The Grand Illusion
Do real-world nations use a weapon or a tactic just once and then discard it because it’s no longer new or interesting?
Let’s see. Knives and bladed weapons were developed so far back we can’t accurately tell exactly when. They were definitely used as a main weapon for thousands of years and remain in use as personal and professional weapons. Gunpowder is still around (if the latest new and improved version) some two thousand years after its first use. In more modern weapons, the first F-35, the latest fully operational U.S. fighter/interceptor, was delivered twenty years ago, and it’s projected to be in use for another 20 plus years. The B-52 is still going strong after more than sixty years.
People, and presumably aliens as well, will use tactics so long as they’re effective and existing weapons so long as there’s not something better and/or more cost effective. And they may develop new weapons or tactics, provided they’re actually better or not too costly.
Yet, over the years, and slightly more so recently, I’ve gotten comments complaining that protagonists keep using some of the same tactics and magical weapons time and time again. Some also complain that the antagonists’ forces are dumb or slow to change their reaction to the protagonist’s skills and tactics.
Now, I realize that there’s a certain segment of readers who want something new in every book, and I do my best to provide that in terms of political plotting, treachery, who else gets involved in the fighting, and even with protagonists gaining greater mastery of their magical skills and how to apply them.
But… I also know history and culture. Tactics don’t change unless weapons or defenses change, and even then, they tend to change slowly. One reason for slower change in lower tech cultures is that limited communications mean that when one land or leader comes up with something new, other countries have never seen it and refuse to believe what’s happening until it’s too late. There’s also the fact that the military leaders are conservative and don’t like to change tactics, particularly when it requires retraining forces.
The Mongol invasions, Alexander’s use of the phalanx, the rapid conquest of two-thirds of the Mediterranean basin essentially by Islamic culture, the machine gun, the German blitzkrieg, all were examples where those techniques worked well initially because existing armies and cultures were unable or unwilling to adapt quickly.
And, of course, sometimes, brute application of time-tested weapons, along with massive casualties, can surmount smaller forces equipped with limited wonder-weapons. That’s why Alyiakal spends so much time training his forces, because even the most powerful mage of the age is limited and needs disciplined and effective troopers.
I work to maintain a certain realism (strange as that sounds for fantasy) in the way cultures, tactics, and weapons work in human societies, and that means that characters will keep using tactics that work, until they don’t.
Alas… that also means readers will often find Alyiakal and other protagonists using tactics and devices that work time and time again.
There’s only so much you can do.
Don’t attack from behind, because that’s been done? Don’t start a siege, because it’s old hat? Pick up a scythe instead of a sword, because it’s different?
Fantasy games aside, there’s a reason no troops have ever used scythes in combat, only peasant levies and other non-professionals. A scythe is better against grass and grain than bad guys.
Yes, people read sf/f to enjoy someplace that isn’t the real world. But if you get too unreal, readers can’t relate. Which would be a novelty, but a counterproductive one.
this brings to mind a couple of thoughts from Terry Pratchett on the subject ( not necessarily consistent, but that’s the way he rolled ):
“Although the scythe isn’t pre-eminent among the weapons of war, anyone who has been on the wrong end of, say, a peasants’ revolt will know that in skilled hands it is fearsome.”
– Mort
“The class was learning about some revolt in which some peasants had wanted to stop being peasants and, since the nobles had won, had stopped being peasants REALLY QUICKLY.”
– Soul Music
You know, it’s funny, but I’ve seen this in IRL stuff too. I used to study melee weapons as a martial art and in the SCA. I became very solid with what interchangeably could be a naginata, glaive, etc.
My tactics were very very common, scythe the legs. Sure you strike at arms, torso, etc when there’s openings, but for the most part, if you have a 7′ long cutting pole you try to take out the opponent’s legs and end the fight then and there. People used to actively ask me why I never tried anything new.
Meanwhile, in the SCA the rules for the heavy armor fighting outlawed shots to the knee and down. When I tried to research why it became abundantly clear that it was because people didn’t want to learn to block those areas and it was seen as a “fairness” thing. I managed to set a few tournaments and activities that went to a more realistic rules set and allowed leg shots. And, despite my repeatedly pointing out how effective that was, very few people ever bothered to start learning to drop their shield or protect their legs. Because they’d spent years, sometimes decades, not having to do something. They instead chose to make comments about it being dishonorable, or cheap or not how the weapon should really be used, anything but change how they fought.
So, tactics don’t change for effective things because they work. And people don’t react to weaknesses because “that’s how it’s always been”
I just wanted to add that some readers may be objecting to LEM continually revisiting a theme or conflict that he feels strongly about. (E.g., “Is the use of force acceptable before anyone else realizes what’s about to happen?”)
That’s legitimate for those readers; it might not be something that interests them that much.
But.
Robert E. Howard spent his entire career doing all sorts of variations on the theme of how civilization can bring more harm than help. (He saw what happened to a quiet small town in Texas when Big Oil came in.)
Heinlein kept going back to the social strictures that drove him crazy growing up and later. He got immense mileage out of them, even if some of his work feels uncomfortable now.
The point is, or actually points are, 1) plenty of writers have done this, very successfully, 2) a novel is a tremendous undertaking, and a writer needs a topic or character or theme or something that will motivate them to write it and complete it, 3) multiply that by LEM’s 80 works, look upon them, ye mighty, and despair, and 4) you can’t please all readers anyway.
Sorry about the Ozymandias there, I couldn’t help myself. But meanwhile, LEM, carry on with the good work!!