Wars and Battles in TLs, How to?

[DrakeRlugia]

I'm putting this in pre-1990 because I'm mostly focusing on 16th, 17th, and 18th century warfare. I have issues writing war chapters for PoP personally; I feel one side does not have enough set backs or does things perfect, I worry over locations, places for battles and cities to siege. I'm just wondering what ther AH writers do?

I am currently dealing with the Ottoman succession and it's been a terrible task to chart everything else. It still is. How do you do it? With old maps with cities? Google maps to draw up routes? I've been using google maps a bit, but seems less effective with modern city names not being their names in the 16th.

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

I've had a hand in map making but I've not done something along the lines of a war map (or even a political map with cities). While Google Maps is good, it does have the setback of using only the modern names rather than the original...

Even then, if given the chance, I'd just use a blank map, overlay the cities with GIMP so we can get an accurate representation of sorts and then use that...but I'm just talking from guesswork.

 

[Beedok]

I use google maps, then I use wikipedia to check if the city existed back then and what the name was.

 

[Vinland]

Well, I try to begin with the end in mind. I decide who I want to win, by what margin (realistically), usually based on what point I want to get across by having them win. Then I think up a general framework of how I want the war to go, causes, important battles, etc. Look into the geography and cities of the regions to see what locations would be priorities for armies to attack or defend and what they would need to take or hold in order to win. From there I basically flesh it out and refine the plan as I write, putting setbacks and events where they seem most appropriate.

As for the map, seeing as I'm doing an ancient European TL and have an excellent map of the Roman Empire to refer to, I don't really have trouble with cities. I typically do a little bit of research on the cities to make sure that the names on the map are accurate for the time period, which is the best advice I can give in that regard. It might be good enough to see if Wikipedia has a section on the name/etymology of a location, which will typically list any past names a location might've had. Good luck with your TL!

 

[oshron]

personally, for my ASB ATL, i based several entirely fictional battles on real ones and just changed up the result with further research, as well as transplanting it to another location; for example, i based a battle between native rebels and some conquistadors in the 1830s on the Battle of Little Bighorn, with Hernan Cortes replacing Custer. for another in the same TL, the Third Spanish-American War was based on the Pacific theater of WW2, translated into the Caribbean and northern South America with the eventual nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki becoming chemical bombings of Bogota and Havana

for something a bit more realistic, in the War of 1812 for Anglo-American Rivalry, i decided to take major events listed on wikipedia that happened IOTL and translated them into battles. for example, a large fire that occurred in Newfoundland after the war IOTL became a bombardment of the region by the US navy since TTL's War of 1812 extended for a few more years

 

[Thespitron 6000]

I start with the population: how big is it, how big is it in regards to its neighbors. Then I take a look at what size armies could be fielded OTL by similar powers. That gives me an idea of the size of the armies involved in the conflict. Then I look at economics.

Some questions to ask:

Which country is richer?
Which country's wealth is based on trade (liable to be disrupted by war), and which is built on industry?
--->Agriculture?
--->Exploitation of natural resources?
Who is better able to motivate their men?
Which side has the better generals?
How old are they?
Can one side last longer than the other?
What does the geopolitical situation look like?
Is one side liable to come under attack by a third party if they go to war?
Does one side have a lot of allies?
--->Or no allies?
What technologies are available to each side?
--->Is one fighting with swords and shields while the other has already upgraded to cannon and firearms?
How long is the campaigning season?
How long can a power field troops, on average?

Battles:

What is the terrain like?
Does it favor one side or the other?
How will it impact tactics?
What are the objectives of each side?
Can either side achieve its objectives without fighting?
What's the weather like? Rainy? Snowing? Hot?

There are lots of questions that affect how I write a battle.

 

[King of Rome]

Wing it.

Or check physical maps of where the campaigning is going on, zone in on important areas, and find topographical maps of those important areas/battlefields (as the writer you should at least have a rough outline of how the campaign/war will turn out, and where the opposing armies will be maneuvering). Then check and make sure the names were the same way back when and important structures or physical features were consistent with the time. Check and make sure that the numbers for the battle fit, and from there you can throw in climate issues which could throw one way or another. The outcome of the battle, while partly determined by the writing and evidence provided up until that point, can always swing one way or the other depending on events unfolding on the battle. As long as you don't make an army unstoppable in every battle it contests, you should have then established a strong enough base to wing it.

That's me anyway.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

What the others said, and also just literary flair as well. You're the author so you can do whatever with it. If one side is more likely to win they don't actually have to, it's both fun and realistic to include twists and upsets. AH writers often have a bigger problem with being to stringent with plausibility. Many act as if one course is slightly more plausible, it will happen. A 51% chance will occur 100% of the time. This is both not plausible in the long run and also rather boring and lacking in drama.

Another factor for battles, at least in my own case, is personal opinion. I'll look at a map to see if a campaign makes sense or can be explained, and as long as it can do either one I'll do whatever I want with it. Hell, I even make place names a major if not primary factor for the exact locations of battles from time to time. Take for instance the Battle of Chechem Ha in my TL. The idea of the campaign leading to that place makes sense and that area could be a plausible battle ground based on the location, but mostly I just thought that calling an event "the Battle of Chechem Ha" just sounded really cool and groovy. Hopefully I'm not the only one ever guilty of that.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Another approach is to utilise the board.

I construct a series of restrictions and get AH.com members or my friends to game out an engagement. As it is hard to come up with a truly innovative battle without the different thoughts / perspectives that make up a real engagement.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

I often start with my assets, and then put myself into the mind of the commander: "How would I conquer this territory? What cities or provinces do I need to control?" For example, in the Great War currently happening in A More Personal Union, it was obvious that Spain's overseas colonies would come into play, since for England and France to win, they needed to control the flow of silver into Europe, so that they had the most, and could therefore field the most troops. The only way for them to do this was to interfere in New Spain.

Apropos of nothing, Hummingbird, I recently picked up a translation of the Popul Vuh and a copy of Daily Life of the Aztecs at the second-hand bookstore.

 

[BlondieBC]

I do post 1900 battle so far, but I think some of the techniques will work.

1) As to where battles are located at, armies tend to follow logistical routes (roads, rivers) and fight over important geographical features. So I personally decide which side has the initiative by analysis of what the General/Admiral/Government in charge wants to accomplish, then how they would try to accomplish. This can also been seem as what would be the executive summary of the modern operation order.

2) I then repeat the process for what the other side wants. It is normally pretty obvious where the Armies will meet. For example, if you fight in the Sinai, there are there paths based on roads and water supply, any two armies fighting out of Egypt towards Palestine will meet on one of the paths, and likely one army will pick a geographically easy to defend location. Europe was a breeze, since there have been so many wars. It is real obvious how commanders like to move armies across the Northern European plain.

I found the African battles much harder to write, since I have no major 100,000+ man battles to use, so these required more work. It is the step above except I can't double check the work. But the same idea follows, Armies like to use sea travel, river travel, and road travel in that order due to logistical issues. So for battles in the Congo, the fight up the rivers. For battles in Nigeria, they fought over the railroads or in some case had to build them. For an earlier battle, replace RR with roads. You will soon see why the Roman army built so many roads and it often takes multiple campaign seasons.

I have written some Ottoman battles, so I might be able to help, which geographic areas are you fighting the battles over?

3) As to who wins, I try to figure out how many troops each side can get to the battle. A lot of times this will tell you who wins. If not, look at the Generals and performance of each army in historical battles and just make a call. There are not "right" answers here, you just have to keep plausible.

 

[willbell]

When it comes to actually writing battles you don't have to go into great detail, it is just more things to critique, here is a couple slightly vague descriptions of varying vagueness that might help however:

This culminated in multiple battles, the most important of which was the Battle of Alalia sometime mid-century; this battle in which approximately 130 Rasna and Carthaginian ships fought the Lennene’s 60 pentekonters. This battle saw the near destruction of the Carthaginian/Rasna fleet and as a result of the navy of Alalia being crippled we also see the hasty evacuation of Alalia, which was almost immediately claimed for the Rasna.

This is from my own, I mention the size of each force and the immediate results, nothing much more however it is still useful. When you want greater detail you could do something like this:

Nectanebo III intended to make a stand near the Sea of Reeds [4], inspired by the tales of his Hellenic personal guard of Thermopylae. With his army there, he hoped to hold off the Babylonians long enough for reinforcements. But, Nectanebo forgot to take something into account: unlike Thermopylae, the Sea of Reeds was very easy to get around. Before he knew what had happened, his army was surrounded, slaughtered, and Nectanebo III met his end.

This is from The Weighted Scales (by Errnge) and goes into greater detail and more of a descriptive format, very nice if you have the creativity. From the same timeline a much longer description:

Battle ensued.

Senonirix Brennos lead the charge, riding a chariot adorned with the heads of his fallen enemies. They bumped and pounded, dried hair twirling like flags of death, against the sides of his chariot. His long mustache blew in the wind as his driver brought him closer to the phalanx line. His grey eyes [2] narrowed as he grabbed his javelin, and at just the last second, he launched the weapon into the Rasna line. Just as his chariot turned, he saw the spear meat its mark. Behind him, two thousand champions on chariots did likewise, riding forward at full speed, and launching their javelins just at the last moment before pulling back. With the line weakened, the footmen, far behind the swift charioteers, cut through the Perusians like a blade through tender flesh. The Rasna were slow, cumbersome, and rigid. The Senones were fast, agile, and fluid. Like a tidal wave, the men painted blue bore down, rushing through the golden fields and pastures.

Said fields and pastures soon turned scarlet from the rage of battle borne.

When the Senone footmen broke through the Perusian line, tearing through the phalanx like wolves amongst the flock, the Senone champions dismounted from their chariots and rushed to join them. Glory in war, amongst all things, was what the Senones wanted. Indeed, the rich lands and the wealthy city were excellent boons for such a war, but the average man who not only ran, but made a mad dash in nothing but his skin, hair standing on end in rigid lemon-dried spikes, body painted blue, heart pounding like the deep drums and voice shouting like the battle-horns in the distance—yes, it was all for glory that they ran into the fray and carnage. [3]

The Perusian center crumbled, the phalanx falling in on itself like a demolished building. Rasna fought as best as they could, but with their long spears, they could not fight effectively in such close combat. Many men dropped their spears entirely in preference for knives as weapons. Some Perusians did without their arms entirely, and fought the Senones with nothing more than their fists for weapons. However, nothing they could do would hold back the waves of Senones, crashing down harder and harder.

This description gets the audience involved, and it is again enjoyable to read. The battle is definitely one-sided with few setbacks, which if you are writing about someone you plan to bring to power is fine (but it should be within reason). Play upon the stereotypes of the group, after a barbarian attack there should always be pillaging and possibly burning, and the same sort of thing applies elsewhere too.
If you plan to go into greater detail, just remember to stay within reason, don't snag yourself on poorly thought-out setbacks and don't worry if it sounds a tiny bit wank-ish when you are writing it. When it comes to deciding who wins, how much resources would be available to the army, etc, I have no idea, just go based on the situation.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

Or you could just do what I do when I'm in a rush: paint the names of the two sides on the backs of two koalas and make them fight to the death. Obvious marsupial winner is obvious.

 

[King of Rome]

Or you could just do what I do when I'm in a rush: paint the names of the two sides on the backs of two koalas and make them fight to the death. Obvious marsupial winner is obvious.

This guy. What a joke. The real professionals use duck-billed platypuses.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

This guy. What a joke. The real professionals use duck-billed platypuses.

NO!!!! I am the Robot, and I speak for the platypuses! If you touch a hair on one of those charming ducklike heads, I'll use my orbital laser system to incinerate you.

 

[King of Rome]

NO!!!! I am the Robot, and I speak for the platypuses! If you touch a hair on one of those charming ducklike heads, I'll use my orbital laser system to incinerate you.

Oh it's on now. Battlefield of your choice. You can use them lasers, but I get to use the sword of a thousand truths.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

*Sigh*

I misread the title as Beatles. I seem to always misread battles as Beatles. Maybe I should start a game.

 

[Basileus444]

For me, it depends on the campaign. I always start with what I want the treaty to look like, and work backwards from there. This allows me to (usually) write army performances that are appropriate to the end outcome. I don't think I've ever outlined a war without 'beginning' at the end.

For battles, there are some campaigns where I want a battle at a specific site, so I'll structure the campaign so a battle at that location makes sense. For example, in Age of Miracles I wanted a battle between Timur and the Byzantines at Manzikert. So I had Timur attack through Armenia, not Syria (and gave reasons why-in this case securer supply lines), and arranged the pre-battle maneuvers so that the armies would meet at Manzikert.

Usually though I don't have a specific location in mind, so I just randomly pick one in-theater.

 

[Avitus]

I use google maps, then I use wikipedia to check if the city existed back then and what the name was.

This is how I decied the battlefield, exactly. Often you can get a little info on the site you want to use, and if you are lucky there has been an OTL battle that gives you some idea of what can happen on that battlefield.

For me, it depends on the campaign. I always start with what I want the treaty to look like, and work backwards from there. This allows me to (usually) write army performances that are appropriate to the end outcome. I don't think I've ever outlined a war without 'beginning' at the end.

For battles, there are some campaigns where I want a battle at a specific site, so I'll structure the campaign so a battle at that location makes sense. For example, in Age of Miracles I wanted a battle between Timur and the Byzantines at Manzikert. So I had Timur attack through Armenia, not Syria (and gave reasons why-in this case securer supply lines), and arranged the pre-battle maneuvers so that the armies would meet at Manzikert.

Usually though I don't have a specific location in mind, so I just randomly pick one in-theater.

And I also agree heavily here with working backwards from the desired outcome. Lets face it, a war's outcome is entirely dependant on the numbers posessed by both sides at the end, be they numbers of men, moneys, supplies, artillery, ships, ect, ect, ect, so unless you really don't have anything that you hoped to achieve through the battle and you are just making it up as you go back planning for numbers is essential. Plus, mosst real generals and strategists also pick an outcome and work back to how they can achieve that outcome, improvising as unaccounted for events occur, so it would also be similar to what your characters would be thinking during their campaign most likely.

I would also add that, especially if the battle outcome is not entirely expected, you should note the decisive point or points that led to that outcome. Examples would be things like a critical flanking maneuver, the unexpected death of a officer, a terrain advantage, a trap, or the arrival of reinforcements. Most battles in which the forces are comperable are decided by a relatively small number of decisive factors, so pick a few as a guideline for your battle.

 

[carlton_bach]

If there were wars fought in the region you are thinking of and within the general timeframe, it is always helpful to study those. I'm reading up on WWI and the Russo-Japanese War for my Russo-German war set in 1906. You may find material on the Habsburg-Ottoman wars of ortl useful. That far back, getting contemporary maps is most likely a matter for the internet (I bought two atlases from 1890 and 1912 quite cheaply, but seventeenth-century print costs serious money). But history books often also contain maps with contemporary names.

One thing that I find this approach useful for is that it gives you an idea of what is plausible. Wargaming doesn't do that well. In real combat, the weirdest things happen, but some thing still don't, so if you take instances that are as per OTL and transfer them to your timeline, then you can't go too far wrong.