If you buy an army using your Wealth, do you need to buy Rank too?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

A US President does have Rank, because they are part of the command structure by law, not just in a practical sense. A wise civilian President will stick to broad policy, and listen to his generals, rather than directly muddling about and micromanaged as Hitler often did. That's the difference between Rank and actual skills in Politics, Diplomacy, Leadership, Strategy, and Tactics.

Certainly the president has Rank. But he doesn't have Military Rank, unless he's served in the military, like General Eisenhower. That's not a prerequisite for being president, and I think I would say that in the United States, a president can only have Courtesy Military Rank while in office. What the president has is Political Rank 6-8 depending on the era (currently, as the head of state and head of government of the most powerful state on the planet, I'd say 8). And the United States (and many other countries) has civil supremacy: The military does what the head of civil government tells it, within constitutional limits.

And in the same way, a hired mercenary company *legally* is supposed to do what its contract with its employer specifies, which probably will involve obeying the employer's orders, within limits set by contractual terms and whatever law the mercenary company operates under.

As a private firm, a mercenary company probably doesn't have true Military Rank; its officers aren't comparable to officers of established governments. What they have is nominal position with title (1/level); chain of command (1/level); typical resources (1/level); not dominant or unique, because almost by definition you're going to have more than one mercenary unit (-1/level); and, usually, not legitimate, in that they're not seen as serving society, the state, or the ruler or embodying ethical ideals (0/level). So that looks like 2/level for Mercenary Rank. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to have them report to someone with Corporate Rank, which also has a reduced point value at best. Or they could just work for someone with tons of money, and be held to duty by their Code of Honor.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Certainly the president has Rank. But he doesn't have Military Rank, unless he's served in the military, like General Eisenhower. That's not a prerequisite for being president, and I think I would say that in the United States, a president can only have Courtesy Military Rank while in office. What the president has is Political Rank 6-8 depending on the era (currently, as the head of state and head of government of the most powerful state on the planet, I'd say 8). And the United States (and many other countries) has civil supremacy: The military does what the head of civil government tells it, within constitutional limits.

No, I would disagree. Rather strongly, actually, as a recently-retired officer. Anyone who has ever been in the US military has had it beaten into them quite definitively that the president is in their chain of command. The US military absolutely does not simply "do what the head of civil government tells it." So the President (of the United States) does have military Rank. That rank is called Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. It's one of his titles, and is not directly derived from his political rank. He could even, if he so desired, directly lead the armed forces in the field. (Which unless I am mistaken is not an option for, for instance, the PM of the UK, who otherwise has a similar political rank as POTUS.) The last president to do so was George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion, IIRC, but any sitting president could do so. He'd be a fool for doing it, but he could. Washington set the precedent, unless there has been subsequent legislation to the contrary of which I am unaware. (I might indeed be wrong here, but to my knowledge this is all correct.) A general who disobeys the president would be charged with insubordination (among other things) under the UCMJ for disobeying his commander, rather than under civil law.

Doubtless I might be accused of point inflation for holding this position but, good God, remember that POTUS is probably literally the most powerful man on the planet right now. If anyone deserves point inflation...

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by acrosome

The last president to do so was George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion, IIRC, but any sitting president could do so. He'd be a fool for doing it, but he could. Washington set the precedent, unless there has been subsequent legislation to the contrary of which I am unaware

Even if the law hasn't changed, society and the way things are done have. Thus, if something is theoretically possible but impossible in actuality, I wouldn't be including it on the character sheet.

In movies like White House Down (which I've only seen the trailers for), the president might be in a position to directly give orders to a rank-and-file subordinate, but that situation would be played by a different bunch of cinematic rule assumptions.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by acrosome

No, I would disagree. Rather strongly, actually, as a recently-retired officer. Anyone who has ever been in the US military has had it beaten into them quite definitively that the president is in their chain of command. The US military absolutely does not simply "do what the head of civil government tells it." So the President (of the United States) does have military Rank. That rank is called Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

I seem to recall this was a brief plot point in the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan series. Ryan becomes president, and (I think) tells a general to destroy a "Major Attack Option" plan to turn Japan into polished glass. "Do I have to make it an order? I can give them, you know," Ryan says. Basically reminding said general of the chain of command in no uncertain terms.

Implausibility of the premise aside, the notion of chain of command was also a plot point in the Babylon 5 series as well:

"The order for Nightwatch to take over Babylon 5 Security came from the Political Office. The Political Office, despite its connection to the President, is a civilian agency outside the direct chain of command. Orders affecting Military Personnel, must come from within the Military hierarchy. Starting from the President, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to your immediate superior officer. A Senator CANNOT give you a direct order. A GOVERNOR cannot give you a direct order! And neither can the Political Office."

Now, I'd simply accept acrosome's statement as-is, because "recently-retired military officer" is about as primary source as one can get. But the fictional weight leaning on such things is also fairly substantial.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by whswhs

and, usually, not legitimate, in that they're not seen as serving society, the state, or the ruler or embodying ethical ideals (0/level).

The Swiss mercenaries, over the centuries, served the Kings of France, the Kings of Spain, Napoleon, and even as of today there are paid Swiss soldiers serving another head of state (not in Switzerland).

As to ideals, I can think of two fights in which Swiss mercenaries who were serving as royal bodyguards sacrificed themselves nearly wholesale rather than give up royal palaces, one of which was not even housing the king at the time, in 1527 (in Rome) and in 1789 (in Paris). They had Sense of Duty.

In 2007, the employees of a PMC were involved in a live-fire accident in Baghdad. Since the mercenaries were there to escort a US Embassy convoy, I suppose they were serving a state, the USA, at the time.

In general, throughout history, the normal situation for a mercenary unit was to work for a state or ruler, as opposed to just a wealthy businessman. That's exactly because of the reason why the "unique" or dominant situation is very common if we apply it to the ultimate source of legitimacy for military units: rulers want to have a monopoly of the use of force, and don't like it when wealthy businessmen have force enough to go toe to toe with the state's. Next thing you know, they won't pay their taxes.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Starting from the President, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to your immediate superior officer.

Quibble: at least in the current US military (since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986), the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command. They are an advisory body. The usual chain of command extends through the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders (4- or 3-star) and then to the tactical units, and/or through the service Secretaries to the non-operational forces.

A GOVERNOR cannot give you a direct order!

On the other hand, a state governor is in the chain of command for his own state militia and National Guard units, at least until they get Federalized.

Either of these current facts may have changed in the future of B5, of course.

Note that the position of Lieutenant ("who holds in place of") Colonel was created to be the senior military officer in a regiment with a purchased or inherited Colonelcy as nominal commander. This is not a new problem.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by thrash

Quibble: at least in the current US military (since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986), the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command. They are an advisory body. The usual chain of command extends through the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders (4- or 3-star) and then to the tactical units, and/or through the service Secretaries to the non-operational forces.


On the other hand, a state governor is in the chain of command for his own state militia and National Guard units, at least until they get Federalized.

Either of these current facts may have changed in the future of B5, of course.

Note that the position of Lieutenant ("who holds in place of") Colonel was created to be the senior military officer in a regiment with a purchased or inherited Colonelcy as nominal commander. This is not a new problem.

Quibbles accepted! the B5 quote was in a very specific context: Sheridan was lecturing EarthForce folks (regular military) about why he could do what he was doing.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by Michele

Hitler did actually appoint himself as commander of the army, did indeed decide operational plans, and did issue direct orders to units, sometimes bypassing the chain of command. And he did have the Military Rank to do that.

No he didn´t, he made himself Supreme Commander of the army, not Generalcolonel(5 star General) or Generalfieldmarshal.

He ´d hold the Post but didn´t ´ve any rank.

Supreme Commander of the Army

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

If my character has the requisite training (say he's a deposed medieval king), but is not currently in the command structure of an army, then ought I purchase Rank for him to represent the military training that he does have?

I used rank as reputation for a character, he´d the reputation to be an capable NCO, if he would serve in an Military unit, he could expect to ´ve his rank recognised and serve at the rank or fill an coming vacancy.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Courtesy Rank. You can have enough to be the Grand Marshal of All the Armies for a measly 8 points, and enough to be a Kentucky colonel with a bought-and-paid-for regiment for just 5-6 points. You will be accorded the perks of that position in any formal situation.

.

And if the Character "bought" his rank in an army like Arthur Wellesly, pleasure of the Monarch like John Churchill or because he was the only available relative to the Monarch like Julian Apostata?

Originally Posted by acrosome

Actually, yes, that is exactly the case here. So I'm voting NO, you aren't required to buy Rank. Rank is legally enforceable- sort of the other side of Duty. And a good mercenary might have a Sense of Duty, but they won't really have an actual Duty. In fact, unless the mercenaries are working for a legitimate government I might argue that a mercenary unit's leaders only have courtesy rank rather than real rank, since their orders are probably not legally enforceable. ally that's how mercenary armies have worked... :)

I doubt that the swiss mercenaries worked under that legal Concept, the troops of the Johns Company or the Heavyborn the Military of the Trade Federation of the Arkon Empire, the dorsai.

Today it may be so

[ericthered]

I would argue that the President of the United States primary point expenditure is his rank. He gets to head multiple rank structures by paying 5 more points than the heads of all of those organizations. Rank is like that: each level gives you five or so times as many people at your disposal.

His status is derived from his high rank, and he rarely uses wealth, because his rank is much much better at getting him things.