Battle Strategy?

[Scholar]

I'm hoping to do a good bit of research in this area for an upcoming book of mine. I understand that to ask anyone to just tell me everything they know about battle strategy is sort of a broad question, so i was wondering if you could recommend any helpful books on the subject. I've seen a few at bookstores and online here and there, but I as wondering if there were any that were particularly good, or any particularly good websites. Or, if you have a few nuggets of info. on this topic and you wish to share, please do. It would be much appreciated.

I'm also curious about ships (pirate ones with sails and the like) and pickpocketing, if anyone has any small expertise in these areas.

Many thanks.

 

[Codey Amprim]

There's two books I've read up on (I think these are the correct names): How to Lose a Battle and How to Lose a War by Bill Fawcett are some pretty interesting reads, and no doubt what you're looking for.

On the pirate stuff, I'm at a loss.

Good luck!

 

[The Unseemly]

Battle strategy, he says? Yeah, that is a pretty broad topic...

On the overall: a good commander always uses his (or her, for that matter) terrain to the full extent. Terrain provides obstacles, cover from enemy fire. Gallipoli was lost to the ANZAC's in WW1 mostly because they had to consistently run up a mountainside/sloped beach, and get fired upon. A turk, in such conditions, could kill about 9-10 ANZAC's.

Another is placement of specialised units, such as artillery. Artillery might be a more obvious one, because common sense tells you that you should stick it at the back, however what about the cavalry? Or infiltrators, and other such elite soldiers? Once more, the whole terrain thing is important.

And usually the best of commanders in history were always the ones that had an overall plan probing around in his enemy's weakness', but were also flexible with it, and understanding of the needs of their army.

 

[CupofJoe]

It might help looking at real world examples [it does for me]. If you can find real world battles that even in part are like the ones you are planning and see what Alexander, Napoleon, Hannibal, Stirling* did.
If you have a strong General, try to get in to their head. Are they risky or cautious? Defensive or aggressive? How well did they adapt to changes?
Are there cultural reasons that make either side fight in a certain way? Chivalry, Honour, Pride, Caste?
I watched something on Crecy as part of a series on the 100 year war... The English were outnumbered and outclassed but worked out how to defeat a bigger stronger army by waiting until they could fight on the right location in the right conditions at a time they choose and get their opponent mad enough to be a little reckless.
My father has a great book full of battles and weapons and maps but I can't for the life of me find the title. I will try to source it over the weekend.

* David Stirling [ not a very nice man by all accounts but he did start the SAS and modern irregular warfare for the British]

 

[wordwalker]

This is a good subject to run your specifics by the Forum, or better yet show to a contact who knows the material; you can learn a lot but strategy has a way of having one side or another that we amateurs forget.

A lot of the basics have come up here: terrain and movement certainly.

And usually the best of commanders in history were always the ones that had an overall plan probing around in his enemy's weakness', but were also flexible with it, and understanding of the needs of their army.

This is important because the "fog of war" makes all that "chessboard" imagery irrelevant: you can never SEE more than so much of the battle, just get reports that may be an hour or more obsolete. Instead you learn what you can about the enemy (and read up on his past, and every other past battle you can find), do your best to spot what he's doing in time to adapt to it, and hope that keeps you in the sweet spot between so rigid you can't adapt and so much second-guessing your troops can't build any momentum. A lot of it is having the right officers on the field to make the faster decisions.

Another side of it: Napoleon (maybe the most successful general in a thousand years) said that morale was to physical advantage as 2 was to 1. Never underestimate the value of troops being seasoned, that have gotten a taste of victory, or are just desperate in the right way. In fact, many battles are won by some combination of killing the enemy and startling them with some kills so that they pull back rather than wait to see if they've been seriously trapped. Nobody wants their troops to "fight to the last" unless it's a really important position-- or the commanders are just wasteful, which certainly can happen.

Don't forget logistics. An army weak on supplies --or when its enemy's able to raid its supply lines-- is in real trouble.

Oh yes: I'd recommend the Military Channel series Battleplan. It's World War II-era and beyond, but it's good for showing the requirements of each plan and how many things can go wrong-- and if you like strategies, its perspective is just fun.

 

[Sea of Stars]

My suggestion would be to find some nice military histories of the era you are seeking to emulate (Osprey's Essential History line is good starting point) and get a fell for how the wars were fought.

 

[Butterfly]

I found the series Battlefield Britain to be useful. It studies the great battles of Boadicea, Naseby, Hastings, Culloden among others.

Try a search for Battlefield Britain to find the documentaries if you're interested.

 

[Scholar]

Thank you all so much! I'll be buying the books you mentioned ASAP and watching Battleplan and Battlefield Britain incessantly. I can't tell you how much of help this is.

Again, many thanks.

 

[Barstar]

For battle strategy I can give you some paraphrased quote I MIGHT have heard from Julius Ceasar, but maybe actually not

The best strategies are rarely the most surprising or original, often the most effective strategy is the most predictable. Any strategy that sees you end with more soldiers than the other guy is a good one, essentially.

Often very inexperienced generals will try to use original or surprising tactics that actually put their army in danger. Sick to what makes sense, sometimes trickery will work but usually you will get your shit smacked.

To develop a healthy strategy you first need to study what war really is, or ask someone who knows. War is essentially an extension of the predator/prey relationship in which both sides play both roles, a good battle strategy will usually imitate pack animals like lions or wolves (or animals that use armies like ants): Speed, maneuverability, precision, maximization of your party/army/pack;s safety and doing all of this at a time and place YOU decide.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

When I write battles I tend to more or less just make it up as I go, because to me, the tactical details of the battle are by far secondary to the emotions of the characters involved. I know that a lot of people like really precise military writing (John Ringo, anyone?) but what carries the day, I think, is characterization. More people will forgive sloppy tactics if the characters are awesome than vice versa.

 

[The Unseemly]

More people will forgive sloppy tactics if the characters are awesome than vice versa.

I saw Aragorn and crew right there...

 

[Sea of Stars]

For battle strategy I can give you some paraphrased quote I MIGHT have heard from Julius Ceasar, but maybe actually not
<snip>

Or as Nathan Bedford Forest put it: "Get there first with the most men."

A lot of winning battles is being in the right place at the right time. But just being there, on the field is often right enough, another military maxim is "Better the wrong action right now than the perfect one too late."

 

[Kahle]

For naval engagements, there's always the battle of Trafalgar. There's quite a bit of naval jargon and tactics in the Master and Commander series and movie. As much as I'm wary of bringing Hollywood into this, the movie did a very nice job of displaying the one-on-one battles and the amount of actual sailing and sitting around a navy ship or pirate would experience. In the books, the Captain has to explain sailing to his best friend (and the reader) several times per book, so the reader comes away actually understanding how a ship works. Naval encounters involved these factors: weather gauge-who has the wind at their backs and can maneuver the best, the number of guns and their range-sometimes light, accurate guns win a chase, and the training of a crew-how many broadsides in a minute, etc. Most historical listings of naval engagements were for the press and only listed the ships, crew and ship sizes, and the dead. I believe John Paul Jone's autobiography also includes more detailed accounts.