How to describe Large Scale Events - Writers Forum

Monkuta · 05-11-2008, 03:53 PM

If anyone has seen my post "War Tactics" in the research section, they know I'm trying to add a huge medieval dramatic battle to a story I'm writing (or just write a new story focused around the battle). I'm slowly gaining a lot of information on medieval tactics, weapons, etc... But it just struck me that I'm not sure how to write out such an event. I want it to be huge and dramatic with the feel that everything is happening at the same time but in writing (as far as I've experienced) you can only describe one thing at a time.

Does anyone know a good way to write out the events of a large scale battle well?

Thanks in advance to any responses,
~Monkuta

astralis · 05-11-2008, 04:59 PM

The reader will be able to supply most of the details if you let him.

Some ways to convey scale:

Try to subtly mention background details such as a boom of an explosion or destruction of some sort way off in the distance, for example.

Tighten the pace during the battle and move around locations of the battlefield.

Bring a few of the subplots together during the battle where each are in different locations of the battlefield accomplish different goals (e.g., one is trying to escape from the dungeon while another is trying to knock down the walls of the castle).

Mention the scale:

"Do you smell it?" he cried, pointing off toward the field, where Arnaut's troops continued to mass.
It was now early evening; the sun was down, and Marek guessed it must be about six o'clock. But in the fading light, they saw that Arnaut's forces now had a full dozen trebuchets assembled and set out in staggered rows on the field below. After the example of the first incendiary arrow, they had moved their engines farther apart, so that any fire would not spread beyond one engine.
Beyond the trebuchets, there was a staging area, with troops huddled around smoking fires. And at the very rear, the hundreds of tents of soldiers nestled back against the dark line of the forest.

-- "Timeline" by Michael Crichton

Also, study some battle scenes from some of your favorite stories and consciously mark the sections that make the battle seem real to you. Write down what happened to make the battle seem so large and real to you. If you do this for a couple of stories you can see that it's very similar for many other stories. You don't need to focus on just medieval stories either. Every large-scale event behaves similarly.

Monkuta · 05-11-2008, 08:33 PM

I see... I always thought the best way to do it might be to write out every action in each part of the battles, one at a time. Then finish off with where they all come to one final climactic event. But I see what you mean. Thanks.

astralis · 05-11-2008, 08:44 PM

Don't let the battle get in the way of your story. Keep it focused on the plot and subplots within the setting of the battle and use the action where your characters are making decisions. That way the battle will have meaning and your story moves forward.

Monkuta · 05-11-2008, 09:01 PM

Also good advice. Though the story may be from the point of view of the guy who's seeing the entire battle from a raised location (possibly the top of a castle during a defense battle).

Rowan Hart · 05-12-2008, 07:31 PM

I presume that the commander of the attacking force Crichton described there lost that battle? Any battlefield commander who deployes trebuchets within range of bowmen capable of loosing incendaries is a buffoon! Beyond this Astralis is correct on the use of scale. A battlefield may be a huge sprawling affair with different elements of each force engaged across a large front. Similarly, taking Stanford bridge as an example, they can be relatively compact with a melee frontage of a few hundred yards.

Bad example of battlefield incompetence aside, as I mentioned to you previously, read Bakkar's 'Prince of nothing' as he describes set, seige and meeting engagement battles very well. Although I'm not personally a fan of the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven' the seige of Jerusalem is fairly good in terms of battle pace. Compare that to the previous scene of small scale melee and you can see how battles vary in pace.

Oh! And I'm forgetting David Gemmel! If you can find it, read 'Legend' which is basically one fight after another. You'll see what Astralis is getting at in Legend and how you only have to describe the major events, those which focus on your main characters or which drive the plot. Other than that, you can mention individual heroism if it's relevant to the story.

Hope that's some small help. Did you have any luck with your research?

Monkuta · 05-12-2008, 07:45 PM

Still hunting down all the books and stuff people are recommending.

Omnisu · 05-12-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

best way to do it might be to write out every action in each part of the battles, one at a time.

That's possibly the worst way. And for your example of someone seeing it from above, they will see the movement of large groups of troops but none of the details, and they still can't look everywhere at once.

The best way depends on the story you're trying to tell. Do you want to talk about the tactics, or the people? The closer you get to the actual fighting, the more chaotic everything will be, and the less you'll be able to say about the tactics.

Damian_Rucci · 05-13-2008, 02:02 PM

Make sure you have the action of the battle, but not too much. Too much action can confuse the reader. You may want to just focus on a set group of characters and have their senses depict the battle.

Monkuta · 05-13-2008, 08:49 PM

I'm trying to think of it from every view. What does a guy with a sword in the midst of it see? What does a rifleman from behind the main lines see? What does the bird flying overhead see?

Rowan Hart · 05-13-2008, 10:10 PM

Well, I can tell you first hand what a guy in the middle of it all with a sword sees - At range as you approach you see a mass of other men who tend to be taunting you. You taunt back and advance, limbering your muscles if you've got any sense as the last thing you want is your body to crick in the melee. At about 200 yards the front rank gets as much of his body behind his shield as he can and locks himself into a shieldwall with the man to the right. rear ranks thank whoever they believe in that they're not up front and watch the sky above the front rankers for the inevitable first volly. You don't raise your shield yet because advancing with your shield up bloody hurts!

At about 200 yards the arrows arc up from the enemy ranks. You wait until you see them at the start of their decent THEN get your shield up. Men about you fall with arrows in them. You thought you were sweating before, but now your helmet sits wonky because you're perspiring like hell. You might feel an arrow or two hit your shield. If it's been above your head for a couple of minutes, you can feel the impacts quite sharply.

At 75 yards the front rank begins to leave you behind as they lope off at just under joggin.g speed. You close ranks and take the last volley of arrows. There are gaps in the rank and file - if you're disciplined enough, you fill them otherwise when the push comes the fighting ranks are weakened. Your sword begins to feel quite heavy. If you're armoured ( And it really is a good idea to be so attired ) it begins to chafe even through the underquilting.

At about 30 yards the front rankers up their shouting and pick up to a fast jog. Again you close ranks. At this range from the enemy there should be no further volleys so you can lower your shield. It seems a cliche, but you really do need to take a leak now, and hope that when you get in close and start taking blows, you don't piss your hose. Not that it matters, because quite a large percentage of you have your hose loose because of dysentry.

At 10 yards the pace is taken up a notch as the front rank charges. If the enemy is receiving, your front rank opens the shield wall. As the two lines meet, you hear the impact and the files suddenly compact - you are brought up short in the backend of the bloke in front. On the fighting line men are thrown over the awaiting shiled wall.

The melee at the fighting line varies depending on wether this was a mutual or received charge. If the enemy was static and received, the object is to force a gap in the wall. This is done by trying to weaken individual enemy by beating the living bejesus out of their shield. It's damn hard to actually hit the man himself, but whack his shield enough and it'll drop - enough for someone to throw themselves onto the weakened formation and force that gap I talked about. All well and good, but the enemy is doing the same to your shield.

If a gap is forced, you begin to wedge - that is open the gap using your forward momentum. Force enough men through and the rear rankers can start to lay into their rear rankers who have no damn shield wall to hide behind. Here it is a good idea to lay a crafty swipe or two at the enemy's front ranks who are still engaged - nothing better than widening the gap even further.

Butcher enough of them, and the enemy will rout. Once that shield wall is compromised, their main defense is gone and they have no cohesion. Initially as you forced the gap, your losses were high, but now the tables are turned and they start falling in droves. If your forces can drive enough of a wedge into their lines, you can start to batter the rear of the formation. This is not ideal for them as they must either turn to face you or get whacked.

At this point your arm feels like it's dropping off. In some instances, your friends arms are literally dropping off. The ground, feels slippery and you are a bit giddy from adrenaline and fatigue. Thought you were sweating before? Well now you're dripping and if your sword hilt's not wired, you're having a hell of a job not accidentally using the thing as a javalin ( which is bad. Loose that sword and you are screwed, even at this point) Muscles start to turn all mushy but at least your bladder feels lighter.

Then the enemy routs ( or you do). Often the first you know about this is the press of bodies around you lessens. If everyone is running fowards from your perspective, this is good because it means you have won and the enemy is legging it. If everyone starts running in the opposite direction, you had better join them or all your mates suddenly begin to look unfamiliar - then one of them smacks you around the head and you're a bit dead.

Assuming it's your side that's won, you tend to ignore what your officer is screaming at you and chase after the enemy hitting them in the back. This is good because they tend not to return the favour. As they throw away their weapons and shields, they start to make ground and leave you behind. It's at this point what your officer was bawling suddenly makes sense. Looking around you realise that you're out of formation and there's a bloody big block of the enemies reserves coming at you fresh, angry and in good order.

This goes on all along the battle line.

That's what it's kind of like when re-enacting anyway.

astralis · 05-14-2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

I presume that the commander of the attacking force Crichton described there lost that battle? Any battlefield commander who deployes trebuchets within range of bowmen capable of loosing incendaries is a buffoon!

So smart! Yeah, they got hosed partly because of that. In the story, one of the characters from the modern time (who went back in time) introduces them to Greek fire and when they tried to put it out it got worse, which was probably the real dramatic reason Crichton put the trebuchets so close.

lin · 05-14-2008, 01:14 AM

Jesus, you poor guy. You're looking for witing advice and you run into a medeival geek and those two idiots astralis and omnisu.

Don't pay ANY attention to that pair. They have no qualifications to tell you diddley.

Let me suggest that you do this the way writers do it. Read books that handle it well and get an idea how they pull it off.

If you want to see a real master of weaving a plot through battle, check out the Sharpe novels by Bernard Cromwell.

Another excellent writer who depicts big historic battles (Victorian, whereas Sharpe is Napoleanic) is the recently sadly deceased George MacDonald Frazer, author of the Flashman series. He has plots and humor and sex runing through some of the most famous battles in history: Little Big Horn, Charge of the Light Brigade, Coanpoor, the rout at Kabul, etc. And never drops a stitch of the actual history.

Cornwell also manages to balance facts with fiction in his books.

But both are great for making you see and live down and dirty combat. Sharpe is especially apt to find himself up to his elbows in blood and snot and guts.

If you want pure swordplay, check out Cornwell's tales of Vikings vs Alfred the Great, the series that includes The White Horse.

The way you cop licks from masters, you read through them breathlessly, then immediately go back and read them looking for the way they handle the details.

lin · 05-14-2008, 01:15 AM

BTW, don;t even think about going to that satanicly fucked-up How To Write site astralis links to. That URL should be napalmed.

Raging_Hopeful · 05-14-2008, 01:27 AM

Okay but then I HAD to click on the link. *blink blink*

In fairness it has a lot of market articles which are interesting if you know nothing about the industry. ... but I really hate "Let ME show you how to write!" as though there is a quick and easy way to do it.

Makes me think of phen-phen. Sure you can bang out a page of crap, but it might give you brain cancer down the road.