# Loading a bow



## Fyle (Mar 9, 2015)

So, I used to write "He loaded an arrow." or "Had her bow loaded." etc...

Then I read a reviewer say, you don't actually load a bow. You load a gun or a crossbow. I kind of see "load" as putting in ammo and having the weapon ready to fire, so, technically it felt fine to me, but I am not sure because I trust the reviwer as he is a well know blogger (getting more famous everyday : Immerse or Die).

Thanks!


----------



## RedWell (Mar 9, 2015)

I would describe it as nocking an arrow. A writer could add details as they see fit. "With shaking hands she nocked a silver feathered arrow to her bow."


----------



## Fyle (Mar 9, 2015)

RedWell said:


> I would describe it as nocking an arrow. A writer could add details as they see fit. "With shaking hands she nocked a silver feathered arrow to her bow."



There are a few ways to describe it. I am fishing to see if "loaded" is considered wrong.

Thanks!


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 9, 2015)

Fyle said:


> There are a few ways to describe it. I am fishing to see if "loaded" is considered wrong.
> 
> Thanks!



Poking around, this is what I found.

When you look up the word load, one of the definitions is "To load a firearm."

When you look up what a firearm is, it's defined as follows. "a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder."

Bows don't use gunpowder, so....


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 9, 2015)

I was taught to "load" a bow before trying to loose an arrow... To hold the arrow on the string and have a finger around the arrow at the bow, but with not draw on the bow...
I will grant that I associate "load" with firearms, but if it was used in the context of to hold a bow ready for use, then I think it works.... Load.... Aim... Loose!


----------



## Mark (Mar 9, 2015)

Load feels like something you'd do with firearms or crossbows.


----------



## Tom (Mar 9, 2015)

"Load" is definitely not the word I'd use for a bow. Instead of describing the singular action of "loading" the bow, I usually describe it using the stages--nocking, which is fitting the arrow to the bow, drawing, and then shooting. "Firing" a bow is also not the proper term. You fire a gun; you shoot a bow.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 9, 2015)

Load might fit crossbows, but otherwise I would use some variation of "nocking".


----------



## Russ (Mar 9, 2015)

I have a great deal of experience with bows.  Have never used the term loading for that, or heard it used for that.  I don't think I have ever seen is used as a command in a manual or as a range command.

I would say "load" does not fit bows.


----------



## goldhawk (Mar 9, 2015)

CupofJoe said:


> I was taught to "load" a bow before trying to loose an arrow... To hold the arrow on the string and have a finger around the arrow at the bow, but with not draw on the bow...
> I will grant that I associate "load" with firearms, but if it was used in the context of to hold a bow ready for use, then I think it works.... Load.... Aim... Loose!



I have encountered: Nock, Draw, Loose.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 9, 2015)

I second nock draw loose.  The nock is carved into an arrow and it is part of the arrow's anatomy if you will.  I have youtube videos of me makign arrows if you want to see them, and this handy article about archery: Medieval Archery for Writers

the youtube links are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeU61WMs9Z0


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 9, 2015)

here's the rest cutting a nock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs71_xLbIX4


----------



## wordwalker (Mar 9, 2015)

"Nock, draw, loose!" is definitely the best-known phrasing for regular medieval and fantasy readers. And I second that a bow doesn't feel like it would be "loaded," but a crossbow might. (Or even a sling, fitting the stone into the pocket.)

In passing: it's interesting that the word "fire" caught on so fast and so completely the moment ranged weapons starting using torches and such to trigger them. No matter how far guns moved to self-contained explosions and such, we love using the f-word for a weapon. Because "nothing's cooler than fire."


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 9, 2015)

Part of that distinction may be in the very command itself.  I mean, as archers on a wall, would you have anyone shouting "loose!"?  I'm not sure, actually.  In target archery we do because it's a controlled environment where we listen to commands for safety and for timed shoots.  And "fire!" just sounds angry.

When would a person even say "nock, draw, loose" in real life?  The only instance I can think of would be a line of archers.  I'm not sure what it was like in battles but I'd imagine if anything, the command would simply be "loose" if one wanted all archers to fire at the same time.  Ha, see?  There I did it.  it's just the way we speak now, meaning one thing but saying another.  I recall someone took offense to my use of the word fire in the article too.  Meh, it's just how we talk, even if we know what we mean.  I agree in a historical context it wouldn't make much sense though.


----------



## Fyle (Mar 9, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> When would a person even say "nock, draw, loose" in real life?



Ya, good point. I mean in character speech, if someone says to another, "load that bow," who is to say that's not thier word of choice. Not like anyone would respond with, "load that bow? what do you mean?" I doubt anyone in real speech would correct the person and say "oh, you mean, nock that bow?"

Seems like "load that bow," is 100% understandable meaning wise. 

Of course, we generally are not talking about modern times, still a good point. In narration, I guess the rules can be a bit more strict.


----------



## Nimue (Mar 9, 2015)

I'd have to agree that "loading" a bow reads as incorrect for an ancient setting.  Arrows aren't "loaded" onto a bow the way that lead balls are loaded into a musket or stones are loaded into a sling--the bow doesn't have a weight of arrows on it.

I gotta say, dude, why do you post questions if you're not willing to change your writing based on the answers?


----------



## Tom (Mar 9, 2015)

Fyle said:


> Ya, good point. I mean in character speech, if someone says to another, "load that bow," who is to say that's not thier word of choice. Not like anyone would respond with, "load that bow? what do you mean?" I doubt anyone in real speech would correct the person and say "oh, you mean, nock that bow?"
> 
> Seems like "load that bow," is 100% understandable meaning wise.
> 
> Of course, we generally are not talking about modern times, still a good point. In narration, I guess the rules can be a bit more strict.



"Load" is a firearm term, coming from the way you have to load the bullet into the chamber. It makes no sense in a standard medieval fantasy world. 

Plus, even if your character uses it in everyday speech, archery-conscious readers are going to be twitching and wincing in pain. I actually put down a book once because the archers used terms such as "load", "fire", and "shoot" when talking about their bows. It drove me crazy.

Not only would it turn off archery sticklers, it would also make the author look like they didn't know what they were talking about, even if they used "load", etc, intentionally.


----------



## Malik (Mar 10, 2015)

"I didn't know the bow was loaded. I was cleaning it and it accidentally went off."

The only way you load a bow is to put it into a wagon along with all your other gear. "He loaded his pack, his quiver, his bow, and his trusty sidekick into the wagon."

If I was reading a book and the character "loaded his bow," I'd spend the rest of the book thinking that the author had no idea what he was talking about -- about anything, even if he was dead-nuts on with every other technical description. Immersion is a function of subject matter expertise. If you fake it, someone will know and for that reader, the magic is gone.


----------



## Fyle (Mar 10, 2015)

Nimue said:


> I gotta say, dude, why do you post questions if you're not willing to change your writing based on the answers?



I don't think I said I was unwilling to change my writing. And please don't refer to me as "dude." 

What I do is I ask a question and I like to let as many people answer it as possible. I than take those opinions and make a judgment call. I like to refer to it as fishing for an answer. Many times I know the answer and want to create a discussion, this keeps the forums lively and helps people learn how to give advice for future discussions. 

For example, if I post a question like this one and I get this:

2 people think it is "fine"
4 think it is "wrong"
1 person is "undecided"

I take that information and then make my decision after the thread has matured. Other people who are not involved, but reading can also use the responses as a sample size and come to a conclusion on their own. 

You have zero idea what I do with my writing and how I decide what to change based on forum opinions. These forums are for brainstorming and playing with ideas and gauging the value of opinions. Whilst this particular question has a more definitive answer than most, most questions about writing can be handled from different angles.

_For example, Tom Nimienai just answered, it looks like a good post, so I value it highly in the discussion. As people reading probably will._


----------



## Nimue (Mar 10, 2015)

The impression that I got from your reply to this thread and that one about ellipses, I think, was that both times you responded as though everyone in the thread had agreed with your initial opinion?  I'm glad to hear that's not what you're seeing, but it might give a better idea of your decision process if you at least acknowledged criticisms in your replies.  It's a little odd when people are giving detailed reasons why you shouldn't use a word, and your response is that it's "100% understandable meaning wise".

I don't mean to offend, though, and my original reply was poorly thought out.  It's certainly an interesting discussion--I've never thought so specifically about the usage of "load" and "fire" for weapons.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 10, 2015)

I have had a looks [probably not deep or wide enough] to find any historical references to how to use/prepare pre-gunpowder siege weapons...
Does anyone know the commands/orders given in the operation of engines as diverse as  Trebuchet or Ballista?
At home I have my copy of Vitruvius' _De Architectura_ but I think that is just about making them...


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 10, 2015)

Yeah, I just meant to say that no one would probably be calling out "nock, draw, loose" on either a battlefield or hunting...I mean, it's rather an action without words for a solitary hunter or a hunting party, or in a life-or-death situation.  An archer, trained and familiar with his weapon would call it "nocking" his arrow.  To further aid you in your quest for wording, I'll post a small sample of my thoughts as I shoot:

I pull an arrow from my belt and slide the nock against the string.  A couple quick twists with my right index and middle finger.  My ring finger is there to but my callouses speak loud enough that it does little work compared to the other two.  Forty yards and a small target.  I look down the arrow and adjust for distance by bringing my left knuckles up a touch.  I can feel the string in the nock and twist again, just a little so it feels tighter.  I loose the arrow.  Silent, it soars toward the hay bale.  Miss.  Yep, should have aimed higher.

Ha!  That's pretty much me encountering a stationary target at forty yards.  But I shoot a 25# bow and you have to aim really high or you miss with that poundage.  

You don't nock a bow, you nock an arrow.  The bow isn't the weapon unless you're using it as a staff to hit someone.  And that may wreck your bow.  Arrows are finicky, some being better fletched than others.  I have a few favorites and depending on the distance of the targets, I select heavier points or lighter ones.  Certain arrows I shoot have heavier points and those penetrate certain materials better but can get stuck in others and come off.  Nothing hurts like losing a few expensive points in an afternoon and not having enough to glue back on.  I'd rather lose a tournament than break my best arrows on metal target frames, lose bodkin points in thick styrofoam, or lose arrows in deep gorges where I can'f find or retrieve them.  When you make your own arrows, you learn quickly to take good care of them.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2015)

CupofJoe said:


> I have had a looks [probably not deep or wide enough] to find any historical references to how to use/prepare pre-gunpowder siege weapons...
> Does anyone know the commands/orders given in the operation of engines as diverse as  Trebuchet or Ballista?
> At home I have my copy of Vitruvius' _De Architectura_ but I think that is just about making them...



I can look later when I get home, but for that sort of thing I would always look first to De Re Militaria by Vegitius.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 10, 2015)

Russ said:


> I can look later when I get home, but for that sort of thing I would always look first to De Re Militaria by Vegitius.


Oh... That looks useful... thank you.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2015)

It is not just a good Roman source it is also a very good medieval one as it was a standard military text for the period.  Medieval military leaders were know to carry parts of it or summaries of it with them to the battle field as "crib notes."


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 10, 2015)

Not much changes...  
I know of several copies of Sun Tzu that have been to war...


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 10, 2015)

Why do we never see that in movies?  I mean, it's such a tactical thing, war, yet when we see it, we're led to believe brave soldiers line up and take a look at their enemy's formation, and generals shout orders out for all to hear, and then the charge.  Footmen clash, arrows fly.  Horses fall when their riders have been shot.  Everyone's screaming war cries.  There's plenty of distance between everyone so they can brazenly swing their swords for maximum arc and cleave.  The POV character will slay fifty foes while most soldiers die on first impact.  Oh man... I wish I knew more about actual battle.  This is why I do not write battles.  And if I do, I write from one POV and keep the view tight, immediate area only.

I'm going to remember that leaders talking tactics and consulting manuals happens and that war isn't something anyone's got experience with until they do.  And then it's a little real, quicker than they might have liked.  Thanks for talking about manuals.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> Why do we never see that in movies?  I mean, it's such a tactical thing, war, yet when we see it, we're led to believe brave soldiers line up and take a look at their enemy's formation, and generals shout orders out for all to hear, and then the charge.  Footmen clash, arrows fly.  Horses fall when their riders have been shot.  Everyone's screaming war cries.  There's plenty of distance between everyone so they can brazenly swing their swords for maximum arc and cleave.  The POV character will slay fifty foes while most soldiers die on first impact.  Oh man... I wish I knew more about actual battle.  This is why I do not write battles.  And if I do, I write from one POV and keep the view tight, immediate area only.
> 
> I'm going to remember that leaders talking tactics and consulting manuals happens and that war isn't something anyone's got experience with until they do.  And then it's a little real, quicker than they might have liked.  Thanks for talking about manuals.



If you want to understand how war really happens you have to read Keegan's the Face of Battle.  He is probably the top military historian of the last couple of generations and this book has revolutionized how historians approach military history...for the better!

There is also a journal of medieval military history that deals with these issues pretty well, called, oddly enough De Re Militaria...

De Re Militari Ã‚Â» The Society for Medieval Military History

Or if  you are really desperate you can always shoot me a note.  Battles really can be tricky to write.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 10, 2015)

Thanks Russ.  I'll keep that in mind.  I don't write battles because I'm a firm believer in sticking with what you know.  While I understand that can be an overwhelmingly limiting concept if taken to the extreme, I mean it simply as this:  If I want to write a character involved in a battle, I select a POV or a task that isn't um...watching the battle play out in intricacy from the tower.  Right?  My character may run powder kegs to gunners on a ship.  He may be an archer caught behind a cavalry.  He may be a werewolf fighting a weird monster summoned from beyond the realm, while his friends deal with the soldiers.  I steer clear of battles like Helm's Deep because I haven't a chance of writing it to any passable level.  

I think the few fights I've written have been brawls rather than battles, but that's okay.  They work for my stories so far.  I will however keep in mind that you're good at that sort of thing and if I ever need feedback on a scene or planning help (actually one comes to mind now, a siege on a fortified keep) I'll hit you up for some help.

Yep...that one keep scene is tricky.  May be why it sucks and I don't try to fix it.


----------



## goldhawk (Mar 10, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> Why do we never see that in movies?  I mean, it's such a tactical thing, war, yet when we see it, we're led to believe brave soldiers line up and take a look at their enemy's formation, and generals shout orders out for all to hear, and then the charge.  Footmen clash, arrows fly.  Horses fall when their riders have been shot.  Everyone's screaming war cries.  There's plenty of distance between everyone so they can brazenly swing their swords for maximum arc and cleave.  The POV character will slay fifty foes while most soldiers die on first impact.  Oh man... I wish I knew more about actual battle.  This is why I do not write battles.  And if I do, I write from one POV and keep the view tight, immediate area only.



That's Hollywood's version. The reason why Rome became an empire was because its soldiers did not break formation during battle. Since then, for most battles, the side that broke formation first, loses.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 10, 2015)

One of the best descriptions of battle I've ever read comes from Tolstoy, his account of the Battle of Borodino is brilliant. In particular, he's at pains to show how little commanders know about what is happening in the field during battle. Some of that is due to the use of very smoky firearms (Napoleonic Wars), but his central point is compelling. Yes, commanders issue orders, but that often has little to do with what happens in the field.

I second the recommendations on Keegan, Vegetius, and De Re Militarii (which was off-line for a long time but is back now). And one more, which is the work done by Steve Muhlberger on various aspects of late medieval chivalric combat. Oh, and Jim Bradbury's book on the medieval archer.

As for what was said on the actual battlefield, as with so much else medieval, we don't know. Nobody wrote down that sort of thing. For all we know, it was "ready, point, let go!" ... "do it again but faster!"


----------



## goldhawk (Mar 10, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> As for what was said on the actual battlefield, as with so much else medieval, we don't know. Nobody wrote down that sort of thing. For all we know, it was "ready, point, let go!" ... "do it again but faster!"



Actually, we do know. The same commands used in drill would be used on the battlefield. If not, there would be too much confusion. The difficulty lies in determine what commands were used. They could be different with every commander.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> Thanks Russ.  I'll keep that in mind.  I don't write battles because I'm a firm believer in sticking with what you know.  While I understand that can be an overwhelmingly limiting concept if taken to the extreme, I mean it simply as this:  If I want to write a character involved in a battle, I select a POV or a task that isn't um...watching the battle play out in intricacy from the tower.  Right?  My character may run powder kegs to gunners on a ship.  He may be an archer caught behind a cavalry.  He may be a werewolf fighting a weird monster summoned from beyond the realm, while his friends deal with the soldiers.  I steer clear of battles like Helm's Deep because I haven't a chance of writing it to any passable level.



I wish more people would think like you do. I read (and see) a lot of bad combat.

I also tend to write battles from the "worm's eye" view, as it is  much  more personal and I think that is what readers want, identification and immediacy.  If I am going to give the big picture I tend to do it in conversations of meetings either before or after the battle.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 10, 2015)

@ Russ EXACTLY!  I mean, why should I feel the need to write a battle from bird's eye view when my POV is a scared seventeen-year-old archer who's just seeing his first real combat?  His experiences are authentic, his view startlingly real to himself.  Now that I can write.  I've been in combat in that sense. 

 But I'll tell you what, when you're in a group of three or five in the woods, on muddy terrain, and you see two guys with swords in front of you, your leader says, "let's go," and you GO.  You know what your sword is doing.  You are watching out the corner of your eye for anyone flanking.  You are protecting the guy next to you's left arm.  That's as big as the "battle" is to you.  And that's how I write it.  On a few brief occasions (like when you kill those opponents and have a moment to catch your breath and look around) you may see more groups engaged and sometimes you can even yell a warning to your friends who are being flanked.  You may even have an opportunity to save them.  But when you're in a combat, the window is incredibly small and mostly the view you get to take in is the battlefield before you begin, and the battlefield once it's over.


----------



## Fyle (Mar 10, 2015)

Nimue said:


> It's a little odd when people are giving detailed reasons why you shouldn't use a word, and your response is that it's "100% understandable meaning wise".



All I meant was, if someone said to someone else in real life, "load the bow," most likely the other person would just do it and not question the language, no? 

So, in certain contexts, especially modern, seems like this would not be such a major writing offense. Say, in the Hunger Games for example, a futuristic setting where I don't think the characters are going to think so hard as to find the correct term for Katniss to string back an arrow and take a shot. If one of those militant type players yelled "load your bow," I don't think it would be out of charcter being who the character is, and the time period when bows are not the most common word used. A character like this, a less intelligent militant type may just use the word "load" for ease.

If Legolas said, "wait, let me load my bow, Sam!" it would seem out of place and awkward. It would be hard for the reader to understand why that term is used and for the character he is talking too. Bows are common in the times before technology and have less leeway in how they are described.

That's what I meant, if that makes more sense. I also thought, that's what Caged Maiden was getting at. Ya, the term 100% understandable is a bit lazy.

_But you see how a simple question creates a good thread of back and forth?_


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 11, 2015)

@goldhawk: how do we know? I'm keen for some references. I'm talking prior to the 17thc. Maybe we are crossing our centuries.


----------



## Ireth (Mar 11, 2015)

I dunno, "load the bow" reads/sounds really weird to me, and doesn't quite make sense. I much prefer "nock an arrow".

/2cents


----------



## Fyle (Mar 11, 2015)

Ireth said:


> I dunno, "load the bow" reads/sounds really weird to me, and doesn't quite make sense. I much prefer "nock an arrow".
> 
> /2cents



Ya, it's technically wrong. I never thought about it that hard before. In the setting which fits the theme of this forum, it should not be used. 

Can you load a quiver ?

Pretty long discussion for a quick question.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 11, 2015)

>Pretty long discussion for a quick question.

When people tell me they have a "quick question" I sometimes answer with "how do you know?"  I figure they were just *hoping* it would be quick.


----------



## Russ (Mar 11, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> @ Russ EXACTLY!  I mean, why should I feel the need to write a battle from bird's eye view when my POV is a scared seventeen-year-old archer who's just seeing his first real combat?  His experiences are authentic, his view startlingly real to himself.  Now that I can write.  I've been in combat in that sense.
> 
> But I'll tell you what, when you're in a group of three or five in the woods, on muddy terrain, and you see two guys with swords in front of you, your leader says, "let's go," and you GO.  You know what your sword is doing.  You are watching out the corner of your eye for anyone flanking.  You are protecting the guy next to you's left arm.  That's as big as the "battle" is to you.  And that's how I write it.  On a few brief occasions (like when you kill those opponents and have a moment to catch your breath and look around) you may see more groups engaged and sometimes you can even yell a warning to your friends who are being flanked.  You may even have an opportunity to save them.  But when you're in a combat, the window is incredibly small and mostly the view you get to take in is the battlefield before you begin, and the battlefield once it's over.



Well said.  Although if anyone would have a good view of a battle it could be the well placed archer.

And I can tell you from personal experience that the window can get much smaller depending on the helmet you are wearing.


----------



## Tom (Mar 11, 2015)

Fyle said:


> Can you load a quiver ?



Technically you can, but in a fantasy setting I think "stocking" or "filling" the quiver would sound better. 

Now this has me thinking of Edna St. Vincent Millay's "Make Bright the Arrows"..._Stock well the quiver/ With arrows bright:/ The bowman feared/ Need never fight._


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 12, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> Why do we never see that in movies?  I mean, it's such a tactical thing, war, yet when we see it, we're led to believe brave soldiers line up and take a look at their enemy's formation, and generals shout orders out for all to hear, and then the charge.



Simple answer, really. Writing tactical war is hard. Writing glamorized, archetypal-heroic war is easy. At least by comparison. One requires lots of research, the other not so much.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 12, 2015)

@ Russ  You're my hero.  Our conversation in the middle of this arrow-rainstorm feels a bit appropriate for the topic (that may be happening only in my head).  So, of course I agree with archers upon a battlement of some kind.  They would have a great view.  I was just saying that the combat I've personally been involved in is somewhat more limited.  Sure, we're re-enactors and no one really dies, but you know...you aren't out there trying to lay down your "life".  I mean, it's like a long walk to the resurrection point IF they allow one.   

I have a couple battle scenes in some of my books and I've worked really hard to draw from personal experiences.  As much as I keep my characters big and my scenarios small (meaning my character may be a tough warrior, but he's struggling with maybe feeling past his prime, or down and out for whatever reason, OR my character is green and not facing targets, but monsters who regenerate and the only way to kill them is a strategic shot that's near impossible), I always wonder whether I'm even connecting with the target, or putting them all in the hay bale.  I do my best, but can I compete with writers who are really passionate or interested in the making of war?

Do you write a lot of battle into your books?  I'm curious what a writer might do to find a happy balance between story and fighting.  See, I've never written what I'd call an epic battle.  I've planned a few.  I've glossed over a few in first drafts.  But it's a difficult thing for me because I almost can't picture it in my head.  The close up stuff is easy.  The bigger picture?  Near impossible for me.  Any advice would be helpful.  I have a situation (not written) where a character leads a group of mages and werewolves to a faraway keep.  Through occupied land, no less.  Oh, and she has with her a big freaking dragon who poisons the area around her.  HA!  So when this crazy group arrive at the keep, her husband's dwindling army are inside.  I wanted the bad guys to kinda see the dragon and run away or something, but I don't want it to be what I call a "bandaid fix" meaning I wrote myself into a corner with crazy shit and now need to slap a huge, dragon-shaped bandaid to fix it.  The dragon is there for her own reasons.  OMG, just talking about this plot makes me laugh, but I promise, it's good.  Or it is in my head...


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 13, 2015)

Well, I cheated. You could too.

I cheated by using the Battle of Adrianople. That set out the basic geography, tactics, etc. Then I added in the bits I needed to keep the focus on my characters. I didn't want or need to narrate the larger battle, the way the history books do. I just needed all that for context. Boundaries.

You could do the same. There are lots of well-narrated battles, from sieges to pitched battles to skirmishes. You could select from among those for the basic parameters.


----------



## Russ (Mar 13, 2015)

> @ Russ  You're my hero.



Now I am officially blushing.



> I do my best, but can I compete with writers who are really passionate or interested in the making of war?



Probably not, in the same way that I cannot compete with writers who write really strong and deep emotional scenes.  But I try not to think of writing as a competition.  I write the best I can, try to emphasize my strengths and improve on my weaknesses.  I try to produce the best product I can, not beat someone else's.  And I can let you in on a little publishing secret, it is not always the best writing that sells the most.  You don't have to write better combat than the combat junkies,  you just need to write the combat that your story needs.



> Do you write a lot of battle into your books?  I'm curious what a writer might do to find a happy balance between story and fighting.  See, I've never written what I'd call an epic battle.  I've planned a few.  I've glossed over a few in first drafts.  But it's a difficult thing for me because I almost can't picture it in my head.  The close up stuff is easy.  The bigger picture?  Near impossible for me.  Any advice would be helpful.  I have a situation (not written) where a character leads a group of mages and werewolves to a faraway keep.  Through occupied land, no less.  Oh, and she has with her a big freaking dragon who poisons the area around her.  HA!  So when this crazy group arrive at the keep, her husband's dwindling army are inside.  I wanted the bad guys to kinda see the dragon and run away or something, but I don't want it to be what I call a "bandaid fix" meaning I wrote myself into a corner with crazy shit and now need to slap a huge, dragon-shaped bandaid to fix it.  The dragon is there for her own reasons.  OMG, just talking about this plot makes me laugh, but I promise, it's good.  Or it is in my head...



I do write a fair amount of small scale combat and larger battles.  The quartet I am writing is really about two wars, a civil war and a war against an external opponent.  So it needs a lot of combat, small scale and large.  Some of the combat happens "off screen", in that the characters hear a certain city fell after a seige, but we never actually see it happen. I think the first book will have two pitched "set peice" battles which I think is plenty.  They also need to be different so the reader does not get bored and just gloss over it.

I agree with skip.knox that you can learn from and use the bare bones from historical battles.  There are tons of them to look at and lots of good descriptions of them in used books, or on the internet.  Those "20 most important battles in history" type books are a good primer.  History is full of tales of people making their way "behind enemy lines" in all periods.  Unfortunately they did not have many mages or dragons with them which is where your creativity comes into play.

And people have been "running away" for thousands of years.  There is no reason that it cannot be credible in your work.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 13, 2015)

I'll have to skim the internet for battle examples, then.  In my mind, I just can't imagine what to do in the actual scene itself.  You know, those seemingly small details that set a great writer above a good writer who planned a good scene?  I have to admit, I'm afraid to write the planned battle, so I've set the book aside for a short time (3 years) while I work on other things.  
But now I've come to the closing scenes of my WiP and I have another battle, though this one is much more like a large street skirmish, which I'm more secure writing.  It's actually an assassination attempt my MCs are going to foil.  But I need to get the statistics in my head before writing (something I almost never do) for the sake of consistency.  The target will have bodyguards, the city guards, and the elite religious guards will be on hand...by the dozen.  It'll take a good bit of plotting on my part to outwit that many soldiers with five characters.  Hope I can pull it off in a convincing way.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 13, 2015)

Caged Maiden said:


> I'm curious what a writer might do to find a happy balance between story and fighting.  See, I've never written what I'd call an epic battle.  I've planned a few.  I've glossed over a few in first drafts.  But it's a difficult thing for me because I almost can't picture it in my head.  The close up stuff is easy.  The bigger picture?  Near impossible for me.  Any advice would be helpful.



I have a suggestion. It borders on the audaciously ridiculous, but I'm being earnest. You're a gamer, yes? Have you considered using a war/strategy game as a sort of battle simulator to help you figure out how some of these fights would go down? My top suggestion would be something from the Total War series, particularly Shogun 2. Granted, this idea has some drawbacks, the biggest being not being able to perfectly simulate the terrain, tactics, and weaponry at play in your story because you're somewhat restricted by the game's campaign. But I do think playing a game like this, especially Total War with it's real-time strategy elements, attention to historical detail, and great animations for combats between not only units but individual soldiers, would be great for helping you get into the mental groove of how a battle works. It might give you some perspective on the matter. I haven't played Total War to any great extent myself (yet), but what I've seen of Shogun 2 is awesome and it looks like the closest thing you can possibly get outside of actually becoming a military officer. Could be helpful.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 13, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I have a suggestion. It borders on the audaciously ridiculous, but I'm being earnest. You're a gamer, yes? Have you considered using a war/strategy game as a sort of battle simulator to help you figure out how some of these fights would go down? My top suggestion would be something from the Total War series, particularly Shogun 2. Granted, this idea has some drawbacks, the biggest being not being able to perfectly simulate the terrain, tactics, and weaponry at play in your story because you're somewhat restricted by the game's campaign. But I do think playing a game like this, especially Total War with it's real-time strategy elements, attention to historical detail, and great animations for combats between not only units but individual soldiers, would be great for helping you get into the mental groove of how a battle works. It might give you some perspective on the matter. I haven't played Total War to any great extent myself (yet), but what I've seen of Shogun 2 is awesome and it looks like the closest thing you can possibly get outside of actually becoming a military officer. Could be helpful.



Yeah, the Total War series is a pretty solid way to gain tactical knowledge.  It isn't perfectly accurate, but it's pretty close.  Medieval 2 is a good place to start if you're writing typical medieval European battles.


----------

