...

I'm aware that it's impossible to make 1 system that covers Amy nationality...


BadBird wrote:


You aren't going to find a standard system, as it all changes by nation and date. Though if you're looking for something that would work for a medieval-style army you're way off; these are mostly modern or at least ancien-regime systems.

Nice to know that I'm way off... Any chance for a pointer in the right direction then?


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Feudal would be petty much a Liege-Lord and whoever's sworn to him, I would guess.

I believe you a right, at least until the liege-lord becomes powerfull enough to have more troops than he can oversee himself.

At this point I would think he appoints a "captain" or 2 who again would appoint lieutenants and maybe sergeants...

This also let him manage his estate while troops are out pillaging, guard patrolling, etc...


Bacon666 wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Feudal would be petty much a Liege-Lord and whoever's sworn to him, I would guess.

I believe you a right, at least until the liege-lord becomes powerfull enough to have more troops than he can oversee himself.

At this point I would think he appoints a "captain" or 2 who again would appoint lieutenants and maybe sergeants...

This also let him manage his estate while troops are out pillaging, guard patrolling, etc...

Well, then he'd be powerful enough that some of his sworn men are lords in their own right and have their own sworn men, so I think it's more "Lord such-and-such take your men there and Lord so-and-so take your men there and...".

A hierarchy of the lords sworn to him. If he (or more, the army) is lucky, the more powerful ones are actually competent.


Bacon666 wrote:
BadBird wrote:


You aren't going to find a standard system, as it all changes by nation and date. Though if you're looking for something that would work for a medieval-style army you're way off; these are mostly modern or at least ancien-regime systems.
Nice to know that I'm way off... Any chance for a pointer in the right direction then?

What country and what time period, for starters. Professional army, mercenary troops?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a table on this Wikipedia page, but I don't know who it represents. And for a faux medieval time period I'm sure it's inappropriate.


I don't think any feudal systems used anything so complex. A lordhad lesser lords under him and they brought their men to his service. The base feudal structure in some ways is counter intuitive to large modern army Co dots.

One thing to keep in mind is much of feudal warfare consisted of the population of a modern high-school going to war with another school.

One lord could have 1500 men in his service and 3 lesser lords with 600 each. The thing is the lesser lords might have zero loyalty to eacother and each would betray their Leicester it he prove weak. None of the men have any loyalty beyond their. Own feudal obligations.

In short they are somewhat counter productive to modern warfare. None of the modern concepts are intuitive to how humans fought wars much of history. Sure there are exceptions but first you need your setting. Then let setting g dictate army style.


I'm going for a mix of Roman legion numbers under devil/lawfull rules with modern terminology...

Silver Crusade

One correction:

A battalion is a sub-unit of a brigade or regiment.

So, for a primarily infantry formation the order would be:

Army (2-4 corps)
Corps (2+ divisions)
Division (2+ brigades or regiments)
Brigade/Regiment (used almost interchangeably depending on country of origin; 2+ battalions)
Battalion (2+ companies)
Company (2+ platoons)
Platoon or Troop (2+ squads)
Squad, Section, or Patrol (depending on nationality; ~5-10 men)

There are a number of differences based on what type of equipment is in the organization. For example, Artillery units are organized into Batteries instead of Companies; Cavalry tends to use the term Squadron instead of Battalion; etc.
.
.
If you're looking for an ancient force structure, Roman is a good standard:
Legion (10 cohorts, led by a Legatus, about 5,400 men total; equivalent to a brigade or regiment).
Cohort (6 Centuria, led by the senior Centurian, equivalent to a battalion).
Centuria (10 contubernia, led by a Centurian; equivalent to a company).
Contubernium (8 legionaries led by a Decanus; equivalent to a squad).
.
.
There wasn't a lot of set-organization in the middle ages.
.
.
One famous group of mercenaries in the 14th century had a structured organization: The White Company (or the Great Company).

It was organized into Lances of three men: A man-at-arms (i.e. a Knight), a squire, and a page. Only the Man-at-arms and Squire were armed.

A number of Lances would be organized into a Contingent. The size varied depending on how many men were available at the time. They had a number of bowmen that were organized into their own contingents as well. At it's weakest, the Company was made up of a single Contingent of about 250 men.

Anyway, hope that helps at least a little.


Military organizations like those in the OP are one of the fundamental differences between modern and ancient armies. Organization models are, themselves, a technology that had to be invented and then spread before armies could ever become 'modern.'

I would go with Deurn Ironbelly's Roman info above for simplicity or create specific leaders who train and recruit soldiers into their own personal companies that are then sworn to a ruler. An organization like these is as large as can be supported by events and resources at hand.


What country? What year? Is it wartime? If we are talking fantasy games, then take your pick and flavor it as you like.

Wikipedia has a pretty good page that also has lots of links to specific countries, if you scroll down to the bottom.


If you're looking for some structure for an RPG army, I'd suggest using the KISS principle:

Is it organized along the lines of personal or bureaucratic control?

If it's personal (think feudal: the people in charge are responsible for supplying and organizing the troops) use a nested structure of leader + retainers. The King has 3 Dukes, each Duke is responsible for supplying 1000 men, and does so by calling up Barons who are loyal to him and each have their own loyal following of soldiers. Some barons will have 30 soldiers, others will have 300, roll 3d10*10 for each baron until you've got a total of around 1,000 soldiers and there's your Duke's army or company or whatever.

If it's bureaucratic, there's going to be a more defined structure. You don't need to get too complex (unless your fantasy nation likes complex organizations): Big unit composed of some Medium units each composed of some Small units. Call them what you like, give them rough numbers for an idea of size. 100 soldiers (+/-20%) for the Small units, 10 (+/-2) Small units compose a Medium unit, 3 +/- 2 Medium units compose a Big unit. Call them what you like and be done with it. Add specialized units as you see fit.

The organization doesn't have to be too consistent, especially the numbers. Even modern armies seldom have many of their units composed the way "the book" says they should be: Logistics are too complicated to make everything work properly.

Sovereign Court

In medieval setting armies were composed of feudal levies required by their liege as part of the social structure. The levies would be a prearranged number of men at arms, archers, crossbowmen, billmen, hookmen, and peasants. The number of knights, M@A, knights and footmen would be dependent upon the wealth of the demesne. For the sake of argument, say one mounted Knight, 4 Mounted Sergeants, 12 halberdiers in some semblance of armor (think Helm and quilted jacket, at most chain shirt), plus 12 archers and 20 peasants (the latter would do manual labor). Wealthier fiefs would be required to bring more men to war. Earlier levies would be spearmen with shields. The Men at Arms would ride unarmored horses but carry a spear or lance and be expected to fight in the heavy horse charge with their knights, or on scouting and foraging. They would have a sword, with mace and morning stars relegated to knights. Weapons are EXPENSIVE!
These levies would serve at the expense of the Lord, but the armor and weapons would have been paid for by the Knight. The troops were not paid, but their service was a part of their obligation to the Knight. The Knights service, in turn, was his obligation to his Lord. Lords were obligated to Kings etc etc--you get it. The levies served for a set period, allowing them to return to their farms and harvest crops. Troops could collect loot from battlefields when they won; so there was some incentive for the "little guys" to war. For knights, they dreamed of capturing, alive, an enemy knight or Lord; hoping for a large ransom.

The various levies would be assembled into groups called "Battles". There would normally be a right and left battle, and a center battle. There would be an advanced guard for march security. High ranking Knights would command the battle, with the highest ranking noble commanding the army. Many "national" variations - Scots, for example, fought in a unit called a schiltron composed of crossbowmen, fighters and spearmen. The latter carried 10-12 foot long spears for repelling heavy horse. Very effective if it stayed together.

Regiments and battalions were not invented until much later than the medieval period. Roman organization is too rigid for the medieval period.

In Dark Age campaigns think in terms of warbands. Vikings, contrary to popular belief were not wearing mail (chain) because of its high expense. Of course as the Jarl raided and gained loot the Vikings would acquire mail and the funds to purchase it. Vikings were all pretty equal, but would bring trusted slaves (Bondi) with them for archery and menial tasks. Vikings and their contemporaries fought in a shield wall and the breaking of their opponents shield wall meant a slaughter for the losers. Since Vikings were free and independent they brought with them whatever arms or armor they owned.

Well this turned out to be a long posting..............;)

Sovereign Court

I forgot about the Mongols. They had a very regular formation. I do not remember it perfectly off the top of my head, but everything was based upon tens. The smallest unit was 10 men riding together with their remuda (spare horses). Tens were grouped into 100's and then into 1000's. successively larger formations until the host swelled to 10,000 men called a "tumen". The commander was a Tumen Bashi. Tumen were organized into Hordes of up to 120,000 men. In addition they would have captured soldiers forced to serve as infantry, siege craft troops etc etc. The Mongols never wasted anything except their enemies lives. They would happily use civilians in front of their troops as human shields. Ambassadors were sent to a targeted city and they negotiated the cities surrender. Failure to agree to surrender was rewarded by becoming an example. The city would be assaulted, captured and every man put to death, the women and children enslaved. If the Mongol ambassadors were harmed in any way or killed, the city would be taken by storm and every living thing put to death. The Mongols then rolled up to the next city and sent ambassadors. Get the idea? Very effective.

Sovereign Court

Bacon666 wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Feudal would be petty much a Liege-Lord and whoever's sworn to him, I would guess.

I believe you a right, at least until the liege-lord becomes powerfull enough to have more troops than he can oversee himself.

At this point I would think he appoints a "captain" or 2 who again would appoint lieutenants and maybe sergeants...

This also let him manage his estate while troops are out pillaging, guard patrolling, etc...

See my earlier posting for my verbal regurgitation on army organization.

Ideally, nobles would have been appointed to commands based upon their ability. If one was a well known fighter and tactician, one would be appointed to a command in a Kings army. This makes sense to modern eyes. More often than not, however, social rank and obligation played a bigger role in medieval commands. Ability was not as important as noble rank. This left medieval armies in a world of hurt when their commander was a better courtier than a noble who was a proven fighter. No Comte (French Count) would be found dead serving under an extremely capable noble of lesser rank, for example. It just wasn't done! God ordained the social order and a King reigned by Divine Right! One did not mess around with the order ordained by God! This was generally true, not just a facet of French society.


Bacon666 wrote:
I'm going for a mix of Roman legion numbers under devil/lawfull rules with modern terminology...

Romans got pretty organized about this stuff during the late republic; you could certainly use the Roman model off of Wikipedia.

Medieval armies were often better organized than people give them credit for, but they were organized by things like royal ordinances, regional levies and/or the who-brought-who of lords and underlings. It doesn't mean they were disorganized, just that they were 'organically' organized. Its only when hundreds of thousands of troops are being deployed over entire borders does really obsessive organization start to matter.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / english terms / translation army parts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice