@Karl7:
But weren’t all mongol warriors front line fighters? Did they have “staff officers?” Interesting historical questions…
It is indeed an interesting historical question, and one that was actually addressed in something I once read (if I remember correctly, it was Gwynne Dyer’s book War). The author noted that there was an important difference between agrarian civilizations (like the Roman Empire) and pastoral/nomadic civilizations (like the Mongols) in terms of their military capabilities. Agrarian civilizations can only devote a small percentage of their labour force to military activities, and more specifically to full-time professional armies; Rome, even at its height, only had about 10% of its adult male population under arms, many of the rest being occupied in farming, and the remainder being in commerce (including food importation and sale), crafts, trades and administration. Nomads, by contrast, tend not to have standing armies in the conventional sense…but by the same token they have no fixed agricultural land to cultivate and to defend, and fewer of the economic and administrative burdens that are required to keep an urban civilization functioning. Therefore, when the need arises, nomads can put almost 100% of their adult male population into combat, and thus technically have the capacity to fight an agrarian state ten times larger than themselves. So in that respect: no, barbarian chieftains wouldn’t make much (if any) use of staff officers in the conventional sense.