Thanks De-Legro for continuing to argue my historical point - I don't think anyone ever said communication was perfect. Battles were definitely messy. BM doesn't actually detail the specifics in battle much, but it often hints at imperfect and inexact scenarios. Panicked flight, winds, and abandoning fortifications are some indicators. Leadership skill also plays into this, often determining if those men will stay and fight or not...
If Herman trusted his leader enough, you bet he'd leave the battlefield on the retreat signal as soon as he could. No, he's not going to just drop everything and go home that instant, effectively committing suicide; he'd get out of danger (or die) and then withdraw. BM doesn't really go into these specifics (except when Unit K is cut down as they flee).
Also, nobody said anything about completely safe from combat. 30 feet is not far. You could definitely hear a horn or some such, and you'd definitely be in bow range. A quick Google search shows an English longbow had a range between 180-249 yards (165-228m). (Remembering, of course, that "reliable hit range" was largely irrelevant since archers were used more like artillery, firing for effect into a cluster of enemies.) Horsemen could easily close such a gap as well. Infantry's really the only part where the argument breaks down, but I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that there are certain events where a noble would get caught up involuntarily in an infantry line as well. (Besides, it's not exceedingly often nobles get wounded even when their unit loses. If your unit gets decimated like the chaff they were, how do you explain your ability to be completely overlooked by your enemy?)
Now, in truth, this is all somewhat beside the point that we've finally gone back to. I'm on the same page as Chenier that in terms of gameplay, the academy should be a peacetime, mostly inefficient way to gain combat skills. It's true that a melee is a different scenario than a one-on-one duel, but I'm sure some aspects are applicable.
I wonder if a wiser option is to increase the likelihood of a skill gain from an actual duel (not sure if that likelihood is actually 0% right now) and do something to promote cross-realm duels after battles, etc. Something like a battle for honor after a loss or as a response to an insult made via letters afterward. (Since duel rings are already illegal, I don't think organized stat-increase groups will become an issue.)
I also want to state a little of my bias regarding this whole argument in a straightforward way: I don't want Heroes to become marginalized and lose some of their uniqueness. It's a special ability that they add to their unit because they've chosen to be a paragon to both noble and peasant, standing among their soldiers to fight for what they believe. It gives meaning to the word "Hero". (The counterpoint being that the word "Warrior" should imply active fighting, too, but I also don't think we should be called warriors unless we can say without a doubt that we do fight directly... After all, Courtiers have units, too.)
