Matrix Games

Welcome back to the Armory where we don’t just dissect different weapons, but some of the more amorphous concepts in military history. In this case we are going to take a look at the concept of the junior leader through history.

If you read our previous article on The Face of Roman Battle or have any experience with wargames and history, you probably know that combat is an incredibly trying thing. Soldiers and warriors are under constant emotional and physical strain, both in the anxious waiting for combat to commence, and in the actual fighting of the battle. Building up the courage and resolve to actually close with the enemy and fight them in a life or death struggle is not a normal or regular thing life prepares us for.

The junior leader or officer traditionally helped men do just that, serving as an example for soldiers to follow into the thick of battle. Rather than a position that required tactical acumen or technical training, the chief requirement of the junior leader was a willingness to expose themselves to danger. Many cultures developed the concept of the junior war leader. There were the Centurions of ancient Rome, young noblemen raised in the tradition of Homer who were inculcated with tales of heroism and raised in an aristocratic culture that was fiercely warlike and competitive. There were also the noblemen and knights of the medieval period, who often lead a lances fournies (roughly a squad in modern terms) of retainers into battles.

The tomb of a Roman centurion. Contrary to many popular images centurions were not usually grizzled veterans promoted from the ranks, but young aristocrats embarking on a military and political career.

These ancient and medieval war leaders were not professionals by our modern standards. They were often aristocrats who belonged to families that owned land and regularly participated in civil society. While this lack of professionalism might make you assume these junior leaders were tactical slouches, their main role and importance was providing a beacon of leadership for a maniple or company to rally around rather than clever maneuvering. The arrogance of an aristocrat becomes an asset when he needs to instill certainty and confidence in his little band of brothers.

The dual character of many military leaders as prominent members of civil society often played the principal role in them getting their military position. A junior aristocrat could recruit men from his home region and equip both himself and his retinue at personal expense. This tapping of local wealth and resources to form armies was essential for pre-modern states that possessed a very limited capacity to generate revenue or draft manpower into military service. Even by the mid 19^th century raising armies could be a patchwork affair as prominent local politicians were given commissions as officers to get them on board with the war effort.

The American Civil War was a mix of old and new. On the one hand West Point, a modern military academy, was training officers as full-time professionals. An education at West Point gave a junior officer an understanding of engineering, logistics, formation maneuvers, military drilling, etc. On the other hand the United States possessed a very small pre-war army and did not have the army reserve/mobilization system that contemporary European nations had. To get volunteers into the army and organize them every prominent politician, lawyer, and local businessman that was willing to serve was given an officers commission and sent off to recruit and organize companies and regiments. Plenty of these volunteer officers, men of local prominence, went on to fill the army’s ranks as captains and lieutenants.

Union non commissioned officers posing for a picture during the Civil War. These men helped the junior officers maintain order and discipline in the ranks.

This influx of civilians into the army had a mixed effect. Warfare had become increasingly technical as gunpowder weaponry complicated logistics and tactics. The lack of a military culture also meant there was a lack of cultural education. A European nobleman may have spent much of his youth at least aware of some technical aspects of warfare and conscious that one day he may be called to lead a small unit in the King’s army. An American lawyer, businessman, or politician may have had very little expectation that he would be called to the colors in the middle of the 19^th century. Many of these civilian officers proved unsuitable for military service and were gradually drummed out of the army, but some proved to be naturally talented to command and, after a period of education and seasoning, became stellar leaders.

Mural of the 54th Massachusetts and the death of their Colonel, Robert Gould Shaw. Volunteer officers like Shaw provided essential leadership to a raw citizen army.

In the American Civil War a lieutenant or captain had very little to do when it came to tactical deployments. A company only had 100 men at full strength, usually even less after a few months of campaigning. The chief duty of a captain was keeping his company in line with the rest of the regiment or performing clerical duties as a quartermaster. In combat lieutenants and captains remained very much like the centurion, their principal duty being to serve as an example, walking tall and shouting encouragement as the bullets came whizzing by.

There was a concept of “living a charmed life” that drew from the aristocratic tradition of officers. It was thought that a good officer had to disdain danger, ignore it and barely acknowledge the possibility of being killed. It was need to inspire and lead, which by necessity meant exposing themselves to danger, that saw these junior leaders being killed in disproportionate numbers. A centurion had to lead his maniple into contact with the enemy, and so had to expose himself first and foremost at the head of his unit. A good Civil War lieutenant or captain had to stand tall when the rest of the regiment hunkered low seeking cover in every ditch, tree, and culvert.

As fire swept the field and technology marched on in the 20^th century, more and more was expected of junior officers. The professionalization of a military career meant that the politically connected part-time officer gradually fell by the wayside to a more technocratic officer. Rather than a company being a closely formed body of 100 men all armed with muskets, it evolved to become a multi-arm formation equipped with machine guns, mortars, rifle grenades, and more. A lieutenant couldn’t rely on a captain or colonel for tactical direction of his platoon, he might very well be concealed and out of contact with higher command. A lieutenant therefore had to lead with far more tactical acumen and integrate complicated weapon systems into his battle plan.

The Normandy Bocage was a maze of hedges and woodlots. Platoons fought in isolation, making lieutenants masters of their own little wars.

Bravery and a willingness to expose themselves to danger was still essential, but the modern officer was now less a unit champion or warrior, and more a true commander in miniature. A platoon commander had to direct his sections and their special weapons to best effect on the battlefield. A company commander had to direct multiple sub-units, often including a weapons platoon, to best effect on the field. In addition to the complexities of running his company, a captain may also have to worry about incorporating a fire plan from regimental or divisional artillery into his plan of attack. These tools made your average rifle company a far more dispersed and lethal formation, but far more difficult to coordinate and command. Combined with the invention of the radio (something worth it’s own article) this made the modern junior officer a combat leader that required a greater level of military education than ever before.

The radio gave junior leaders access to assets like artillery. A small spotting team lead by a lieutenant could call in fire missions that would cripple whole battalions.

If you want a few examples of junior leadership in our games, Combat Mission is an exceptionally good sample. Every unit in the game has a leader with a leadership modifier ranging from +2, +1, 0, -1 and -2. Good leaders improve the flow of information between units, meaning separate formations can share spotting contacts. Good leaders ensure every formation knows the shape of the battlefield, and can more rapidly detect and fire upon enemies that another unit has already spotted.

Fields of Glory II (including Medieval) abstract junior leadership, but its bound up in the performance of your units. Every time you win a round of combat, that is likely because some junior officers in the formation are inspiring their men to greater feats of heroism, seeking to crack open and route an enemy formation. Every time a unit rally's from a disrupted condition, that is also because junior leaders are putting men back into good order, inspiring them and getting them organized after a mauling.

Finally, in Flashpoint Campaigns we see the most technical side of officer leadership. Staff officers of battalions and regiments organizing the logistics and personnel of a modern mechanized formation. This falls outside the scope of a junior officer role, but it’s a good example of how technical and specialized military leadership has become.

With that we shall wrap up this week’s article. I hope everyone has a good week and we will see you next time!