#the Ritanians need the weapons | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thetruearchmagos · 2 months ago

Note

Alright I have been working on this off and on for months. I need help. I want to decide what rank Alyss had in the Ritanian Army because I have a scene in mind but it depends on her rank how it goes. So, Alyss is from the working class, but has considerably more education than the average person. She enters the army with some weapons training, primarily shooting and polearms from the Church, she can read, write, and do math easily, and she has fire magic which is basically like martial arts training. I am going to assume that she enlists as just a private, but probably gets promoted at least once in the two years of fighting she is involved with. Would it be reasonable for her to be promoted early on to Lance Corporal for her clerking abilities, and possibly up to Corporal? I have no sense for how these things work. You are the expert I know.

HAHAHAHahahahaha yesss!!!

You, have come to the right blog!

Now, I foreshadowed a pretty hefty worldbuilding process to you earlier, but just in case things get in the way of that rabbit hole I wanted to come up with a short-ish, succinct-ish answer to your immediate question. That question being, as far as I can tell;

What 'rank' within the Ritanian Army would Alyss, a skilled commoner, attain by the end of a military career featuring at least 2 years of wartime combat service?

The answer that you seem to have now is 'Lance Corporal, maybe Corporal', and my reply would be that said ranks, or more accurately their equivalents in the Ritanian Army as you'd have it, are absolutely possible, given the details I outlined above.

Truth be told, there's a lot potentially going in favour of pushing her towards 'seniority' in general.

Don't You Know There's A War On?

If there's one thing that's sure to bring about rapid and unexpected career progression in the military, it's war!

Honestly, this accounts for about 90% of why I'm so firm in approving the ranks you've put forwards; if Alyss is even remotely competent, and lucky, there's a non-zero chance she attains both those ranks within the first year. (Lance) Corporal isn't exactly the big leagues, and if the pre-War soldiers holding those ranks in Alyss's unit get bumped off and she shows any talent at all, you could absolutely see her get field promoted to fill the slots mid-battle, albeit within a much-reduced unit. After that, it's a matter of not joining your predecessors.

On this topic, by the way, I recalled a lovely piece of historical trivia that had much to do with young bucks hungry for promotion, this time in the Royal Navy;

(She Has A) Special (Set Of) Skills

A subject I'd absolutely love to delve into the is the broad increase in the ratio of specialists and special skills VS 'the general infantry' in most militaries as they progress technologically. How exactly specialists function in Ritania depends on a lot of things, its state of technology (and magic!) among them, but a general rule is that the fewer people exist in the relevant 'pool' of potential people who could be promoted, the more likely specific (competent) person in it is to get promoted.

If, for example, the Army decides it needs to rapidly expand its corps of 'whatever Alyss's speciality is' (flame-troops, or something, right?) then all the people already in it might get bumped up and given the authority to whip new recruits into shape. On the other hand, if this is the sorta job that gets an above average number of people killed, then the rate of career progression for those still alive is correspondingly faster.

Miscellaneous

Outside of these two factors, there's a whole grab basket of stuff that might potentially work in Alyss's favour. One of them, again, is how relatively low the ranks you specified are; they're called 'junior Non-Commissioned Officers' for a reason, after all. To be quite honest, in two years and with my pretty optimistic guess at her competence I'm surprised she didn't make Sergeant (or equivalent). For comparison, here's something I found on the - peacetime! - US Army for promotion to Corporal, which for them is the 4th enlisted rank from the bottom.

A bit over two years in a 'modern' style of Army, and given what I mentioned above I think cutting down the timeline would be perfectly believable.

There's also some of her pre-Enlistment traits that you brought up. I'm a little suspect on whether most of them would impact her rate of advancement much, since they appear more likely to influence her actual vocation upon joining rather than what happens once she has. After that, a lot of them are likely to never be used or trained on, though that depends on just how specialised the Ritanian Army actually is, which is... something I'd love to talk about.

Literacy, then, might help, but that depends on both how prevalent literacy is across society, and whether or not the duties expected of an 'enlisted leader' would need that skill. Off the top of my head, I recall that one reason for aristocratic officer corps was that literacy was concentrated to that class only; if so few other 'rank' soldiers could be expected to be literate, an Army might just not bother to create pathways to allow them to get into a position where literacy was needed. Of course, if the case is not that extreme, but still one where literacy is limited, then it'd be the sort of trait that a professional Non-Commissioned Officer would need, and thus one looked for in troops. All of that, then, is one way in which the character and substance of a military is heavily dependent on the society that it exists within, a subject beyond the purview of this ask!

Though I will say, I can't imagine 'clerking' working out well for fast promotion, unless you meant 'administrative and organisational talent' more than 'actually being a full time adjudant or staff officer'. That whole track of the profession of arms is a crucial and fascinating one, but you don't often here tales of glory or heroic career arcs coming from those quarters; 'desk jobs' don't get half as much love as they deserve.

The Unknown... For Now!

With my answer in the 'Affirmative!' already given and explained, right now I'd just love to get into the weeds of all this even deeper and worldbuild the everloving crap out of the Ritanian Army and its career advancement process. Here's two questions I came up with that might help with articulating the actual promotion system Alyss would be going through;

Who gets to decide, and 'write down', a promotion? Are they exclusively processed by the Army's central personnel department, handed out by senior or direct commanders of a certain rank and office, or something with inputs from both? At higher ranks, it's not unusual for civilian leadership to oversee this process, but the average enlisted doesn't need to care about that.

What does it take to 'get' promoted? More specifically, is it a subjective process dependent on specific individuals decisions and perspectives, or a rigorous, standardised process with inflexible rules? Keeping in mind, of course, that it is ultimately people who execute such rules.

To end off this answer, which might I add was an absolute joy to write, I'd like to ask for two clarifications;

First of all, do you have a rank structure in mind already? Your use of Lance Corporal and Corporal suggested something pretty in line with how it's been IRL since Napoleon, but couldn't hurt to ask. I'm a bit of a sucker for unusual rank structures - screwing around with the Officer-Enlisted distinction always seemed cool, but as I mentioned above that'd be a whole discussion for another time.

Secondly, and on that topic... would Alyss have made a good officer, or in fact, been able to become one? Taking it very loosely, that is. Is Ritanian officership class-restricted? Literacy, like I mentioned, is the sort of quality that is exceptionally beneficial for long-service leaders. Of course, there might be a whole host of reasons personal and external which make this particular question moot - in which case, I'd love to hear them!

And with that... I'm done!

#worldbuilding #writeblr #writeblr stuff #god this so much fun what the hellllll #a buzz a high a sense of satisfaction in my own 'abilities' I haven't felt in so long goddam this was great #just what I needed to stay sane

5 notes · View notes

thetruearchmagos · 2 months ago

Note

Just gonna park your notes here too;

Now, let's see...

So about ranks, I am fully stealing the British Army ranking because I cannot figure this out on my own.

Hey, I stole theirs too!* That at least makes all this a little easier for me, US ranks (current and historical) got really quite complex to be honest. A side note I'll leave here is that the Brits tended to use 'Regiment-specific' ranks for quite a few units, as shown here;

It wouldn't be unusual for someone in Alyss's position, or unit, to get some form of odd title, if that's something you'd be interested in and wouldn't mind having to keep track of.

Moving onto 'special skills', your definitely in a better position to judge the utility of your fire magic than I am, but from we've talked about by now the specialist shock troop idea does make sense. I wanted to note, however, that the term 'fire team' and its associated unit has absolutely zero connection to the actual use of fire as a weapon, a la flamethrowers.

The story of fire teams are is, well, long. Very long, and also really hard to find sources for that I'm too confident in. So, I'm not going to talk too much about that, aside from briefly explaining how they operate. Basically, fire teams are a modern-ish invention that came about as a result of the invention of portable automatic weapons, which meant that fewer troops would be needed to give a unit a similar level of 'firepower'. This enabled these 'shrunken' units to theoretically act with greater independence from each other and their superior formations. Such increased lethality isn't the only precondition, however; a professional, trusted, and competent cohort of low-level junior leaders is key to making sure such units can work effectively towards a common objective instead of merely being defeated in detail, as such 'splintering' of a force, as opposed to concentrating it, risks.

Which, in a roundabout way, leads me to the next point here. Setting aside the almost inevitably aristocratic higher officer ranks, I think the part I'm looking at more is 'downstream', at the lower leadership ranks. Now, depending on a range of factors including whether you'd like to include Purchasing of Commissions as a prerequisite to officership, how aristocratic junior officer ranks might be can still vary without making the upper brass any less blue blooded, though noble-heavy junior officers are still likely. This being the WW1 era, by the way, the example of Guards units with royal affiliations being particularly heavy concentrations of esteemed noble sons might be something worth looking at, if you're curious.

How this connects to the 'fire team' bit could be expressed in terms of how 'centralised / decentralised' authority in the Ritanian Army is. In a simple sense, kilometres long Napoleonic era line formations were generally centralised under their general's authority, while the small trench raiding parties of WW1 were decentralised, given the freedom to move, fight, and bypass where their immediate leaders saw fit as long as they kept their superior's instructions in mind. Decentralisation allows for flexibility, and for decisions to be made quickly and in accurate response to the situation on the ground, but relies on junior personnel being empowered and trained to take on this responsibility, and senior leaders trusting them enough to not micromanage. What, exactly, the 'average' Ritanian NCO, or those specialists like Alyss, would actually be able to do on their own, then, depends on this sort of cultural environment built up within their respective corners of the Army.

And there, then, we can segway to your question;

So what are the actual duties of a sergeant? What would they do in the field, in battle, during rest periods, ect?

This is, well... a long story. Two stories, technically; the 'battlefield' duties of a Sergeant / their near equivalents, and their 'out of battle' job.

Oh, and when I say near equivalents, I meant this;

There's some subtle differences between how the US and UK do it (looking at you American-style Warrant Officer), and I'd imagine the army buddies you mentioned would be referring to the former. This could lead to a tangent about the difference between a Junior and Senior NCO, but I'm gonna save myself the effort and use this excerpt from this Military dot com article on enlisted ranks in the current US Army, which I can recommend.

The quick answer here as I understand it is between NCOs who lead junior enlisted, and NCOs who 'advise' officers / headquarters, with the caveat that 'advising' a green-as-grass lieutenant is a bit different that doing the same for a hopefully seasoned major.

I'll start by briefly explaining the historical duties given to sergeants in around the 19th Century and going into WW1, then give an overview of their current duties where they differ. You can pick and choose where you see fit.

Starting with that earlier time period, the combat duty's of NCOs were a lot more limited than in more modern militaries. Barring certain specific contexts which placed a premium on small-unit actions, sergeants and their immediate junior officers would primarily be expected to make damn sure that their senior commanders' orders were carried out by their own units, the 'platoons' within a larger 'regiment' for example. This being the era of muzzle-loaders, this often involved minding the drill (loading, firing, kneeling, etc.) and dressing (position in the line) of their soldiers, keeping them separate and preventing any sudden breaks in morale under intense pressure. This is hard work, especially under fire, but is arguably simpler than more modern NCOs and junior officers, since a platoon of a few dozen won't matter much individually in the face of, say, the amassed ten thousand charging Imperial Guard at Waterloo.

It is, however, outside of battle and 'in camp' that the existence of long serving NCOs makes itself invaluable. And note the emphasis on 'long serving' here, and 'professional' above; NCOs, being the senior most enlisted there are with at least a decade of service under the belt, serve as repositories of institutional knowledge built up over years of a military's experience, and the primary means by which that knowledge and culture are inculcated within new recruits once they join their units.

Many things changed between the era of gunpowder and guided bombs, but this principle has largely remained. From basic weapon handling and safety discipline to how to properly pack a sack, sergeant simply know stuff, and its much easier to have them on hand to train the next generation face-to-face, constantly, than to be forced to constantly relearn and relearn the same lessons. Compare this to the (arguably simplified) 'Soviet bloc' system of conscript armies with conscripted NCOs, who served only as long as their peers did. Their sergeants couldn't hope to live up as 'role models' for their ostensibly junior peers because it's not like they necessarily knew much better, or had the accumulated confidence and credibility to carry out this task.

In addition to the 'functional' knowledge that NCOs carry on, they also play a key role in maintaining an Army's professional culture and values. This isn't always a good thing, mind you, but the whole concept of 'esprit de corp' relies on a close knit, shared identity across the 'community' that any military unit fundamentally is. NCOs, being both 'fellow soldiers' and respected figures of authority, are the 'face' of that identity most apparent to their junior soldiers, and how they carry themselves can do a lot to shape their morale and attitudes towards the institution. To cap this portion off, the most senior NCOs, those who've moved past 'soldier leadership' to positions in proximity to officers, will have the additional duty of making damn sure their commanders are made well aware of enlisted concerns and needs in their own planning, essentially acting as the 'voice' of these soldiers amongst the officer corps.

Finally, I'll turn to the more specific tasks of modern NCOs. In addition to the 'camp' tasks outlined above, the modern Sergeant has been given a degree of responsibility well beyond anything their historical counterpart would have had. This ties in with what I mentioned earlier about the trend towards 'decentralised' warfare, where ever smaller units get access to ever larger 'capabilities', although much more constant factors such as complex terrain and 'unconventional' forms of warfare have also had a part to play.

These days, most modern armies consider the lieutenant-led platoon to be the smallest unit truly capable of independent action. This would almost never have been considered possible back in the day, but the structure of modern platoons is designed to incorporate a fairly wide variety of weapon systems into its organisation. Since a lot more focus gets placed on the level of unit immediately above an NCO's jurisdiction, instead of several tiers higher, their individual skill and leadership counts for a lot more, both acting in concert with the whole platoon and when broken off to act independently from their officer lieutenant, a possibility historical armies would barely countenance.

One last note on this. Going back again to the senior NCOs, who as above aren't going to be leading troops in battle, within a unit's headquarters I've broadly gotten the sense that a lot of their duties revolve around keeping things running smoothly in the rear, such as by overseeing casualty management and the resupply of fighting units at the front. Also, since they're already at the HQ, assuming basically every other officer present is dead it might fall to them to take charge and get a hold on things. By that point, though, the unit in question is probably a little beyond salvaging.

The last thing I have to say here is a small correction to what you've mentioned in your notes, which I'm a little curious about since you said they were brought up by someone from the Army.

You see, a 'squad'...

is a very small unit, and for what it's worth the Brits call it a 'section' usually. Officers don't lead squads, with even the junior most officer, a Second Lieutenant in the UK, commanding a platoon; instead, squads are commanded by junior NCOs, in this case a US Army Staff Sergeant.

Captains are, more or less, the senior-most of the 'kinda junior' officers, below the so called 'Field Grades' which start at Major (like Goyan!).

They command Companies, which are usually two legs up from a Squad in any usage I'm aware of. You would be correct in saying that there is an NCO present to advise them, though, and that article I mentioned earlier phrases their relationship this way;

Which about corroborates your description. For a little context, the age and seniority difference between a Captain and their 'company sergeant' is probably less substantial than that between a Lieutenant and their 'platoon sergeant', and as far as 'book smart' goes that's mostly in terms of the requirement for a college degree to commission in the US and the fact they'll have attended numerous officer schools by the time they take command. NCOs also have their own schools, of course, but you're right that a lot of what they have to offer is 'accumulated experience on the job'.

And with that... I need lunch.