Required military reading at Military academies

[Metallgewitter]

The training of soldiers and especially officers always requires them reading books on military theories. So do you think the academies also require aspiring officers to read bokks from pre-spaceflight Terra? I could imagine that the Confederation and Combine would require it's officers to read Sun-Tzu's "Art of war" and perhaps the Lyran Commonwealth requires it's officers to at least read  Clausewitz "Of War". Do you think the states all have their specific books that fall in their culture from those times? I would suspect that books from Kerensky or McKenna are required but I am more interested in the old "classics"

[Alan Grant]

We know they do, in many novels I've seen real world military history referenced a lot. I don't mean ideas borrowed from, I mean direct references. Like in dialogue and conversation.

In one novel, Victor is conversing with one of his siblings and it somehow turns into a reference to how that sibling has been running a simulation or wargame of an army that got stuck fighting Russia in winter, not sure if it was a Napolean or WW2 reference off the top of my head. He asked if th e simulation/wargame was taking into account just how bad the winter was that year, then pivoted to asking how/why that sister was doing that as her academic major was something else entirely, and she replied something like "I have electives" to indicate she was studying some military history as an elective. I think it was Yvonne.

That's just one example, I can remember about 4 others from sourcebooks as well as novels.

Also, think about how the references in Battletech that are just loaded with real world history. From Northwind Highlanders and their ties to Scotland, to the FWL invoking King Arthur with the Knights of the Inner Sphere. They aren't afraid to pull directly from even Arthur legend. Do I even need to mention the Marians? They weren't exactly Roman scholars, they were periphery bandits who set that up. But they knew plenty about the ancient Romans. A guy named Ethan Allen established the Green Mountain Boys. Mercenary units with names that are historical references, that's a whole lotta historical or mythological knowledge plugged into the Battletech universe right there.

If there is one thing Battletech is consistent on, it is digging up LOTS of real world history and particularly military history. In light of that, one can only conclude that cadets at military academies are very familiar with these topics. It's the only sensible explanation for just how often these references make an appearance in-universe. I mean BT really beats the military history references to death sometimes.

They probably are biased to shared history of similar cultural influences. For example Great Houses where the primary culture is that of European heritage, studying fellow Europeans from history. But that doesn't exclude or preclude other stuff from popping up. Since lots of sub-cultures exist within each Great House.

Beyond that, feel free to use your own imagination to plug in who is taught what. In practical curriculum terms, it could literally change based on what's popular and vogue at that moment, or even stem from which professor they got for whatever class. If you are in Mr. Harding's 3:30 seminar, he's fond of Sun Tzu. If you got Professor Keating at 5 p.m., oh boy you better know who Wellington was, and if you don't, you are about to.

[butchbird]

There was a "twilight of the clans" novel...Might've been the second one, where they detail the broad strokes of the "smoke jaguar annihlation", discussing "entropic war" and such. Clausewitz was referenced pretty heavily from what I recall, but then my memory ain't the best. Still, I'm pretty sure that's were I was exposed to Clausewitz for the first time.

As far as "Sun-Tzu's Art of War" is concerned, I got (again this is somewhat far away in my memory but then the capellan solution are two of the books I re-read the most in my teens) the vague impression in "the capellan solution" that this classic text had been somewhat phased out but that Sun Tzu Liao had made a heavy push to bring it back as a "cornerstone reading" in the CCAF...and Ion Rush had read a different translation then the one Sun Tzu Liao was quoting, at some point.

Inevitably, you can't re-invent the wheel. While much "military philosophy" looses its pertinence as the decades go by, quite the few maintain all their relevance regardless of the centurys that have passed. The art of war is the best example, it deals efficiently with its material, no sense in bot continuing to use it, hence we do so even nearly 2400 years after it's writing and counting...wouldn't be surprised the same would be true of clausewitz in the 31st century.

[Fire Scorpion IIC]

"Application of Humanitarian Law in the Periphery" by Amos Forlough should be mandatory reading in every military academy

[Metallgewitter]

"Application of Humanitarian Law in the Periphery" by Amos Forlough should be mandatory reading in every military academy

I see what you did there

Yes I remember the books where Clausewitz is mentioned. Victor also mentions Moltke's "No plan survives the encounter with the enemy" during the Refusal trial. Or how Archer Christifori talks about the battle for Alesia. And Sun Tzu mentions his namessake work to the CO of the McCarrons' Cavalry only to get the retort "I own the digital version". I was more interested if each house has a say favor for certain theorists that most align with their own cultural roots.

[Alan Grant]

The simple answer to that question is we don't know. There's no canon list of the required readings/study topics of each of BT's named military academies.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

There was a "twilight of the clans" novel...Might've been the second one, where they detail the broad strokes of the "smoke jaguar annihlation", discussing "entropic war" and such. Clausewitz was referenced pretty heavily from what I recall, but then my memory ain't the best. Still, I'm pretty sure that's were I was exposed to Clausewitz for the first time.

Exhibit A of why you should never write a "genius," you just end up with shit like this:

Victor: Hello, assembled military leaders. Here's my master plan! [recites basic concepts of warfare that line up with how the IS has been fighting for centuries]

Author: He is a military genius, one of the best leaders ever

[The Eagle]

I don't think anyone ever accused Victor of being a genius.  In fact, there's a sideboard in the FCCW sourcebook from an RCT commander who says something to effect of "I'd love him as a battalion commander, but he's crap at macro-strategy."

As for required reading, I'm certain there's more in-universe stuff used than treatises written during, or even before, our current period.  FM:FWL for example quotes from a Primer on Strategy and Tactics by Aleksandr Kerensky which I can almost guarantee is one of the most well-read books in the Inner Sphere given his importance and prominence in the universe.  I can also see certain successor lords like Alexander Davion or Kenyon Marik having written their own manuals or memoirs that are included in their specific national academies as a matter of pride.

[Sartris]

Amusingly, the greatest commanders in history up to our time would be several rungs down from Kerensky in the SLDF chain of command based on the scope of their operations.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

I don't think anyone ever accused Victor of being a genius.  In fact, there's a sideboard in the FCCW sourcebook from an RCT commander who says something to effect of "I'd love him as a battalion commander, but he's crap at macro-strategy."

Basically every bio they write of Victor mentions that he's some kind of military prodigy. For instance, here's the first line of his bio in M&M:

Even Victor Steiner-Davion’s enemies would admit (grudgingly) that he is one of the finest military leaders the Inner Sphere has ever seen—standing alongside the likes of Aleksandr Kerensky and Hanse Davion.

And yes, Absalom Dirksen does exist and he is the GOAT, because he's willing to say what nobody else was going to.

[BrianDavion]

Basically every bio they write of Victor mentions that he's some kind of military prodigy. For instance, here's the first line of his bio in M&M:

And yes, Absalom Dirksen does exist and he is the GOAT, because he's willing to say what nobody else was going to.

Pfft you don't get to complain about VSD in this context while ignoring SunTzu Liao. VSD at least had to fight for his victories, as opposed to being handed them on a silver platter by writers willing to literally warp the universe to his advantage

[butchbird]

Well concerning cultural ties leading to certain authors being favored...

Every successor state holds a myriad of terran cultural origins and while on a "planet to planet" basis, different cultures have (probably, this is but a theory from some weirdo on an internet forum after all, but humans do what humans does and the BTU tends to respect that) been mostly isolated and then warped to meet the needs of a new environment and the whims and tendencys of time, the military is another matter. People from all over the state gather together.

The military tends to have its "own" culture up to a certain point and in such vast states with so many different cultural identitys, it's inevitable a huge mix happens inside this microcosm. I'd tend to speculate that the main "cultural root" of each successor state doesn't really favor specific authors, especially in the case of pre-spaceflight terran authors.

Would've wanted to make that less

Pfft you don't get to complain about VSD in this context while ignoring SunTzu Liao. VSD at least had to fight for his victories, as opposed to being handed them on a silver platter by writers willing to literally warp the universe to his advantage

confuse, I'm unfortunately in a bad disposition, but this is interesting.

Board Member Brian Davion criticising Sun Tzu Liao's character, how very early 21st century. Makes me feel like the FCCW was yesteryear. How reconforting.

But it must be said that the conjuncture was favorable to all the other major players ignoring the Confederation's actions, with or whithout fiat.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Pfft you don't get to complain about VSD in this context while ignoring SunTzu Liao. VSD at least had to fight for his victories, as opposed to being handed them on a silver platter by writers willing to literally warp the universe to his advantage

Sun-Tzu only had to be smart enough to outsmart literally the stupidest person you can imagine. It's a low bar, but at least it doesn't actively contradict what the writers put it in front of me.

[BrianDavion]

Sun-Tzu only had to be smart enough to outsmart literally the stupidest person you can imagine. It's a low bar, but at least it doesn't actively contradict what the writers put it in front of me.

"People on conquere4d planets don't care what flag flies over them" "opps that doesn't count, tee hee"

[Metallgewitter]

Sun-Tzu only had to be smart enough to outsmart literally the stupidest person you can imagine. It's a low bar, but at least it doesn't actively contradict what the writers put it in front of me.

He also outsmarted Victor's sister. Guess she is just as stupid too, huh?

And later got curbstomped by Devlin Stone. Karma can be a real bitch, right?

[Minemech]

He also outsmarted Victor's sister. Guess she is just as stupid too, huh?

And later got curbstomped by Devlin Stone. Karma can be a real bitch, right?

Yes, Katherine was also very stupid. She was also absurdly petty and shortsighted, neither caring for or about her people.

[Atlas3060]

To the whole thread:

It would be nice to stop the whole "This faction is better than yours/This Character was written like..." dunkfest I've seen ad naseum in other threads where it doesn't need to be, much like this one.

We should focus on the OP's question. I think in universe sure older historical doctrines are studied alongside any more contemporary ones for a culture. It makes sense, even in today's real life militaries they look to ancient Roman and Greek or any other cultures to see how war was waged in those places and with whatever tech they had at the time.

The information is the ammunition after all.

From out of universe, it's far easier to make references to actual generals and strategies than something in universe, but as a reader I'd love to see more of the latter. Even if it is just filing off the serial numbers of older generals.
Something like "We should use the McEvedy's offense from the old Terran Alliance days..." and it probably be something similar to how the Tortiose formation of Roman days went but with tanks and aero or something similar.
So long as the writers don't go super specific in a way that'll give the fact checking crew palpations. 

[Minemech]

 The problem with this is that is really varies by bloodline. Mariks for example are supposed to be trained from their youth and would likely be reading a lot of material not covered in or available to military academies. This is an example of a blood right that would not be as accessible to a common Free Worlder. You can assume that blood rights pervaded families throughout the Succession War period and helped elevate noble families across the Inner Sphere with knowledge of what is offered in various academies in mind. This is part of why Janos' choice to attend a different military academy was so scandalous. Works like the Art of War would probably not be within the standard curriculum, but rather in optional seminars across the Successor States.

[Metallgewitter]

But wouldn't the state give a list of literature that every school has to put in their curciculum? I mean yes we have several private schools that are not operated by the goverment but by private individuals but I would expect that they have to at least adhere to state guidelines. Also I would think that especially noble born students also read other books. for example the book "On Politics" (penned by the guy who bribed the Hegemony to build Unity City in his district) is mandatory reading for all Kurita nobles.

[ActionButler]

But wouldn't the state give a list of literature that every school has to put in their curciculum? I mean yes we have several private schools that are not operated by the goverment but by private individuals but I would expect that they have to at least adhere to state guidelines.

It stands to reason that the state apparatus would establish some level of minimum standard, but that wouldn't necessarily cover reading material.

[butchbird]

It stands to reason that the state apparatus would establish some level of minimum standard, but that wouldn't necessarily cover reading material.

Which takes us back to the fact enounced near the start of the thread that the individual teacher will have a great impact on what material you must study. It's astonishing how two people can have vastly different interpretations of what is to be covered by a specific course name. A "Litterature of X people/nation" course given by two different teacher could cover so vastly different topics and authors that you'd think they're not talking of the same country altogether. True story.

Also, the readings "offering" would probably vary per house, offering certain constants and constraints, particularly in military subjects from the age of war on. Particularly, it can easily be assumed that most Combine schools would have very little "outsider" influence.

But for "the art of war"... I'd offer that it's such a classic, covering efficiently basic stuff AND a basic read in such vastly (or are they?) different fields as military affaires and buisnmess management, that it would still probably be one of the possible first thing they hand out to cadets entering military schools in the 31st century.

[Minemech]

 Most quality works were likely composed by people who we have never had material on. Some works might even be requisite material for certain units. Who knows what crazy material the 2nd Oriente Hussars or 13th Marik Militia might have required.

[Metallgewitter]

Then I wonder what books the Lyran cadets read when their most basic military solution is "Big Mechs with big guns and we don't care about speed" Yes the enlisted and NCO's are usually a cut above the IS standard but their officers are often let's say not up to par. Even with progressive Generals of the Armies like Adam Steiner or his succesor.

[BrianDavion]

Then I wonder what books the Lyran cadets read when their most basic military solution is "Big Mechs with big guns and we don't care about speed" Yes the enlisted and NCO's are usually a cut above the IS standard but their officers are often let's say not up to par. Even with progressive Generals of the Armies like Adam Steiner or his succesor.

The Lyran's problem is more cultural then educational. with a heavy dose of "old boys network" involved.
The problem is that competancy isn't nesscarily rewarded but who you smooze with. (there's an element of that in every military, but the Lyrans have a worse case of it) the Nanglering, it's worth noting has produced BRILLIANT commanders. Aleksander Kerensky, Focht, Victor Steiner-Davion, all commanders of great repute in universe whom graduated from the Nanglering.
So yeah the problem is NOT education, it's clearly cultural, and that's a hard thing to change

[Minemech]

it's worth noting has produced BRILLIANT commanders who I will list in descending order of merit, skill and ability: Aleksander Kerensky, Focht, Thomas Hogarth, Victor Steiner-Davion, all commanders of great repute in universe who had graduated from the Nanglering.

EDIT: recontextualized
EDIT: Please just DM me the next time I forget something this trifling. It was clearly not meant to defame the poster but rather to build an a jest he made using an oldskool erm... (or cough cough) framework, punctuated by the caps. Heck, a mod could have fixed it before anyone saw it and talked to me about it later had you directed them to it.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/erm

[Alan Grant]

I imagine military history that emphasizes linear warfare might come up a lot in Lyran education.

Think heavy infantry (from ancient times that could include greek phalanx and roman infantry), pikemen, formations of musket carrying soldiers from the 1600-1800s. Blocks or echelons of troops you move around a battlefield in linear warfare with cavalry and artillery as supporting arms.

I could see them leaning into Prussian military history, in part because so much of the original material would be written in German.

Slow but deadly. With cavalry as a supporting arm for scouting and exploiting breaches of the enemy's line. The Lyran BattleMech regiments have often included "lightning" companies of lighter machines but they are seen as support (flanking and scouting forces) rather than the core of the regiment.

By comparison, the Federated Suns, have more traditionally studied non-linear tactics. Maneuver warfare and cavalry tactics. With notable exceptions among a few heavier units like the Davion Assault Guards, which emphasize almost Lyran-like echelon battlefield formations.

[idea weenie]

I'd expect the Lyrans to also have a study of economics, to determine if a world is worth protecting.  I.e. if the Lyrans have to ship food to a planet constantly, then letting Kurita take over the planet might actually be a good thing, as Kurita will have to take over the food shipments.  This would have to be balanced vs if it is acceptable to lose what the world is producing.

[Metallgewitter]

Even if they read German military literature this makes me wonder how much of it is actually understood. Clausewitz and Moltke gave pretty good impressions about what a military should do and especially Clausewitz included politics into it (the famous quote "war is politics by other means" is so often misunderstood). And heck if they really used German military books they should also include Rommel's book about infantry and von Mansteins famous "Achtung Panzer" manual.

While the Davions have their Assault formations even the Assault Guards became quite mobile. The FS field manual mentions that the commander Stephan Cooper managed to squeeze out speed you would not see in a regiment of lumbering assault and heavy Mechs.

On another note and I think that has been discussed in the Clan section too: when Clan warriors are accepted into the touman would they be given some of these literature to study? Redemption Rites make s it sound that a clan warrior trains firstly to enter the touman and only if he or she manages that the real life begins (logistics, planning etc). Especially if they enter as a Star Commander or Star Captain. When an IS officer leaves the academy he often has a lance and has at least done simulated battles with men under his or her command. And as Galen described it to Victor "yes we send them on a little raid or to a spot where a fight can break out and we basically guide them through their first battle. those that don't freeze up usually do good" But Clan warriors don't seem to learn these arts in their early days.

[Alan Grant]

Keep in mind, I didn't say German military literature. I said Prussian. I drew a line around that and largely just that, and I had reasons for doing so. The Lyran military is described as a socio-military structure. It's politics and military woven into one. I can definitely see parallels between that and the Prussian military and state. They might have taken away the wrong lessons to be sure, bent things too much toward politics and socio-economics playing key roles in who gets to be a General sometimes (keep in mind the Social Generals are the failures, not to be admired, even the Lyrans acknowledge this but find it difficult to break the cycle), but that interweaving is present all the same. Beyond that, if any Great Houses's cadets are going to study Prussian leaders and military leaders in any detail, it's probably the Lyrans. Clausewitz was also Prussian so that jives.

EDIT: I can also see the Lyrans pointing to the Prussian model, which intermixes military and politics/state quite a bit, as part of the justification for the better parts of their system. I've never actually seen them do that in canon, but that makes sense to me that they might cherry pick the pieces of that which make their model seem good and intentional. If you are a proud Lyran you aren't just going to bash the system as 100% negative, you are going to point to the upsides as well. Saying "hey look at the Prussians and how their nobles often became officers in the army and led the way, rather than just leaving warfare to just the commoners to shed blood" and point to the upsides to that. At that point they can also react to the Social Generals in some form of "never said it was a perfect system, every system produces bad leaders now and then" kind of reaction.


Before you go too far down the rabbit hole of the Clans....

We had an entire discussion of just how what Clan sibko training consists of on the Clan Chatterweb forum. How deep it went into military strategy and tactics and logistics beyond what a new warrior would need. Whether or not it would be comprehensive and they would learn that stuff young, or whether that education would come up later in their careers or not. Whether ANY continuing education on military topics would come up or not. Whether the colleges had post-sibko war colleges of any kind. When and how Clan Warriors were exposed to support topics like logistics and to what extent.

Honestly the conversation degenerated into a slurry of opinions and a presentation of lots of little pieces of canon evidence. What little canon evidence did exist tended to be of more recent vintage and era, like from the Dark Age and IlClan era books. Some of that stuff did suggest sibkos were exposed to some ancient Terran history. But then there was a lot of disagreement over if that was the state of things around the time of Operation Revival and earlier Clan eras, or if that was a more recent development in the generations After Revival as the Clans were exposed to the Inner Sphere more.

Most of the people involved in the discussion drew their own conclusions. Some thought the sibko training was really comprehensive. Some thought it prepared them for the first ToP and little else. Some thought there was continuing education available after the become a warrior or bloodnamed. Some thought it was more like being taught this stuff mentor style. Or that the information was there, to be studied at the warrior's discretion as they needed it (as they rose in rank and position).

Everyone had their own conclusions, and almost no one had enough canon evidence to definitively prove anything. The discussion was interesting but also frustrating in some ways. There was lots of gaps for people to project their own opinions.

You can find that discussion here:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,76530.0.html

There, I just saved you hours of your life. I see no need to rehash that here.

[paladin2019]

EDIT: recontextualized

Point of order: Changing the actual quote and leaving it in the quote block as if it's what was actually said is bad form.

[BrianDavion]

Point of order: Changing the actual quote and leaving it in the quote block as if it's what was actually said is bad form.

I had to read it thrice to see what he changed too

[Sartris]

Ah cool we’ve decided to do the thing that will definitely get the thread locked

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Found a reference to a specific text in the Fourth Succession War Atlas.  "A Battlefield Guide to the Uninitiated" by Katrina Steiner became required reading for all AFFS and LCAF academies. Safe to assume it's a first-year thing.

[BrianDavion]

Found a reference to a specific text in the Fourth Succession War Atlas.  "A Battlefield Guide to the Uninitiated" by Katrina Steiner became required reading for all AFFS and LCAF academies. Safe to assume it's a first-year thing.

likely was intended to be a foundational text for the AFFC

[Lone-Wolf]

I would assume that certain books would be used in all of the Successor States.
Sun Tzu "The Art of War" is considered to be THE book about military strategy.

I even once read that there is an equation:

Niccolo Machiavelli "The Prince"  + von Clausewitz "On War"  = Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

Now I think that it doesnt matter who wrote the book, the only thing is: Is it helpful, does it give good insight?

So, I would say, that it doesnt matter if your House hates House Kurita, you would still read "The Art of War", "The Book of 5 Rings" and "The 36 Strategems".

And besides, you want to beat your enemy, so you have to understand how he thinks.
So, I wouldnt be surprised if cadets or at least Generals of House Kurita are required to read von Clausewitz.

I would also assume that when one reaches higher rank that he reads more and studies history, so the above mentioned books by German officers would be read. And it wouldnt surprise me if they would even read books more recent conflicts, e.g. General Scoffins of the Amaris Empire was trying to fight an honorable war, but was overruled according to the book "Historical Liberation of Terra II" page 21 "he also gave very strict instructions on how to deal with SLDF holdouts  and how to treat prisoners of war - all of which very much mirrored the same directions given by Kerensky.", so  - we dont know if he wrote a book - but if he did I suspect it would be read at Academies, even if only to tell officers what to look for if you suspect the other side to pull an Amaris on you.

Also the books you read would be influenced by your position.

A General in the logistics department would read more of Martin van Crevelds "Supplying War" or other books on logistics (maybe about the Berlin Airlift 1948), rather than books about tank tactics.

[Metallgewitter]

Good point. I would also suspect that officers who are destined to end in let's say scouting units are required to read books on light Mech operations. Like that one book written by a Hussar pilot that became required reading much later in the Lyran Commonwealth. Or even make cadets familiarize with the different military structures around the IS. We have the claswsic 4-3-3 system then we have the 5-3-3 (I think) and when we add the Comstar or even the Marian formations you get a wider variety just in terms of organization levels.

[Alan Grant]

We're starting to draw the distinctions between:

1. What is learned at a military academy, when you might know the cadet's specialty but little else (i.e. you don't know where their career will take them)

2. What is learned after the academy, once they are assigned to a unit. Learning doesn't stop after the academy. Battletech is pretty well known for each of its units having their own flavor, their own favored strategies and tactics.  This is where for example, if a graduate is assigned to a light 'mech within a scout lance, then that mechwarrior now needs to really practice those scouting and scout-hunting skills. That's achieved through continuing training, field exercises and everything else a unit does build and/or maintain its readiness. Entire units get routed through regional combat training centers.

3. Continuing education through additional training programs. We know in the Fed Suns for example that it was common for soldiers and officers to go back and get additional training throughout their careers, sometimes that meant completing an entire training program in a different combat specialty. Sometimes that meant more advanced training needed for higher rank or position. In FM: FS, Simon Gallaghar, the Prince's Champion and Field Marshall, his career path gets detailed on page 34. As part of that there's a line that reads NAIS CMS: (Federation Command and Staff College).

FM: FS on page 36 also notes that many academies run additional training programs for existing officers and NCO's who wish to cross-train in a different specialty or advance their education.

On that note I did actually find a canon line aimed at the original question. FM: FS page 36.

Under Curriculum, it says that all academies must follow the same basic curriculum created by the Department of Military Education, completing such basics as first aid, navigation and wilderness survival. That's mandatory for all cadets, as is more academic subjects such as studying the military campaigns of Caesar, Patton and Kerensky.

So there you go, that's three from a canon book. But they say "such as" meaning these are a few cherry picked examples rather than a full list.

[Minemech]

A General in the logistics department would read more of Martin van Crevelds "Supplying War" or other books on logistics (maybe about the Berlin Airlift 1948), rather than books about tank tactics.

Within the time period of the Third, logistics would be the chief subject for all mechwarriors. They do not want to be dispossessed, and the fear of lostech or ending up in the hanger queen is real. While it is true that it is primarily the field of the adults, even normal mechwarriors need to understand it well then. It also helps raiders when discerning their actions. People who could get what they needed when they needed were strategic assets for their units.

[butchbird]

Two questions arise for me here.

1)

as is more academic subjects such as studying the military campaigns of Caesar, Patton and Kerensky.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, maybe the fact I don't use the english language much keeps me from understanding this right...

But I take it more as "academic subjects such as pre-spaceflight terra military campaings". Which makes me wonder what other "academic subjects" (interestingly, in my language, "academic" has a pejorative connotation, but I digress) might be sapping possible time away from purely military subjects. What is an "academic subject" liable to be taught in BTU military schools?

2) Don't think this was my other question when I wrote my first line but a question anyway.

Up to what point would pre-space flight terran litterature impose itslef in the curriculum. Sure, Sun Tzu's AoW can be the first book handed. Sure, clausewitz's "on war" should be amongst the next choices...

But past the point of the basics, those readings become...well..."historical" readings more then "military" ones. Still pertinent, but not what you want your officers reading at the point where they're figuring out how to best wage war in the 31st century.

I mean, take something "revolutionary" for its time (Yeah, I know, there's a controversy about it, on its real influence and all, but I read it and, in my limited neophyte grasp of these things, found it much ahead of its time) like Lidell Hart's writings on tank warfare in the inter-war period. At the time, any tank commander should have read. That's how you had to conduct combined arms operations. Nowdays, what would be the applicable relevance on the battlefield? Surely there's more advanced stuff on the subject.

And hence, surely much has been written on the subject once you reach the 31st century. So yeah, what proportion of pre-space-flight writings?

[BrianDavion]

I think this is more a real world writing issue, If I say "they studied Ceaser, Patton and Kerensky" everyone knows who that is, but if I say "They studied the campaigns of Kerensky, Charles Leighton, and Miles Kempec"

you'd have to dive pretty deep into battletech lore to know Leighton was a Lord of the Terran March prior to the davion civil war, and Kempec was a Lyran general of the armies. you'd have no idea what those campaigns where etc. it'd make more sense then some long dead terran general, but it'd be essentially meaningless to the reader.

That said this discussion is a prime subject for a Sharpnal article

[Alan Grant]

I think they are just making the point (to the reader) that an array of military leaders and campaigns from throughout human history is studied. Little more.

Brian's point is an excellent one. They went with a sampling of names the reader would recognize. Even if you aren't into military history at all, you've probably heard of those names.

As to how much time is to devoted to this subject, we actually know it varies. A great example is that the War College of Goshen, in FM: Fed Suns is noted for investing a lot more time and energy on the study of "military history and classic and contemporary military strategy."

It says the cadets spend more time dissecting great military strategists than they do on their specialty studies.

The point being Goshen is called out for for their specific curriculum. Which in turn calls out the fact that while all the academies rely on a common curriculum, one thing the Battletech universe actually does very well (that I give it credit for) is to add character and flavor to the different major military academies of each realm by making each a little different.

So if your inclination is to put "academic" in a pejorative connotation, then I guess Goshen isn't the school for you.  Perhaps you'd prefer the Warrior's Hall, which FM: FS says focuses on perfecting a cadet's military skills, "often to the exclusion of any but the most basic academics."

All of this circles to the point of saying, every academy is different, and that's actually pretty cool and interesting, especially from a character writing, roleplaying perspective, IMO.

But it also means there are limitations to a conversation like this, which has thus far been aimed at "all" academies.

[butchbird]

So if your inclination is to put "academic" in a pejorative connotation, then I guess Goshen isn't the school for you.  Perhaps you'd prefer the Warrior's Hall, which FM: FS says focuses on perfecting a cadet's military skills, "often to the exclusion of any but the most basic academics."

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an inclination, more of an appreciation on the word play it permits in certain cases.

This said, I'll reformulate that part of the question. Of course, I suppose I would have been better off asking it to the few individuals I've known to attend an "officer school" (too late for that I suppose), but I'd bet someone will have a general Idea here so... what other academic fields might be liable to take time away from purely military matters in the curriculum? I mean, I know that, for example, physics would surely be part of the curriculum for aspiring artillery officers, but that's with military applications in mind obviously.

So what could be, you know, "purely academic", as in, more about "developping the individual's general cognitive abilitys/knowledge" then his military skills? Is that even a thing in military schools? My view is of course tainted by my own experience with "higher education", but I'd assume they also have (oh yay, a memory blank) " complimentary credits not necessarly linked to one's field of study"?

Also, indeed this could be interesting in shrapnel...but then, one step further, I do think that section in "brush wars" on the ronin war with the classroom course is a fan favorite...this might even belong somewhere other then an mere article in shrapnel?

[Alan Grant]

It's honestly hard to gauge because military academies in Battletech work a bit differently than the military academies in the real world (or at least the U.S., where I live).

In the U.S. military academies the cadets are earning a bachelor's degree. Yes, the curriculum tilts in favor of military subjects and topics. Yes they lean into reading military-related works. If you do a google search of "what is required reading at West Point?" you'll find lists. But at its core, they are earning a bachelor's degree.

I just checked West Point's website and I see a pretty healthy range of majors. From chemistry to aeronautical engineering to economics, english, law and legal studies, grand strategy,, Mathematics, foreign languages, Foreign studies of a particular region, and so on. I'm noticing a tilt toward science and engineering majors, not as many Arts majors.

All graduates of a U.S. Military Academy receive the opportunity to become an officer in a branch of the U.S. Military. During their senior year at the academy they learn which branch they will serve in after graduation. After graduation and commissioning they start that training. So that can easily mean months or even years of additional training after earning that bachelor's degree and a commission.

By comparison, most of the Battletech military academies aren't even necessarily teaching officers. Officers are a separate officer training program entirely found within most BTU academies. Most of the academies also aren't offering an education degree but a few do and are called out for doing so. Again leaning to FM: FS for sources, NAIS offers outstanding cadets that opportunity, so does Kilbourne Academy (which hosts a civilian university on-site).

By the time Battletech academy cadets graduate, they've already completed a military specialty program, becoming a qualified mechwarrior, aerospace pilot, infantryman, tanker, engineer and so on. A slice of those cadets have also earned a commission as an officer. (a few academies do ONLY graduate officers, but that seems to be rare)

But that's the U.S. You start looking abroad and other countries do have other models. The real world Sandhurst is an officer program about 44 weeks long, and about 80 percent of the cadets already have degrees. So they spend about a year in an officer training program and then move on to military specialty training.

[Metallgewitter]

That goes for the House militaries. The SLDF cadets seemed to follow the US training course. Once a SLDF soldier had completed his training he wasn't only a soldier but also had a bachelor degree of some sort. Which according to the source books gave them a better skillset then most IS soldiers.

[Alan Grant]

That goes for the House militaries. The SLDF cadets seemed to follow the US training course. Once a SLDF soldier had completed his training he wasn't only a soldier but also had a bachelor degree of some sort. Which according to the source books gave them a better skillset then most IS soldiers.

At a glance at FM: SLDF, I feel like the big difference between the SLDF model and the Great House model is just that a LOT more SLDF personnel go through an academy. It reads like they all do (this part I'm not sure about, if 100% of SLDF recruits go through an academy or just some do). Whereas in the Great Houses, it's just a percentage slice of the pie that are accepted into an academy. The rest go through boot camp/basic training, then go to some kind of regional training center by whatever name. The SLDF operates more than 200 academies and it reads like almost all recruits spend time at one.

But you are correct in that basically every SLDF trooper is considered to have earned the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. Total time spent in training is somewhere between 4.5 and 8 years.

Within the Great Houses, such comprehensive training/education is reserved for the best of the best, or the well-connected. The SLDF broadens it to pretty much all.

[Metallgewitter]

This reminds me of the training situation in the Oriente Protectorate right after the Jihad. Thomas Halas orders the Princeton and Orloff schools to allow more common born cadets into their ranks but one of the commandants scoff at thei idea with the remark "the proles don't have the stomach for proper training" which apparently includes hazing of common born cadets by the blue bloods. Counter to that according the to FM Federated Suns at the NAIS and the Albion academy hazing is strictly forbidden as those schools are already competitive and with the closeness to the ruling goverment and high command has already put a lot of stress onto the cadets.

And I took a glance at the first book of liberation of Terra. There it states that all SLDF recruits go first through basic training in boot camps to give them the skills of a basic infantryman. Plus those that join under 18 are also given additional education. After that they are given the rank of E1 and then send to "trade training" at as you said over 200 academies that dot the Terran Hegemony (and those in the Commonwealth and Suns) And after that they are either send into the field (infantry and armor) or recieve more training for their respective branch (like accounting, medical, Zero-G etc). The most promising are also given the opportunity to enter officer training.

[Minemech]

This reminds me of the training situation in the Oriente Protectorate right after the Jihad. Thomas Halas orders the Princeton and Orloff school to allow more common born cadets into their ranks but one of the commandants scoff qat thei idea with the remark "the proles don't have the stomach for proper training" which apparently includes hazing of common born cadets by the blue bloods. Counter to that according the to FM Federated suns at the NAIS and the Albion academy hazing is strictly forbidden asa those school are already competitive and with the closeness to the ruling goverment and high command has already put a lot of stress onto the cadets.

Yeah, Princefield has a reputation. What I said about blood rights is highly connected to that, they want people who are read up and ready for a graduate education with graduate seminars, they do not want to provide undergraduate education.
 The Allison Mechwarrior Institution would be its foil. It is a top tier Inner Sphere mech academy where the students are personally selected by the Captain-General from all applicants. The AMI was historically a pathway into the most elite units of the League.
 Both are superb places to get enrolled in.

[paladin2019]

[clipped discussion of West Point/Sandhurst model of military academies]

This is a fundamental difference born of a fundamental difference in the expected place of officers in the larger society. The US originally expected the bulk of its army to be militia who only took up arms in time of need. to this end, very few officers matriculating from USMA were active in the regular army. The intent is that the rest would return to their communities to stand ready as trained individuals (and politically reliable ones, as consideration for enrollment required a congressional nomination) their militias would elect to office in their units. Thus, these inactive officers would need a professional trade to support themselves appropriately when they were not in active service and so USMA would be a university granting Bachelors of Science degrees; many doctors and lawyers and teachers at various levels.

Such a consideration wasn't important to a a professional army, like the British Army. It needed professional officers to lead a professional soldiery in a standing army, thus its officers didn't need another professional trade. Sandhurst requiring a graduate degree is a useful discriminator of candidates but is necessary for the institution's purpose.

Based on this, it is likely different military factions (to include different philosophies, perhaps regional or cultural, within a given state) throughout the IS will likely use one of these models or an amalgam of them. If driving a battlemech is akin to piloting an aircraft in complexity, it is likely entirely appropriate to call a school for training mechwarriors an academy, even if it is not strictly producing military officers. However, if we go all the way back to MW1e, Leadership is a skill included in academy training, thus we can infer that academy graduates are initially on a command track. However, Tactics is not such a skill, so the skill package is fungible enough to support different schools' and factions' intents about what their school focuses on; some schools will graduate skilled corporals and sergeants, some schools curricula will have more academic grounding meant to produce graduates with an appreciation of bigger pictures.

As another poster put it, fertile ground for Shrapnel articles.

[DOC_Agren]

Like that one book written by a Hussar pilot that became required reading much later in the Lyran Commonwealth.

There was a Lyran piloting a Hussar??  Did they loose a bet??

[Minemech]

 Princefield trains its officer students on how to be of noble pedigree including the arts of horsemanship and polo. This is strikingly practical in the Battletech universe. It is also a means into the nobility as well as to form connections with it.

[Minemech]

There was a Lyran piloting a Hussar??  Did they loose a bet??

Hey, at least it has a big gun. That is somewhat Steinery.

[Minemech]

 To reframe it, Princefield has a stereotypical Ivy League mentality, whilst AMI has a UC mentality.

[Decoy]

Required Reading as of 3152 for the Federated Sun's best Training Facility, the 1st Conroe Training Battalion, is A is for Awesome

[Metallgewitter]

There was a Lyran piloting a Hussar??  Did they loose a bet??

Checked the lore the book was called '"The strategy of support" but it was written by a retired SLDF Major and became required reading at the Nagelring in 3059

[idea weenie]

Good point. I would also suspect that officers who are destined to end in let's say scouting units are required to read books on light Mech operations. Like that one book written by a Hussar pilot that became required reading much later in the Lyran Commonwealth. Or even make cadets familiarize with the different military structures around the IS. We have the claswsic 4-3-3 system then we have the 5-3-3 (I think) and when we add the Comstar or even the Marian formations you get a wider variety just in terms of organization levels.

This one?
"Piloting a Hussar in combat, aka how to use the 'squirrel factor' to be an absolute aggravation to your opponent"

[The Eagle]

I'm catching up after the holiday, so forgive for digging back through the thread for this:

Basically every bio they write of Victor mentions that he's some kind of military prodigy. For instance, here's the first line of his bio in M&M:

It calls him out as a good leader but leadership =/= tactical or strategic genius.  General MacClellan of the ACW's Union army was a good leader as far as building a trained, disciplined force, but the dude couldn't command troops in battle to save his life.  Victor was a genuinely good person with decent charisma, a good MechWarrior, and a Nagelring graduate -- all of which made him a good leader.  His men were loyal to him, he could fight, and he could maneuver troops.  He was capable of some out-of-the-box thinking like the Teniente raid to free Hohiro Kurita.  For every Twycross or Teniente, though, there's a Newtown Square where he gets his clock cleaned.

What is an "academic subject" liable to be taught in BTU military schools?

I took this line to delineate between theoretical classroom instruction and practical hands-on instruction.  You can sit and read all about Patton's breakout in France 1944 but how to accomplish that kind of speed-run in practice isn't something you can really learn from in a book.  You have to jump in your 'Mech and actually go try to flank someone in the field.

I'd also point out that discounting non-contemporary military tactics is a mistake.  There are many examples in our time of ancient battles being illustrative of modern tactics.  The big one I would cite is the double-envelopment, whose most outstanding classical exponent was Hannibal against the Romans at Cannae: you fix the enemy in place with an infantry assault, then send mobile elements around both flanks.  Now that the enemy is completely surrounded, you collapse the net and kill everyone.  Double envelopments of this sort were the early specialty of a particular European army in the 1930s and 40s until their opponents got just as good (if not better) than them at it.

[Metallgewitter]

I would bet that especially the 2nd Roman-Punic war is a topic that is basically required reading / study object as it contains for one the lesson of loosing a war by winning too much and also "Strike the enemy where he is the most vulnerable". In this case bring the war to his own doorstep while he is in the middle of invading you. Said example was mentioned in the novels right before Operation Bulldog and also during Operation Audacity in the FedCom Civil war period

[Lone-Wolf]

But past the point of the basics, those readings become...well..."historical" readings more then "military" ones. Still pertinent, but not what you want your officers reading at the point where they're figuring out how to best wage war in the 31st century.

I mean, take something "revolutionary" for its time (Yeah, I know, there's a controversy about it, on its real influence and all, but I read it and, in my limited neophyte grasp of these things, found it much ahead of its time) like Lidell Hart's writings on tank warfare in the inter-war period. At the time, any tank commander should have read. That's how you had to conduct combined arms operations. Nowdays, what would be the applicable relevance on the battlefield? Surely there's more advanced stuff on the subject.

And hence, surely much has been written on the subject once you reach the 31st century. So yeah, what proportion of pre-space-flight writings?

I agree with you that books written in the 20th century may be"obsolete" by the year 3025, because certain technologies, e.g. Mechs, did not exist back then.

But I offer two points against it:

1) Mechs are scarce. So you maybe have no Mechs in your force that you use to defend a planet, so the old knowledge about how to deploy a tank and infantry-only force may be helpful.

2) The old books will be helpful because certain technologies were lost.
We dont have an F-14 with AWG-9 radar and 6 Phoenix missiles. Or Sidewinder or Sparrow missiles.

We only have "dumb" SRM, MRM or LRM that have a one-kill propability only in the smallest aerospacefighter. Contrary to that a Sidewinder / Sparrow / Phoenix has a high one-shot-kill propability. And dont forget the range advantage they have or how doggedly they pursue their target.
(If I may be so bold: In the RENEGADE LEGION there the missiles were given a more realistic approach - more time-consuming, but more realistic.)

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

We dont have an F-14 with AWG-9 radar and 6 Phoenix missiles. Or Sidewinder or Sparrow missiles.

We only have "dumb" SRM, MRM or LRM that have a one-kill propability only in the smallest aerospacefighter. Contrary to that a Sidewinder / Sparrow / Phoenix has a high one-shot-kill propability. And dont forget the range advantage they have or how doggedly they pursue their target.

The most important thing about Phoenix missiles is that, unlike SRMs, they can't do anything to even the smallest ASF.

[Lone-Wolf]

The most important thing about Phoenix missiles is that, unlike SRMs, they can't do anything to even the smallest ASF.

You may be right, because - as far as I know - it was never mentioned how armor of 1985 is different to armor of 3025.
If we go by the known rules, a rifle cannon of the heaviest type still makes damage, but what we dont know is: Do they use the same explosives or are they upgraded?

To describe it: 1985 explosive C-4 wouldnt damage Mech-type armor (because diamond and crystallization based), while the same amount of 3025 (call it) C-25 explosive is the same as ten 210mm  High Explosive artillery shells landing at the same time at the exact same spot.

So, I would say, that if you upgrade the Phoenix missile with 3025 explosives and materials then it would have a high one-shot kill propability.

[butchbird]

I agree with you that books written in the 20th century may be"obsolete" by the year 3025, because certain technologies, e.g. Mechs, did not exist back then.

But I offer two points against it:

1) Mechs are scarce. So you maybe have no Mechs in your force that you use to defend a planet, so the old knowledge about how to deploy a tank and infantry-only force may be helpful.

2) The old books will be helpful because certain technologies were lost.
We dont have an F-14 with AWG-9 radar and 6 Phoenix missiles. Or Sidewinder or Sparrow missiles.

The old knowledge (20th century to 31st) will be helpfull, but as helpfull as a book detailing the spanish tercio's use of "pike and shot" era means and tactics would be in a modern conflict. Opens your horizons, can offer basic guidelines, even inspiration...but you can't be "by-the-book" with it. It details a reality that is not your own. Hence, military tactics taught at an academy will tend to favor contemporary means.

A perfect example is the use of the gatling machine-gun during the spanish/american war. I don't remember the exact battle, but basically a lieutenant fresh out of military academy was assigned to the gatling gun section (a relatively new and relatively unknown weapon). What did he rely on? Modern outlook on its use. Played by the book and the gatling ravaged the opposition. Had he used it as ancient roman ballistas, things might have been very different and his career much less successfull.

Of course, back in those days, "industrial warfare" was in its infancy, the number of new processes to wage war to be studied were still limited, the possibilitys far less endless then today...or the 31st century.

In the end, there's only 24 hours in a day and so many years to your youth. If your going to study 5000 years of human conflict, many parts of that will have to be synthesis. Now what will you focus on?

Inevitably, works dealing with 'mech battles, combined arms with 'mechs, dealing with the realities of warfare in the late sucession wars and new technologies and tactics brought by the helm core and clan invasion will eat up a lot of time in the cursus.

Again, as has been clearly established, said cursus will vary immensly, but I cannot imagine a school offering more focus on neo-assyrian then federated suns tactics being seen as THE preferable place to fill in your meager mechwarrior ranks.

"And now I'll show you how to defend yourself from a man who attacks you with fresh fruit!"

[Minemech]

 Expect good, even great works from figures we outside know little or nothing about. Even in the 3rd. Katrina is a believable exception since she was pushing a strong curriculum of reform into the LCAF. Most of the works published from figures we know about likely had a fad, then faded from memory. Then there is the occasional Johann Georg Hamann type whose work is exceptionally brilliant, but for reasons that confound people has his work simply vanish from the mainstream.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

You may be right, because - as far as I know - it was never mentioned how armor of 1985 is different to armor of 3025.
If we go by the known rules, a rifle cannon of the heaviest type still makes damage, but what we dont know is: Do they use the same explosives or are they upgraded?

To describe it: 1985 explosive C-4 wouldnt damage Mech-type armor (because diamond and crystallization based), while the same amount of 3025 (call it) C-25 explosive is the same as ten 210mm  High Explosive artillery shells landing at the same time at the exact same spot.

So, I would say, that if you upgrade the Phoenix missile with 3025 explosives and materials then it would have a high one-shot kill propability.

Primitive BattleMechs walked through a regiment's worth of artillery fire to step on the Captain-General so it goes a bit beyond just better explosives.

The thing is that 20th century weapons aren't supposed to work because people wouldn't shut up about joules of energy and how the game should ACKSHUALLY be played with ranges that limit the game to being played at the bottom of an olympic swimming pool.

[Metallgewitter]

Now that you are talking about new weapons and how to use it the BT universe apparently has at least some literature on the first world war with the theme "How not to fight a war with modern weapons" or something like that. There also exists a book only about Terra and it's many wars called Terra: a planet of war or something similar.

[Alan Grant]

Real life armor has to contend with a lot of weapons designed to defeat it. Not be taking it off an inch or plate at a time, but by punching through it and then doing something awful to whatever that armor is protecting.

Except for a few exceptions like tandem charge warhead SRMs, most weapons in Battletech chisel away at the armor an inch or plate at the time and you aren't through the armor until you've taken off every point of it on a specific side/facing/section of the target.

I know I've oversimplified things a bit, and left out some other exceptions, but the point stands. For tabletop purposes and also how the universe works, that's how it happens. It's a gamification of what is actually a very complex set of variables that go into armor versus weapons.

So, you can only go so far with comparisons to real world weapon systems. The Battletech iterations are simpler, work simpler, and in a much more linear fashion. It has to be a game system that you don't need to be an engineer to understand.

If real world medieval armor had worked according to Battletech gamification and physics, you would not succeed in killing that Knight until you had chiseled their armor off one point at a time, finally exposing the human flesh underneath. Probably take you a few arrows or javelins or swords or pikes hitting the same area of the knight's armor over and over again. Then once the armor was depleted of all points, you could finally hit the Knight in the flesh.

But that's not how it worked in real life. In real life you either succeeded at it in one punch (i.e. a very strong weapon with a lot of force behind it to punch through the armor in one strike) or you probably aren't going to succeed at all and should be aiming at a weak point instead of the thick plate.

[paladin2019]

Renegade Legion has a much better playable approximation of armor.

[Agathos]

I would require my students to read anything I can get my hands on written by one Aleksandr Kerensky. The House Lords may have been happy to see the back of him, fearing him as a potential competitor. But his war against Amaris was a master class and if I'm serious about winning the Succession Wars, I need my students to understand how he won their prototype.

Sarna tells me he edited A Primer to Tactics and Strategy: 34th Edition, and wrote Applied Concepts of Attack and Defense. But it's light on details except to say that Nicky cited them as a model for Clan culture. It's safe to say that's not the lesson any Inner Sphere scholars would have gleaned from them. I wonder what other of his writings might have survived in the Inner Sphere.

Of course if some Clanner happens across two hundred years' worth of undergraduate theses on What Kerensky Was Really Thinking, that could set up quite the cultural clash.

[BrianDavion]

I can see how Nikky K may have drawn from his father's writings for some elements of clan structure, partiuclarly the concept of a point. A point is the smallest unit of a force that should be deployed on it's on on a modern battlefield, and I bet Aleksander Keresnky spelled that out.
So why is a point 1 mech, 2 aerospace fighters, 2 tanks? Because Alek Kerensky said that "a mech can be effective deployed as a singular unit, an aerospace fighter and a tank are best deployed with a 'wingman" etc

[Metallgewitter]

Not to mention in rewriting the Ares Convention into the ritual combat code called Zellbriggen

[Alan Grant]

Kerensky conceptualized each original Clan of 40 warriors as being a modified BattleMech battalion with aero support. So all together the Clans would constitute a force of 20 battalions by a different name.

That's not surprising. Battalions are like the smallest headquartered unit where the headquarters isn't right on the front-line. It's a bit of both SLDF and House doctrine that they borrowed from and renamed.

You see something similar in the Com Guards, they call a Level III a Battalion sometimes. They were the major sub-component of a Com Guards Division that had a named commander and headquarters.

It's just a guess, but to me, it always felt like what mattered to Kerensky was that each Clan was 40 warriors, most of them mechwarriors (around 70 percent according to Op. Klondike), so that meant roughly a battalion of mechwarriors and some pilots. (as we all know, from there it diverged a bit from Clan to Clan)

From there the concept of Points emerged, but at first for Klondike it was 1 of anything, one 'mech, one fighter, one vehicle, one infantry squad. Then later developed further.

So personally I think Nicky was looking for a battalion by a different name for each of his Clans, and then worked on what that meant internally for each one (giving thought to concepts like points, binaries to define each Clan's warriors internally). The idea that the Clans were 20 battalions is actually presented that way in Operation Klondike in the sections talking about the first organization of the Clans and the force they represented going back to the Pentagon. The planners were SLDF veterans, so thinking about the planning and doctrine on the basis of Battalions made sense to them. It meant they could still use some of the SLDF battalion doctrine (combat doctrine, logistical doctrine etc.). It also meant they could use their existing SLDF dropships (i.e. Unions, Overlords) with only some modifications required, or actually in many cases no modifications required at all, if anything a Union carrying a Binary, or an Overlord carrying an entire Clan's 30-35 'mechs required no modifications and had room to carry spares and more supplies.

Also, Nicky didn't develop Zell. Actually, the Coyotes played around with a version of it first, and then the Clans also encountered some militant Pentagon Powers entities that preferred single combat, and it evolved from there. But that wasn't some insta-law laid down by Kerensky. It evolved and developed over time with influences coming from various places. Check Sarna, it has a whole page on Zell and how it came to be. But the book Operation Klondike also discusses the origins of Zell in various places.

[Metallgewitter]

Fair enough but during Klondike those were more "proto Zell" situations. One of them were the Vipers and Spirits versus the Shogunate and the other I think the Mongoose and Nova Cats versus the Brotherhood of Fianna. And only the Coyotes took man vs man seriously all other Clans were more in the "Total war doctrine" phase of the SLDF (which makes sense as most still had former SLDF commanders at the helm). Maybe I have to reread that part of who designed it but I got the impression it was hbecause of Andery's death in an ambush on Eden that led to the developmentz of Zellbriggen.

Given Nicolas restructuring I see it as a way of dismantling the old (SLDF military structure) and replace it with something "new" (the Clan structure) while still trying to lean on established orders. The first name of his society was also something called "Fusion" as it was a fusion of different ideals into a new society before coming up with the more "poetic" name "Clans"

[paladin2019]

So why is a point 1 mech, 2 aerospace fighters, 2 tanks? Because Alek Kerensky said that "a mech can be effective deployed as a singular unit, an aerospace fighter and a tank are best deployed with a 'wingman" etc

With the knock-on effect that a Star is an IS Company unless it's 'mechs or elementals, which means that non-'mech Star Commanders should really get more respect for the greater intellectual requirements they have to regularly meet. But the "best" get to be mechwarriors 🤔

[Alan Grant]

Fair enough but during Klondike those were more "proto Zell" situations. One of them were the Vipers and Spirits versus the Shogunate and the other I think the Mongoose and Nova Cats versus the Brotherhood of Fianna. And only the Coyotes took man vs man seriously all other Clans were more in the "Total war doctrine" phase of the SLDF (which makes sense as most still had former SLDF commanders at the helm). Maybe I have to reread that part of who designed it but I got the impression it was hbecause of Andery's death in an ambush on Eden that led to the developmentz of Zellbriggen.

Given Nicolas restructuring I see it as a way of dismantling the old (SLDF military structure) and replace it with something "new" (the Clan structure) while still trying to lean on established orders. The first name of his society was also something called "Fusion" as it was a fusion of different ideals into a new society before coming up with the more "poetic" name "Clans"

I went back and looked and you are right, later in the book it talks about Nicky establishing Zell with Andery's death having a big role in that, as well as the nature of the fighting on Eden. But in different parts of the book it basically says that other influences (like enemies that behaved honorably) also had an impact. Going into Klondike from the start it describes Zell as not really existing as anything more than a "gut feeling" (the book's words) among the Clan warriors.

So you are right, Nicky did ultimately lay it down. But that was after a lot of the basis for Zell engagements already happened. Kufahl and the Coyotes gets a lot of credit in that book in her bio and the Clan Coyote summary.

So I guess the point is, yes Nicky created Zellbrigen. But its origin story is actually a complicated one and some Clan warriors (and their opponents) were already practicing versions of it prior to that. 

Therefore, I'd be reluctant to trace it back to a single work, like the Ares Conventions. Much like the rest of the Fusion that was his society, he was picking and choosing the pieces of things he already liked. He also probably had to take into account what the Coyotes and others were already doing. He was in some places just formalizing what already existed in practice.

[Metallgewitter]

I got the feeling the Coyotes took Nicolas concept of "honorable" combat to the extreme and even deriding other Clans who didn't behave like that (like the Foxes bombing their opponents to kingdom come). While I agree that Nicolas used the pretext set by some Clans (and in particular I would say only the Coyotes as the Vipers just took what was offered and never offered it itself) the majority of the Clans didn't see it that way. More likely that the battle for Eden and especially the city fighting (and let's notr forget what a few years of total war had done to the Pentagon worlds in total) and his brother's death made him realize they needed rules to limit damages and he probably used the Ares Convention as base for what he introduced.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

I need my students to understand how he won their prototype.

"Massively outnumber your enemy and just hammer him into dust" is probably not the most useful advice you can give someone. The thing I'd want my students to learn from him is the difference between trying to be politically neutral and reacting to anything that looks like politics by sticking your head in the sand

[Fire Scorpion IIC]

"Massively outnumber your enemy and just hammer him into dust" is probably not the most useful advice you can give someone. The thing I'd want my students to learn from him is the difference between trying to be politically neutral and reacting to anything that looks like politics by sticking your head in the sand

In an environment where 90% of the time a shoddy stalemate and not losing territory is considered a victory I say they should definitely take pointers from a guy who not only won a war but won the largest war the mankind has ever seen until then

[Metallgewitter]

I am not sure a Phyrric victory is a real victory considering what happened afterwards

[Fire Scorpion IIC]

I am not sure a Phyrric victory is a real victory considering what happened afterwards

Politicians?

That's civilian matter not military one, same civilians who made victory look like a Phyrric one

And his military left in one piece so again, not Phyrric victory

That victory came later for pretenders to the Star League throne, several times

They weren't satisfied with regular victory he won so Phyrric one was the next item on the menu

[Metallgewitter]

Sorry but Kerensky led the downfall of the Hegemony. It was his decision to held courts for any politican / bureacrat who held office during the Amaris reign. This led to elections that voted out the experienced leaders and replaced them with halfwits and crooks. Which in turn led to the slowdown of reconstruction and misappropriation of resources. And his military was for all intents and purposes weakened. Yes the SLDF was still the biggest army but the supplies were down, the morale was at an all time low and the Hegmonies defenses were basically gone. He won the war but left his won charges defensless. If he had at least read how the Allies rebuild Germany or how McKenna rebuild the Terran Alliance he should have known what to do

[Alan Grant]

Sorry but Kerensky led the downfall of the Hegemony. It was his decision to held courts for any politican / bureacrat who held office during the Amaris reign. This led to elections that voted out the experienced leaders and replaced them with halfwits and crooks. Which in turn led to the slowdown of reconstruction and misappropriation of resources. And his military was for all intents and purposes weakened. Yes the SLDF was still the biggest army but the supplies were down, the morale was at an all time low and the Hegmonies defenses were basically gone. He won the war but left his won charges defensless. If he had at least read how the Allies rebuild Germany or how McKenna rebuild the Terran Alliance he should have known what to do

Do we really want to open the "did the Kerensky do the right thing?" can of worms. I don't, and I think it drifts off-topic.

I think that issue speaks more to his decision making and evaluation of the overall political and strategic situation at the time. Not his education or expertise. BTW the SLDF had plenty of expertise in engineering (and were unrivaled in mega-engineering) and rebuilding after wars. Any actual rebuilding efforts would have been developed by those engineers and logistical experts a few rungs down the ladder from Kerensky. There were entire massive departments of the SLDF devoted to having real expertise in these areas. If ordered to carry it out, they carried it out. It's important to remember the scale of the SLDF and how little Kerensky would have actually overseen himself. If Kerensky gave the order to "rebuild all Hegemony worlds." That order would have gone to the Communication Command, the Member-State Liason Command, the Transport Command, the Quartermaster Command, the Medical Command, the Administrative Command and probably a few other commands, and individual Army Commands, to about 20-50 Generals and senior civilian officials, to actually implement and carry out that order, overseeing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in total. Kerensky's role was political, strategic and administrative at the highest level only. Doing anything more than that would have been seen as micro-management on his part.

In particular, Kerensky's role had taken on a strikingly political one. The Great Houses were dealing with him directly like a head of state and in turn he had to adopt a highly political function as a fixture of his responsibilities.

That aside, personally, I don't think this is relevant to the topic. It speaks to leaders making decisions and whether or not we thought they were good/best decisions. Not what they read or studied at an academy. Which is still the original premise of this discussion.

[The Eagle]

Sorry but Kerensky led the downfall of the Hegemony. It was his decision to held courts for any politican / bureacrat who held office during the Amaris reign. This led to elections that voted out the experienced leaders and replaced them with halfwits and crooks. Which in turn led to the slowdown of reconstruction and misappropriation of resources. And his military was for all intents and purposes weakened. Yes the SLDF was still the biggest army but the supplies were down, the morale was at an all time low and the Hegmonies defenses were basically gone. He won the war but left his won charges defensless. If he had at least read how the Allies rebuild Germany or how McKenna rebuild the Terran Alliance he should have known what to do

Sure, but this thread isn't about Kerensky and his political abilities.  It's about what military writings are taught in military academies.  For all his faults, Kerensky orchestrated the single largest and longest continuous military campaign in human history, and was successful in destroying his enemy.  By that metric alone anything he wrote on military operations is probably good for future leaders to absorb.

[Minemech]

Sure, but this thread isn't about Kerensky and his political abilities.  It's about what military writings are taught in military academies.  For all his faults, Kerensky orchestrated the single largest and longest continuous military campaign in human history, and was successful in destroying his enemy.  By that metric alone anything he wrote on military operations is probably good for future leaders to absorb.

A classical problem with some Kerensky-like figures is that their writings may not be useful because they take too many factors as axiomatic. They require dense footnotes to be placed by editors with many works being based on deciphering individual concepts. We do know that aspects of his writings would be pivotal to modern warfare, such as his commentary on infantry. Only two Successor States placed a high value on infantry in the Succession Wars, the Suns who tried to imitate a Star League force, and the Free Worlds League who used their own oversized formations, following a traditional style where the artillery is directly attached to the infantry at battalion level.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Politicians?

That's civilian matter not military one, same civilians who made victory look like a Phyrric one

And his military left in one piece so again, not Phyrric victory

That victory came later for pretenders to the Star League throne, several times

They weren't satisfied with regular victory he won so Phyrric one was the next item on the menu

It was Pyrrhic because he lost 70% of his strength and could not have fended off the next attack had he tried.

[Fire Scorpion IIC]

It was Pyrrhic because he lost 70% of his strength and could not have fended off the next attack had he tried.

Like when exodus fleet assembled over New Samarkand and entire Draconis Combine immediately soiled their collective pantaloons?

It's safe to say that there was still nothing in settled universe which came close to Kerensky's SLDF after Amaris War (which nobody except him was capable of winning)

Long story short, if you want to learn how to win the war you read Kerensky. If you want to learn how to not win the war you read all those would be attackers on Kerensky (and several centuries of their successors)

[BrianDavion]

Like when exodus fleet assembled over New Samarkand and entire Draconis Combine immediately soiled their collective pantaloons?

It's safe to say that there was still nothing in settled universe which came close to Kerensky's SLDF after Amaris War (which nobody except him was capable of winning)

you're assuming though that they where soiling themselves because Kerensky's SLDF coulda won a war, thing is even if the DCMS had more raw power at the time, the entire SLDF was concentrated in ONE place and thus had regional superiority, also defeating the ENTIRE SLDF in ONE PLACE would have almost certainly been a hugely phyrric victory that would have left the combine in a bad place for the coming sucession war,

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Like when exodus fleet assembled over New Samarkand and entire Draconis Combine immediately soiled their collective pantaloons?

It's safe to say that there was still nothing in settled universe which came close to Kerensky's SLDF after Amaris War (which nobody except him was capable of winning)

Long story short, if you want to learn how to win the war you read Kerensky. If you want to learn how to not win the war you read all those would be attackers on Kerensky (and several centuries of their successors)

And by massing in one place they gave up their entire core territory. That SLDF navy would have been smashed to pieces by fighting any two House navies, let alone all of them at once.

Trying to learn to fight a war from Kerensky is like trying to learn to be a basketball player from Shaq. He was born on home plate, you're never going to have an army big enough to fight every other power in the Inner Sphere at once and win.

[Metallgewitter]

To go back on topic: if you think about it most books on military strategy,  tactics and what have you are in essence the same. Sun Tzu's book was the first but most follow up works are basically the same just more set for the appropriate time. As they say in Fallout: War..War never changes.

[butchbird]

Erh...

Now take this with a grain of salt, I'm no expert, just some guy with an interest in these things (and I own few of these books, most of what I read was in school librarys or public librarys already quite the while ago), but...

I'd say there's three categories of military "philosophy".

First, you have the "accounts of campaigns", like the "anabasis" or "commentaries on the gallic war". These texts aim first and foremost at chronicling events. They are first and foremost history books altough they will contain a certain amount of "military theory". I never get tired of pointing out how the 2 or 3 pages in the anabasis detailing the different styles of leadership are pure jewel.

Second, the true "military strategy" books like the "strategikon" (the byzantine empire, only good at discussing the sex of angels? hogwash! Even if part of the book is taken straight out of the Aelian's 2nd century works), Lidell Hart's works on tank warfare that I can't remember the name or even fringier texts like "guerilla operations". These works detail how to conduct warfare with the means of the time. These texts aim first and foremost at discussing technical details about the means and tools of the time.

Third, the "military philosophy" books. These would contain Sun Tzu's art of war, or others such as Clausewitz "on war" (if I remmember correctly my reading, aside from a few passages on the proper disposition of troops on the line of battle in the napoleonic days, most of the text deals with very broad stuff, some of it dealing more with governemental policy then military affairs per say). While the aim of these texts is to equip officers so as to develop a better understanding of their role and place in the world of man and to bestow broad guidelines and tips as to how to wield such tools as fire and espionage, their use, if you consider them side by side with more focused texts of the "second category", is more to broaden the horizons of the reader. Again, the vast number of human enterprises, from warfare to buisness management to even sports, that have found applications for the contents of "the art of war" is a testimony to the broadness and acuteness of the book.

While "the art of war" can be considered "a first", to say that every other text has built up from it is not correct. A prime example is Aelian, whom wrote quite the hefty text on ancient greek strategy but whom would surely never have been in contact with "the art of war".

War never changes...Humans never change, hence their endeavors of passion, such as war, always stem from the same glands and hormones, ambitions and needs... But war does change.

You have the huge shocks, the "revolutions", such as ameridian warfare (here I merely talk of those tribes I am familiar with of course, it's a vast world containing many demographically meak peoples of highly varying cultures) changing from ritualistic warfare with a "line of battle" and warriors arrayed with heavy wooden armors to guerilla like tactics in less then a decade following the contact with buckshot loaded firearms.

You have the smaller tweaks, such as deepening the right wing of your phalanx, which nonetheless completely upset the balance of power in ancient greece right before the macedonian domination.

But that's it: war is in constant mutation...and we need books to keep track of it. Books that, through the ages, have delt with very different subjects.

[Metallgewitter]

Von Clausewitz's book is more in line with "politics and military are intertwined and therefore politics has to support the military to have the military achieve it's goal". In essense the old wisdom : "in the end everything is politics" Though to be fair the book is more centered on the then German empire's side with the caveheat that any war that is fought has to be short and decisive lest you burden your realm.

Though I would agree that the literature is most liekly divided into categories. One for the morte theoretical aspect and one for the practical implementation of said tool. Just like for example vonm Manstein wrote his book "Achtung Panzer" as a meaning to implement Germany's usage of the then ubiquotus tanks that had become mainstay of any army but hjad still very different interpretations like the French with their "tanks must support infantry" doctrine

[butchbird]

Hm yes, "governemental policies rather then military affairs" was a bad term for Clausewitz, I should've said "doctrines and policies more governemental in nature and not DIRECTLY affecting the battlefield".

But furthermore, because I have an angle and it is not daily I can have this sort of conversation, to say that military theory is always just more of the same, if one discounts the "well, that's the field it is in" aspect, is discounting also the changing nature of human societys and interactions to which war must adapt. It is not only the means that have changed, but the very war aims are completely irrecognizible in most wars of our days from when city-states were the norm.

So, right from the start, military philosophy has to contend with 5 "great familys" of war (here, I actually own the book) each with very different origins, outlook and aims.

While "ritualized warfare" (mostly "tribal warfare)" has probably spawned very little in the way of "theory", from there, this field blossomed.

Sun Tzu cam arguably be a product of "wars of limited aim", of which dynastic struggles are an example.
Julius Cesar is a leading figure of the litterature spawning from "classic conquest warfare".
Clausewitz is the first to come to mind to represent "Mass warfare", born with the french revolution and culminating in WW1.
And then you have "no quarter warfare", in which one classes civil wars, religious wars, genocidal wars (and hence some parts of ww2)... harder to find a representative here as this covers alot of disparate ground.

And quite possibly, the technocratisation of society and increasing importance of technology in our daily lives will spawn a new age of warfare in the coming decades.

So, basically, while its all part of the same field, there can be very little overlapping from one author to another.

[Metallgewitter]

In a way yes. then again to go in a perhaps practical example.

Sun Tzu states that one of the worst outcomes is besieging an enemy who is tucked behind strong walls
Now if we go into WW2 that is what the French hoped with their Maginot line while the Germans decided to pass said fortress to ravage the hinterlands by attacking through the Ardennes. In a way this is Sun Tzu's philosophy right there: avoiding fighting a fortress and defeating the enemy without facing them (well not facing the entrenched units). Of course if we take that age's technology a siege is usually not as bad anymore as you can devastate a fortress with bombs. Lots of bombs. But of course a city fight is even today like fighting in a fortress and should usually be avoided unless you are prepared to throw men into a meatgrinder

[butchbird]

Sorry to hound on this, but I'll counter.

Back in Sun Tzu's days, it was indeed an evidence that attacking a forteress was a bad idea. But then, the role of forteresses changed much once we got into "mass warfare". Suddenly, a forteress was not meant so much as to hold a region, but rather offer a point to counter-attack from, or a supply base for said counter-attack. It can then be said that the conception of polyorcetics that Sun Tzu had was completely out of touch.

And then you had WW2. A forteress could basically become an advantage for the ennemy. The maginot line was but "making the most of meager ressources" as france had manpower and budgetary constraints...and of course, part of why the line stopped at the ardennes was international constraints. Belgium would've been quite mad at seeing the line extended to their border.

And then, there's belgium herself. A large part of the defense plan was fort eben-mael, supposedly the best of the best in terms of fortification. It only took a few paratroopers and some explosive charges to neuter belgium's war capacity. In the highly mobile days of warfare in the mid-20th century, a forteress could reveal itself a liability to the grand scheme of things.

*add-on*

Thinking about it I thought I'd forgotten something...re-read my post and was quite disapointed with myself, so 2 things.

On the maginot line, it's probably not very clear, but I meant that building the fortification was a loss of budget/manpower, compounding those already present weaknesses. Furthermore, many parts of the maginot line were not even fully equipped when the germans invaded. Surely all that time and money spent on fortifying would've been best used elsewhere.

On city fighting...well, yes, it can be compared to siege warfare, but I'd argue its a whole different animal...and an occupation developped relatively recently, pretty much as fortifications became more or less obsolete in many cases.

[Cannonshop]

Sorry to hound on this, but I'll counter.

Back in Sun Tzu's days, it was indeed an evidence that attacking a forteress was a bad idea. But then, the role of forteresses changed much once we got into "mass warfare". Suddenly, a forteress was not meant so much as to hold a region, but rather offer a point to counter-attack from, or a supply base for said counter-attack. It can then be said that the conception of polyorcetics that Sun Tzu had was completely out of touch.

And then you had WW2. A forteress could basically become an advantage for the ennemy. The maginot line was but "making the most of meager ressources" as france had manpower and budgetary constraints...and of course, part of why the line stopped at the ardennes was international constraints. Belgium would've been quite mad at seeing the line extended to their border.

And then, there's belgium herself. A large part of the defense plan was fort eben-mael, supposedly the best of the best in terms of fortification. It only took a few paratroopers and some explosive charges to neuter belgium's war capacity. In the highly mobile days of warfare in the mid-20th century, a forteress could reveal itself a liability to the grand scheme of things.

*add-on*

Thinking about it I thought I'd forgotten something...re-read my post and was quite disapointed with myself, so 2 things.

On the maginot line, it's probably not very clear, but I meant that building the fortification was a loss of budget/manpower, compounding those already present weaknesses. Furthermore, many parts of the maginot line were not even fully equipped when the germans invaded. Surely all that time and money spent on fortifying would've been best used elsewhere.

On city fighting...well, yes, it can be compared to siege warfare, but I'd argue its a whole different animal...and an occupation developped relatively recently, pretty much as fortifications became more or less obsolete in many cases.

On Fortresses: it's not actually new.  The Seiges took longer, but the basic doctrine stands up-if your fortress (or walled city) doesn't have relief coming, it's a waiting game, and you're probably going to lose.  Thus, how the Mongols overcame walled cities from one end of asia, to the other, despite not having seige equipment or a doctrine of siege and fortification.

Even in the era of swords and sandals, food, clothing and supplies were what determined who won, from who lost more often than not.  Hence why the Romans made Greece their bitches-they invented the supply column, built roads to run their supplies up, fortified encampments that had a second means to sending messages (so they'd be relieved if seiged) and so on to keep their army from starving even when the forage was poor.

(Invented might be the wrong word, but for the era and their location, they certainly perfected it.)

I would expect 31st century soldiers and warriors to have their OWN history, historical military thinkers, and philosophers.  Why? because there's not really that much difference between modern military thinking, and ancient, but periodically there ARE changes, and the ones that work get to write books and histories (or be written about) detailing their exploits to inspire future generations.

Kinda like music.

There are doubtless hundreds of officers who've only read teh Cliff Notes on Ceasar, but they've read Von Clauswicz religiously, and studied the work of Zhukov, Patton, MacArthur, Bradley, Monty (Montgomery), etc. in the real world.

In a fully fleshed 31st century Sun Zhang or NAIS (or other academy) they've no doubt got people teaching 24th through 28th century military thinkers, in addition to, or even in replacement of, the ones we're familiar with in the 21st century.

WHY??  Because Soldiering, in particular, Officer level soldiering, benefits from knowing what didn't work last time, so you know not to do that stupid thing again.  The chief benefit to the study of history, is just that, "Look at what didn't work, understand it didn't work, now don't go trying to do that, because it doesn't work."

[butchbird]

On forteresses.

The thing here is that the purpose changed. While in antiquity and the middle ages a forteress was intended to provide defense from which to HOLD an area, a shift happened more or less gradually. From a stong point which was meant to "outlast" the ennemy, most forteresses became supply centers. They weren't made to hold for years but rather to be too troublesome to attack for what was to be gained from such an attack.

While yes, the idea was always to hold against the siege while hoping for reinforcements, there's a major shift from the reinforcements aiming to relieve the fortification itself, which was generally the most important objective in the region, to the reinforcements actually making a wider counter-attack which will merely be helped by the presence of a reliable and well defended supply center.

From the bronze age to the renaissance, invading a region pretty much invariably culminated in besieging the local forteress/walled city. Afterwards, if you could ignore the forteress, you did so, as it generally did not defend the most important objectives per say.

Now of course, fortifications in the form of "city walls" or  would still be constructed well into the 18th century, but already in the 16th century, more and more forteresses were built whithout the intent of housing important forces, or the nearby inhabitants.

*add-on*

Tried to write some more on use of fortifications but doing it through chores didn't turn out so well.

Still, I'd like to point out how sieges of important fortifications were major actions before the renaissance, often forming the bulk of campaings. But following after the renaissance, I can think of few instances were that was the case. More often, the campaings were decided by open battle. Gone were the days of Alésia or the siege of constantinople.

Also, concerning "citys figthing taking the place of good ol sieges", thinking about it, else then the battle of tenochtitlan in the "conquistador era", I can't think of many such actions before the 20th century. Not saying it didn't happen, but took a while before city fighting became "a thing" after the displacement of major siege action as an inevitable fact of war.

[Nerroth]

Perhaps there might be a difference between "undergraduate" and "postgraduate" studies, at least at some of the more expansive military academies in this setting.

-----

For comparison's sake, the Prime Directive Federation sourcebook outlines, among other things, what Star Fleet Academy looks like over in the Star Fleet Universe.

In that setting, the four-year University course is aimed at preparing its graduates for life aboard ship (either as a "naval" officer or as a Star Fleet Marine) at a lower officer level. There is a separate Medical School, for those who wish to practice medicine aboard a starship.

From there, things can branch in a few different, and in some cases overlapping, directions.

It"s possible to move directly into master's and/or doctorate studies before entering active service; most officers pursuing postgraduate studies instead chip away at this over time via distance learning.

Also, there are various "schools" which mark one's ascent through the ranks. The Advanced Leadership School has to be attended in order to be promoted to a senior Lieutenant (or a Marine captain.) Attendance at the Staff School is required for promotion to Lieutenant Commander (or Marine major). If you want to become a starship captain (or marine colonel), you must attend the Command School. Whereas the War College is required for promotion to Admiral (or Marine general).

Other empires in the SFU have equivalent academies. How fairly they accept prospective students, however, can vary from one empire to the next: on Romulus, for example, the ongoing rivalries between Great Houses - plus the wide societal gap between their scions and the more numerous "Houseless" - skews things severely, perhaps to the detriment of the Empire overall.

-----

In BattleTech, however, there are probably very few - if any - academies which are quite as thorough, or as fair in terms of admission, as Star Fleet Academy would be.

Perhaps the most prestigious academies in the Sol system would have come closest, at least during the first Star League. Although, I could well picture the Taurians having made a good go if it by themselves, at least prior to the Reunification War.

Others might go no farther than the undergraduate level, or be much more beholden to the pressures of noble families in their respective realms.

Although, it would be interesting to see what the Wolves make of those facilities on Terra they have now inherited from the Republic of the Sphere... or rather, those which weren't razed by Malvina's Falcons prior to the ilClan Trial.

At the very least, a would-be "Regular Army" might wish to use those facilities to train its senior officers. And perhaps both Trueborn and freeborn Gunslinger candidates might be sent to study at such institutions prior to entering the field?

[Metallgewitter]

The SLDf had it's recruits go through a lot of study sessions as well. After they completed basic training they went into "trade school" in the over 200 academies that were spread across the Hegemony (or the ones on Tharkad, Skye and New Avalon) There they not only learned their respective trade but also accounting, history and other subjects giving even the lowest infantry man a bachelors degree after he or she graduated. I am not sure if that is even done on the most prestigious academies in the IS. Perhpas on the original SLDf academies mentioned before but the rest?

Well how mmany major academies are left from the Republic days? The major ones I can think of were Northwind (currently independent), Mars, Kentares IV, Skye and Sandhurst on Terra. And do the Wolves even have trainers for that? Redemption Rites has given a glimpse how they transformed the military academy on New Olympia but recruits who are trained in the clan fighting way make poor warriors when they are facing opponents who don't care about Zellbriggen. They might order the cadet classes to increase but I suspect training might be (for the time being) done according to RAF regulations. Unless the Wolves can actually spare warriors for training

[Nerroth]

The War Academy of Mars would have to be rebuilt, or at least restaffed, from scratch: the prior faculty, staff, and students were all killed on Malvina's orders.

Sandhurst was in the portion of Terra seized by the Wolves prior to the IlClan Trial, so there would presumably be some survivors to work with - should any of them wish to do so, that is.

-----

One other person whose military career might be a subject of study would be First LordGeneral Aaron DeChavilier.

As someone who was deeply involved in the SLDF campaign against the Amaris Empire at the highest levels, his service record would no doubt be a key corollary to that of General Kerensky himself.

And, while the "Prime" timeline would see him join the Exodus, the military academies over in the Empires Aflame timeline would no doubt look at the likes of Operation BLACK SHIELD and his establishment of the Terran Supremacy in great detail.

[Minemech]

deleted

[wanderer25]

   I think all states would read both the works that appeals to them and those favored by their enemies!

The whole "Known your enemy bit"