Irregular Warfare for Fantasy Writers

[Aldarion]

Irregular Warfare for Fantasy Writers

Much of the fantasy, especially High Fantasy, is written about essentially medieval warfare, or at least has major aspects of it. This is obvious from the beginning: the work that codified modern h…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Much of the fantasy, especially High Fantasy, is written about essentially medieval warfare, or at least has major aspects of it. This is obvious from the beginning: the work that codified modern high fantasy, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, is basically a book about war. And in this, irregular warfare plays a major part in the events, with Faramir’s rangers being the most obvious example. But while Gondor is based largely on Byzantine Empire (1, 2), many other states in fantasy are (purpoted to be) based on the feudal Europe.

And in feudal Europe, what we today consider “irregular warfare” was in fact the norm. Symmetrical warfare – field battles – was very much an exception rather than rule, and when battles did happen, they were usually a result of a raiding force being intercepted or – more rarely – a relief army attacking a besieging force.

 

[Rexenm]

It is an innocent take, but fantasy is basically puerile. I read series that are mostly fantasy, though these days I read classics. They don’t have a sword or a shield, but are still fascinating to me. Fantasy is what I know, and have known, and is still what I write, but it seems to me, that it takes a steady hand to write fantasy, and a loose one to read it. Have you any opinion on why there are remakes of movies, but no retelling of books?

 

[skip.knox]

Yes, this. Froissart can be a difficult read, but he relates all sorts of interesting encounters. One of my favorites is King Edward campaigning in Scotland. He has a hard time finding the Scottish army and has to resort to asking the locals in every village if they've, er, seen, you know, any, um, Scots?

When he finally does run into them, it's almost literal. Coming over a hill and there they are. I can cite similar examples from the Crusades. My favorite there ... well, I have lots, but here's one. The Crusaders are encamped. The enemy turns up. King Louis is having a council of war in his tent. At word of the enemy this one guy, already in armor, runs out, leaps onto his horse, charges out of camp. Whereupon the horse trips, throws the rider, who is promptly killed. The original Leroy Jenkins.

 

[Mad Swede]

OK. Where to begin.

Symmetric warfare is not, repeat not, about field battles. The definition of symmetric warfare, as used by professional soldiers and those who conduct war studies professionally, is warfare between two parties who use similar tactics, have similar military power and have similar resources. If we use that modern definition of symmetric warfare then almost all medieval warfare is symmetrical.

Medieval warfare is usually not irregular warfare, and that is because most medieval warfare used what were then conventional tactics and military formations raised by a legitimate lord. As such the military formations used are by modern definition regular units even if they are untrained.

 

[Aldarion]

Symmetric warfare is not, repeat not, about field battles. The definition of symmetric warfare, as used by professional soldiers and those who conduct war studies professionally, is warfare between two parties who use similar tactics, have similar military power and have similar resources. If we use that modern definition of symmetric warfare then almost all medieval warfare is symmetrical.

This is the definition I am using:

https://hrvatski-vojnik.hr/asimetricne-opasnosti-novog-vremena/

“akcija koju izvodi država ili nedržavna skupina (prijateljska ili neprijateljska), kako bi nadmudrili ili poništili snagu protivnika te iskoristili očite slabosti tijekom eksploatacije različitih vrijednosti, strategija, organizacija i sposobnosti”
"action used by state or non-state group (friendly or hostile) to overcome or neutralize the strength of the enemy, and utilize obvious weaknesses through exploitation of different values, strategies, organizations and capabilities".

And by that definition:
- Arab-Byzantine wars between conquest of Levant in 7th century and Byzantine resurgence in 10th century was quite clearly asymmetrical
- Ottoman-Hungarian wars were asymmetrical (professional army backed by raiders against a feudal army backed by a small core professional army)
- Hundred Years War was asymmetrical (English had strength in longbowmen, French in heavy cavalry and later artillery)

Even in terms of organization and tactics, English armies differed significantly from those of France, and these differed significantly from those of Italy or Hungary, for example. And even those armies that did not differ in organization and military culture still tended to differ in tactics, military power and resources. So by that definition, in fact, nearly all medieval warfare was asymmetrical, even when looking strictly at Europe.

Avoiding field battles is however the most obvious symptom of asymmetric warfare.

 

[skip.knox]

Just because I happen to be giving a presentation next month touching on this, I also think of the chronic warfare on the borderlands between Christian principalities and Germanic and then Slavic tribal peoples, from the long wars between Franks and Saxons, right through the Baltic wars and the expeditions into Lithuania. All those encounters strike me as asymmetric, though the term itself doesn't feel especially useful except for historians who like to put things into boxes. <g>

And also because of that presentation, I'm aware of chronic piracy in the Baltic, which makesme wonder if symmetry is at all useful a concept for naval warfare. In certain areas, naval actions were at least as important as land.

Anyway, regular and irregular, symmetrical and not so much, glosses over the ad hoc nature of most of the campaigns with which I'm familiar. When the leaders couldn't know how many men they would have, how they would be equipped, where the enemy was (if they were in the field), where supplies might be found, whether that river could be crossed, and so on, it all had a bit of the irregular about it. And that leaves aside the raiding engaged in right across the continent and across the centuries.

I do appreciate the nod to fantasy writers. I'm an advocate of using history to spark ideas rather than using it as the Yardstick of Correct Practices. And looking at the specifics of actual military engagements is a great example.

 

[Mad Swede]

Just because I happen to be giving a presentation next month touching on this, I also think of the chronic warfare on the borderlands between Christian principalities and Germanic and then Slavic tribal peoples, from the long wars between Franks and Saxons, right through the Baltic wars and the expeditions into Lithuania. All those encounters strike me as asymmetric, though the term itself doesn't feel especially useful except for historians who like to put things into boxes. <g>

And also because of that presentation, I'm aware of chronic piracy in the Baltic, which makesme wonder if symmetry is at all useful a concept for naval warfare. In certain areas, naval actions were at least as important as land.

Anyway, regular and irregular, symmetrical and not so much, glosses over the ad hoc nature of most of the campaigns with which I'm familiar. When the leaders couldn't know how many men they would have, how they would be equipped, where the enemy was (if they were in the field), where supplies might be found, whether that river could be crossed, and so on, it all had a bit of the irregular about it. And that leaves aside the raiding engaged in right across the continent and across the centuries.

I do appreciate the nod to fantasy writers. I'm an advocate of using history to spark ideas rather than using it as the Yardstick of Correct Practices. And looking at the specifics of actual military engagements is a great example.

Let me put it this way. Those of us with advanced degrees in War Studies are well aware that the definitions of symmetric and assymetric warfare, like the definitions of regular and irregular warfare, are modern. And by modern I mean post-1960. Few of us would consider using those terms to analyse medieval warfare, although you could try to apply the terms to that sort of warfare.

 

[Mad Swede]

This is the definition I am using:

https://hrvatski-vojnik.hr/asimetricne-opasnosti-novog-vremena/

“akcija koju izvodi država ili nedržavna skupina (prijateljska ili neprijateljska), kako bi nadmudrili ili poništili snagu protivnika te iskoristili očite slabosti tijekom eksploatacije različitih vrijednosti, strategija, organizacija i sposobnosti”
"action used by state or non-state group (friendly or hostile) to overcome or neutralize the strength of the enemy, and utilize obvious weaknesses through exploitation of different values, strategies, organizations and capabilities".

And by that definition:
- Arab-Byzantine wars between conquest of Levant in 7th century and Byzantine resurgence in 10th century was quite clearly asymmetrical
- Ottoman-Hungarian wars were asymmetrical (professional army backed by raiders against a feudal army backed by a small core professional army)
- Hundred Years War was asymmetrical (English had strength in longbowmen, French in heavy cavalry and later artillery)

Even in terms of organization and tactics, English armies differed significantly from those of France, and these differed significantly from those of Italy or Hungary, for example. And even those armies that did not differ in organization and military culture still tended to differ in tactics, military power and resources. So by that definition, in fact, nearly all medieval warfare was asymmetrical, even when looking strictly at Europe.

Avoiding field battles is however the most obvious symptom of asymmetric warfare.

Sorry? You're using a definition from a magazine as the basis for an article instead of looking up the academic publications on the subject?

 

[Gallio]

It is an innocent take, but fantasy is basically puerile. I read series that are mostly fantasy, though these days I read classics. They don’t have a sword or a shield, but are still fascinating to me. Fantasy is what I know, and have known, and is still what I write, but it seems to me, that it takes a steady hand to write fantasy, and a loose one to read it. Have you any opinion on why there are remakes of movies, but no retelling of books?

Interesting assertion and question. They deserve a thread of their own.

 

[Rexenm]

I’ll post the thread verbatim.

 

[Aldarion]

Sorry? You're using a definition from a magazine as the basis for an article instead of looking up the academic publications on the subject?

That magazine is official Croatian Ministry of Defense publication. I figured it was good enough for government work.

 

[Gallio]

I’ll post the thread verbatim.

Please do!

 

[Mad Swede]

That magazine is official Croatian Ministry of Defense publication. I figured it was good enough for government work.

If I were you I'd read the official military doctrine. I'd also read books on strategy and military campaigns - John Keegan's books are a good place to start.

 

[Aldarion]

If I were you I'd read the official military doctrine. I'd also read books on strategy and military campaigns - John Keegan's books are a good place to start.

I doubt I would remember technical terms like these anyway. As for books on strategy and military campaigns, that is what I do in the free time - mostly Byzantine manuals. Still, Keegan does sound good.

 

[pmmg]

Irregular warfare means to me, warfare in a way unexpected by those who might more properly form armies and conduct campaigns.

If it was used in a fantasy novel to describe the war, I think I would get it, whether it was a proper use of the word or not.

Asymmetrical is similar. Its not a typical term I would expect in the language of earlier time periods. Sounds like snooty pentagon speak to me, but still means warfare not among equals.

While I do appreciate the effort Mr. Aldarion goes through to write and present (and stick his head up) for these articles, I am not rushing back to change any of the battles i have written because of them. Maybe if I wrote more historical fiction. But even though it is more a curiosity than a tool for me, I still think he's done a good job in creating the content for his page and for us. Keep up the good work.

 

[Aldarion]

While I do appreciate the effort Mr. Aldarion goes through to write and present (and stick his head up) for these articles, I am not rushing back to change any of the battles i have written because of them. Maybe if I wrote more historical fiction. But even though it is more a curiosity than a tool for me, I still think he's done a good job in creating the content for his page and for us. Keep up the good work.

I actually started writing these articles as, basically, keeping notes... Back when I first read Lord of the Rings at 11 years of age, I'd read the book and write down anything I found interesting, thoughts and theories I had. My memory is basically a lumber room... everything is there, somewhere, but that is no guarantee I will be able to find it when I need it! So I wrote it down instead.

And then I'd forget where I had written it down. Oh well. On the flip side though, my long-term memory is OK. I may not remember what I had for lunch yesterday (unless I've forgotten to wash the dishes) but I do remember what I had read in Muhammad and Charlemagne ten years ago, even though I hadn't touched the book since then.