RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
I’m working on a fairly complicated little battle early in Book Three–complicated in part because it includes some weapons types I haven’t previously used in my fiction in something this size. The forces involved aren’t matched in size, experience, or weaponry…which is sending me back to the history books repeatedly to check that I’m not doing something stupid. Some things are obvious and familiar to any students of military history…surprise (if you do it) is always good and surprise (if they do it) is a PITA. Flank attacks really do gum up the enemy’s advance. Charging after a “fleeing” enemy when you haven’t noticed what’s on your flank…not a smart idea. And so on.
Others are less so. Take the great archery debates about longbows and crossbows. It’s not that one is better than the other, full stop–but that each has advantages in particular situations (which include weather.) In fact, each variation of each has advantages in particular situations…my friend the crossbow maker told me that yew is a superior wood for bowstaves used in colder climates, whereas bois d’arc (native to my area) is better in hot climates. I could declare that blackwood (the great bow wood of Lyonya) is superb in all climatic conditions, but…why would it be? It’s native to a northern temperate hardwood forest–like the original forest of the Appalachians. It doesn’t break with a snow or ice load–it’s fitted to the climate it grows in.
So…I have a larger force, with some heavy cavalry, some disciplined infantry with polearms, and with them some crossbowmen. They’re used to formation fighting.
And I have a smaller force with some disciplined infantry (short sword), some longbow archers used to shooting in formation, and some “irregular” archers used to fighting alone or in small groups, with longswords as well as their bows.
There will be a pause–possibly a couple of days–to do a map and work through this. Trying to “see” it in my head, I’m seeing too many blurry patches. (When visualization works, it’s clear all the way to the edges…)
Comment by Robert Conley — November 29, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
What are the commanders like? If the larger force commander is halfway competent pike+heavy cavalry sounds like a killer combination. If the smaller force needs to win then they would need to pull an Agincourt by forcing the enemy to bunch up so that any one spot they outnumber the enemy. But still with pike vs short sword that going to be one tough fight.
What I don’t myself if you are able to bunch up pikemen and hit them from the flank can the pikemen fight at all? If they don’t have the room or setup to deploy their weapons it be a bad day for them.
Comment by elizabeth — November 29, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Telling you too much about the commanders would be a major spoiler. Some points of the field environment favor the larger, and some favor the smaller, force.
To answer another of your questions, polearms units all learned to fight “in the round” when necessary (a very good place to see this is in the movie _Alatriste_, in the final battle between a Spanish tercio and the French. What pikes can’t do well is fight individually–they must be massed to be effective.
Comment by Sean McCrohan — November 30, 2009 @ 8:32 am
The longbow versus crossbow debate never gets old. And having it in a fantasy world just opens it up further. This subterranean culture is expecting to do most of their fighting in tunnels – NOW which ranged weapon do they choose? Great fun.
Just discussing (as I’m sure YOU already know where you’re going with it), but it seems like one of the other big factors for the scenario described would be the objectives of the two forces. Do they both want battle, or would one prefer to avoid it? Do they need to destroy each other, or is one or both willing to accept lesser victory conditions which they might be able to achieve even without being the strongest force on the field?
I’m not much of a military historian; I’m not coming up immediately with a conflict that combined the weapons you’re describing. Rightly or not, my first real-world association for ‘disciplined infantry with short swords’ is ‘Roman legion’, and ‘disciplined infantry with polearms’ makes me think of Renaissance pike formations. Was there much use of purely sword-armed infantry in the era of the tercio? There may have been; I just don’t know.
It seems like the absence of pikes in the smaller force would be a disadvantage in dealing with the opposing heavy cavalry; I guess they’d have to rely on their archers to break up a charge? Now, in the other direction, pikemen lack shields, which would seem to make them vulnerable to the longbows. And the utility of the irregulars would depend a lot on the terrain?
Tricky. I look forward to eventually reading the book and seeing what you settled on
Comment by elizabeth — November 30, 2009 @ 8:52 am
You’re thinking in the right directions, Sean. These pikes are about three centuries earlier than the 17th c. Spanish tercios I’ve just been reading about–late-medieval/early Renaissance. By the 17th c., the pure sword-armed infantry was gone, as firearms (increasing in range and reliability) and artillery began to change the face of battle. By authorial decree, we have no firearms in these books (the existence of effective magic having slowed research in that direction.)
The short-sword infantry companies in the earlier and current Paksenarrion-world books are indeed modeled on the Romans, more one of the auxiliary forces than pure-Roman, however.
Comment by Adrianne — November 30, 2009 @ 11:24 am
“When visualization works, it’s clear all the way to the edges…”
I like that. It’s so very true. I will start drawing my own maps for scenes, and see how much it helps with the visualizations.
Comment by Keith McCormic — November 30, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Hmmm…
I think the point about the Ph… short sword infantry needing to address the polearms’ advantages is more critical than the bows. The Agincourt analogy seems appropriate, but mostly because of how the short swords would need to force the polearms to break formation and lose the ability to maneuver effectively.
I would suggest that the short sword infantry try to fortify a brushy, wooded area. The natural hazards would nullify the cavalry, the skirmish archers would be more at home, and the polearms would spend as much time fighting the terrain as their foes.
That said, if I was the polearm commander, I’d probably try to burn (or at least smoke) them out. I could also just walk away unless there was some reason I had to fight them there. The polearm officer would need to be arrogant, livid, or desperate to go after the short swords in good cover.
Hmm… If the short swords got caught in open ground, they would probably have to hunker down behind their big shields. I’ve heard of Roman legions bearing horsemen on their locked shields, but it would be tough to lock well enough to deflect destriers in combat. That said, I can’t really think of a better strategy in such a bad situation…
Yeah, I guess I’d have to form “the circle” with archers firing out during lulls in the crossbows. I’d then try to slowly move towards denser cover, turtling during cavalry attacks to improve the chances of deflecting lances and tripping horses.
Of course, the polearms’ commander would try to use cavalry to contain the sword swords while the polearm infantry closed. You’d need very disciplined infantry to get out of that situation.
Comment by elizabeth — November 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Not to be difficult or anything, but I’m not asking for help or advice in working out this battle. I posted it mostly to show the kind of details I work with in the process of writing this kind of thing. No one else knows the terrain, the cover, the background of the various units, and the quality of their commanders, for a start.
It’s fine to speculate, of course.
Comment by Keith McCormic — November 30, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Point. Of course, now the spoiler seekers will be ALL confused!
Comment by elizabeth — November 30, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Spoiler-seekers…well, let’s hope we’ve put them off the trail.
BTW, are you familiar with the Alatriste books by Perez-Riverte?
Comment by Kip Colegrove — November 30, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
There were of course instances of pikes vs. short swords in ancient warfare, some quite notable. The Romans eventually figured out how to deal with Macedonian-style formations armed with the sarissa. As I was reading about Paks getting inside the reach of the pikes during the relief of Dwarfwatch I thought, “Yep, that’s how they did it.”
Comment by elizabeth — November 30, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
I’ve been fascinated by this kind of stuff since childhood (“You’re reading WHAT? Girls don’t read that!”) and having Caesar as our main text in second year high school Latin was sheer joy. Xenophon’s _Anabasis_ is another incredibly useful text for the fantasy writer, besides being one of the great war stories of all time.
Comment by Kip Colegrove — December 1, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
You mentioned the Alatriste novels. I knew nothing of Perez-Riverte until I noticed that Viggo Mortensen, an actor I particularly admire, played the title character in the movie. I’ve put off looking for the books (which I wanted to read before investigating the movie), and unfortunately I don’t read or speak more than a few words of Spanish.
Well, maybe I won’t be so fussy about reading the books first, since the film seems to be so well thought of. But in any case I’m going to start looking harder for the books, going the library route where possible (harder these days, with funding reduced). Is the translation done decently?
Comment by elizabeth — December 1, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
I don’t read Spanish, so I have only the translation to go by, but I think it’s very good–it conveys the flavor of Spanish and the culture.
You’re more likely to find these in bookstores than libraries, I’m afraid. We (the SFWA Musketeers) gave DRW the latest of the books to be translated, “The Cavalier in the Yellow Doublet,” to celebrate his first fiction sale.
The movie combines events from all the Alatriste books, and I had read only two when I saw it–if you just flow with it, it works anyway, and then, when reading the books, you recognize the kernel incident and find out what led up to it, etc.
Comment by arthur piantadosi — December 3, 2009 @ 1:07 am
Just as a joke, you could always do what I do when I play that silly Age of Empires 2 game and fight the historical Battle of Agincourt/Azincourt. You get Henry the Vth, 8 or 9 two handed swordsmen, two rams, priests, four knights, and the rest of your force is longbow men. I put the longbows in the center of a square formation, and advance slowly. Of course, I don’t know if that would work in the real world.
Comment by elizabeth — December 3, 2009 @ 6:54 am
I’m more serious about my books than that. For me, the fun is in figuring out what would really happen, and for that I go to history, archaeology, and so on. Agincourt and Crecy aren’t the only battles “available” to use when considering archery tactics and outcomes.
Comment by Martin LaBar — December 4, 2009 @ 6:33 am
I’ve read a lot of fantasy with battles, and your work is far and away the best on details — bringing up the weapons, where to put the latrines, etc. It was obvious that you had given serious thought to these matters. This post is not a surprise, then.
Comment by elizabeth — December 4, 2009 @ 7:06 am
Thanks, Martin.