Bassaridian War League
| Bassaridian War League | |
|---|---|
| |
| Type | National military and strategic security institution of Bassaridia Vaeringheim |
| Origins | Passasian war-league networks; imperial War League tradition under the Bassarid system |
| Headquarters | Vaeringheim (National Command); divisional headquarters in assigned corridors |
| Commander | Commander General (member of the Council of Kings) |
| Political oversight | Council of Kings; legislative embedding through the Senate of Elders |
| Core functions | Corridor security; port and market protection; expeditionary campaigning; internal stabilisation; support to temple and missionary governance |
.
The Bassaridian War League is the principal military institution of Bassaridia Vaeringheim. It functions simultaneously as a standing armed force, a corridor-security authority, and an executive instrument through which the state translates its will into enforceable order. In Bassaridian political language, the War League exists to keep passage open, keep markets stable, and keep the realm governable—whether the threat is an insurgent cell, a pirate convoy, an investor dispute turning violent, or a doctrinal shock that begins to spill into civic life.
The War League’s modern character is inseparable from the Morovian basin. The state’s sovereignty is narrated not as a purely territorial claim but as a lived system of controlled passage—ports, canals, rail lines, and straits—whose stability is treated as the condition for law, ritual, and prosperity. As a result, the War League is tasked not only with defeating enemies but with holding the infrastructure of daily life in a stable state long enough for the ledger, the temples, and the civil courts to function without panic.
In the constitutional order of Bassaridia Vaeringheim, the War League is not “outside” politics. The Commander General sits on the Council of Kings alongside the Merchant General and the High Priestess, and War League divisions participate in corporatist legislative review. This arrangement does not present the military as a neutral servant of elected bodies; rather, it treats coercive capacity as one of the state’s three necessary pillars, compelled to share a signature with trade and rite at the executive apex.
Historical development
Passas: the martial household and the portability of force
Bassaridian historiography commonly traces the War League idiom back to the monarchy of Passas, when the household and its armed retainers were remembered as the first “public institution” capable of defending covenantal order. In that memory, force was not a separate sphere; it was a daily obligation of rule, made visible in patrols, escorts, and the protection of market passage. The earliest War League tradition is therefore framed less as a ministry and more as a disciplined network that could be redeployed and reassembled as circumstances demanded.
The abdication of Queen Mina—treated elsewhere as the turning point that made sovereignty “portable”—also recast the meaning of security in Passasian memory. Authority became something carried by persons and institutions rather than by a stable throne, and martial capacity became one of the most portable forms of sovereignty. Bassaridian writers repeatedly return to this because it explains why later Bassarid states favour executive offices that carry enforceable legitimacy: force is remembered as a thing that moves, and the state survives by binding that movement to law, to commerce, and to rite.
Passasian war-league practice also seeded a Bassaridian suspicion of purely ceremonial militaries. The War League is remembered as effective only when it can guard corridors, protect exchange, and act decisively in crises where negotiation and court procedure are too slow. This assumption survives into modern Bassaridia Vaeringheim, where “security” is narrated as the stabilisation of passage and the prevention of rupture, rather than as the abstract deterrence of a distant rival.
Passio-Corum: professionalisation and corridor doctrine
The transformation from Passas into the Crown of Passio-Corum is often described as the first moment when the war-league idiom becomes explicitly professional. The state’s outward reach expanded, but the method remained consistent: security, settlement, and corridor governance were treated as a single continuum. In this period, force served not only to win battles but to establish stable routes by which policy could be implemented and wealth could be transported without constant renegotiation.
Passio-Corum is also remembered for tightening the relationship between military basing and political legitimacy. The purchase, reuse, and transfer of installations—particularly those tied to New Zimia and the Wallis sphere—became the template for later Bassarid corridor governance: bases were not merely defensive assets but anchor points from which law, trade, and temple authority could be projected. The War League tradition that emerges is therefore inseparable from logistics, maritime access, and a willingness to treat port control as the substance of sovereignty.
In Bassaridian retrospective writing, Passio-Corum matters because it normalised the idea that the war league must be capable of both stabilisation and coercion in the same campaign cycle. The state’s legitimacy is framed as the ability to keep people provisioned and routes open while suppressing the violence that threatens those routes. This logic—security as the condition for economic and ritual normalcy—carries forward through every subsequent Bassarid refoundation.
Greater Pallisica: corridor governance under a trade state
The Greater Pallisican stage—often described as a trade state more than a territorial kingdom—formalised corridor governance as an explicit political design. In this model, sovereignty was articulated as the ability to regulate passage, protect markets, and enforce compliance along key routes. The war league’s role therefore expanded beyond combat: it became an administrative instrument for maintaining predictable movement of goods and persons, especially when peripheral regions attempted to reassert autonomy or when rival powers tested the stability of passage.
Greater Pallisican war-league deployments are remembered as “government by presence.” A garrison, an escort system, or an interdiction patrol could function as a legal statement: the corridor belonged to the system because the system could keep it open. This is also why Bassaridian writers often treat the war league as an institution that produces order in advance of formal law. Courts and merchant councils follow once passage is stable; force arrives first to make that stability possible.
The practical consequence of this stage is an inherited distrust of separating coercive capacity from economic planning. Under a trade state, the question is never simply “can we win,” but “can we keep the route governable after we win.” This habit becomes foundational in Bassaridia Vaeringheim’s later campaigns, where occupation and integration are treated as the true work of war, and where stabilisation is narrated as the continuation of the campaign by other means.
Haifo-Pallisica: imperial militarisation and inherited structures
The Haifo-Pallisican Imperial Trade Union codified Bassarid corridor logic into an imperial administrative machine. Force, courts, temples, and periphery diplomacy were fused into a single system that treated politics as enforcement. In imperial terms, the war league was the backbone that allowed distant domain governance to remain coherent: without reliable coercive capacity, the corridor system could not maintain its claim to sovereignty.
This era also matters because it produced the institutional vocabulary that modern Bassaridia Vaeringheim inherits. Even after the collapse of the imperial system, the Bassaridian War League is described as preserving organisational and command structures derived from the older order. The War League’s modern emphasis on divisions, corridor tasking, and integrated maritime enforcement reflects this inheritance more than any purely local innovation.
Finally, Haifo-Pallisican militarisation sharpened the War League’s political function. Imperial governance treated executive action as legitimate when it could be made enforceable in the periphery, especially during crises when merchant negotiation and ordinary court procedure were insufficient. Modern Bassaridia Vaeringheim retains this instinct, but relocates legitimacy from imperial decrees to constitutional gates and Council unanimity, so that coercion remains legible as law rather than as private violence.
Bassaridia Vaeringheim: collapse, refoundation, and reconstitution
The modern Bassaridian War League crystallised in the crisis that produced Bassaridia Vaeringheim. In the founding narrative of the Council of Kings, the decisive act is the seizure of the General Port of Lake Morovia by forces once loyal to the imperial war-league order and the expulsion of local chieftains from positions of power. Control of exchange is treated as control of the state, and the War League is remembered as the instrument that made that control enforceable.
In the early decades of Bassaridia Vaeringheim, the War League becomes the bridge between conquest and governance. It consolidates corridor control around the Morovian basin, suppresses independence movements, and supports the construction of a port-anchored investment system that ties cities and dependencies into a single economic network. In this phase, War League deployments are narrated as “infrastructure work with weapons”: checkpoints, escort systems, port security operations, and rapid stabilisation actions intended to prevent panic from spreading through the canals and ledgers.
By the mid-50.40s PSSC, the War League’s identity also becomes tied to technological transition. Having relied heavily on inherited equipment from the imperial system and its former allies, the War League begins a modernisation program, shifting onto platforms developed by domestic industry—especially the Somniant Stock Fund. This transition is consistently framed as both military necessity and political independence: the ability to fight and stabilise without relying on the leftovers of a collapsed empire becomes part of what it means to be Bassaridian.
Governance and command
The Commander General
The Commander General is the War League’s military sovereign and the executive responsible for national defence posture, strategic deployment, and unified command philosophy. In constitutional description, the War League acts on the direct orders of the Commander General and at the behest of the Council of Kings, tasked to safeguard government interests, protect commercial networks, pacify dissent, and project national strength.
The Commander General’s power is expressed through standing forces and through campaign-level structures that convert executive intent into theatre-wide operations. Modern operational records emphasize the existence of centrally-directed formations not tied to any single corridor investor, allowing the executive to conduct foreign war or national emergency operations without dissolving into regional bargaining. This design is repeatedly presented as a solution to the state’s core anxiety: that corridor governance becomes brittle when every deployment must be negotiated as a local transaction.
The Commander General also functions as the Council’s coercive interface with crises that are not purely military. In Bassaridian practice, a sabotage threat against port infrastructure, a breakdown in canal security, or a rapid flare-up of sectarian violence can be treated as a military problem because it threatens the stability of passage and the public’s confidence in provisioning. This is why War League logs and incident summaries are often written in the same language as governance: stabilisation is described as an executive act, not merely as “support” for civil authorities.
Divisional system and corridor command
The War League’s divisional system is designed to mirror the state’s lived geography of governance: corridors, investor jurisdictions, and the “stability nodes” that keep the General Port of Lake Morovia functioning as the national heart. In practice, divisions do not merely “defend territory.” They defend throughput—canal access, rail passage, port approaches, shrine-market continuity, and the credibility of the civic order that the Port measures internally through instruments such as the Civic Equilibrium Index.
Because the War League is embedded into an investor-and-corridor state, divisional jurisdictions tend to align with the Port’s regional investor structure and its associated population and redemption reporting. The CEI’s breakdown effectively reveals the state’s administrative map: a Vaeringheim investor core; an Alpazkigz investor periphery; Odiferia’s southern wetlands; the compact Hafaan and Jeseri nodes; the Hatch Ministry’s maritime investor command; the New South Jangsong and Bassaridian Normark holdings; and the Ouriana corridor created by the Valley of Keltia operations.
Within each division, command emphasis is calibrated to the local risk profile. In the Vaeringheim core, operations commonly center on port integrity, canal security, and industrial continuity; in Alpazkigz, the problem set is often shrine-protection, highland interdiction, and hazard response; in New South Jangsong and Bassaridian Normark, corridor security includes exposure to frontier raids, weather shocks, and residual insurgent capacity. This is why operational tasking across divisions often looks like “governance by deployment”: securing aqueducts, reopening causeways, managing sabotage risk, and preventing panic—rather than only battlefield engagements.
Finally, the divisional system is complemented by executive-level joint tasking when an incident exceeds a single corridor’s capacity or threatens national stability. Such episodes—especially those involving mass casualty risk, infrastructure collapse, or ritual panic—frequently produce joint deployments (for example, Alpazkigz + Council of Kings Division during major hazard response), reinforcing that divisions are regional stewards while the Council’s national command elements exist to prevent local fractures from becoming state fractures.
| Division / command | Practical jurisdiction (character) | Example cities / nodes (linked; non-exhaustive) |
|---|---|---|
| Vaeringheim Division | Core national corridor security (Port approaches, canal districts, industrial continuity, high-population stability) | Vaeringheim, Luminaria, Serena, Symphonara, Aurelia, Sylvapolis, Lunalis Sancta, Delphica |
| Alpazkigz Division | Western periphery and highlands (shrine security, caravan routes, insurgent interdiction, volcanic/hazard response) | Pyralis, Nexa, Acheron, Koinonía, Aureum, Erythros, Ferrum Citadel, Aetherium |
| Odiferia Division | Southern wetlands and tribal interface (swamp corridors, lowland stability, rural enforcement support) | Odiferia, Somniumpolis |
| Hatch Ministry Division | Maritime corridor enforcement (escort corridors, VBSS, interdiction, convoy discipline under straits law) | Lewisburg, Lykopolis, Jogi, Ardclach (plus straits routing to/from Vaeringheim) |
| New South Jangsong Division | Northern straits and annexed Normarkian belt (frontier stability, raids, weather shocks, export-security enforcement) | Skýrophos, Bjornopolis, Aegirheim, Norsolyra, Thorsalon, Pelagia, Myrene, Thyrea, Ephyra, Halicarn |
| Haifan Bassaridia Division | Southern straits urban belt and littoral corridor integration (port-city stability, coastal route security, anti-piracy legacy zones) | Keybir-Aviv, Tel-Amin, Diamandis, Jogi, Lewisburg, Thermosalem, Akróstadium, Sufriya, Lykopolis |
| Bassaridian Normark Division | Far-northern Keltian holdings (long-range corridor security, consolidation, and sustainment across sparse settlements) | Ardclach, Riddersborg |
| Ouriana Division | Central Keltian corridor governance and route security under post-campaign settlement | Bashkim, Ourid, (containment / dependency zone: Tonar) |
| Caledonian corridor commands (attached) | Dependency stabilization, corridor talks security, and integration support across Eastern Caledonian nodes | Fanghorn, Eikbu, Galvø, Sårensby, Slevik, Sjøsborg, Storesund, Notranskja, Kaledonija |
Force structure and operational vocabulary
War League field organisation is frequently described through a hierarchy rendered in classical terms—Ordo, Manipulus, Cohors, Centuria—with specialist attachments and composite task forces assembled for escort duties, port defence, interdiction, and campaign operations. The use of this vocabulary is not merely aesthetic; it signals the War League’s preference for modular formations that can be reassembled quickly for corridor problems that do not fit a single template.
Operational logs repeatedly show the War League working at “sub-campaign scale” even during peacetime: short, targeted deployments to contain unrest, escort ritual personnel, secure infrastructure, or disrupt trafficking routes. These actions sit between police work and conventional war, and their existence is used to justify why the War League remains politically central: it is tasked with problems the state considers too dangerous to leave to ordinary municipal capacity.
The War League’s modern force structure also reflects the growing integration of land, rail, canal, and maritime assets into a single corridor doctrine. Rail lines and military trains, port patrol craft, and canal security operations appear in the same operational language because each is treated as part of the same problem: keeping passage open under threat. This is why War League history is commonly narrated through the movement of convoys, escorts, and interdictions as much as through battlefield victories.
Technology, procurement, and the Somniant Stock Fund
Since the mid-50.40s PSSC, the War League’s modernization has been defined by the transition onto platforms and weapon families developed by the Somniant Stock Fund. In War League operational writing, this shift is treated as more than a procurement change: it is the standardization of an entire doctrine, in which armor, artillery, lake-and-littoral fleets, UAV reconnaissance, and strategic air packages are designed to operate as one interoperable ecosystem across Morovian swamp warfare, Jangsong corridor fighting, and highland expeditionary governance.
The Somniant Stock Fund functions as the state’s premier defense contractor, explicitly tasked with delivering advanced military technologies aligned to War League objectives and campaign sequencing. Its equipment roster and campaign write-ups emphasize that Somniant systems became the “defining equipment family” of the modern War League, shaping everything from sustained counter-insurgency deployments to rapid escalation packages and the logistics architecture that supports containment and reconstruction. In practice, the War League’s newest command concepts—mobile C2 nodes, rail-borne fortresses, layered air defense, and manned-unmanned interdiction doctrine—are frequently presented as Somniant-era solutions to the problem of corridor warfare in a state where sovereignty is measured by stable passage.
Bassaridia Vaeringheim’s export-control posture makes this relationship unusually closed. Constitutional and implementing export-control regulations prohibit the export of weapons beyond the nation’s borders, a restriction repeatedly cited in contemporary governance writing as a deliberate attempt to prevent foreign entanglements and preserve centralized oversight of end users. This legal framework has also been applied to foreign investment channels: the Council of Kings Division is explicitly described as drawing on foreign investments whose funders are nonetheless prohibited—by constitutional bans—from importing weaponry directly from Bassaridia Vaeringheim, so the resulting arms and equipment are claimed and managed domestically under Council authority.
As a consequence, Somniant’s heavy systems do not function as commercial exports in the ordinary sense. Major platforms—tanks, artillery, aircraft, naval systems, and other advanced assets—are described as reserved for military or government purposes and “exclusively available” to the Bassaridian War League and official governmental agencies, reinforcing that the War League is effectively the sole end-user market for Somniant’s strategic hardware inside the constitutional order. This constraint is treated by the state as both a security safeguard and a doctrinal advantage: it preserves end-user clarity, simplifies standardization, and binds War League capability growth to constitutional oversight rather than external demand.
Modern role
Corridor security and market protection
In Bassaridian doctrine, corridors are sovereign objects. The War League’s daily mission includes protecting port infrastructure, defending canal networks, securing rail movement, and enforcing emergency restrictions when sabotage, insurgency, or panic threatens the ledger-and-voucher economy. This emphasis is not rhetorical: operational summaries repeatedly describe deployments triggered by threats to the General Port, suspected IEDs along canal districts, and disruptions to shipping that could cascade into shortages and civic instability.
Corridor security also includes the defence of shipping lanes beyond the Morovian basin. The War League is described as exerting its greatest influence around Lake Morovia while maintaining regular operations along the Northern and Southern Strait of Haifa to protect traffic linking Bassaridia Vaeringheim to its former periphery networks. In this sense, the War League’s “border” is not simply a line on a map; it is the practical limit of where the state can keep passage stable through patrols, escorts, and interdiction.
Finally, market protection is treated as a moral mission as well as a strategic one. Bassaridian political writing frames economic stability as a form of civic dignity and spiritual participation, meaning the War League’s role in preventing corridor collapse is narrated as the prevention of social and ritual rupture. This is one reason War League deployments often appear alongside temple interventions: the state insists that provision and rite must remain coherent, especially during crises.
Domestic stabilisation
The War League routinely performs “governance by deployment,” responding to labour unrest, sectarian vandalism, extremist intimidation, and infrastructure sabotage as threats to national stability rather than as isolated local incidents. Operational logs describe rapid-response formations dispatched to restore order after insurgent actions in civic spaces, to secure sacred groves during protests, and to tighten port security during suspected sabotage.
Domestic stabilisation is also the War League’s method for preventing minor disruptions from becoming constitutional crises. Bassaridia Vaeringheim’s executive model depends on the credibility of controlled passage; if corridors appear ungovernable, rival elites, extremist cult factions, or periphery actors can treat that weakness as an invitation. Stabilisation deployments therefore carry political meaning even when they are small: a Manipulus at the right chokepoint can signal that the state remains intact.
In Bassaridian narrative, the War League’s stabilisation role is sometimes described as the “quiet war” that makes the visible state possible. The legislature debates, the investors distribute stipends, and the temples maintain ritual legitimacy, but these functions presume a baseline of order. The War League is tasked with ensuring that baseline exists, even when doing so requires coercion that must later be justified and regularised through legal and doctrinal mechanisms.
Temple and missionary support
The War League’s coercive role is frequently paired with doctrinal and ritual governance, especially in zones treated as spiritually unstable, schism-prone, or exposed to metaphysical threats. This does not necessarily imply priestly command over troops; rather, it reflects the Bassaridian insistence that civic compliance and ritual coherence are part of security. In operational records, missionary cadres and cult specialists appear as attachments providing counter-ritual capability alongside conventional security tasks.
This partnership is also historical. Pre-50.92 operational summaries describe War League escorts for large missionary movements and protective deployments for temple-linked projects. These patterns reinforce the state’s self-image: expansion and stabilisation are not merely political acts but spiritual and cultural integrations, requiring both force and ritual legitimacy to hold.
In the modern era, this relationship becomes most visible during containment-style operations. When crises are framed as both insurgent and metaphysical—smuggling networks tied to forbidden rites, anomalous manifestations, or cult-linked panic—the War League provides the coercive perimeter while temple actors provide the interpretive and stabilising language that prevents the public from treating every rumour as an existential threat.
Expeditionary campaigning
While domestic deployments make up much of the War League’s routine activity, the institution also serves as the state’s expeditionary instrument. Modern Bassaridian constitutional narrative emphasizes that foreign campaigns must remain legible as national executive acts rather than as investor adventures, which is why central command structures and Council involvement are repeatedly highlighted in campaign descriptions.
Expeditionary war is framed as corridor logic applied abroad: stabilise the route, neutralise the threat, integrate the infrastructure, and then hold the space long enough for governance to become self-sustaining under Bassaridian terms. The War League’s campaigns in Jangsong and beyond are often narrated not as single battles but as phased operations combining blockades, air strikes, ground offensives, occupation, and post-campaign stabilisation.
Finally, expeditionary activity is increasingly tied to the War League’s technological and logistical evolution. The appearance of rail-based command nodes, expanded naval interdiction capacity, and domestic industrial supply chains is presented as what makes modern Bassaridian campaigning distinct from the imperial past: the state can now project force in ways that are tailored to its own geography and doctrine rather than inherited from a collapsed empire.
Historical campaigns under Bassaridia Vaeringheim
The War League’s campaign history is typically presented as a sequence of corridor problems escalating into state-building wars. Early operations focus on consolidating the Morovian basin and breaking independence movements whose success would have fragmented corridor governance. Later campaigns expand outward, treating northern and straits-adjacent theatres as necessary to secure passage and prevent rival powers from weaponising instability against Bassaridian trade.
In the Jangsong theatre, the War League’s campaigning is framed as a transition from influence to occupation. The earlier New South Jangsong operations establish a precedent for integrating independent city-states, while the later escalation culminates in the Lower Jangsong Campaign, a large-scale offensive combining air and naval operations with mechanised ground assault and an occupation logic designed to eradicate resistance rather than merely deter it.
In western Morovia and the reed-choked periphery zones, modern operational history becomes more complex. Operation Somniant is repeatedly described as a campaign that blends counter-insurgency, anti-trafficking, and metaphysical containment, involving multiple divisions, privateer support, and the debut of new systems and command concepts. This campaign is often used as a demonstration of why Bassaridia treats “security” as broader than conventional war.
The Valley of Keltia Campaign is generally treated as the War League’s first fully constitutionalized foreign war under direct executive command. Initiated on 61/2/51 PSSC, it was conducted by the Council of Kings Division with multinational operational support, and it focused on the highland corridor cities of Tonar, Bashkim, and Ourid. The campaign is recorded as complete, with dependency status ratified on 29/3/51 PSSC, and is cited in War League doctrine as a structural departure from the older regionally mediated external-engagement model.
Finally, the War League’s record in 52 PSSC introduces the theme of legally framed external intervention. Bassaridian involvement in Corum is described as internationally recognised humanitarian action while still involving professional deployments and campaign-style planning. In Bassaridian self-description, this represents the mature form of the War League: capable of acting abroad while insisting that action remains constitutionalised, bounded, and politically legible at home.
| Campaign / operation | Dates (PSSC) | Primary formations | Character |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morovian Frontier Campaign | 48–49 (approx.) | Multiple divisions | Consolidation of basin control; anti-insurgency; corridor stabilisation and post-campaign reconstruction. |
| New South Jangsong Campaign | 49.xx (approx.) | New South Jangsong Division; supporting assets | Expansion and integration of independent city-states along the western shores of the Northern Strait of Haifa. |
| Haifan Bassaridia Campaign | 49.43–50.10 | Multiple divisions with allied coordination | Anti-piracy and stabilisation campaign culminating in annexation and renewed corridor security in Haifan Bassaridia. |
| Southern Lake Morovia Campaign | 50.01–50.47 | Hatch Ministry Division (lead), supporting forces | Counter-insurgency and elimination of entrenched insurgent forces; consolidation of southern approaches. |
| Lower Jangsong Campaign | 1/1/51 – 15/1/51 | NSJ Division (lead), Hatch Ministry and Vaeringheim support | Escalated counter-insurgency into occupation; annexations and ongoing stabilisation. |
| Operation Somniant | 51–52 (approx.) | Multiple divisions; privateer support | Western Morovia interdiction and containment campaign; trafficking disruption; doctrinal and metaphysical hazard governance. |
| Valley of Keltia Campaign | 61/2/51 – 29/3/51 (dependency ratified; operations complete) | Council of Kings Division (lead); Imperial Federation (Marines); Temple Bank of the Reformed Stripping Path | First foreign war waged under the direct command of the Council of Kings; secured strategic corridors around Tonar, Bashkim, and Ourid and disrupted insurgent command nodes; concluded with dependency ratification. |
| Bassaridian involvement in Corum | early 52 (approx.) | Limited professional deployments | Internationally framed humanitarian operations with domestic constitutional and political sensitivity. |
Politics, legitimacy, and controversy
Stratocratic constitutionalism
Bassaridia Vaeringheim is widely described as a constitutional stratocracy, and the War League is central to that identity. The state does not pretend that force is apolitical; it instead builds constitutional gates intended to ensure that force remains compatible with economic capacity and doctrinal coherence. The Commander General’s role on the Council of Kings makes this explicit: coercive capacity is treated as one of the three signatures without which executive power is incomplete.
This design also explains why War League victories can shift political balance. When campaigns demonstrate overwhelming military competence, the War League’s prestige can expand into policy influence, and rival pillars must work harder to preserve the perception of equilibrium at the apex. Bassaridian political writing often treats this not as a scandal but as a predictable structural tension: the system depends on balance, but the pillars are not equal in every historical moment.
The corporatist embedding of War League divisions in the Senate of Elders further entrenches this political reality. Military institutions participate directly in legislative review, ensuring that law is filtered through coercive feasibility as well as through representative and corporate interests. This can be presented as stability, but it can also produce controversy when critics argue that coercive institutions are reviewing the very laws that constrain them.
Crisis, reform, and the constitutional gate
Bassaridian constitutional narrative repeatedly ties reform to crisis. Public outrage after major abuses and breakdowns is described as the driver for the Bassaridian Constitution of 50.43 PSSC and the establishment of bicameral legislative mechanisms intended to increase accountability. Within this story, the War League is not abolished or subordinated into silence; it is made to pass through institutional gates, so that coercion becomes legible as law rather than as discretionary violence.
The enactment rule requiring unanimous Council assent is central to this logic. It frames the War League as both enforcer and veto-stakeholder: the military pillar can prevent policies it believes would break security posture, but it must also share responsibility for any policy that becomes binding law. In Bassaridian self-description, this is the mechanism that prevents the War League from becoming merely an unaccountable sword, because it binds coercion to shared executive liability.
At the same time, this structure can generate friction during prolonged campaigns or intense stabilisation periods. When emergencies stretch on, the War League’s operational tempo becomes a political argument: supporters treat constant deployments as proof that the state remains vigilant, while critics treat them as evidence that governance has become militarised. Bassaridian political practice tends to manage this tension through the language of corridor necessity—arguing that the alternative to visible security is corridor collapse.
Corridor politics and the optics of order
Because sovereignty is narrated as corridor control, War League actions often have outsized symbolic weight. A checkpoint ring around the General Port, a convoy escort through a disputed corridor, or a rapid interdiction along the straits becomes a public demonstration that the state can still keep passage open. In this environment, security policy is also propaganda: visible competence is a stabilising ritual that reinforces public belief in the system.
This corridor optic also shapes how controversies are managed. When force is used to pacify dissent or suppress sectarian vandalism, the state tends to justify it in terms of preventing wider disruption to markets and provisioning. The War League is therefore frequently framed as the institution that absorbs violence early so that violence does not spread into the everyday life of the canal districts and investor networks.
Finally, corridor politics determines the War League’s relationship to external actors. Foreign powers may interpret Bassaridian interdictions and blockades as aggression, while Bassaridia frames them as defensive corridor maintenance. This interpretive conflict is structurally persistent because Bassaridia defines its security frontier by routes and networks rather than by borders, and the War League is tasked with enforcing that networked sovereignty in ways outsiders may not recognise as “normal.”
Reports and Deployment
Unit Numbers
This table presents a detailed accounting of the military forces and equipment allocated to each domestic Regional Investor operating under the command structure of the General Port of Lake Morovia. Each Regional Investor is responsible for using the forces acquired through port-based investment to ensure the defense of the city or cities they represent. These responsibilities are distributed across major divisions, including the Vaeringheim Division, the Alpazkigz Division, the Odiferia Division, the Haifa Division, the Jeseri Division, the Hatch Ministry Division, the New South Jangsong Division, the Haifan Bassaridia Division, and as of 61/2/51 PSSC, the Bassaridian Normark Division. Each division is composed of various cities or territories whose respective military contributions are shown in numerical detail, with figures reflecting both standing force levels and recent expansions.
At the national level, the Council of Kings Division serves as the central command structure for forces that are not tied to any individual region but instead serve the strategic interests of the entire nation. Established in late 51 PSSC, the Council of Kings Division draws upon foreign investments—most notably from ports such as Corumia and Euranidom—which, due to constitutional bans, are legally prohibited from importing weaponry directly from Bassaridia Vaeringheim. Consequently, the arms and equipment funded by these foreign entities are claimed and managed by the Council of Kings, which uses them to support Regional Investors as needed and to conduct foreign military campaigns. This ensures both legal compliance with export restrictions and strategic flexibility in the deployment of forces.
The body of the table enumerates total force and equipment levels across a range of categories. These include active and reserve personnel totals, as well as a full inventory of specific military hardware types. These range from small arms like the Kalithros Class Rifle and Chrysos Commando Rifle to heavy vehicles such as the Makra Class Battle Tank and Thalassa Class Main Battle Tank. Artillery systems, armored recovery vehicles, mobile command units, and advanced robotics like the Quadwalker series are also represented, alongside a robust fleet of naval and aerial assets including aircraft carriers, submarines, frigates, attack helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Each item is tabulated with a total quantity and its respective distribution across the divisions.
As shown, divisions such as Alpazkigz and Vaeringheim tend to receive the largest shares of advanced weaponry and personnel, reflecting their prominence and investment in port infrastructure. In contrast, smaller or more specialized divisions such as Jeseri or the Hatch Ministry often receive a more targeted allocation, reflecting unique operational mandates or territorial scope. Naval and aerospace assets are similarly distributed with a focus on coastal or high-value divisions.
The table remains a critical reference for understanding the defense structure of Bassaridia Vaeringheim and the strategic role of the General Port of Lake Morovia in sustaining national and regional security.
Unit Numbers (Activated 61/2/51 PSSC)
| Image | Unit | Total | Regional investors | Service divisions / national allocations | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vaeringheim Regional Investor | Alpazkigz Regional Investor | Odiferia Regional Investor | Hafaan Regional Investor | Jeseri Regional Investor | Hatch Ministry Regional Investor | New South Jangsong Division | Haifan Bassaridia Division | Bassaridian Normark | Council of Kings Division | |||
| Personnel & readiness | ||||||||||||
 |
Active Units | 249,984 | 25,868 | 20,847 | 25,045 | 1,749 | 1,011 | 7,248 | 10,189 | 15,383 | 8,355 | 134,289 |
 |
Reserve Units | 305,571 | 31,623 | 25,490 | 30,620 | 2,148 | 1,235 | 8,858 | 12,453 | 18,801 | 10,212 | 164,131 |
| Small arms & infantry weapons | ||||||||||||
 |
Kalithros Class Rifle | 169,837 | 17,563 | 14,156 | 17,006 | 1,192 | 688 | 4,931 | 6,916 | 10,466 | 5,684 | 91,234 |
 |
Delphica Class Grenadier Rifle | 44,520 | 4,604 | 3,711 | 4,458 | 312 | 180 | 1,293 | 1,813 | 2,744 | 1,490 | 23,915 |
 |
Chrysos Class Commando Rifle | 19,821 | 2,050 | 1,652 | 1,985 | 139 | 80 | 575 | 807 | 1,221 | 663 | 10,648 |
 |
Lothaya Class Sniper Rifle | 6,099 | 631 | 509 | 611 | 43 | 25 | 177 | 248 | 375 | 204 | 3,277 |
 |
Erythros Class Pistol | 28,540 | 2,952 | 2,379 | 2,858 | 200 | 116 | 828 | 1,162 | 1,758 | 955 | 15,332 |
 |
Bubalus XT Class Revolver | 150,285 | 15,541 | 12,526 | 15,049 | 1,055 | 609 | 4,363 | 6,120 | 9,261 | 5,030 | 80,731 |
 |
Cathartes Class RPG | 6,182 | 640 | 516 | 620 | 43 | 25 | 179 | 251 | 380 | 206 | 3,322 |
 |
Harpyia Class Submachine Gun | 22,349 | 2,312 | 1,863 | 2,238 | 157 | 91 | 649 | 910 | 1,377 | 748 | 12,006 |
 |
Strix Class Combat Shotgun | 35,555 | 3,677 | 2,964 | 3,561 | 249 | 144 | 1,032 | 1,448 | 2,190 | 1,190 | 19,100 |
 |
Regavis Class DMR | 43,178 | 4,465 | 3,599 | 4,323 | 303 | 175 | 1,254 | 1,759 | 2,661 | 1,445 | 23,195 |
| Armored vehicles & ground support | ||||||||||||
 |
Makra Class Battle Tank | 1,290 | 133 | 107 | 129 | 9 | 5 | 37 | 53 | 79 | 43 | 693 |
 |
Laya Class Heavy Tank | 444 | 46 | 37 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 18 | 27 | 15 | 239 |
 |
Arachne Class Light Tank | 1,560 | 162 | 130 | 157 | 11 | 6 | 45 | 63 | 95 | 52 | 838 |
 |
Thalassa Class Main Battle Tank | 765 | 80 | 64 | 77 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 30 | 46 | 25 | 412 |
 |
Syrinx Class Armored Infantry | 7,067 | 731 | 589 | 708 | 50 | 29 | 205 | 288 | 436 | 237 | 3,797 |
 |
Bijarian Command Vehicle | 115 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 62 |
 |
Onceanic Recon Vehicle | 495 | 52 | 42 | 50 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 20 | 30 | 16 | 266 |
 |
Ephyra Class Anti-Aircraft Vehicle | 218 | 23 | 19 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 13 | 7 | 118 |
 |
Ampelos Class Armored Recovery Vehicle | 495 | 52 | 42 | 50 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 20 | 30 | 16 | 266 |
 |
Penthia Class Bridge-Laying Vehicle | 146 | 16 | 13 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 79 |
 |
Ampelos Class Rail-Laying Engineering Vehicle | 301 | 32 | 26 | 31 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 12 | 17 | 9 | 163 |
 |
Corythia Class Dedicated Logistics and Transport Truck | 301 | 32 | 26 | 31 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 12 | 17 | 9 | 163 |
 |
Icaria Class Mine-Clearing / Combat Engineering Vehicle | 134 | 14 | 11 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 72 |
| Artillery, mortars & coastal fires | ||||||||||||
 |
Aithra Class Howitzer | 321 | 34 | 27 | 33 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 13 | 19 | 10 | 173 |
 |
Aetheris Class Towed Howitzer | 941 | 98 | 79 | 95 | 7 | 4 | 27 | 38 | 57 | 31 | 506 |
 |
Iynas Class Field Gun | 753 | 78 | 63 | 76 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 30 | 46 | 25 | 405 |
 |
300mm Secutor Class Coastal Gun | 516 | 53 | 43 | 52 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 21 | 32 | 17 | 277 |
 |
155mm Halicarn Class Self-Propelled Howitzer | 373 | 39 | 32 | 38 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 22 | 12 | 201 |
 |
120mm Odiferian Class Mortar Carrier | 218 | 23 | 19 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 13 | 7 | 118 |
| Autonomous systems, prototypes & fixed defenses | ||||||||||||
 |
Quadwalker “Horehound” 4170 | 495 | 52 | 42 | 50 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 20 | 30 | 16 | 266 |
 |
Quadwalker “Dungbeetle” 4172 | 361 | 37 | 30 | 36 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 22 | 12 | 194 |
 |
Quadwalker “Killbot” 4200 | 734 | 76 | 62 | 74 | 5 | 3 | 21 | 29 | 45 | 24 | 395 |
 |
Quadwalker “Oble-Lisea” 4189 | 528 | 55 | 44 | 53 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 21 | 32 | 17 | 284 |
 |
Nexa Class Advanced Prototype | 1,095 | 114 | 92 | 110 | 8 | 4 | 31 | 44 | 67 | 36 | 589 |
 |
Gargani Class Quadwalker | 683 | 71 | 57 | 69 | 5 | 3 | 19 | 27 | 41 | 22 | 367 |
 |
Abeis Class Advanced Air Defense System (Mobile Laser) | 146 | 16 | 13 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 79 |
 |
Abeis Class Static Emplacement (Fixed Laser) | 95 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
 |
Fenruvian THAAD System Facility | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
 |
Delphis Class Coastal Surveillance Tower | 28 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
 |
Anguilla Class Coastal Missile Battery | 373 | 39 | 32 | 38 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 22 | 12 | 201 |
 |
Model V-99 Thunderguard Citadel Train | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
| Naval forces & maritime platforms | ||||||||||||
 |
Abeis-Erigone Class Littoral Orbital & Missile Intercept Catamaran | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
 |
Abeis-Empress Class Littoral Battlecruiser | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Abeis-Aetherion Class Multidomain Hover-Corvette (active 1/2/52 PSSC) |
4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
 |
Kalithros-Class Amphibious Airstrip Barge | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
 |
Aiji Class Air-Caravan | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Sideron Class Coastal Battlecruiser | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Eidolon Class Cruiser | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Acheron Class Submersible Destroyer | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
 |
Xylanda Class Attack Submarine | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Bijarian Ballistic Missile Submarine | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
 |
Vaeringheim Class Corvette | 83 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 45 |
 |
Sylvapolis Class Frigate | 43 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 24 |
 |
Atterian Class Combat Ship | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
 |
Aetherium Class Patrol Ship | 95 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
 |
Velkara Class Littoral Landing Ship | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Saluria Class Gunboat | 43 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 24 |
 |
Cetus Class Attack Craft | 64 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 35 |
 |
Tartarian Amphibious Assault Craft | 83 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 45 |
 |
Ismael Class Privateer Commission | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
Odobenus Class Minelayer | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Cetomagna Class Minehunter | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
| Mobile platforms, UAVs & aviation | ||||||||||||
 |
Abeis-Bulhanu Class High-Speed Skirmisher (Hoverbike) | 1,290 | 133 | 107 | 129 | 9 | 5 | 37 | 53 | 79 | 43 | 693 |
 |
Abeis-Bulhanu Khamsin-Class Desert Skirmisher | 1,063 | 110 | 89 | 107 | 7 | 4 | 31 | 43 | 65 | 35 | 571 |
 |
Abeis-Bulhanu Virelia-Class Urban Pacifier | 671 | 69 | 56 | 67 | 5 | 3 | 19 | 27 | 41 | 22 | 360 |
 |
Abeis-Bulhanu Hrimthurs-Class Arctic Hoverbike | 805 | 84 | 67 | 81 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 33 | 49 | 27 | 433 |
 |
Abeis-Ismael Class “Cathartes” Littoral Hoverbike | 857 | 89 | 72 | 86 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 35 | 52 | 28 | 460 |
 |
Abeis-Empress Class “Strix-E” Swarm-Interdictor Littoral Hoverbike | 683 | 71 | 57 | 69 | 5 | 3 | 19 | 27 | 41 | 22 | 367 |
 |
Abeis-Minerva Class Combat Littoral Strike Aircraft | 83 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 45 |
 |
Abeis-Boreas Littoral Dominance Helicopter | 134 | 14 | 11 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 72 |
 |
Aithra Class Proximity Aircraft | 146 | 16 | 13 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 79 |
 |
Symphonara Class Compound Intercept | 83 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 45 |
 |
Thalassa Class Attack Helicopter | 198 | 21 | 17 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 107 |
 |
Catonis Class Unmanned Aircraft (UAV) | 95 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
 |
Lotos Class Tactical UAV | 167 | 18 | 14 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 90 |
 |
Aurantius Class Multi-Role UAV | 167 | 18 | 14 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 90 |
 |
Chrysos Class Sea Bomber | 218 | 23 | 19 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 13 | 7 | 118 |
 |
Misttalon Class Heavy Bomber | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Orphali Class Tanker Aircraft | 64 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 35 |
 |
Ventiflor Eye Class AEW&C Aircraft | 31 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 |
 |
Fluxus Class Maritime Patrol Aircraft | 95 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
 |
Hostica Class Maritime Patrol Aircraft | 95 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
 |
Nefelian Transport Plane | 115 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 62 |
 |
Noctiluna Class Medium Transport Helicopter | 134 | 14 | 11 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 72 |
 |
Umbraclaw Class Heavy Transport Helicopter | 115 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 62 |
Organizational Breakdown- Ground Forces
| Organizational Level | Composition (Subunits per Parent) | Division Breakdown (Units / Personnel) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpazkigz Division | Odiferia Division | Vaeringheim Division | Haifa Division | Jeseri Division | Hatch Ministry Division | New South Jangsong Division | Haifan Bassaridia Division | Bassaridian Normark Division | Council of Kings Division | ||
| Division Totals | 1 Division | 1 unit (20,847 active / 25,480 reserve) |
1 unit (25,045 active / 30,610 reserve) |
1 unit (25,865 active / 31,613 reserve) |
1 unit (1,749 active / 2,138 reserve) |
1 unit (1,011 active / 1,235 reserve) |
1 unit (7,248 active / 8,858 reserve) |
1 unit (10,189 active / 12,453 reserve) |
1 unit (15,383 active / 18,801 reserve) |
1 unit (8,355 active / 10,212 reserve) |
1 unit (134,289 active / 164,131 reserve) |
| Cohortes | 1 Division = Varies | ~14 Cohortes (1,489 active / 1,820 reserve) |
~17 Cohortes (1,473 active / 1,801 reserve) |
~18 Cohortes (1,437 active / 1,756 reserve) |
~1 Cohors (175 active / 213 reserve) |
~1 Cohors (101 active / 124 reserve) |
~7 Cohortes (1,035 active / 1,265 reserve) |
~10 Cohortes (1,456 active / 1,782 reserve) |
~15 Cohortes (2,307 active / 2,850 reserve) |
~4 Cohortes (2,089 active / 2,553 reserve) |
~90 Cohortes (1,492 active / 1,824 reserve) |
| Centuriae | 1 Cohors = 4 Centuriae | 56 Centuriae (372 active / 455 reserve) |
68 Centuriae (368 active / 451 reserve) |
72 Centuriae (359 active / 439 reserve) |
4 Centuriae (44 active / 54 reserve) |
4 Centuriae (25 active / 31 reserve) |
28 Centuriae (259 active / 323 reserve) |
40 Centuriae (365 active / 446 reserve) |
60 Centuriae (578 active / 713 reserve) |
16 Centuriae (522 active / 638 reserve) |
360 Centuriae (373 active / 456 reserve) |
| Manipuli | 1 Centuria = 5 Manipuli | 280 Manipuli (74 active / 91 reserve) |
340 Manipuli (74 active / 90 reserve) |
360 Manipuli (72 active / 88 reserve) |
20 Manipuli (9 active / 11 reserve) |
20 Manipuli (6 active / 7 reserve) |
140 Manipuli (52 active / 65 reserve) |
200 Manipuli (73 active / 89 reserve) |
300 Manipuli (116 active / 143 reserve) |
80 Manipuli (104 active / 128 reserve) |
1,343 Manipuli (100 active / 122 reserve) |
| Ordinis | 1 Manipulus = 3 Ordinis | 840 Ordinis (24 active / 30 reserve) |
1,020 Ordinis (24 active / 30 reserve) |
1,080 Ordinis (22 active / 27 reserve) |
60 Ordinis (3 active / 4 reserve) |
60 Ordinis (3 active / 3 reserve) |
420 Ordinis (19 active / 23 reserve) |
600 Ordinis (27 active / 33 reserve) |
900 Ordinis (43 active / 53 reserve) |
240 Ordinis (35 active / 43 reserve) |
4,069 Ordinis (33 active / 41 reserve) |
| Contubernia | 1 Ordo = 2 Contubernia | 1,680 Contubernia (12 active / 15 reserve) |
2,040 Contubernia (12 active / 15 reserve) |
2,160 Contubernia (11 active / 14 reserve) |
120 Contubernia (2 active / 3 reserve) |
120 Contubernia (1 active / 2 reserve) |
840 Contubernia (9 active / 11 reserve) |
1,200 Contubernia (13 active / 16 reserve) |
1,800 Contubernia (21 active / 27 reserve) |
480 Contubernia (17 active / 21 reserve) |
7,899 Contubernia (16 active / 20 reserve) |
| Turmae | 1 Contubernium = 2 Turmae | 3,360 Turmae (6 active / 8 reserve) |
4,080 Turmae (6 active / 8 reserve) |
4,320 Turmae (6 active / 7 reserve) |
240 Turmae (1 active / 2 reserve) |
240 Turmae (1 active / 1 reserve) |
1,680 Turmae (5 active / 6 reserve) |
2,400 Turmae (6 active / 8 reserve) |
3,600 Turmae (11 active / 13 reserve) |
960 Turmae (9 active / 11 reserve) |
16,786 Turmae (8 active / 10 reserve) |
| Organizational Level | Composition | Division Breakdown | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpazkigz Division | Odiferia Division | Vaeringheim Division | Haifa Division | Jeseri Division | Hatch Ministry Division | New South Jangsong Division | Haifan Bassaridia Division | ||
| Ordu (Task Group) | 1 Ordu = 2 Tabur-i Derya (≈12 ships) | 5 Ordus (59 ships) |
5 Ordus (53 ships) |
4 Ordus (43 ships) |
— | — | 6 Ordus (63 ships) |
2 Ordus (14 ships) |
4 Ordus (42 ships) |
| Tabur-i Derya (Task Unit) | 1 Tabur = 3 Birlik-i Gemi (≈6 ships) | 10 Tabur (59 ships) |
9 Tabur (53 ships) |
8 Tabur (43 ships) |
— | — | 11 Tabur (63 ships) |
3 Tabur (14 ships) |
7 Tabur (42 ships) |
| Birlik-i Gemi (Patrol Element) | 1 Birlik = 2 ships | 30 Birlik (59 ships) |
27 Birlik (53 ships) |
22 Birlik (43 ships) |
— | — | 32 Birlik (63 ships) |
7 Birlik (14 ships) |
21 Birlik (42 ships) |
Organizational Breakdown – Air Forces
| Organizational Level | Composition (Sub-units / Aircraft per Parent) | Division Breakdown (Units / Aircraft) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpazkigz Division | Odiferia Division | Vaeringheim Division | Haifa Division | Jeseri Division | Hatch Ministry Division | New South Jangsong Division | Haifan Bassaridia Division | ||
| Division Totals | 1 Division | 1 unit (202 a/c) |
1 unit (169 a/c) |
1 unit (147 a/c) |
1 unit (9 a/c) |
1 unit (1 a/c) |
1 unit (49 a/c) |
1 unit (69 a/c) |
1 unit (142 a/c) |
| Moira (Squadron) |
1 Moira = 3 Ptiseis ≈ 12 a/c | 17 Moirai (202 a/c) |
15 Moirai (169 a/c) |
13 Moirai (147 a/c) |
1 Moira (9 a/c) |
1 Moira (1 a/c) |
5 Moirai (49 a/c) |
6 Moirai (69 a/c) |
12 Moirai (142 a/c) |
| Ptisis (Flight) |
1 Ptisis = 2 Zeygi ≈ 4 a/c | 51 Ptiseis (202 a/c) |
43 Ptiseis (169 a/c) |
37 Ptiseis (147 a/c) |
3 Ptiseis (9 a/c) |
1 Ptisis (1 a/c) |
13 Ptiseis (49 a/c) |
18 Ptiseis (69 a/c) |
36 Ptiseis (142 a/c) |
| Zeygi (Element) |
1 Zeygi = 2 aircraft | 101 Zeygi (202 a/c) |
85 Zeygi (169 a/c) |
74 Zeygi (147 a/c) |
5 Zeygi (9 a/c) |
1 Zeygi (1 a/c) |
25 Zeygi (49 a/c) |
35 Zeygi (69 a/c) |
71 Zeygi (142 a/c) |
