Dietrich, I have given some thought to the question of the "leadership" of this Council. Given it's "democratic" mandate, it is not obvious what this means. However, I can see at least three different roles:

Battlefield Commander: only one man can command any given battle.

Imperial liason: this person will be responsible for liasing with the Chancellor over the day to day operation of the crusade - its movement etc

Chair of the Council: this person will steer discussion in the Council and identify its will.

There is no reason why one man should hold all three offices, although there is an obvious advantage in combining roles (2) and (3) in the same person.

At the moment, it is clear that Maximillan should be Imperial liason - he is already Chancellor, so let us cut out the middle man! Likewise if one of us is elected Chancellor in future, he should also be Imperial liason.

As to the Chair of the Council, I believe my experience and station as Prinz makes me most suitable for that task. However, I am happy to hand the post over to Maximillan for the remainder of his term as Chancellor if he believes it would make things run more smoothly.

That leaves the post of Battlefield Commander. I have proposed that we adopt a principle of a rotating command so that the battles are shared out amongst us equally. We are all capable commanders and it would seem invidious to deny each other the chance of glory. I quite happy to have the order of rotation determined by age, in deference to Dietrich.

So, let me pose the following questions to the Council:

(1) Are you happy for me to Chair this Council?

(2) Are you happy for Maximillan to be Imperial Liason for the remainder of his term in office?

(3) Are you happy to adopt a principle of rotating battlefield command, with the order determined by age?

If no one objects, I will take silence to mean consent. But I anticipate (3) in particular may be controversial so I welcome refinements, objections and counter-proposals.