• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Ask me about Warfare

Hi,

So no black powder than and no rifles. Longbow is the king of ranged weapons, and will pierce thin steel but not heavy armour. Now select your terrain to allow / deny cavalry, time frames to allow for / deny fortifications, enable or not ranged combat. Also consider how dear steel is and who can afford what sort of armour. And go from there.

Cheers, Greg.
 

SithLord

Dreamer
Well, I will ask then.

I have this large siege battle I've been planning in my head, mapping on paper and putting into my OneNote notes as to sequence, positions, weapons, etc. The battle itself is a naval affair with disembarking soldiers. There is a large city, mapped like Venice with the canals, etc at a swamp delta. Behind the city, to the east, a series of mountains and cliffs where the river itself makes headwater before funneling out to the city, swamp and ocean to the west. To the north and south of the city, the soldiers will disembark. The inspiration of this battle being similar to Normandy. The arriving soldiers to lay siege are part of my protagonist allies, while the city itself belongs to my protagonist kingdom that has been overtaken by the antagonist empire. The antagonists have superior weapons by means of cannon while still relying on ballista from the ramparts of the city walls. The arriving naval forces rely on naval ballistae mounted to their ship decks and down the decks along the hull. While the antagonists themselves have cannon and ballistics, being more "rare" they are not used for city defense but more for offense in the lands away from the homeland and capital.

Along the cliffs however, the antagonists have naval defense setup by means of trebuchets that are specially built to handle a form of projectile which burns much hotter than Greek fire, producing a blue flame. Without delving into the mechanics of this fantasy weapon to spoil the story, that part is already figured out that they will strike some of the landing ships and line ships.

But I think my main problem to overcome and why my anxiety has manifested into writer's block, is moving the pacing of this battle. While the motive is to honor an alliance as a whole, the one leading the battle for this particular army is doing it out of spiteful jealousy to win the heart of the lead female protag who would be the rightful heir to the kingdom once the oppressors are removed. I am struggling regarding POV. Thinking that maybe the opening sequence should focus on a chapter with one of the regiments landing, switch to the leading general / prince for next chapter before resolving the battle.

Another problem is the sizing of the ballistae bolts to take out ships or damage any of the walls. The fantasy napalm, well, that's fantasy element there and range and firing arc is basically up to my head for its mechanics and physics. The other factor is soldier emotion. Most of these soldiers are not regulars and conscripted of able men. While the regulars will have better training, better armor (plate armor) the cost of conscripts would be relegated to a leather armor, hence morale would likely be affected as they see their own countrymen fall. In the end of this battle, the allies to the protags win, but have to deal with heavy losses (and win partially due to magic use), but then will have to begin a march north into the capitol of the female protag's kingdom.
 

Laurence

Inkling
I have a question about mercenaries!

In my book I have a situation in which battles are being waged for unethical reasons but the people of said nation are being told there's a better reasons behind it. An army of mercenaries are also being hired. Do you think mercenaries are likely to be told the reason for their fighting and do you know how much they would typically interact with the national army?
 

CupofJoe

Myth Weaver
Well, I will ask then.
I have this large siege battle I've been planning in my head... [Edited]
I am no expert on this but I feel the people in the leather armour will be much happier as they start to watch the people in Plate armour leap into the water and drown as soon as they fall over and struggle to get up.
Have you read about the Gallipoli Landings in WWI? They may be another view of what you are looking for. Normandy was chosen [amongst other reasons] as the most benign place to land of the places available.
As for weapons... For equal size a land based weapon will probably always be superior to a ship based one. The ground is firmer than the sea so they will be able to fire further and or heavier objects.
 

SithLord

Dreamer
I am no expert on this but I feel the people in the leather armour will be much happier as they start to watch the people in Plate armour leap into the water and drown as soon as they fall over and struggle to get up.
Have you read about the Gallipoli Landings in WWI? They may be another view of what you are looking for. Normandy was chosen [amongst other reasons] as the most benign place to land of the places available.
As for weapons... For equal size a land based weapon will probably always be superior to a ship based one. The ground is firmer than the sea so they will be able to fire further and or heavier objects.

Yes, that will occur. As will leather armor being incinerated near instantly from the fantasy napalm or lax protection from the more trained soldiers they're fighting against. The plate armor, because of the fantasy napalm, will fuse and melt into the flesh (I've imagined this quite gruesomely).

Regarding Galipoli, been watching docs on Amazon Prime about WWI and II about some of the battles and Galipoli was very close to the terrain I've envisioned, as well as the terrain of Crimea for the Crimean War.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
Some time since the last post so I thought that I should shake some life into this thread.

Recently I've started to give some serious attention to the 19th century as a basis for writing fantasy instead of the normal medieval type of setting. But given that I'm not entirely sure I want to invest with money into this, I came here for a question. How were Uhlans and Dragoons used in the 1870s in Western Europe?

I'm mostly asking for equipment and tactical scale use of mentioned cavalry at this time. Roughly on company level and smaller.

The reason is that I'm writing, or trying to write, a story which is effectively using the squaring off between a regiment of Dragoons and Uhlans from opposite sides as the framework for the story. The MC is with the Dragoons and the Uhlans are to provide an opponent which isn't just a bunch of annonymous guys they kill. The infantry and artillery present will provide the annonymity of the combatants as they are also present but given less exposure in the story.
 

Usurper

Dreamer
I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
They fought with guns, swords, cannons.

Not sure what you are after here, but I'll ask the question I always ask: what research have you done so far?
 

Gurkhal

Auror
I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?

Good memoirs and war letters can help you, or so I feel with the soldier PoV as opposed to the general PoV. And here are a few.

Franco-Prussian War

German side

https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Rückert...98&sr=8-1&keywords=franco-prussian+war+memoir

French side

https://www.amazon.com/Reality-War-...98&sr=8-2&keywords=franco-prussian+war+memoir

Letters and stuff from the Crimean War - only British unfortunately

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Ligh...539102317&sr=8-11&keywords=Crimean+war+memoir

https://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-C...539102364&sr=8-34&keywords=Crimean+war+memoir
 

Malik

Auror
For those of you asking about doctrine and decades of warfighting development and wanting a single-post dump answering all your questions, allow me to just show you something:

This is my office. On the right side is my research bookcase.

FoS-Crop-sm.jpg
This is my research library for one series. Hell, most of this is for one book, and I'm getting ready to trade a bunch of these out, now that I'm working on the next one. Every wall of my great room upstairs is bookshelves; this bookcase is just what I keep within arm's reach when writing.

I tell you that to tell you this: we can answer specific questions in this thread ("Why was the swinging door maneuver so effective against phalanxes?" "How were flamethrowers deployed at the squad level?") --or at least try, and probably argue a lot about it--but the answers to some of the inquiries in this thread would literally be books in themselves. You could do a doctoral thesis comparing and contrasting tactics and strategies between the Crimean and Franco-Prussian wars. In fact, I'd head to the library and see if someone already has, and if so, order a copy of it and start there.

We're happy to help, don't get me wrong, but writing IS research. No one will do it for you. Plus, the more you read, the better you'll write.

TL;DR: Smaller questions, please.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I'll go a bit further than the redoubtable Malik to say you don't actually want us to answer this question for you. One important--indeed, vital--thing that happens in research is that you notice things I wouldn't. The very process of research shapes you as the specific author of a specific story. It's not just this fact or that interpretation, it's how it fits in with what the individual you already know and don't know, at this particular point in your life and in the life of the story you are writing. It is, in short, not generic information but unique information.

That's why you want to do the research. And, when you have that swinging door question, the answers you find here will be not merely useful but invaluable.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?

So, did you have some luck in hunting down resources and stuff for the period and topic you wanted to research?
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?

Hello!

Well, other people in this thread have posted about the importance of deep and accurate research for our stories and writing. I am going to agree and at the same time disagree with them: High quality research and learning are critically important if you are writing Historical Fiction, Science Fiction (I mean the actual thing, not Space Fantasy) and perhaps also other literary genres out there.

However, Fantasy is a very different thing and we have a lot of artistic freedom here.

You mentioned that your story takes place in a Fantasy world, so have fun with it! In our world, European warfare during the time period that you have mentioned was already very destructive. Artillery was certainly a devastating force, though not yet quite as powerful and accurate as it would be some decades later in WW1. Soldiers were equipped with rifles, bayonets and sabers, officers carried handguns and cavalry was very important, deadly and even terrifying in the battlefield.

Soldiers learned techniques in order to use their rifles and bayonets as melee weapons, it was not just shooting around.

Trench warfare was a reality in Victorian times, as well. Oh and even though machine guns had not been invented yet, coordinated volley fire from hundreds of rifles opening fire together could cause a lot of terror and damage to the enemy.

About tactics, well you can read about important battles of wars in that period, analyze them carefully and get some inspiration from them. There is no need to be 100% historically accurate in case that it's a Fantasy story, just add your own personal touch and ideas to it. Personal research is important, I agree on that.

No need to worry about some readers that will perhaps be disappointed or even lose their suspension of disbelief if you describe something wrong. They can go and read something else if they care so much about realism and historical accuracy, and that's all.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
All of Joinville is well worth reading. As is Villehardouin for the Fourth Crusade. My favorite in the Seventh is when the king's brother, who was told to hold the river line, sees an opening. He charges across the river, routs the Egyptians and drives right into the city of Mansourah. Where the good citizens of the city cut them all to shreds. It was a catastrophe and is the flip side of this sort of individual courage.
 

Aldarion

Archmage
How applicable are Middle Byzantine battle tactics to era of plate armour? Personally, I found them quite similar to what I believe Matthias Corvinus used.
 

Yora

Maester
I think much bigger than the development of plate was the parallel appearance of gunpowder. It's hard to say what impact the perfection of plate armor would have had on its own, as cannons would have an even bigger impact on warfare.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
From my standpoint a world without gunpowder would be mostly different in that there would be a much more limited artillery and less effective siege techniques. With the advent of disicplined infantry that could stand up to the heavy cavalry, the time of the knight was ending in Europe anyway and infantry marched on.

As so often, warfare is a matter of counters and counter-counters rather than a straight line going towards better and better stuff. At most times in history changes in warfare has come from using existing technology in a different way than new technology rendering the old technology obsolete. Legion vs phalanx, sarissa vs dorys, pikeman vs knight and so on.

In my opinion I think that technology in itself is given to much credit and innovation in method is given to little to explain the changes in warfare in Europe. Especially before the Renaisssance.
 

Aldarion

Archmage
From my standpoint a world without gunpowder would be mostly different in that there would be a much more limited artillery and less effective siege techniques. With the advent of disicplined infantry that could stand up to the heavy cavalry, the time of the knight was ending in Europe anyway and infantry marched on.

As so often, warfare is a matter of counters and counter-counters rather than a straight line going towards better and better stuff. At most times in history changes in warfare has come from using existing technology in a different way than new technology rendering the old technology obsolete. Legion vs phalanx, sarissa vs dorys, pikeman vs knight and so on.

To give another example, Winged Hussars were effective even against disciplined infantry because they used hollow lances, which could be much longer than pikes used by infantry, and thus negated infantry advantage. But even without it, I am not certain the "time of the knight was ending". Dominance of the knight definitely was ending. But if you look at the 8th - 12th centuries warfare between (Eastern) Romans and Arabs, both sides heavily utilized cataphractii - basically a precursor of knights - despite both of them also having access to highly disciplined, and oftentimes heavily armed, infantry.
 

Yora

Maester
Heavy cavalry as shock troops are only one tactical use for knights. The mobility alone is an extremely important factor. As long as you have formations, striking the enemy from the wrong direction is always devastating. In modern warfare, when soldiers get surrounded, they are unable to move to different positions and to be resupplied, but they can still fight. When a formation gets flanked, there is almost no chance to resist and fight back. That's why ancient and medieval commanders always loved rivers and thick forest on their wings.
 
Top