Military Commanders [Archive] - Wizards Community

Military Commanders [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Arcanist-King
03-14-04, 11:35 PM Hey everyone I've been working on how to properly stat a military general. While I've got some basics on how to proceed I'm not sure on how to make a commanders ability to understand warfare in stats. Heres what I got so far.
1. Leadership Feat (duh)
2. High Charsima

Now here is where I'm not sure on how to proceed. While these two allow a general to inspire troops to them it does nothing it show there ability to understand warfare. But I've come up with these of thoughts.
1. Marshal class-its nice but for the NPC I was working on it doesn't really fit. That I don't think that highly of the Miniatures classes. Plus I'm trying to avoid PrCs for the character so I don't really want to use the Warmaster from Sword and Fist.
2. High Knowledge (history) ranks-this includes historical wars in it so I figure its a good place to start but I'm not sure if its the best idea because other WOTC stated products have different ideas on commanders. For instance one of the NPC they have done for the realms on the website has a commander and he lacks this, but instead has ranks in Profession (military general) but that mainly determines income correct?
3. High Sense Motive/Bluff ranks-additional uses of these skills to figure out what the enemy is doing and trying to fool him into positioning his troops incorrectly so you can flank them. Course that puts your average fighter out on tactics and makes rogues and bards better generals than fighters.

What have you done in your campaigns, thanks.
Arcanist-King
ElGrecoETAC
03-15-04, 01:39 AM Hello Arkanist-King,

I am assuming you're not looking for a twinked-out character here, so bear with me.

First, determine his background, so as to pick appropriate levels. Is he a nobleman given charter and title by a monarch to field forces for a kingdom, or a professional soldier-of-fortune given a "letter of marque" and permanent employment?

Most of the generals in a kingdom would probably have a majority of Fighter levels, with a couple of Aristocrat maybe--to reflect their upbringing or periods where they weren't actively campaigning.

Leadership would be very important, but I wouldn't fret so much about Attributes. After all, unless the society the general serves believes in meritocracy, there is no real reason for the general to be automatically the superior specimen. For the sake of realism, don't fall into the trap of making him the highest-level character in the army.

1) He might be a hard-bitten, arrogant military genius with a low Charisma--after all, he's not the one urging the soldiers on, and his sub-commanders don't have to like the man to obey his orders.
2) He might be a well-liked, well-studied, yet brash and stubborn hard-charger, with a high Intelligence & Charisma but a low Wisdom.

If he's a real "dog of war" you might consider a level or two in a specialized Prestige Class, like Purple Dragon Knight, Knight in Silver, or a more strategic one from "Sword and Fist."

Sense Motive would be a very good skill, though I doubt "bluff" would translate well in terms of fooling someone through tactics. You might have to address that one directly with your DM by impressing him with a scheme he deems sufficiently clever to fool your foe. You might also consider the idea of a Knowledge: Military Tactics vs. Sense Motive opposed roll.

Knowledge: Military History, Heraldry, and the like would be good choices.

Oriental Adventures has some pretty cool ancestral feats you could bring over, which deal with tactics, natural leadership abilities, etc.
Retquarkn
03-15-04, 02:03 AM Building a Military Commander isn't exactly as easy as a single class or feat progression as you can take several roads to this place, it depends on what unit types you have and style of attack. a Commander's job is to more or less plot the strategy and choose formations and give order of when to spring ambushes volleys and possibly spells on the battlefeild. So you have to know what the unit is capable of then use it to its utmost capacity. it's like playing Risk but with lives on the line.
Mirtek
03-15-04, 08:37 AM I don't think that Knowledge (history) should help with leading armies.

Either Knowledge (warfare), Knowledge (strategy & tactics) or Profession (military general) like WotC did.
Boz Shulun
03-15-04, 10:44 AM Originally posted by Mirtek
I don't think that Knowledge (history) should help with leading armies.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (Paraphrased)

Perhaps, Knowledge (military history) would be a good choice. I know that in the real military (U.S. anyway) that officers are required to learn it as part of their training.
Mirtek
03-15-04, 10:56 AM Knowledge (military) history maybe, but with difficult DCs, Knowledge (history) is too broad to go for real help in leading an army it might reveal when and where a battle was fought and who won and maybe even why they fought, but it shouldn't cover the (for leading an army) important parts (like the tactics they used on the field)

Just compare with today's history lessons. It's teached that Napolean lost the battle of Waterloo, but hardly a class will be teached the exact formations and troop movements of this battle.
Dawnspeaker
03-15-04, 11:11 AM I think in Sword and Fist they had Knowledge (war) I always assumed this was for military tactics etc. They never mention it again in any other books though so not sure.

(Figure all these premade characters that are suppose to be great generals really have nothing to help them besides Leadership and Diplomacy really)

Up to you though. I use Knowledge (war) and make it a class skill for Fighters and Paladins. Then let the players roll it to help with battlefield tactics in mass combat.
Boz Shulun
03-16-04, 01:06 PM Originally posted by Mirtek
Just compare with today's history lessons. It's teached that Napolean lost the battle of Waterloo, but hardly a class will be teached the exact formations and troop movements of this battle.

I disagree. Sure modern military leaders know little of the intricacies of the battlefields of the Napoleonic era, but they are still taught some of the basic fundamentals of artillery that Napoleon created (tactics considered innovative during his day).

The foundation of military strategy is the tactics of those that have come before. If you learn from the successes and mistakes of others you are a much more effective commander.

Having a good leadership, charisma, etc. does not make you a great commander in battle. Some of the greatest generals in history were not considered great because they were suave and likeable. For example, George S. Patton is considered to be one of the greatest generals of the 20th century. Not because he was a great leader (he was downright despised by most of his subordinates) but because he was an excellent tactician. He achieved his results by following instinct, being decisive and studying history as well as his enemy.
Mirtek
03-16-04, 01:13 PM Originally posted by Boz Shulun
I disagree. Sure modern military leaders know little of the intricacies of the battlefields of the Napoleonic era, but they are still taught some of the basic fundamentals of artillery that Napoleon created (tactics considered innovative during his day).
And that's exactly why I am for a special Knowledge (military history skil for the, to represent their special education.

To me Knowledge (history) is that what a normal pupil learns in high school

Anyway, I just received Dragon 318 and WotC seems to consider Knowlegde (history) the relevant skill (see Faiths of Faerun article about the Holy Strategist of the Red Knight)

Well, I still disagree with this decision, but it seems that's the way it is according to WotC.

To me it seems as if they just wanted to reduce the number of skills, but I still don't like it.
Boz Shulun
03-16-04, 07:24 PM Originally posted by Mirtek
And that's exactly why I am for a special Knowledge (military history skil for the, to represent their special education.

To me Knowledge (history) is that what a normal pupil learns in high school

Point taken.
dragonheart
03-29-04, 06:12 PM Assuming yoru trying to make a fairly successfu general as opposed to a noble idiot then the trick is in taking the right skills much more than feats - and in putting enough points in them to make them useful.

I don't think that Knowledge (history) should help with leading armies. Knowledge (warfare), Knowledge (strategy & tactics) or Profession (military general)
I think knowledge history might be useful - if only to tell which side to chose to be a general for :rolleyes: the more specialized knowledges would be what I would use. Maybe also knowledge (terrain) or perhaps use the knowledge (geography) skill with a few minuses. Realistically the profession general would be the typical check for most things with the knowledge skills providing synergy bonuses ( +2/5 pts) to the roll.
Boz Shulun
03-30-04, 09:41 AM Unfortunately, in order to get skill ranks in all the skills we’ve laid out a general would have to take classes other than fighter or be very high level. The 2+ Int modifier of skill ranks a fighter receives per level is not much. Not to mention that knowledge skills are cross-class.
Misyrr
03-30-04, 11:04 AM Or take the Education feat!
Dawnspeaker
03-30-04, 11:09 AM Or also change some of what the fighters class skills are.

I added the Knowledge (warfare) and Profession (military commander) skill to the fighter class skills. They still have the sane number of skill points but it gives them an option.

I also added Knowledge (warfare) to the paladin skill list.
Ardent
03-30-04, 02:32 PM Well, I look outside DnD for inspiration on military matters...Profession (soldier), Diplomacy, Knowledge (History) -- which does cover military history by the way...curious where you all went to school that it didn't -- and to a lesser extent things like Ride, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Knowledge (architecture and engineering), Craft (mechanical) -- for war machines yanno -- and Spot.
Boz Shulun
03-30-04, 05:35 PM Originally posted by Ardent
...Knowledge (History) -- which does cover military history by the way...curious where you all went to school that it didn't...

Learning that there was a battle at Appomattox does not give you the same insight as a true military history course that details maneuvers and tactics during the battle. I for one didn’t learn a bit of military history until I actually became a soldier.

Textbooks in school (I can only speak from a US perspective) teach about the politics of the time and the general outcomes of battles. Sometimes there are more detailed accounts of a battle in school but those instances are rare.
Ramius_Mordale
03-31-04, 01:25 AM In my opinion, if you want to have one skill that covers everything to do with War you need only one skill. Knowledge (War) or Knowledge (Warfare) which ever way you'd like to put it down. Knowledge (War) would cover everything from up-to-date tactics and strategies of the day and probably of past war strategies and tactics. Not to mention key decisive battles most notiable to history and how the successful commander achieved his victory and how the opposing side failed to counter. Basicly if you want a fighter to be effectively the same class without changing a huge amount of class skills for the fighter class just put it all under Knowledge (War).

And I do agree that Patton was one of the great generals of the 20th Century but so were many of the generals of WWII on both sides. Remember a General is only as good as his men. Sure he can be a brillant strategist and be able to turn away wave after wave of enemy assualt. The reason why Patton was a great general is that he was mobile and always over seeing every part of his battles. He was up there with the troops and he let his troops know that he expected them to give as much as he did in a fight. Even if your troops don't like you, it's if they respect you that counts to the point that they follow you threw hell and back. Thats a great military commander as i think of it.
Boz Shulun
03-31-04, 12:29 PM Originally posted by Ramius_Mordale
In my opinion, if you want to have one skill that covers everything to do with War you need only one skill. Knowledge (War) or Knowledge (Warfare) which ever way you'd like to put it down. Knowledge (War) would cover everything from up-to-date tactics and strategies of the day and probably of past war strategies and tactics. Not to mention key decisive battles most notiable to history and how the successful commander achieved his victory and how the opposing side failed to counter. Basicly if you want a fighter to be effectively the same class without changing a huge amount of class skills for the fighter class just put it all under Knowledge (War).

I agree. I think that Knowledge (war)/(warfare) is a good idea. It encompasses strategies and military history while remaining a little open for DM discretion.

And I do agree that Patton was one of the great generals of the 20th Century but so were many of the generals of WWII on both sides. Remember a General is only as good as his men.

I whole heartedly agree. Unfortunately, it is the generals who get all the recognition when it comes to history… unless it is to remember an instance (or instances) of valor or heroics (i.e. Audie Murphy). If it weren’t for the determination and bravery of his men, Patton would just be remembered as a crazy US general that thought he was a reincarnated roman soldier.

The reason why Patton was a great general is that he was mobile and always over seeing every part of his battles. He was up there with the troops and he let his troops know that he expected them to give as much as he did in a fight.

A perfect mix of Knowledge (warfare), Sense Motive (his troops and the enemy), Spot and the Leadership feat. You could even throw in Intimidate.

Even if your troops don't like you, it's if they respect you that counts to the point that they follow you threw hell and back. Thats a great military commander as i think of it.

I have to say that this point is the best I’ve seen on this thread. A great military commander has to be respected. Sadly, history is full of leaders who were greatly respected (and loved) by their men who where flops when it came to being great (i.e. George A. Custer).
Shimura
04-01-04, 04:44 AM are you aware that in rokugan campaign setting they have a skill called Know:Warfare and rules with it for reading terrain/ outfoxing the enemy/ knowing historical battles...

Might help you FR folk out..
Ardent
04-01-04, 12:28 PM Originally posted by Boz Shulun
Learning that there was a battle at Appomattox does not give you the same insight as a true military history course that details maneuvers and tactics during the battle. I for one didn’t learn a bit of military history until I actually became a soldier.

There's room left in most curriculae for subjective education...basically whatever the teacher wants in relation to the coursework. With the exception of my first year in high school all my history teachers were male (including the early U.S. history you get in middle school) and I think all but one were veterans of foreign wars...so we got military history. To this day I still can't figure out what was standard coursework...

Textbooks in school (I can only speak from a US perspective) teach about the politics of the time and the general outcomes of battles. Sometimes there are more detailed accounts of a battle in school but those instances are rare.

I guess I got lucky...I have one of those textbooks still...one of the U.S. History ones and it actually discusses a lot of the tactics of the Civil War and how the new technologies of the era forced reimagination of old tactics on the part of leaders on both sides.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arcanist-King 03-14-04, 11:35 PM	Hey everyone I've been working on how to properly stat a military general. While I've got some basics on how to proceed I'm not sure on how to make a commanders ability to understand warfare in stats. Heres what I got so far. 1. Leadership Feat (duh) 2. High Charsima Now here is where I'm not sure on how to proceed. While these two allow a general to inspire troops to them it does nothing it show there ability to understand warfare. But I've come up with these of thoughts. 1. Marshal class-its nice but for the NPC I was working on it doesn't really fit. That I don't think that highly of the Miniatures classes. Plus I'm trying to avoid PrCs for the character so I don't really want to use the Warmaster from Sword and Fist. 2. High Knowledge (history) ranks-this includes historical wars in it so I figure its a good place to start but I'm not sure if its the best idea because other WOTC stated products have different ideas on commanders. For instance one of the NPC they have done for the realms on the website has a commander and he lacks this, but instead has ranks in Profession (military general) but that mainly determines income correct? 3. High Sense Motive/Bluff ranks-additional uses of these skills to figure out what the enemy is doing and trying to fool him into positioning his troops incorrectly so you can flank them. Course that puts your average fighter out on tactics and makes rogues and bards better generals than fighters. What have you done in your campaigns, thanks. Arcanist-King
ElGrecoETAC 03-15-04, 01:39 AM	Hello Arkanist-King, I am assuming you're not looking for a twinked-out character here, so bear with me. First, determine his background, so as to pick appropriate levels. Is he a nobleman given charter and title by a monarch to field forces for a kingdom, or a professional soldier-of-fortune given a "letter of marque" and permanent employment? Most of the generals in a kingdom would probably have a majority of Fighter levels, with a couple of Aristocrat maybe--to reflect their upbringing or periods where they weren't actively campaigning. Leadership would be very important, but I wouldn't fret so much about Attributes. After all, unless the society the general serves believes in meritocracy, there is no real reason for the general to be automatically the superior specimen. For the sake of realism, don't fall into the trap of making him the highest-level character in the army. 1) He might be a hard-bitten, arrogant military genius with a low Charisma--after all, he's not the one urging the soldiers on, and his sub-commanders don't have to like the man to obey his orders. 2) He might be a well-liked, well-studied, yet brash and stubborn hard-charger, with a high Intelligence & Charisma but a low Wisdom. If he's a real "dog of war" you might consider a level or two in a specialized Prestige Class, like Purple Dragon Knight, Knight in Silver, or a more strategic one from "Sword and Fist." Sense Motive would be a very good skill, though I doubt "bluff" would translate well in terms of fooling someone through tactics. You might have to address that one directly with your DM by impressing him with a scheme he deems sufficiently clever to fool your foe. You might also consider the idea of a Knowledge: Military Tactics vs. Sense Motive opposed roll. Knowledge: Military History, Heraldry, and the like would be good choices. Oriental Adventures has some pretty cool ancestral feats you could bring over, which deal with tactics, natural leadership abilities, etc.
Retquarkn 03-15-04, 02:03 AM	Building a Military Commander isn't exactly as easy as a single class or feat progression as you can take several roads to this place, it depends on what unit types you have and style of attack. a Commander's job is to more or less plot the strategy and choose formations and give order of when to spring ambushes volleys and possibly spells on the battlefeild. So you have to know what the unit is capable of then use it to its utmost capacity. it's like playing Risk but with lives on the line.
Mirtek 03-15-04, 08:37 AM	I don't think that Knowledge (history) should help with leading armies. Either Knowledge (warfare), Knowledge (strategy & tactics) or Profession (military general) like WotC did.
Boz Shulun 03-15-04, 10:44 AM	Originally posted by Mirtek I don't think that Knowledge (history) should help with leading armies. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (Paraphrased) Perhaps, Knowledge (military history) would be a good choice. I know that in the real military (U.S. anyway) that officers are required to learn it as part of their training.
Mirtek 03-15-04, 10:56 AM	Knowledge (military) history maybe, but with difficult DCs, Knowledge (history) is too broad to go for real help in leading an army it might reveal when and where a battle was fought and who won and maybe even why they fought, but it shouldn't cover the (for leading an army) important parts (like the tactics they used on the field) Just compare with today's history lessons. It's teached that Napolean lost the battle of Waterloo, but hardly a class will be teached the exact formations and troop movements of this battle.
Dawnspeaker 03-15-04, 11:11 AM	I think in Sword and Fist they had Knowledge (war) I always assumed this was for military tactics etc. They never mention it again in any other books though so not sure. (Figure all these premade characters that are suppose to be great generals really have nothing to help them besides Leadership and Diplomacy really) Up to you though. I use Knowledge (war) and make it a class skill for Fighters and Paladins. Then let the players roll it to help with battlefield tactics in mass combat.
Boz Shulun 03-16-04, 01:06 PM	Originally posted by Mirtek Just compare with today's history lessons. It's teached that Napolean lost the battle of Waterloo, but hardly a class will be teached the exact formations and troop movements of this battle. I disagree. Sure modern military leaders know little of the intricacies of the battlefields of the Napoleonic era, but they are still taught some of the basic fundamentals of artillery that Napoleon created (tactics considered innovative during his day). The foundation of military strategy is the tactics of those that have come before. If you learn from the successes and mistakes of others you are a much more effective commander. Having a good leadership, charisma, etc. does not make you a great commander in battle. Some of the greatest generals in history were not considered great because they were suave and likeable. For example, George S. Patton is considered to be one of the greatest generals of the 20th century. Not because he was a great leader (he was downright despised by most of his subordinates) but because he was an excellent tactician. He achieved his results by following instinct, being decisive and studying history as well as his enemy.
Mirtek 03-16-04, 01:13 PM	Originally posted by Boz Shulun I disagree. Sure modern military leaders know little of the intricacies of the battlefields of the Napoleonic era, but they are still taught some of the basic fundamentals of artillery that Napoleon created (tactics considered innovative during his day). And that's exactly why I am for a special Knowledge (military history skil for the, to represent their special education. To me Knowledge (history) is that what a normal pupil learns in high school Anyway, I just received Dragon 318 and WotC seems to consider Knowlegde (history) the relevant skill (see Faiths of Faerun article about the Holy Strategist of the Red Knight) Well, I still disagree with this decision, but it seems that's the way it is according to WotC. To me it seems as if they just wanted to reduce the number of skills, but I still don't like it.
Boz Shulun 03-16-04, 07:24 PM	Originally posted by Mirtek And that's exactly why I am for a special Knowledge (military history skil for the, to represent their special education. To me Knowledge (history) is that what a normal pupil learns in high school Point taken.
dragonheart 03-29-04, 06:12 PM	Assuming yoru trying to make a fairly successfu general as opposed to a noble idiot then the trick is in taking the right skills much more than feats - and in putting enough points in them to make them useful. I don't think that Knowledge (history) should help with leading armies. Knowledge (warfare), Knowledge (strategy & tactics) or Profession (military general) I think knowledge history might be useful - if only to tell which side to chose to be a general for :rolleyes: the more specialized knowledges would be what I would use. Maybe also knowledge (terrain) or perhaps use the knowledge (geography) skill with a few minuses. Realistically the profession general would be the typical check for most things with the knowledge skills providing synergy bonuses ( +2/5 pts) to the roll.
Boz Shulun 03-30-04, 09:41 AM	Unfortunately, in order to get skill ranks in all the skills we’ve laid out a general would have to take classes other than fighter or be very high level. The 2+ Int modifier of skill ranks a fighter receives per level is not much. Not to mention that knowledge skills are cross-class.
Misyrr 03-30-04, 11:04 AM	Or take the Education feat!
Dawnspeaker 03-30-04, 11:09 AM	Or also change some of what the fighters class skills are. I added the Knowledge (warfare) and Profession (military commander) skill to the fighter class skills. They still have the sane number of skill points but it gives them an option. I also added Knowledge (warfare) to the paladin skill list.
Ardent 03-30-04, 02:32 PM	Well, I look outside DnD for inspiration on military matters...Profession (soldier), Diplomacy, Knowledge (History) -- which does cover military history by the way...curious where you all went to school that it didn't -- and to a lesser extent things like Ride, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Knowledge (architecture and engineering), Craft (mechanical) -- for war machines yanno -- and Spot.
Boz Shulun 03-30-04, 05:35 PM	Originally posted by Ardent ...Knowledge (History) -- which does cover military history by the way...curious where you all went to school that it didn't... Learning that there was a battle at Appomattox does not give you the same insight as a true military history course that details maneuvers and tactics during the battle. I for one didn’t learn a bit of military history until I actually became a soldier. Textbooks in school (I can only speak from a US perspective) teach about the politics of the time and the general outcomes of battles. Sometimes there are more detailed accounts of a battle in school but those instances are rare.
Ramius_Mordale 03-31-04, 01:25 AM	In my opinion, if you want to have one skill that covers everything to do with War you need only one skill. Knowledge (War) or Knowledge (Warfare) which ever way you'd like to put it down. Knowledge (War) would cover everything from up-to-date tactics and strategies of the day and probably of past war strategies and tactics. Not to mention key decisive battles most notiable to history and how the successful commander achieved his victory and how the opposing side failed to counter. Basicly if you want a fighter to be effectively the same class without changing a huge amount of class skills for the fighter class just put it all under Knowledge (War). And I do agree that Patton was one of the great generals of the 20th Century but so were many of the generals of WWII on both sides. Remember a General is only as good as his men. Sure he can be a brillant strategist and be able to turn away wave after wave of enemy assualt. The reason why Patton was a great general is that he was mobile and always over seeing every part of his battles. He was up there with the troops and he let his troops know that he expected them to give as much as he did in a fight. Even if your troops don't like you, it's if they respect you that counts to the point that they follow you threw hell and back. Thats a great military commander as i think of it.
Boz Shulun 03-31-04, 12:29 PM	Originally posted by Ramius_Mordale In my opinion, if you want to have one skill that covers everything to do with War you need only one skill. Knowledge (War) or Knowledge (Warfare) which ever way you'd like to put it down. Knowledge (War) would cover everything from up-to-date tactics and strategies of the day and probably of past war strategies and tactics. Not to mention key decisive battles most notiable to history and how the successful commander achieved his victory and how the opposing side failed to counter. Basicly if you want a fighter to be effectively the same class without changing a huge amount of class skills for the fighter class just put it all under Knowledge (War). I agree. I think that Knowledge (war)/(warfare) is a good idea. It encompasses strategies and military history while remaining a little open for DM discretion. And I do agree that Patton was one of the great generals of the 20th Century but so were many of the generals of WWII on both sides. Remember a General is only as good as his men. I whole heartedly agree. Unfortunately, it is the generals who get all the recognition when it comes to history… unless it is to remember an instance (or instances) of valor or heroics (i.e. Audie Murphy). If it weren’t for the determination and bravery of his men, Patton would just be remembered as a crazy US general that thought he was a reincarnated roman soldier. The reason why Patton was a great general is that he was mobile and always over seeing every part of his battles. He was up there with the troops and he let his troops know that he expected them to give as much as he did in a fight. A perfect mix of Knowledge (warfare), Sense Motive (his troops and the enemy), Spot and the Leadership feat. You could even throw in Intimidate. Even if your troops don't like you, it's if they respect you that counts to the point that they follow you threw hell and back. Thats a great military commander as i think of it. I have to say that this point is the best I’ve seen on this thread. A great military commander has to be respected. Sadly, history is full of leaders who were greatly respected (and loved) by their men who where flops when it came to being great (i.e. George A. Custer).
Shimura 04-01-04, 04:44 AM	are you aware that in rokugan campaign setting they have a skill called Know:Warfare and rules with it for reading terrain/ outfoxing the enemy/ knowing historical battles... Might help you FR folk out..
Ardent 04-01-04, 12:28 PM	Originally posted by Boz Shulun Learning that there was a battle at Appomattox does not give you the same insight as a true military history course that details maneuvers and tactics during the battle. I for one didn’t learn a bit of military history until I actually became a soldier. There's room left in most curriculae for subjective education...basically whatever the teacher wants in relation to the coursework. With the exception of my first year in high school all my history teachers were male (including the early U.S. history you get in middle school) and I think all but one were veterans of foreign wars...so we got military history. To this day I still can't figure out what was standard coursework... Textbooks in school (I can only speak from a US perspective) teach about the politics of the time and the general outcomes of battles. Sometimes there are more detailed accounts of a battle in school but those instances are rare. I guess I got lucky...I have one of those textbooks still...one of the U.S. History ones and it actually discusses a lot of the tactics of the Civil War and how the new technologies of the era forced reimagination of old tactics on the part of leaders on both sides.