- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @David Flin here
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Nitpicker’s Guide to Ancient Warfare: Operations in fiction
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
I was going to get annoyed when David listed his examples until I realised he meant the 2005 film version of LWW. Yes, go to town on that one by all means. (As David says, CS Lewis always rather rushes over battles in his descriptions, probably realising he couldn't write them as well as his friend Tolkien).
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
Oops. That's something I need to clear up. I did indeed mean the 2005 film (and I was referencing the Book version of LOTR).
There's a bit of fun in LOTR, the mythic high fantasy of elves and magic rings, getting a more realistic military operation than the grubby, earthy low fantasy. Stereotypically it should be the other way round
Nah, it was clear in the actual text when you got to it, don't worry.Oops. That's something I need to clear up. I did indeed mean the 2005 film (and I was referencing the Book version of LOTR).
There's a bit of fun in LOTR, the mythic high fantasy of elves and magic rings, getting a more realistic military operation than the grubby, earthy low fantasy. Stereotypically it should be the other way round
Well, Tolkien was a veteran and most low fantasy authors aren't.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
Reading this I found you to be right but feel Narnia as a movie and a book series is being done a slight disservice since its actually to my mind a very good depiction of operational matters, or rather what goes wrong and right based on factors entirely outside the tactical with the battles themselves being nearly forgone conclusions regardless of what happens on the field because of things that happened days or weeks earlier.
Peter is the (literally but it won't be said explicitly for a book or two) God chosen King of Narnia and Aslan's right hand (paw?) and its his kingdom he's fighting for. So in universe he's always going to be a figure head for a rebel army and history is full of Kings leading on the battlefield despite their somewhat spotty record as actual commanders.
The poor strategy and tactics of course may well be explained by it being literal centuries since the last big war in Narnia and most of his army being the commons drawn to fight by Aslan's reappearance who have only had a few weeks training at best barring anything they picked up themselves. The Centaur guy seems to know his way around weapons and is acting as Peter's second but he doesn't seem to even try to give military advice beyond "Numbers do not win a battle" which Peter rather astutely points out "but I bet they help."
I think Barna is actually a fairly good depiction of operations in that you've got the Witch summon large numbers of heavily armed and seemingly somewhat trained soldiers and face a smaller ill disciplined force with no real experience at any level and the outcome is a one sided slaughter until a second army coming from the direction of the enemy's own fortress and led by Jesus Christ himself shows up and all hell breaks loose.
It would be a poor depiction if Peter was shown to be a military genius with no experience or his rabble based on good vibes won. The one sided curbstomp narrowly saved by literal divine intervention arguably is how such an affair would play out.
So I'd say the abysmal Operational art shown by one side, and the other not accounting for the strategic implications of making an enemy of God's son stands on its own two feet within the narrative.
In the books there is actually some mention of the nature of various campaigns or at least the intentions of commanders, particularly the Horse and his Boy and the Last Battle actually spend more time on the logistics of where people are, what they are doing and why and which alliances they are making and breaking and the impact of weather and local political circumstances and awareness of enemy dispositions and intentions rather than the battles themselves that are quickly glossed over.
Peter is the (literally but it won't be said explicitly for a book or two) God chosen King of Narnia and Aslan's right hand (paw?) and its his kingdom he's fighting for. So in universe he's always going to be a figure head for a rebel army and history is full of Kings leading on the battlefield despite their somewhat spotty record as actual commanders.
The poor strategy and tactics of course may well be explained by it being literal centuries since the last big war in Narnia and most of his army being the commons drawn to fight by Aslan's reappearance who have only had a few weeks training at best barring anything they picked up themselves. The Centaur guy seems to know his way around weapons and is acting as Peter's second but he doesn't seem to even try to give military advice beyond "Numbers do not win a battle" which Peter rather astutely points out "but I bet they help."
I think Barna is actually a fairly good depiction of operations in that you've got the Witch summon large numbers of heavily armed and seemingly somewhat trained soldiers and face a smaller ill disciplined force with no real experience at any level and the outcome is a one sided slaughter until a second army coming from the direction of the enemy's own fortress and led by Jesus Christ himself shows up and all hell breaks loose.
It would be a poor depiction if Peter was shown to be a military genius with no experience or his rabble based on good vibes won. The one sided curbstomp narrowly saved by literal divine intervention arguably is how such an affair would play out.
So I'd say the abysmal Operational art shown by one side, and the other not accounting for the strategic implications of making an enemy of God's son stands on its own two feet within the narrative.
In the books there is actually some mention of the nature of various campaigns or at least the intentions of commanders, particularly the Horse and his Boy and the Last Battle actually spend more time on the logistics of where people are, what they are doing and why and which alliances they are making and breaking and the impact of weather and local political circumstances and awareness of enemy dispositions and intentions rather than the battles themselves that are quickly glossed over.
Last edited:
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
On game of thrones, the book series is far better than the show as a rule but still has a lot of the flaws of the genre, super successful night attacks and ignoring the defensive value of fortifications. It at least spends a lot of time talking about food, diplomacy, morale and terrain. I'd argue the main books are far from the worst in the genre although the show definitely is bottom tier.
The Gold Road was just one fine example, teleportation being necessary for most of the plot, armies blundering around for seasons apparently fighting major battles over random places before going back to blundering around, cavalry charges at night against zombies to defend a castle.
The Gold Road was just one fine example, teleportation being necessary for most of the plot, armies blundering around for seasons apparently fighting major battles over random places before going back to blundering around, cavalry charges at night against zombies to defend a castle.
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
Indeed, it often seems to be the case that the novel version is usually more historical (if one can use that term with reference to fantasy) than the film.
Partly that will be down to factors that the film has to accommodate that the book doesn't. For example, a film has to be careful not to have too many extras killed during filming, a factor the novelist doesn't have to worry about.
Partly that will be down to factors that the film has to accommodate that the book doesn't. For example, a film has to be careful not to have too many extras killed during filming, a factor the novelist doesn't have to worry about.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
Indeed, it often seems to be the case that the novel version is usually more historical (if one can use that term with reference to fantasy) than the film.
Partly that will be down to factors that the film has to accommodate that the book doesn't. For example, a film has to be careful not to have too many extras killed during filming, a factor the novelist doesn't have to worry about.
Just hire the Red Army again but pay an extra ruble for every real casualty. Hollywood winning the Cold War.