Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43961
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43961
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

If I were to describe Waterloo from Napoleon's point of view, it would be very different from that same battle from the point of view of a soldier, or even a cavalry lieutenant in the front ranks. Napoleon's fate is decided on that battlefield as much as the lieutenant's. Napoleon has a better understanding of what's going on all around the field, and he's the one making the large-scale decisions. But Napoleon is not performing feats of personal courage, he is not charging the enemy, he is not meeting the enemy's sword with his own. That's what the lieutenant does.

If Napoleon were to lead the charge, as King Theoden does in _The Lord of the Rings_, that would be inspiring for his troops, but he would no longer be commanding the battle. Runners from other parts of the battlefield wouldn't know where to find him, wouldn't be able to report to him. And he himself wouldn't be able to transmit orders to the varied divisions of his force.

Is there any way I can have the cake and eat it too? Writing about a pre-modern battlefield, is there any way I can give the reader both the thrill of following the cavalry lieutenant, and the weight of command and tactical understanding that come with following Napoleon?

Original score: 8