Could use help with my fantasy army structure

The weapons may be 'low tech' but Rome had one of the best armies in the world. They drilled, spent more time making roads and fortifications than fighting, yet made an empire lasting hundreds of years--so your friend isn't on the mark here.

efreysson, your system would work and makes as much sense as any other currently or previously in existence... A few trivial details are that majors generally don't (no pun intended) command, but are an interim staff rank (the first "field grade" rank, in fact) found at all levels from battalion above, as staff who's word would have the attention of those captains and lieutenants, but still outranked by battalion commanders and above. The battalion commanders of most armies are lieutenant colonels or (full) colonels. Above that you can call the collection of battalions either regiments, brigades, or in some armies divisions (brigades being more appropriately, though not in the American army anymore being collections of regiments, and divisions being collections of brigades), and above that corps and then "armies" (standing for "theater armies" from "theater of operations"--the front they control). A further, minor note is that most experienced commanders conclude that fewer troops under each commander is the way to go, with the improved span of communications more than making up for the loss of weapon numbers/firepower. In Panzer Leader, a key leader of the Blitzkreig, General Heinz Guderian, even remarks something along the lines that he would rather have three men than eight or ten, for this reason.

I believe you mean that each 200-man company is made up of five 40-man platoons, each led by a lieutenant.

I would leave it as is. Swords or rifles, you need a chain-of-command and small tactical units.

You could always go by the units of a Roman Legion, if you wanted. But I see no problem as it is now.

The different ranks of major and so forth are relatively new.

In the middle ages the ranks were more basic. Your captain commanded a company. How big was the company? It varied. He had a lieutenant to help him. There was also the flag carrier or ensign. Then the General commanded a number of companies. This situation more or less mirrored the roman system, without the intermediate groups of Cohorts.

Then the rank of Colonel was next. it comes from italian "Colonello", meaning 'column' so called because he commanded a 'column' of troops. Naturally, he had a lieutenant to help him too. thus lieutenant colonel.

And somewhere in all this the ranks of Seargant versus Private were introduced. Originally, a Sargant was any professional soldier who wasn't a knight. Eventually it came to be the shouting bullying rank we all know and love. The corporal came later, I think.

Finally, the way I understand it, came the major ranks, as the army became increasingly complicated. Each major rank is a step above the base rank. A sargeant major is better than a sargeant. A major is better than a captain. A major general is better than a general.

Its same with military units. The basic units come in three sizes, following the romans. The company (century) of 100 men, commanded by a captain (centurion), the regiment (cohort, or earlier, maniple) commanded by the colonel (the romans didn't seem to have a special rank, the cohort being commanded by the most senior captain) and the legion, commanded by a general (consul, or later, legate) Other units, like battalions, brigades divisions, platoons etc, seemed to be added later as things got more complicated.

One thing you can do to differentiate your countries, is give the military organizations different structures. For example, in my story I've got one country with companies, cohorts, and legions, while their main opponents have battalions, regiments, and divisions. This is anachronistic, but it helps differentiate cultures, which is frequently a problem in fantasy literature.

Note; this is an abstract and logical explaination of a complicated process. Individual country's systems vary. E.G, in the USA the major general outranks the 'brigadier' general, but is under the lieutenant general, who is below the full general. Oddly enough, until the Civil war, no american general held the rank of full general, except for george washington. During the first 3 years of of the civil war, the northern army leaders were all major generals, only differentiated by the date of their promotion, which led to a great deal of confusion. Finally, Lincoln got sick of it and made Grant a lieutenant general.

The modern russian army basically duplicates the rank system for generals. Thus you have a colonel general, but what would be the 'general general' is called the marshal instead. or at least how that was in the soviet system, I don't know if its changed.

Sarpedon said:

One thing you can do to differentiate your country, is give the military organizations different structures. For example, in my story I've got one country with companies, cohorts, and legions, while their main opponents have battalions, regiments, and divisions. This is anachronistic, but it helps differentiate cultures, which is frequently a problem in fantasy literature.

.

Click to expand...

Really good point! It also challenges both sides, making it difficult to assess odds. Additionally, many armies purposefully number their units nonsequentially, to make such assessments difficult.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_Armies_Officers

Here's a listing of NATO military officer ranks, their names by different countries, and their insignia, if you want some alternate names.