quote:

---

I'm trying to put together some battles and I can't get my head wrapped around the details well enough to write this very well, IMHO. I've tried to do some research on the subject but it hasn't been helping so far. I'm just not very military-minded, I'm afraid. :-/ So I'm asking for some help from any of you who might have a better idea of how to work with this stuff.

---

The writer might also wish to read this, condensed from Clausewitz' writings: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/clauswtz/clwt-toc.htm

and this, from Sun Tzu: http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

First things first, though: The author should thoroughly understand the differences between tactics and strategy, and battles and war.

1) Battle strategies for whom? I assume they're referring to the Napoleanic Wars, but--during that time--different armies/navies fought utilizing different strategies. (ie. The British used their calvray out front or cannon for crossfire, augmenting the infantry; Indians used their cannon before sending in their infantry, and their cavalry to slean up strays. Most infantry and naval lines relied on the speed of their salvos, and good initial positioning.)

2) Is their protagonist a general? captain? If not, most of the soldiers only knew what they were expected to do, and where they were headed. If so, I suggest acquiring a couple of maps, then assigning objects a representation (chess pieces are good for this: kings = command centers; knights = cavalry; rooks = gunnary/canonnades; bishops = supply trains; pawns = infantry divisions)and laying them on the map according to the position research shows. That way, as each stage of the battle progresses, you can literally see how the movements work AND why. If they've done sufficient research, this method will work well.

As far as acquiring strategos abilities:

Sun Tzu's Art of War is available in a plethora of translations, and is studied by many fortune 500 employees, major military branches, and most government intelligence branches. Upon review, Mike's link is a free version.

Miyamoto Musashi's The Book of Five Rings is also renowned in those communities as a superior strategist manual.

Niccolo Machievelli's II Principe as well can often be applied.

A good place to start is here.

Or, for fun here

It depends on the "level" of the character in your piece.
Are they part of a small infantry unit or a larger unit or the commander of the army.

If they are in a small unit I would definietly check out the "Sharp" series for larger you might want to read anything by William Forstchen (Gettysberg or Grant Moves East.) Although Forstechen writes about the Civil War his battle scenes are very vivid and dramatic.

As for the battle itself. Is it a meeting engagment? Where two small units "bump" into each other and then others are fed in until it becomes a large battle (a la Gettysberg) or a set peice where both intended to fight (Waterloo)or a siege?

As for plotting it out it runs very much like a story. Most battles develop slowly with skirmishing between smaller units.

As it goes on, more elements (units) are added and eventually the main action takes place. There is some type of climax. and then an aftermath, possibly one side retreating.

Things to remember:
1. In that era morale and unit pride were very important. 2.Seldom was there a total defeat where every one was destroyed. Usually a units morale failed causing units around it to fail as well. When enough units failed the battle was over. However in many instances even though one side retreated, the other was hard pressed to follow because communication was poor (this happened in the first battle of the Civil War.)
3. Generals and such had large staffs because orders were delivered by courier. This is important because it might take the courier an hour to relay orders and they could be misinterpreted (the Charge of the Light Brigade is an example.)
4.Flanks and being flanked were very important. A unit that is "flanked" must retire and when units start to retire other units get "worried" and consider retiring.

I'm gonna stop now...did this help?

Maybe they should watch some movies.

Also, military strategy isn't really that interesting to the average fiction reader. Why would you want to write about something that hasn't ever captured youre imagination? I'm not saying we can't write stuff we don't know, but having no idea where to look, that might be a little white flag.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/18th_century_warfare.asp

Your post reminded me of a college professor of literature who popularized the saying that "the American Revolution was England's Vietnam." I've heard that many times since.
In my mind that part of 18th Century warfare proved more interesting - a professional army taking on some professional soldiers mixed in with a majority of untrained militia who did not follow the "normal" rules of the battlefield.
Broken down to a more personal basis with individual characters struggling to fire and reload their muskets from behind trees at an army holding considerable more firepower and interesting tales beg to be told.

An account that may help shed light on how to write such scenery may be found here: http://www.usahistory.info/Revolutionary-War/Washington.html
Note the characterization of Daniel Morgan. There may not be much historical truth in this account but the writer makes me want to meet this guy anyway.