Writing those battles

[pmmg]

Always a slow day on fridays....

So, I see a lot of posts about warfare, and medieval weapons and armor and who's got it right. And it seems like every depiction that comes on screen, and some the appear in books, always face the scrutiny of those who say....that's not how wars were fought. And so often, so many elements, like supplies, and number of horses, and helmets, are kind of glossed over in favor of putting the focus on other things.

So I wonder... How important is it to you that the story creators get all this right? What would it take for anyone to get it so right, they silenced all the critics, and is that what you really want? Is there some magical middle where we have enough realism, and enough 'for the camera' that we can claim success even if its not all that accurate?

What do you want to see really?

 

[Aldarion]

I want to see "enough" realism. As far as what is "enough" realism, that varies by the story. If I am reading a heroic epic a la Conan or Lord of the Rings, then I expect merely internal consistency and enough basic logic that nothing throws me out of the SOD - but I won't bat an eye at an Illiad-style heroic duels happening right in the middle of the battlefield for example. Which is why I can enjoy Asterix just fine. But if I am reading something more based in history (historical fiction or even fantasy books that make claim towards realism - such as A Song of Ice and Fire) then I expect the author to have actually done his research, and I expect to see it in the text.

 

[Finchbearer]

I’m going to do a skip and say ‘it depends’, because if I’m reading a fictional historical battle scene, then it wouldn’t do it justice to gloss over the realities nor would it do the scene justice to start making stuff up.

But in fantasy, anything kind of goes. And I would extend to say that I don’t really care about how realistic a fantasy story is to real life as we know it because it’s not real life, it’s fantasy. That being said, it also has to be believable in the context of the fantasy worldbuilding.

 

[Mad Swede]

Well, writing from real life experience. This is all about where the characters are in the army doing the fighting. Someone who is an ordinary soldier won't see or know much about the logistics and supplies. All they see is the immediate fighting around them (or lack of it), the excitement, the way time seems to change, the lulls, the fear, the relief at surviving. someone who is a senior commander will worry about the logistics, the overall battle and how it is going, wondering what the hell is actually going on out there, wondering if the plan will work or not, hoping that you can advance rather than face a fighting retreat. There's still the fear and worry, but it's focused on different things.

Most writers don't have the first hand knowledge to get these things right, and most don't bother to do the research either. So these days I as a reader have very low expectations of battle depictions and I don't worry too much about the lack of realism. I focus instead on the characterisation and how people react after the battle.

 

[Incanus]

This seems to be about the broader idea of realism/research/expertise. I feel like there is some leeway here. Story comes first, I think.

What do real doctor's think about shows or movies set in hospitals, or depicting medical care? What do real police officers think of police procedural shows? They likely can point out just where things are not realistic.

Does anyone remember that Saturday Night Live skit 'More Cowbell?' No studio on the planet would record a band the way they show it in that skit. It's just not how studio recordings are made. And yet the skit works fine. Most people don't know about that kind of thing, and don't think about it when watching something like that. Indeed, if they had shown a realistic studio process, the skit would not nearly work so well.

In fiction, the story should be more important than practical reality.

 

[Penpilot]

As with all stories, it's about setting up expectations. If you promise a gritty, real-life type story and suddenly have armoured knights on horses jumping across 100ft wide canyons with the aid of magic rockets, people are going to go WTF. If you promise a light romp with one knight fighting through hordes of monsters to rescue a princess, and people complain about the realism of one person vs many, that's not a story issue. It's a them issue.

The important thing is about setting up the rules of your story world and being consistent with them. If you set up a story were rocket powered horse flight is possible, then it's possible.

It's like those Fast and Furious movies. Physics does not exist in those movies, especially when it comes to cars. They make that very clear in the trailers, and to go in and come out of the movie complaining about the physics is kind of missing the point.

 

[skip.knox]

There's a huge range here for responses, as others have noted. For myself, there are two key points in this business of verisimilitude. One has been mentioned: the point at which the mistakes throw me out of the story. That point is going to vary from one reader to the next. Indeed, my own tastes and patience have changed over the years. So, it's a target yes, but it's a moving target. If you're going to start aiming, it's best you keep that clearly in mind.

Aside: there's a story I like to tell that illustrates this. You can tell I like to tell the story because I've posted it here at least twice. Here's a link

How an author loses a historian

The reliquary thing: the words make it sound like it is large. Dropped the reliquary into his arms, and I blink. Placed it in his hand, and I'd be happy. Well, in this case then it sounds like your complaint isn't really related to historical accuracy but to word choice. Either way, it seems...

mythicscribes.com

it concerns a professional typographer's blog post complaining about poor use of type faces in movies.

A second measure comes at the opposite end, where the author does something that I recognize as exceptionally skillful. An author can do that and I totally miss it, which is like missing a great play in sports and no replay. It's also worth keeping in mind that no matter the skill, not every reader is going to recognize the skill. It's just another paragraph to them.

The huge range comes in between the two.

I get the misgivings, the desire for guidance or feedback or confirmation. Maybe it was just idle curiosity that inspired the OP. The stock answer is always "it depends" but it's also possible to clarify the subject. What do we want to see really can be broken down at least into the two components I mention here. I think there's room for more. And, I hope, somewhere in that closer examination we might come up with some things actual authors actually apply. (I had written "use" but "apply" kept the alliteration going)

 

[Jackarandajam]

Yeah I don't care, probably cause I don't know enough to.
To me "medieval style" weaponry is anything that shoots sticks or has a grippy side and a pointy/smashy side. Armor is stuff people used to put on that was made of metal to fend off flying sticks and smashy/pointy things. Sometimes it was made of little circles of metal.

Whenever you quit twitching lemme finish: I get that weaponry advances rendered types of armor obsolete and vv and will do my due diligence before I try to publish something that has ring mail deflecting longbow arrows or whatever.
I just don't know enough for the finer points (...) of it to bother me in other people's work.

It would absolutely make me lose faith in a historical fiction author if I found out it there were bad blunders though. I would quit reading that person immediately. The whole point in that case, in my opinion, is accuracy.

ASoIaF? Don't care.

 

[The Dark One]

Pretty much as Finchy said: in fantasy anything goes as long as you remain consistent with the rules of your worldbuilding. Can't have Aragorn dropping Anduril and pulling out an M16 in the Battle before the Black Gate.

For my historical novel, I researched a lot - including travelling to all of the main locations in the story; walking the battlefield at Hastings; and diving very deeply into the weaponry, clothing and battle tactics of the times. Then, despite all my effort to remain faithful to the C11, the publisher insisted on a Gothic font for the cover. It looked pretty good but it was from 500 years later!!!

 

[Jackarandajam]

Pretty much as Finchy said: in fantasy anything goes as long as you remain consistent with the rules of your worldbuilding. Can't have Aragorn dropping Anduril and pulling out an M16 in the Battle before the Black Gate.

For my historical novel, I researched a lot - including travelling to all of the main locations in the story; walking the battlefield at Hastings; and diving very deeply into the weaponry, clothing and battle tactics of the times. Then, despite all my effort to remain faithful to the C11, the publisher insisted on a Gothic font for the cover. It looked pretty good but it was from 500 years later!!!

Frikkin marketing, haha

 

[Finchbearer]

Always a slow day on fridays....

So, I see a lot of posts about warfare, and medieval weapons and armor and who's got it right. And it seems like every depiction that comes on screen, and some the appear in books, always face the scrutiny of those who say....that's not how wars were fought. And so often, so many elements, like supplies, and number of horses, and helmets, are kind of glossed over in favor of putting the focus on other things.

So I wonder... How important is it to you that the story creators get all this right? What would it take for anyone to get it so right, they silenced all the critics, and is that what you really want? Is there some magical middle where we have enough realism, and enough 'for the camera' that we can claim success even if its not all that accurate?

What do you want to see really?

How important is it to you?

 

[pmmg]

I think if I was to write (or film) a story that got all the combat so right as to make the military truists happy, it would make for bad story telling. I am telling a story, and trying to tell it in the most interesting way I can. My characters get in fights, and they dont much have time to figure out the tactics. There are some scenes where tactics matter, but most encounters are haphazard and desperate. As a writer, I also try to get through them quick. Most things dont survive the first hit, and the battles end rather quickly. I dont really want four pages of a fight that the reader could easily skip.

BUT....it has to be true enough.

My great measure on things is along the lines of how likely something is, and what keeps me from going BullSh*t.

Bullsh*t is the killer. If I am doing that, your story is doomed.

For those who like a lot of historical accuracy, I can appreciate the effort, but its probably not for me. I'd judge it by the rest of the tale.

Mr. Malik, for instance, puts a lot of value in metal types and weaponry in his tale, and the advantages of one over the other show. Its works for his tale. But...I think partly because only his MC has it. The others are living in their own time with their own expectations.


I suppose if it was a historical piece, like the battle of waterloo, I would put a bit of effort into getting it right. But, I dont write that.

 

[Mad Swede]

I think if I was to write (or film) a story that got all the combat so right as to make the military truists happy, it would make for bad story telling.

It isn't so much about realism as it is how you describe the battle or fight without losing pace or focus. You should be doing the research, talking to those who've been through it all. But once you've done that you as the author have to decide how much detail you put in, and in my view that depends on where your focus is. If you're the sort of author who likes to describe the gory details (all those hacked off limbs on the ground, the pools of blood etc) then that's the aspect you'll be describing, but if you're focussed on the impact it has on your protagonists then you'll be looking to describe their emotins during and after the battle.

Mr. Malik, for instance, puts a lot of value in metal types and weaponry in his tale, and the advantages of one over the other show. Its works for his tale. But...I think partly because only his MC has it. The others are living in their own time with their own expectations.

This is more important than you may think, and it can add quite a lot to both the setting and the way the plot develops.

As an example, consider the Arn books. In these the author Jan Guillou descibes the differences between the swod Arn carries when he comes home and the locally made swords, and the reactions of others on seeing how this changes the way Arn fights (and wins...). It gives Arn and hence his clan a lot of influence, and this in turn changes the balance of politics which has long term effects in the setting. You could apply the same sort of thing in your own setting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we as authors should do this sort of research, because the results give us so many ways of developing the story, the setting and the characters. But the real writing skill comes in developing these things without losing the story or the pace.

 

[skip.knox]

OK, we ought to do our research. Now the question is, when do we stop doing the research and start doing the writing? That's another way of phrasing the question, how much research is enough research?

Because there will always be someone else to interview, another book to read, another bit of minutiae to discover. And one never actually writes the novel; one just keeps re-writing the battle scene in the light of new information.

There has to be a method, some measure by which the author understands it's time to stop diving down rabbit holes. Hi, my name is Skip. I'm a historian. I'm here to help.

The Greek root for "history" means "inquiry". If you're just reading about the past, you're just reading. But if you pose a question first, if you *inquire*, now you are doing history (potentially; you also have to come to a conclusion and communicate that to others).

So, for the current issue, while it can be beneficial to interview and read and walk the ground, there's also no end to it. If, however, you pose a question first, then the stopping point becomes identifiable. You stop when you have found your answer. For an author this doesn't even need to be the right answer, but the answer that serves the purpose. I want to describe a battle. But I don't really want to describe all the troop movements (unless I do) nor entertain strategy. I want to know what it was like for the soldier down there in the crush of battle. I look for that, I find some descriptions that seem apt or even inspiring, and I'm done with the research, at least on that point.

When I wrote Goblins at the Gates, I knew the big battle scene would be a re-telling of the Battle of Hadrianopolis in 376, so I read some modern accounts. These weren't much use, so I went to Gibbon, who provide some chewy details, and then I went to the original sources. There I read how the Romans were so pressed by the Goths toward the end of the day that the soldiers couldn't even raise their swords to fight, so hemmed in were they. I also read how they fought on dry ground which raised huge clouds of dust. That was enough, really. I guess I already knew enough of Roman arms and armor to provide details at least somewhat convincing.

The point here is that I did not need to learn all about late Roman tactics. Still less did I need to learn about Visigothic fighting because the enemies in *my* book were goblins, which changed much about how the fighting progressed. Instead, I went looking for the grace notes, the little details. When I found ones that excited me or moved me in some way, I incorporated those. Once found, my research was done.

I hope other authors find this approach useful. Begin with the inquiry. Make your question(s) as specific as you can. You can always add more, and you can always leave some unanswered. But begin with the inquiry and you can hope to find an end.

 

[JBCrowson]

I would tend to think of battle details like armour / weapons in a similar way to how I think about characters, magic, non human races and say as the author we need to have enough of a consistent structure figured out before writing that we can avoid inconsistency. We also need to write in enough of those details to create the setting and support the story without smothering it with too many. Where that balance lies will depend very mush on the style of the piece as others have said. I think it is also inevitable that whatever balance an author chooses will please some, annoy others.

I guess what I'm saying in a cack-handed sort of way is do what you feel is right for your story, and have confidence in your story enough that you're not trying to please everyone with it.

 

[Karlin]

I'll read on without worrying about the details- unless I hit something that is either totally silly, or something that I happen to know about- and the author got it wrong.

In my own work, I am thinking of writing a fantasy that involves Michelangelo. I will certainly read at least one good biography of him before starting such a project, as well as a history of the Italian Renaissance. I'll read some of his own writings as well. There's a few months of work involved. I won't spend 5 years on the research. That's a doctorate.

 

[The Dark One]

I'll read on without worrying about the details- unless I hit something that is either totally silly, or something that I happen to know about- and the author got it wrong.

In my own work, I am thinking of writing a fantasy that involves Michelangelo. I will certainly read at least one good biography of him before starting such a project, as well as a history of the Italian Renaissance. I'll read some of his own writings as well. There's a few months of work involved. I won't spend 5 years on the research. That's a doctorate.

At the risk of wading into a minefield, I find this rather odd...

You're talking about fantasy, but you worry about the author getting it wrong?

How can an author get it wrong in fantasy? It's their own invention - the entire world and all it's history (including alternative Earth histories) - as opposed to historical fiction which is supposedly based in fact.

This is a personal bugbear of mine because a lot of readers (and even writers) don't seem to get the difference.

 

[Karlin]

At the risk of wading into a minefield, I find this rather odd...

You're talking about fantasy, but you worry about the author getting it wrong?

How can an author get it wrong in fantasy? It's their own invention - the entire world and all it's history (including alternative Earth histories) - as opposed to historical fiction which is supposedly based in fact.

This is a personal bugbear of mine because a lot of readers (and even writers) don't seem to get the difference.

Perhaps this isn't "fantasy" in the usual sense. Call it a time travel story in the real world. You want your reality to be accurate.

 

[Jackarandajam]

At the risk of wading into a minefield, I find this rather odd...

You're talking about fantasy, but you worry about the author getting it wrong?

How can an author get it wrong in fantasy? It's their own invention - the entire world and all it's history (including alternative Earth histories) - as opposed to historical fiction which is supposedly based in fact.

This is a personal bugbear of mine because a lot of readers (and even writers) don't seem to get the difference.

Kinda with Karlin on this.

To me it's "The laws of physics still apply unless you've explained why they dont."
So if the enemy has swords "so sharp they cut through plate steel like butter" I would say no, they don't, unless they're magic swords which would be totally fine.
Magic is there in fantasy, use it. Don't have a kid taking on nine trained adults at once because they're "just so good."
Or do, but it's going to get an eye roll from me.

 

[The Dark One]

Kinda with Karlin on this.

To me it's "The laws of physics still apply unless you've explained why they dont."
So if the enemy has swords "so sharp they cut through plate steel like butter" I would say no, they don't, unless they're magic swords which would be totally fine.
Magic is there in fantasy, use it. Don't have a kid taking on nine trained adults at once because they're "just so good."
Or do, but it's going to get an eye roll from me.

I totally agree with that - it's not what I was taking exception to.

"either totally silly, or something that I happen to know about- and the author got it wrong." implies that we're talking about something objectively knowable - ie history - rather than something invented - ie fantasy.

The popularity of the medieval milieu for fantasy settings means that some people can't seem to tell the difference. How often have you seen online debates on whether GoT is better than history? It does my head in.

Anyway...