Hello again, lads and lasses. In the lecture I posted just a week or so ago someone asked me on whether the same principles could be applied to army-sized conflicts, and of course to that question was no. Armies are incredibly complicated logistical feats, even without battles taken into account, and writing them is nothing like writing a fight between two individuals or small teams. As I thought on it I decided to write another lecture, this one on the finer points of literary armies. I so often see young warfic writers ambling about, after all, trying to portray the grand orchestra that is total war, with little idea of how it all works. And so, here we are.

As an aside, if you'd like to read an example of an absolutely excellent warfic, which does a truly superb job of portraying the workings of an army, I would direct you to Equestria: Total War. Although, sadly, it has been abandoned by its author (and just when it was really getting into the swing of things, too), and thus you have to withstand some emotional trauma if you read it, I know of no better reference on the fine art of making small colorful equines slaughter things by the hundreds.

Note that this lecture is geared towards settings before the automatic weapon. The creation of the machine gun, and the subsequent ability for a single soldier or small team to effectively fight far greater numbers, drastically changes how warfare works. Although some of the broader aspects can be applied to armies of all types, the focus is on those armies that still march in formations and engage in melee combat.

Now let's get to it.

Before we get into anything particularly violent you must realize this: armies are complicated. They are logistical wonders! They are ten thousand individuals all traveling together across land where they have no homes or farms or other infrastructure, and they must all be fed, clothed, and sheltered. They must be kept happy or, failing that, be inspired to stick through the rough patches with their leaders. There must be cooks, doctors, smiths, and tailors. Each soldier must be given some amount of freedom and recreational ability without causing them to lose discipline or direction. I for one cannot begin to fathom how one would organize it all, and am glad that I can just have one pony tell another pony to do it and let it all happen off-screen.

The best way to show what's happening in an army is through the eyes of individuals. Is your army stuck in Valley Foal for the winter, with nothing to eat and no tents to sleep in? Don't just tell us, give us a scene of a soldier shivering as he digs fresh graves for those that froze last night, sorting through the bodies for clothes that are less worn and useless than his own. Give us a scene of a group of soldiers fighting over some berries that an enterprising forager brought back to camp. Give us a scene of troops raiding a nearby village for supplies against orders, stealing what little food the villagers have. Show us as a commanding officer is forced to punish those soldiers for their behavior, even though he understands exactly why they did it.

Is your army in a period of rapid expansion, as new supplies and local support allow its numbers to grow with fresh recruits? Don't just tell us in some lazy half-flanked narrative! Show us as stony-faced veterans watch green recruits trotting into camp. Show us some tension between veterans who have lost everything for their cause and naive rookies that come in not knowing the value of a pair of socks.

As much as an army consists of soldiers, don't forget about everyone the keeps the soldiers alive. The cooks that make the meals, the doctors that treat the sick, the artisans that turn useless fabric into life-saving blankets, the haulers that transport wagons full of supplies, there is much to be done before any fighting. Use these supporting elements to help you paint a deep and well-realized picture of what life is like in your army.

Remember above all that an army consists of individuals. I cannot stress it enough. Readers won't read your story for tales of what any army does; they will read it to see what the individuals in the army do, how the army changes them and how they influence the army. Like many stories where violence is commonplace, the violence is not the focus; the characters are. The army is merely a setting to drive your characters on through tough decisions and difficult times. As much as people say "he can't see the forest for the trees," you as an army writer mustn't forget to show the trees for the forest.

Now onto some more military ideas.

Armies do not fight often, not at the technological level I'm talking about. Generally each side will have one or two armies total, and they will spend a great deal of time maneuvering around each other and avoiding each other. To the novice armchair general this may seem counter intuitive. "Why not split your forces up so you may cover more ground?" you might ask. And if you have a good memory you'll remember that I don't like it when you ask me questions. Either way, the answer is that if your forces are split up and the opponent's are concentrated, then your opponent may easily roam the countryside, fighting and defeating your armies one at a time. If you have a great numerical advantage then splitting up your forces is entirely viable, as long as all of your armies are at least as large as your opponent's largest army. Consider Equestria: Total War (E:TW from now on): the griffons have at least five armies whereas Equestria only has one. The Equestrian army is not much larger than any of the griffon armies, and this allows the griffon armies to operate with little fear of being wiped out by sheer numbers. Later on the Equestrians gain more numbers, and in response the griffons start to concentrate their forces into fewer armies of larger size. It is better to punch hard in less places than to slap in many.

Why do armies maneuver around each other so much without fighting? Because often times the battle is decided by positioning. A wise general does not fight a battle he is unlikely to win; he withdraws and positions himself better. However sometimes there are instances where he cannot withdraw; perhaps his foe has stationed his army in a crucial city or is cutting off supplies. This is the essence of strategy: forcing your opponent to engage you on your terms, while avoiding fights that don't favor you.

When it actually comes time to fight, you must remember this above all: morale is the deciding factor in a battle. It is not the goal of the general to kill his opponent's army, it is his goal to defeat them. The vast majority of the time, an army will break ranks and run from the field before they are all dead. It is all about morale. You do not flank your enemy to kill them, you flank them to fill them with shock and confusion so that they run. You do not bombard them to kill them, you bombard them so that they flee in terror. You don't even kill them to kill them, you kill them so that they will see their comrades dying around them and run for their own lives. Morale is quite literally everything in warfare. Everything a general does, whether it be feeding his troops well, inspiring them, keeping them disciplined, anything, comes down to the improvement of morale.

In a battle there are generally four very broad types of units. I'm not going to go any details here because part of the fun is coming up with how your army fights, how these ponies organize themselves without hands or fancy technology or what have you. These categories remain true through all eras of war, although they do change drastically in appearance at times.

First you have your line troops. Line troops are there to hold your line, to give your army a form. In medieval times they are spearmen, in E:TW they are earth ponies. Line troops are not there to attack things, they are there to protect the rest of the army. If the line breaks, then the rest of the army will quickly follow as enemy forces charge into their ranks.

Then there is your artillery. Artillery is the big thing that the line troops are protecting. Artillery does lots of damage from afar, and can be anything from a hundred archers to ten cannons to a mobile missile launcher. In E:TW the artillery are magical mortars. Although artillery is often not the most effective at killing things, it is absolutely terrifying to be bombarded by artillery while your commander tells you to stand still. The chief role of artillery is to wear down the enemy's morale and cause them to break.

Next is the cavalry. Cavalry is quick and heavy-hitting, but often vulnerable as well. They are fast enough to flank around an enemy force and hit them in the behind, which is devastating to morale. However, they are vulnerable if caught off guard. In reality they can be anything from mounted knights to a heavy tank. In E:TW they are pegasi.

Last is skirmishers. They are not as fast or destructive as cavalry, but they are much better at sustained fighting. They can flank around and hit an enemy formation from behind, protect friendly forces when they're repositioning, delay enemy advances, and set ambushes. In medieval times they were often horse archers or light mounted swordsmen, and in modern times they are usually mechanized infantry. In E:TW they are unarmored earth ponies.

Of course these categories often blend together and mix. Heavy infantry, which has a more offensive role as opposed to line infantry, would be somewhere between cavalry and line infantry. Archers are not quite as devastating as the cannons one typically associates with artillery, but are quick enough to hit and run like skirmishers. These categories are just very broad roles I'm outlining.

Once again, when portraying the events of a battle you will want to do it with scenes focused on individuals. Do not narrate the clash of the nameless ponies of the New Lunar Republic fighting the nameless ponies of the Celestial Empire. Show us individuals with names standing in formation, wincing as their comrades are blown to bits around them, making their peace with death shortly before they meet in battle. Don't simply tell us of the movements of the units. Show us generals arguing and shouting in their tents, couriers sprinting to and fro and officers screaming orders to their troops. Give us the experience of the individual and you can't go too wrong.

Now I'm not going to tell you everything about how to convince hardened soldiers to run away or feed ten thousand horses without a farm in sight. What I've given you here is just some broad and basic tips on how an army works, how battles work, and how to portray it all in story. Once again, I recommend that the aspiring warficcer read Equestria: Total War. That story will really show you how it's done right.

That's all for now, chaps. Now go and play with your toys or whatever it is you kids do.

Also recommended reading: The art of war for when you want to build the rationales of competent war leaders for their strategies.

The Art of War is also known as the big book of common sense amongst armchair generals and veteran military personnel alike because it covers the absolute basics of warfare, from morale to espionage to tactical position and even terror tactics. You will likely have been told that anyone who obeyed everything outlined by Sun Tzu never lost a battle, which is true, what you often won't hear of is that the losing side also obeyed everything he laid out. Often innovation trumps tradition in warfare, and this does not apply to technology (even technology's hard edge can be mitigated or even subverted by a wily enough commander) and more often applies to how commanders think about the situations and difficulties they face. That being said the book is still a recommended foundation for sensible warcraft for anyone, if your going to justify a commander character's actions and you want them to seem to know what they're doing, get in their mindset first. If he is doing something unorthodox, show us why it is unorthodox, and better yet, show how this affects his subordinates who may not be confident in their superior's decisions.

3851745
Yep.

Another thing that an author should also remember is that no matter how well trained, supplied, led, organized your army is, any serious battle will also mean losses for the good guys, not just the evil ones. Sure, you could write a well executed ambush scenario where a small group of ponies ambushes and wipes out a griffin squad without a single loss, but I'm talking about a large scale battle against a competent enemy. You don't win battles without losing a single soldier.

Having casualties among the good guys not only makes things more realistic, but it also makes the bad guys a dangerous enemy. If your armies keep defeating the enemy without a single loss, then the enemy doesn't feel like a threat. It turns them into weak pushovers and takes away any suspense.

I understand that this feels like an obvious point, but I have seen it several times when some authors fall under the illusion that the good guys attack, shoot, charge, stab, kill and suffer no losses because everyone has hundreds of guardian angels watching over them.

Yes, Yes yes,
I thank you for your bountiful knowledge contribution.
Despite the fact that the universe In my head has technology out the wazoo, this will be invaluable in my endevors.

Good stuff. I don't agree with the idea that warfics have to focus on individuals, but maybe that's because I'm thinking about writing some Equestrian military history focusing on leadership and tactics. Anyway I think it's also worth noting the following points for thinking about a battle:

1) As goldenwing says, medieval warfare was positional (and would remain until advanced communications in our 19thC). It's about moving into a position where the enemy has to attack, such as important roads or river/mountain crossings, or placing your army in a position to attack important cities or forts.

But first and foremost, armies have to go where they can feed themselves and they can't stay in one place for long - which is why fics showing medieval armies marching anywhere outside of farmland are almost certainly unrealistic. There are also political pressures behind where an army goes and what it should do. All in all it's not always possible for things to work out the way a commander plans.

2) Weapons determine what sort of tactics an army uses. A spear only attacks forward, which makes it a terrible weapon for soldiers who are expected to fight one-on-one. Similarly, longswords require space to swing around so it's difficult to fight in formation with them. The short sword is a mix between the two, but requires getting close to the enemy and so any army that uses it is almost always armored (e.g. the early Romans).

For guns, generally as they get more advanced (e.g. fire more reliably and with less reload time), armies use less 'blocky' formations, require less melee infantry, and start drawing up in lines. With repeating/automatic weapons formations break down into small fireteams.

3) I don't agree with goldenwing as to the goals of battle. In positional warfare, the goal of the attacker is to force the defender out of position while the goal of the defender is simply to keep position. Morale is important, but it's not necessary to break morale to win. Medieval battles usually ended with one side deciding that victory isn't possible and retreating (of course the famous battles are the ones where the loser gets annihilated, which is why death-by-morale is so emphasized). Total War (the game, not the fic) is wrong in this regard.

As such, I disagree with goldenwing's about the use of artillery - it's used to get the enemy to move out of position rather than to break his morale.

4) Flanking an entire army is over-emphasized as a tactic. It's usually not that effective, because re-positioning your army to flank is an obvious move and enemy commanders aren't stupid. What real-life commanders generally focus on is army wings - you concentrate your efforts on one army wing and pressure it until it breaks. Once it breaks, then you have flanked and can start rolling up the enemy army. The Battle of Leuctra gives a standard idea of what commanders aim for.

5) Heavy cavalry is king of the medieval battlefield, but is almost always used only at the point of decision - the part where a commander judges the enemy army wing to be sufficiently pressured, and one extra push will cause it to break. Cavalry isn't good in individual combat and can't be used repeatedly, but the cavalry charge is an intensely powerful and fearsome move that can break multiple formations. Light cavalry are generally used in off-battle roles like harassment, and even in battle should mainly be focused on driving away artillery units.

6) Medieval infantry do most good when standing still. You can't brace against a cavalry charge when moving, so few commanders would dare move infantry around when the enemy cavalry is not neutralized. It's worth it to think of the infantry as a 'wall' - acting as a barrier between the enemy and your more important assets (e.g. archers, cavalry), soaking up damage while the commander maneuvers and considers his options.

3851745

"Why not split your forces up so you may cover more ground?" you might ask. And if you have a good memory you'll remember that I don't like it when you ask me questions. Either way, the answer is that if your forces are split up and the opponent's are concentrated, then your opponent may easily roam the countryside, fighting and defeating your armies one at a time.

May I turn your attention to the American Revolution where General Greene split his men when Cornwallis had more soldiers. The plan actually worked since Cornwallis did the same. Sent a group after Morgan and he chased Greene.
Now, while the Congenital Army lost the main battle, they did win at Cowpens.

Another thing people need to remember when writing war is USE THE GENERAL. Your General's are an important part of a war story, they tend to be one of the main points of view during the battles after the common soldier. Give the general character, is he a coward? is he a war hero? is he Commander Shepherd? does he lead from the front? The back? all of these questions are important when creating your leaders, Does Princess Luna lead while her sister handles the home front? Do both sisters lead while Twilight manages Equestria? Maybe Celestia leads the military from the front while Luna and her Batponies work as a navy seal kind of commando group? these are all things you have to consider when writing a war story.

3981694

Regarding this post there is one more thing to keep in mind. While it's good and awesome to work out the details of a general, please stop with the "General leads from the front" cliche. Yeah, we all want to make sure the general is a badass warrior who looks out for his/her soldiers and cares about them. A leader who shares the same conditions with those who fight under his command, not like some paper pusher behind the front line.

However, that is exactly what a general does.

Remember the initial post that described how complex a mechanism an army is? Well, general is the one who oversees it. Every single detail. From organizing supplies to leading the army in battle and by leading, I mean studying the maps and figuring out how and where the army will fight. And as soon the battle starts, the general also must process the information he/she is getting from the subordinates, in order to figure out how the battle is changing, what the enemy leader might be up to and giving the orders to counter enemy actions. You can't do that in the middle of a battlefield.

I mean, have you ever been at a crowded concert or some other event where there are lots of people around you? How well you could tell what was going on around you? Okay, maybe in your immediate vicinity, but what about 20 meters from you? On the other side of the group? Once you're out in the field, you forget about everything you can't see. Not only that, but you are easily distracted by all the fighting going on, so you don' t have a moment to think, to consider what is going on. It will be impossible to find you in order to report what is going on on the other side of the battlefield and you probably won't even hear what others are saying.

That's why leaders (the big leaders) are kept away from the actual fighting. So they can think in a, more or less, calm environment and figure out what to do next. Then those orders are passed on to the soldiers in the field, becoming more specific every time it moves down the ranks. The general thinks about the big picture and long term goals.

Another reason why generals do not fight, is that they are valuable. Imagine all the crap a general must do. Your value is determines how well you can organize the army, not by how good you are at killing others. It is easy to teach someone how to kill, it is very hard to teach someone how to lead, organize and motivate large groups of people. That is why, when choosing between saving a single high ranking officer and a group of ordinary soldiers, most armies would save the officer. I know it sounds harsh, but that's how it is. Leaders are expensive, grunts are cheap.

A general or any other leader like Princess Celestia or Luna would not engage in direct combat unless the situation is messed up in the extreme. For example, an enemy squad has broken through the lines and has managed to reach the command post. And even then, the main priority will be to get the commanding officer away, to safety, because every moment he is fighting, he cannot give orders and his army becomes a disorganized mob.

hmm, so we have the lessons for one on one and army vs yrmy battles.

What about small skirmishes? Like a small squad, less than 20 members, fighting against a similar sized group or even against a much larger one in a guerilla style combat?

5229929
A skirmish isn't that different from writing an army battle. At least as far as the actual battle itself goes. The main difference is that your troop diversity is much smaller and that the entire battle scene can be written from a single character's viewpoint.

On an organizational level, one thing you have to keep in mind is that you still need a base of operations, so to speak. You need a place from which to launch your attacks and where to return once the fighting is done. The base is also your biggest weakness when it comes to guerrilla warfare. Usually, the reason why you're fighting a guerrilla warfare is that you do not have the resources and manpower to engage the enemy in an open battle. You are always outnumbered and have to rely on surprise and mobility to avoid being squashed like a fly. You attack when the enemy is weak and run away when the enemy is strong. If you have a base and the enemy finds out where it is, you're pretty much screwed.

You either have to choose between running away and abandoning the base or dying in a futile effort to defend against overwhelming odds. A static target you must defend is exactly what the enemy wants. After all, he has reserves and guns to destroy such a target.

Guerrilla operations in general are more about planning than actual fighting. You only have so much time to do what you need before you're overwhelmed.

Oh, and one more thing. If you're writing a story where a nation has been occupied by a foreign army (after it defeated your army) and rebels rise up to defeat the occupants and liberate the nation, don't. Stories such as these, tend to have a major flaw. If the occupants were strong enough to defeat your entire army and occupy the nation, what makes you think a bunch of rebels will have any chance? That enemy army is still there. It hasn't gone anywhere.

The only way for a rebellion to succeed is to ensure the enemy army is occupied somewhere else. Unless their main forces are urgently needed somewhere else, the resistance will come to a quick, brutal end.

5230331

First, thank you for the reply. I have identified myself three POVin my particular case: the main character, who's one member in a small squad operating guerilla tactics, second his leader, who will manage the squad in the battle and thus needs a more tactical knowledge, and third the entity who gives them their missions, but who remains unknown to the main character for the needs of the story.

As a result they will have very little strategical knowledg as the top level limits what Intel they get. And their faction is stuck between two much larger ones at war with each other, the main character having lost any hope of his side having any chance of actually winning...