Moved from What now
<Stu> Hi Donald. My readings taken a rather different bent recently, focusing on campaigns in the Sudan in 1884-1885 and 1898... which ironically give some wonderful archetypes for Lunars! I'll throw a couple of ideas in, to be discussed or dismissed as proves appropriate:
(i) A Stern Disciplinarian: perhaps more of a Polemarch or Tribune than a general, though elements might apply to Jorkandros or someone similar. Major-General William F. Gatacre, who commanded the 1st British Brigade (and then the British division) in 1898, was known by the sobriquet of Old Back-acher. He marched his men rapidly with little rest, made them sleep in the open in full kit (and their only uniform) and was a stickler for drill. No wussy boy, that's for sure. He also had a penchant for sarcastic and condescending 'morale-raising' speeches. Though soldiers of the ancient world were not known for their hygiene at times, the Lunar army has been modelled as a more civilized affair with higher standards of camp protocol and sanitation. Many might question his methods.
<Donald>Hmm, another incompetent Lunar officer. This time one who marches his troops into the ground before the battle. I shall really have to write up a brilliant officer to give the Orlanthi some headaches.
I don't see the Lunar army having modern standards of hygiene, more Roman standards - i.e. better than many armies of the time and a lot better than later european ones. And enforced on the basis of the rulebook rather than a widespread knowledge of why. </Donald>
<Stu>People can have an incompetent in this role if they wish, but from my description, I don't really suggest that he be such a chap. Gatacre was a hardener of men to the rigours of campaign, and achieved some startling feats of manoeuvre. Rather than an incompetent, he was a capable--if not brilliant--officer, who had a distinct and 'hard' style; although soldiers grumbled he earned a marked respect from many of the lower ranks (his 'motivational' efforts later on, following his promotion, aside!).</Stu>
<Donald>I did a brief look on the web using google and none of the articles indicated any real competence. It may be my experience of the "it'll toughen them up attitude" which still existed when I was at school but I don't consider it effective leadership, based as it is on the idea that if one person can do something so can the rest and if they don't it's lazyness. Certainly getting lost on a night march, getting ambushed because of lack of scouts, trying to assault his way out without knowing the ground and then losing half his force as prisoners because they were too exhausted to withdraw strikes me as incompetence.</Donald>
<Stu> Quite fair--his efforts as a divisional commander at Stormberg (rather aptly named) are not very edifying, and Preston's letter is rightly damning! I didn't specify, but the above was coined as a snapshot of his character as brigade commander in the Sudan, from whence the sobriquet and details derive (a lot of Gatacre's activity was based on the contemporary adage that inactivity caused disease). Bizarrely, though he had his detractors (Douglas Haig was one of them, and another subaltern called him a 'dangerous lunatic') he was a more conscientious officer in the Sudan. If you think that means anything! (Ed Spiers tends to go jovially easy on him)
Field fortifications were rigorously constructed (though some might argue unnecessarily), piquets inspected, night-time vigilance stressed and, as opposed to lacking scouts, his scouts and sentries were so 'wired' that they bayoneted themselves! (Ok, perhaps not doing myself favours here...)
Personally, I might be treating him too mildly, but I have a fairly high 'incompetence threshold' when it comes to commanders of his ilk and period. Therefore you could really replace my 'capable' with 'fairly average' (I'll certainly accede to 'incompetent' for the Boer War); 'undistinguished' would be quite incorrect, as Gatacre's fussy style was his own worse enemy and has certainly coloured his place in history. Apologies for the historical excursus, but I'm prone on these topics... I'll edit it away in a day or two! </Stu>
(2) The Annoying Sod (Winston Churchill): some high and mighty personage has secured a secondment to a regiment serving at Whitewall. Though only of relatively low 'military rank', he pulls a lot of weight back home, with strong political and/or religious connections. He continuously sends compromising reports back to Peloria, for public or private consumption, and is somewhat of a cause-celebre in the ranks. And he has a nasty habit of taking things into his own hands, or wandering off and getting himself (and the army) into trouble.
<Donald>AFAIK Churchill had no military rank at all. He was a reporter for the Times newspaper and followed the story even if it got his escort killed.
Certainly suitable for the civilian contingent at WW if we translate him into a storyteller/playwright.</Donald>
<Stu>For historical interest: Churchill had been commissioned as a subaltern in the 4th Hussars; his juxtaposition of military and journalistic pursuits began in Cuba (whilst on leave), and continued into 1897 when he was present (attached) with the Malakand Field Force, initially as a correspondent, later on the commanding general's staff. In 1898 he was attached as a supernumerary lieutenant to the 21st Lancers (paying his own way).
As to civilian presence, that'd certainly be nice to work on--for example a veritably Lunar William Russell or something completely different--but on a different tack I also like John's Helarnu Truespear in a young Winnie role.</Stu>
See also Lunar Spies and Sneaks