Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Battles: understanding the terrain

Geography is often a key factor in determining the outcome of a battle. Indeed, it is often one of the first things looked at by a military commander when conducting the military appreciation process prior to an operation. Not only can holding key terrain provide a commander with an advantage in terms of observation and or fields of fire, it can also provide the element of surprise for assaulting troops, cover for support elements and resupply nodes, or act as a barrier to an enemy seeking to exploit a flank. Capture of a key feature by an assaulting element can also force an enemy to withdraw from an area altogether.

Whereas sometimes the nature of the terrain of a battlefield, and the advantages or disadvantages it gives to one side or the other, might be obvious to someone standing on it, the majority of our readers do not have this luxury. As such, as writers it is important for us to understand (broadly) the spatial limitations and opportunities provided by the battlespace and to be able to articulate this in a manner that the reader will understand. In this regard, maps and images are a godsend as they can help a writer start to piece together where units were in relation to others, the type of vegetation, the avenues of approach, obstacles, and ultimately what the battle must have looked like. They can also help the reader to interpret what we are trying to say and can potentially make it easier to conceptualise a complex series of (probably chaotic) movements.

Some sources provide a good description of the battlefield, while others at times can be quite esoteric in their descriptions, almost assuming a level of knowledge that few possess. Sometimes it can help to sketch your own map when researching, even if only to sort out any temporal uncertainties. Throughout your prose you should make an effort to provide the reader with clues as to how the battlefield looked, and how the individual units were positioned in relation to each other. This can be done by adding spatial references throughout the narrative, e.g. "The 1st Infantry Regiment attacked north from a low hillock, crossing a narrow cornfield before encountering the main defence line along the first north-south ridgeline. On the left of the attack, the 1st Battalion became stuck in a marshy patch of ground which slowed them, while on the right the 2nd Battalion pushed ahead, and suddenly found themselves isolated and exposed on the barren southern spur of the ridge. There they were subjected to a heavy artillery bombardment from the dead ground beyond the third ridge. Trapped by enfilade fire from a machine gun firing across the cornfield behind them, they were pinned in place on the spur. As the heavy 155 mm shells found their mark, casualties mounted amongst the men who had nowhere to seek cover."

Equally, in formulating your article, it can be very helpful to a reader to include a subsection dedicated to the geography of the battlefield or theatre in the Background section, and in the Aftermath section the impacts that terrain had upon the outcome, or tactics of the belligerents, could also be highlighted. In this regard, further guidance can be found at WP:MILMOS/C.

These days, some of the more widely written about battles have had full battlefield guides written about them, and many authors now travel and walk the ground before writing their books. It is most certainly not a requirement for a Wikipedian to do the same, and no one is saying that you need to do a map exercise before writing your article or draw operational overlay, or work out the inter-visibility of each position on the battlefield. Nor, of course, should you add your own research to an article, or write it in a manner that might be more akin to a novel; as per various editing policies, you can only write about what you can find in reliable sources and your prose should be written in a suitably encyclopedic, but also easy to comprehend, style. Nevertheless, the old adage that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted also applies with writing. If you as a writer can understand how the battle looked, it will help add clarity to your narrative and your readers will get so much more out of your article.