Generals: What did they do Historically? What should they do in a game?

[brasidas19004]

Yes, a few of the commentators note that a wise place for a general is a place where the battle can be seen, but close enough that a reasonably quick OODA loop can be executed, whether a repositioning or commitment of reserves.

I have often thought wargames make it too easy to maneuver troops in contact with the enemy.  Especially in firepower eras, the noise is deafening.

[JW Boots]

Yes, a few of the commentators note that a wise place for a general is a place where the battle can be seen, but close enough that a reasonably quick OODA loop can be executed, whether a repositioning or commitment of reserves.

I have often thought wargames make it too easy to maneuver troops in contact with the enemy.  Especially in firepower eras, the noise is deafening.

I fully agree with this. Observing and Orienting, the two O’s, in such an environment is way different than the “helicopter” view we wargamers have… Then there is the D and hierarchy, intellect, the man’s experience of actual battle, paralysis is just around the corner for him… and finally Acting… they’d need to physically get over there… When one adds up the time this might take… those brave men of old may well have been too late over and over again…

[Rick]

Well you would think, wouldn't you?
The classical Greek hoplite-era general was the commander of one of the phalanxes - as such, once he'd issued his orders and taken his place in the phalanx, his view and ability to influence the overall battle was limited. Later on in the period, some bright spark must've realised that if he sat back behind the battle line he could direct the battle a lot better.
And this is the problem - a general that stays back can direct his troops and reserves more effectively (think of Wellington), whilst a 'fighting' general that gets stuck in loses that capability.
Gaugemela is an interesting case study - Alexander was a superb cavalry 'fighting' general but his genius was in setting up a battle and in delegating to superb sub-generals who would control each section of the battle, leaving him free to do his trademark surgical strike. Phillip was similarly gifted, but an Infantry general more than anything - although both he and Alexander knew how to field a combined arms army well.

[Swampking]

In the LBA (Late Bronze Age), it appears from the Hittite archive that at least one Hittite general was killed in combat against Ahhiyawa and one Ahhiyawan general was killed as well in the same battle. It's hard to know what is meant by 'general' in this context. My guess is that in wargame rules, they would be termed 'heroes' or warband leaders.

In the Hittite context, 'generals' were appointed by the king and was something like a chief of staff. The King was the head of the military and would campaign; however, generals would command wings (chariot forces) and infantry (mostly in the center).

It's an interesting question, especially in the LBA and early Iron Age - we know so little about the era, regardless of the Hittite archives, that it's hard to say exactly what 'generals' did.

[AKULA]

I'd recommend a read of "Mask of Command" by John Keegan ... will definitely provide some food for thought 

[Easy E]

I'd recommend a read of "Mask of Command" by John Keegan ... will definitely provide some food for thought 

Great book.  I also would add on the Price of Admiralty for you Naval enthusiasts. 

A lot of the General's job has to do with before the battle and after the battle and focus a lot on logistics and getting troops paid for morale reasons.

[guitarheroandy]

I suspect that one thing we are consistently getting wrong is that, Macedonian phalanxes aside, most battle lines were probably much more 'open' than the close-order rectangles we wargamers love. Read Hans Van Week' book about phalanx warfare and any of the more up-to-date theories on the Republican Roman army and its enemies, and suddenly the tales of Generals (or their sub-generals or equivalents) moving about the battlefield, commanding reserves, and engaging in heroic acts, etc, seem rather more plausible.

Personally I think that any wargame rules that just allows troops to move as you like or manoeuvre in fancy ways with little penalty as if the general is a 'god' have it very wrong - it's VERY hard to get even well-drilled and practised soldiers to move in tight formations and maintain full coherency. Look how much they have to practise for Trooping the Colour etc then imagine doing that on the battlefield under stress! Reacting to surprise threats such as flank attacks, etc, would be very difficult and manoeuvring onto flanks to deliver such a charge would be even harder.

I therefore agree with the points made about a General's role pre and post-battle. Deployment was a key role - get that wrong and the army would be in trouble from the off. Once combat was joined (whatever that actually looked like) and ebbing and flowing along the battle line, I can well imagine him riding around behind the main lines (again, whatever that actually looked like) encouraging the men, being visible by his presence, rallying tired men and exhorting them to greater things, etc, with his subordinates doing the same. I can also imagine that in heroic societies and their warfare, he'd be expected to lead by example in the battle line. Just look how many kings died in battle in Britain in the 7th century - I think from memory it's at least seven! So, part of the question must surely also focus on the style of warfare being practised, the size of the forces involved and the expectation of the society and its warfare norms, as these will all have impacted massively on the leader's role and his actions during battle.

It's a fascinating debate and we'll never actually 'know'. All we can hope for are sets of rules that align with our own beliefs and ideas about it all.

[Easy E]

It's a fascinating debate and we'll never actually 'know'. All we can hope for are sets of rules that align with our own beliefs and ideas about it all.

An excellent post.  Thanks for sharing some of the more modern scholarship on how things likely worked in ancient battles.