Portrayal and realism of close combat in BL fiction

[Noserenda]

Speaking from experience, raw aggression does play a big part in melee combat, the obvious examples being basically any modern bayonet drill, they don't each you the dry mechanics of bayonet fighting, they teach you to scream bloody murder and kill :)

 

Though arguably a bayonet charge is much more a psychological attack than a physical one.

 

Regardless, in melee combat the most aggressive side will win assuming equal skills, which is why shield walls and the like should be pushing rather than just sitti g static and hoping the enemy gets all tuckered out or something :D

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Savage has two distinct meanings. One is cultural and one is physical. Savage in the context of a fight is synonymous with brutal or brutalize.

There's no such thing as "brutal" or "brutalize" in a fight assuming it's a life and death one. Because... it's life and death combat. I fail to see how one sword thrust would be more "brutal" than another since your aim is to (and throught the ages always was, is and will) kill your opponent as fast as you could, with minimal effort, without being injured yourself and than move to another. You have an opening - you stick your blade into another man's chest, groin, thight, eye etc. Unless we talk of duels where one opponent clearly outmaches the other or some weird ritual (judical duel, or what aztecs/mayan did ) combat.

 

Fully agree on cultural thing though.

It’s just descriptive language, it’s not meant to convey a specificity of action. Slicing someone’s face with a rapier is elegant, but brutal. Beating someone’s teeth out is brutal but inelegant. To savage someone in the context of a BL novel is about the scene their trying to portray, it doesn’t have any significance beyond providing the reader with a description. Sigismund could ‘savage’ an opponent with blows, that if you watched it visually would be well practiced thrusts and strikes. Sigismund is not savage because of that. It’s like calling something red. You can say his armor was red, or you make it more descriptive. Wine, crimson, burgundy, etc.

 

 

What I am getting at is the need to separate the language you would use to teach someone to fight from the way authors use language to describe a fight.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[rendingon1+]

Actually when reading many BL books you come across fragments where "savagery in combat" is literally used as a technique?style? - don't know how to call it. I'm under impression that some writers come up with idea how x culture represented by legion fights - knight/sword culture fights with "precision" and "elegance" barbarian/axe culture with "savagery" and "fury" etc. And it only serves to further the plot as needed.

 

Speaking from experience, raw aggression does play a big part in melee combat, the obvious examples being basically any modern bayonet drill, they don't each you the dry mechanics of bayonet fighting, they teach you to scream bloody murder and kill

 

Though arguably a bayonet charge is much more a psychological attack than a physical one.

 

Regardless, in melee combat the most aggressive side will win assuming equal skills, which is why shield walls and the like should be pushing rather than just sitti g static and hoping the enemy gets all tuckered out or something

I know well what you mean and agree in most part but just raw aggression will get you nowhere. Also modern bayonet techniques (and not only) take into account psychological factor of soldier himself being scared, yelling and all has a double purpose of trying to throw your opponent out of balance and "fortyfying your resolve" lol. I remember my boxing instructor saying "do not get angry, get clinical and wait for it." which I'm sure you'll agree is wise

 

I'd argue with your statement that most aggresive side will win - context is important of course, but I'll bet my money on discipline. Aggression is (warning: extreme simplifiction) kind of based on adrenaline, which in the longer run wears off and leaves you spent.

Example form history: knightly orders were considered the best fighters at the time of Crusader States not because they had superior WS or S (lol) but because compared to "normal" knight they had super discipline.

Edited March 5, 2020 by rendingon1+

[cheywood]

I think it’s worthwhile to remember this is fantasy and the line between evocative and descriptive language can blur easily.

[Marshal Rohr]

Actually when reading many BL books you come across fragments where "savagery in combat" is literally used as a technique?style? - don't know how to call it. I'm under impression that some writers come up with idea how x culture represented by legion fights - knight/sword culture fights with "precision" and "elegance" barbarian/axe culture with "savagery" and "fury" etc. And it only serves to further the plot as needed.

 

That’s what I’m referring to. It’s a literary style, not a scientific observation.

[rendingon1+]

But we're talking "realism" and how authors use x feature that make no sense to describe someone's skills and prowes in battle. And how said feature makes someone more successfull or better than the other fighter which impacts on a plot, fanbase perception and other things ("who's primarch is a best fighter" threads). I thing some examples to illustrate the point are in order. Only tommorow. Edited March 5, 2020 by rendingon1+

[Marshal Rohr]

I don’t know how realistically you can describe something no one has done in about 400 years. Bayonet charges, sure, but fighting in formation with a shield? Dan Carlin talks about it in one of his podcasts. We know the Persians used to fire literal millions of arrows, but no one has actually done it in centuries.

[b1soul]

It seems that the effects of bolters on SM has been somewhat reduced by BL in recent years. Marines tend to take a lot of hits before going down (unless it's a precision shot, e.g. to the eye). That makes melee rather inevitable, and I would love to read a BL novel that handles Astartes on Astartes melee combat more like a clash between Greek hoplite phalanxes than individual warriors swinging at each other in myriad mini-duels across the battlefield.


EDIT: Astartes are the ultimate heavy infantry. A large number of chapters should fight with heavy infantry tactics. Come to think of it, extendable power lances or glaives used in formation should be more common than they are

Edited March 6, 2020 by Kelborn
merged

[bluntblade]

I'd say that in large part realism loses out, although the depictions are true to the verisimilitude of the setting. Such fights wouldn't necessarily make sense in our reality, but they do in the "reality" conjured by the books.

 

b1soul I see your point, but I think that would also be to misuse the Astartes' unbelievable speed and agility.

Edited March 6, 2020 by bluntblade

[Moonreaper666]

EDIT: Astartes are the ultimate heavy infantry. A large number of chapters should fight with heavy infantry tactics. Come to think of it, extendable power lances or glaives used in formation should be more common than they are

Considering Space Marines can shoulder-ram each other at 65mph with all that mass the phalanx and spears are a dumb idea

 

It worked/was plausible in Solar War but not the entire way of the fight

 

Astartes are not heavy infantry but super-fast and super-heavy ELITE infantry

 

The tactics you guys are thinking of would better fit the Warriors of Chaos from Fantasy!

[bluntblade]

Or perhaps more tactfully: the phalanx tactic is situational for a Legion.

[Moonreaper666]

Or perhaps more tactfully: the phalanx tactic is situational for a Legion.

That is going to be nuked or be hit by plasma balls of death (Sarcasm)

 

Neither the Phalanx or Navy Seal or US Marine tactics are appropriate for Astartes

 

Run-n-gun or Tactical killing fields are more their game

 

Navy Seals, SWAT, Macedonian Hoplites and US Marines would die in the Billions fighting against a few Million Orks

[bluntblade]

I see your point, but that's a sweeping generalisation which overlooks canon instances of those tactics being effective, notably in boarding actions and when facing an opponent whose ill-discipline makes them vulnerable (Iron Warriors vs World Eaters, UM vs World Eaters).

[rendingon1+]

I don’t know how realistically you can describe something no one has done in about 400 years. Bayonet charges, sure, but fighting in formation with a shield? Dan Carlin talks about it in one of his podcasts. We know the Persians used to fire literal millions of arrows, but no one has actually done it in centuries.

In most cases we do know how weapons and equipment were used in formation or not. There are large gaps, sure enough, especially concerning ancient history (not my field of interest) but amount of knowledge gained in 20th and 21st century about "medieval" warfare is staggering. There is also experimental archeology and many well read and educated history fans who conduct experiments at their own time and expense which is truly amazing and uplifting. I'd much prefere BL writers to base their view on combat on researches and not on Vikings, GoT or other bull . I'm just unable to watch this shows because of that and sometimes while reading BL feel the same.

 

Especially when there is some set of in universe laws which are ignored if plot demands it.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Brother Lunkhead
unnecessary comment

[Marshal Rohr]

Again, I’m pointing to the use of language. Have you ever been in a life or death sword fight with a shield? How would you describe it realistically? How would you describe one million arrows flying through the air in a way that lets people know you’re not making it up and you actually have been there hiding behind your shield until the arrows stopped?


Realism is good, but you’re nitpicking word choice, that when you get deep down into it is creative writing 101. Your expectation here isn’t translatable, and I’d honestly like to see a few examples of writing you consider to be good examples of realistic sword fighting in fiction.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Brother Lunkhead

[Kelborn]

I'd say it mostly comes down to the authors preferences.

 

Some might favor wrighting like a "savage" Viking ish assault while others prefer the more "methodical" phalanx tactics.

 

In the end, they will implement their own takes and imaginations of how certain factions/ characters would act in sitatuion xy. This leads to inconsistencies, though they are trying to keep it coherent. For example the devolution of the War Hound tactics into the World Eaters rage.

 

Let's take the famous (or infamous whoever you might ask) 300 scene from Brotherhood of the Snake.

Here we have a phalanx of Marines facing off against a wild, savage horde of Orks. In close combat. Of course it is epic and of course it only works against Orks or Tyranids and not against T'au or Necrons with their long distance weaponry.

 

Surely will Dan have made some researches. At leat he might have watched the 300 movies. :P

Generally speaking and from what I've seen, most if not all authors are eager to be as realistic and truthfull to their sources as possible. If you don't believe me, ask our brothers A D-B or RobMac, who shared a lot of their researches via social media. A D-B even linked his sources over in the Spear of the Emperor thread and I've seen Robs desk cluttered with historical war stuff and so on.

 

In the end, it's fiction. You'll take what you like and adapt it. Either the audience likes it or not. And let's not even talk about other franchises like Star Wars or such and how coherent they might be.

[bluntblade]

And this cycles back to a question I've been asking a lot, especially where a certain film fight in a throne room is concerned: is realism necessarily what we want every time, or should the author's focus be drama, which is likely to be their stronger suit?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Or perhaps more tactfully: the phalanx tactic is situational for a Legion.

That is going to be nuked or be hit by plasma balls of death (Sarcasm)

 

Neither the Phalanx or Navy Seal or US Marine tactics are appropriate for Astartes

 

Run-n-gun or Tactical killing fields are more their game

 

Navy Seals, SWAT, Macedonian Hoplites and US Marines would die in the Billions fighting against a few Million Orks

Please describe in detail what ‘Run-n-Gun’ and ‘tactical killing fields’ are please. When you say US Marine tactics, what are referring to? Specifically. You keep referencing SWAT, and I’m curious as to what it is you think they do.

[b1soul]

"Considering Space Marines can shoulder-ram each other at 65mph with all that mass the phalanx and spears are a dumb idea"

 

So? How does that make the use of power spears or glaives in cohesive formation silly? If the fight descends into a packed melee, which it often does despite all the range weaponry in 40K,you'd want to fight in formation with long reach melee instruments.

 

There are weapons powerful enough to nuke an enemy space marine detachment even it's moderately spaced out. That doesn't happen. What ends up happening is a bunch of marines slamming into a bunch of other marines in melee, but with the marines often fighting as individual warriors as opposed to cohesive infantry

[rendingon1+]

I'll posts fragments I don't like later.

[Mazer Rackham]

And this cycles back to a question I've been asking a lot, especially where a certain film fight in a throne room is concerned: is realism necessarily what we want every time, or should the author's focus be drama, which is likely to be their stronger suit?

 

It's a good question - however, it depends on which throne room fight you're on about.  The latest one, to me at least, is a whirling choreographed game of oranges-and-lemons.  The earlier throne room fight was much better both realistically and dramatically if I may say.

 

MR.

[bluntblade]

I was on about the latest. It feels right for the catharsis it's giving, while the other one is dealing with a different kind of drama and plays that superbly.

[b1soul]

I found the bad choreography of the latest throneroom fight to be rather distracting

[MegaVolt87]

Any HH story that has breacher squads fighting seems correct when they are in melee IMO. That's probably the closest I have seen to melee being more traditional as we know it.

[Brother Lunkhead]

=][=

 

We're still having to edit unnecessarily rude comments. This is a good topic, and I'd hate to have to give it a time out and ruin the momentum. It's perfectly fine to disagree but, let's keep it friendly.

 

=][=

Edited March 6, 2020 by Brother Lunkhead