# Ages of Medieval Military Officers



## Tamwen (Aug 22, 2012)

Medieval or thereabouts, roughly.

In my story, the king's brother has four children, two of which are actively in the military. I estimate the father to be in his early forties, but I'm not quite certain how young or old the sons would have to be to believably be military leaders. I'm assuming the fact that they're members of the royal family would help, since they'd be educated and trained from an early age. And back then, life expectancy was pretty low, even in the best of circumstances, so you probably wouldn't wait too long.

What would you say is the youngest a man/boy could be to realistically be a leader; a decent officer in the army with serious responsibilities. At least one of the boys is in his early twenties, but the eldest... I'm still trying to pin him down.

I hope I made sense, and I hope you can help me! Cheers!


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 22, 2012)

It depends greatly on how much action the military is seeing. If it's peacetime (and assuming there's some sort of career/standing military), then you'll see the mainline leaders in their 40s and higher. If it's wartime, then they'll be in their late 20s and early 30s (because most of the more experienced guys will probably already have been killed in battle).


----------



## Tamwen (Aug 22, 2012)

Definitely not peacetime in this case... But for the eldest son to be 26, that means he was born when the father was 15. So either I age up the father, which could work, or they (the father and mother) were just quite young when they got married/had kids.


----------



## FatCat (Aug 22, 2012)

If its a member of royalty, I'd imagine that they would assume at the very least a symbolic position within the military as soon as they've hit puberty. From what I've read cavalry positions are often most respected, so maybe have the older son the commander of a cavalry unit and the younger son could have a more toned-down role like a logistics/supply officer or the captain of a regiment of infantry (with the guidance of a grizzly old veteran of course ) That way you can have the elder son be low-twenties and the younger be 15ish. Keeps the king young enough to take the field with the army and not slow em down with his arthritis!


----------



## Tamwen (Aug 23, 2012)

FatCat said:


> If its a member of royalty, I'd imagine that they would assume at the very least a symbolic position within the military as soon as they've hit puberty. From what I've read cavalry positions are often most respected, so maybe have the older son the commander of a cavalry unit and the younger son could have a more toned-down role like a logistics/supply officer or the captain of a regiment of infantry (with the guidance of a grizzly old veteran of course ) That way you can have the elder son be low-twenties and the younger be 15ish. Keeps the king young enough to take the field with the army and not slow em down with his arthritis!



The two elder boys are the nephews of the king, which I assume counts as royalty. The king is, I'd say... Mid to late forties, while his younger brother (the boys' father) is early forties, maybe late thirties if I want to lessen the age difference between him and my FMC even more. I'm actually going for a sort of May-December Romance between the king's brother and my FMC, who's in her mid twenties or so, so I'm glad that the guy's oldest son doesn't have to be older than her for his military position to make sense. That would make for some rather awkward family dinners...


----------



## FatCat (Aug 23, 2012)

Anything is really possible if they were a Duke's sons (not sure if your using a feudal system of governance), a  high position in the military is virtually assured ,if that is their career path, through nepotism, the question remains, do you want to have these guys be good leaders, or simply hold a high position for plots sake. The King's voice is law, remember, so technically he could appoint an eleven year old Field Commander, although that probably wouldn't work out to well.


----------



## Graylorne (Aug 23, 2012)

Facts: Henry V of England commanded his own army against Wales when he was 17 (his father Henry IV was then 46). Edward the Black Prince won renown as one of the commandrs at the Battle of CrÃ©cy when he was 16 (his father Edward III was 34). They were both outstanding commanders, ofc.

In medieval times there weren't any cavalry units as we know them; horses were for knights, both noble and lowborn), nor regiments of infantry  That came later. Nobles came with their own military retinue, captains of mercenaries joined if the pay was well, and all these were combined in some larger units, generally under command of a duke or other powerful magnate. Keep in mind you're not talking about standing armies like we have or the Romans had. Medieval troops were gathered mostly for the duration of the fight. There were things like a Commisariat for all, but I don't think you'd get any proud young prince to do mundane things like that...

Of course you can have a standing army, with an organisation like NapolÃ©on's, but then you have to know how the King is going to pay for it. A permanent army is very expensive and there must be an economic infrastructure to support it.


----------



## Tamwen (Aug 23, 2012)

FatCat said:


> Anything is really possible if they were a Duke's sons (not sure if your using a feudal system of governance), a  high position in the military is virtually assured ,if that is their career path, through nepotism, the question remains, do you want to have these guys be good leaders, or simply hold a high position for plots sake. The King's voice is law, remember, so technically he could appoint an eleven year old Field Commander, although that probably wouldn't work out to well.



I could see it being like... They were part of the military but were going through the actual channels and learning and doing it right (for lack of better word)... and then their father threw in his lot with the rebels after an "incident" with the king and suddenly they're promoted and getting thrown into a metric ton of action.

EDIT: The kingdom itself was once the center of a very Roman-ish empire, so I could see them keeping a lot of the trappings and organizations of the empire it was once the jewel of.


----------



## FatCat (Aug 23, 2012)

You could always do something cultural, like the male blood-royals are required to attend a standing "military college" for example, this way they would avoid the easy route, so to speak, and learn from the ground up basic strategies of warfare. Also it could be used as a clever plot device to pitch old classmates against each other in a civil war type of scenario. If most of the kings family stick with him through the divide, only a few students would remain and thus face instant promotion on the rebel side, including your two guys. 

Side note: Fantasy writing is not historical non-fiction


----------



## Graylorne (Aug 23, 2012)

FatCat said:


> Side note: Fantasy writing is not historical non-fiction



No, but historical non-fiction is one of the bases of believable fantasy.


----------



## FatCat (Aug 23, 2012)

No doubt, as history is relevant to anything creative. It's the way in which its used, not followed, that can make something believable and entertaining, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 27, 2012)

A military commander at that time could have been any age. Remember, they were looking back at generals like Alexander, Augustus, Hannibal Barca, Pompey the Great, Scipio Africanus, etc. - who all received their first solo commands in their teens.

 Some of them (Gaius Marius, Hannibal Barca) first saw combat in their preteens. Marius, who was a common soldier (his father was a new man), was marked as Scipio's military successor when he was *13*.

 So, the guys in the middle ages were not worried about age.


----------



## Cleio (Aug 31, 2012)

If I remember my medieval history, it was also expected of the nobility, especially royalty, to show prowess in military command. After all, they were supposed to be the 'warrior' class. A king, especially, would always have to be a general as well. Princes needed to gain experience in war. All princes would be prepared such; after all, life was uncertain, people, even royalty, often died young, in war or from disease. 

Something else to keep in mind might be the importance of rank. Military rank was often dictated by birth. You would not find a prince serving under a mere baron! I'm no expert on the middle ages (I'm an early modernist) but I would imagine you'd very likely not find generals that weren't at least a duke. There are a number of examples where army (or navy) commands became problematic as the most qualified, experienced commanders were of lower nobel rank (or, gasp, even of common birth!) and found their authority undermined by dukes and princes who hadn't a clue what they were doing but expected command by right of birth. 

If you have a society that is strongly hierarchical (with barons, dukes, princes, kings etc.), than such ranks are not easily ignored in the military, even if common sense says that the more experienced man should be in charge. Of course, you can have a situation where a king is theoretically commanding, but surrounded by advisors of skill and experience.


----------



## SeverinR (Aug 31, 2012)

The father having a child at 15 would not be unheard of.
Marriages and having babies began at puberty as young as 13 I believe, and in some cases younger.

When death was so common, society has to produce as many babies as it can. Also workers needed as many hands to work, so alot of children were needed.
Also military training began early. Those expected to lead were taught military ways and tactics.


----------

