Well, we've all read the descriptions of what Rowling thinks is a magical battle. but then, you take a step back and think:

"So... all they do is stand around blasting spells at each other?"

Probably not. But it does beg the question of how wizards/witches do battle? Or how do aurors raid a magical house for magical drugs etc.?

I mean, there's a plethora of booby traps that one could set for the magical police. Do aurors spend ten months/years to figure out each possibility?

And on a larger scale, how would magical armies battle? With the concept of personal energy shields (protego) and the like, would their strategies be different than ours?

Also, vertical envelopment is pretty much a guarantee in any large-scale (or small scale for that matter) encounter.

What do you guys think?

 

Wtf? What is this shit?

...And? People can booby trap hideouts itrl too.

Seriously, get out.

Yes.

I think that you're an idiot, and that this has been discussed in multiple occasions.

 

In that case, I apologize for restarting an old thread. Sorry if you feel offended.

 

Eh, I think it's an interesting topic.

The most important thing to keep in mind here is numbers. Different scales of warfare mean different kinds of warfare. And for wizards, there aren't enough people to engage in large army warfare.

If they did, I would imagine that much of the warfare would revolve around technology (that is to say, magical technology - enchanted objects) which would allow a group of wizards to deal damage on greater scales than they can separately.

However, as it is they don't have enough people for this kind of warfare.

Rather I would say that what we see in canon is what we get. Wars of information, of manoeuvring, of assassination, of recruitment, of subterfuge and of skirmishes.

Also one has to keep in mind that wizarding combat tends to deal in absolutes. Magic can give you unbreakable defences and unblockable attacks. I'm always reminded of the first chapter of HBP when thinking about this: "The problem is, Prime Minister, the other side has magic too." It really is a case of an unstoppable force encountering an immovable object.

Which is why positioning and information matters so much. A war between equally competent magic users is not won with magic, but by intelligence.

 

Oh rly? I seem to remember Hogwarts being invaded - in multiple occasions, and all of Voldemort's Horcrux hiding places being intruded. If Voldemort himself can't protect a room which he doesn't plan on anyone ever entering again [which is usually the problem with fortifying a hideout] from Regulus Black, then I think it's hardly absolute. Also, as far as protecting humans go, the best defenses we know of are horcruxes [can be destroyed], Harry's love shield [can be diverted], and maybe even the philosopher's stone - which can be destroyed as well.

OP: I was just pissy, I don't really care. Next time, though, check for similar threads before you post.

 

I tried searching for "tactics" and "strategy" within General Discussion, but did not find a thread on it. I may have missed it, though.

Taure, I'd imagine that there would be far more than just a cold war. I see your point regarding the usefulness of information. However, I was hoping someone could devise sort of a squad-based encounter, wherein the wizards etc. would have already engaged each other. Sort of a basic-training scenario.

 

Human warfare centers around logistics.

Wizards have no such need. Thus, it makes no sense to create an army in the traditional sense, because having all your troops in one place has very little benefit (as you can't force battle and there's no need for the defenders for the most part to protect any geographic point) but you risk a potentially devastating loss. Think Fleet-in-being for a comparative RL doctrine. Hogwarts, Gringotts, arguably the ministry, and Azkaban are the only places that would require an actual force to capture. Of course capturing them is of questionable value, as they don't actually defend anything other than themselves. As a military Headquarters, Grimmauld Place is just as good as Hogwarts - better perhaps, as the latter has never been broken into, whereas Hogwarts defences prove to be lacking on several occasions (as do the other three 'major' establishments.'

Combined with the low population to begin with, Voldemort's hit-and-run terror campaign is probably the way to go. A small innercircle to attack the high profile leaders of the opposing faction, with enough canon fodder to risk on the 'must take' targets, but whose loss is hardly crippling to his operations.

 

Hogwarts is a public location and thus they cannot protect it as well as, say, a private house. For example, the Tonks' home in DH, which Voldemort himself could not gain entry to, despite being right outside.

As for Voldemort's horcruxes: he did not protect them anywhere near as well as he could have. He relied mainly on secrecy to protect them, and once that secrecy was broken they were fairly easily got at.

Had Voldemort really wanted to protect them, rather than use them as some kind of execution of poetic justice, then there would have been no way that they could have been located, accessed, and destroyed.

 

Well, do we know how far someone can apparate? Or portkey? Otherwise, they'd still need a base of operations, somewhere to strike from.

Furthermore, having all your troops in one place has advantages. More men = more power. Think guerrilla tactics. If you separate your soldiers into small groups, you risk them being overwhelmed by a superior force - especially if the enemy total force is less than your own.

I don't think fleet in being applies here. Because, if Voldemort's forces (let's say) never left 'port' then he could not gain control. Society would function as normal.

 

Internationally, if sufficiently skilled. Though this is rare. But there's nothing to stop a wizard apparating several times in a row.

When you can communicate and transport yourself instantly, being in once place has no advantage. If you need a number of people for an assault or defence, you merely need to call them from their respective locations to where you are. And in the meantime, your men are safer for being harder to find and impossible to take out in a single strike.

 

Whoever fire the most Avada Kedrava with the most accuracy wins.

 

The reason why I consider grouping your men together is this. If they are not together, then when a small group/individual is attacked, they may not have time to react before the attackers have severely damaged their allies.

Consider: during the MoM fiasco, Harry warned Snape about his vision, who then (it is assumed) immediately contacted the Order. The Order surely would've mobilized as fast as they were able to in order to help Harry. It took them some time to do so.

Point: once the enemy attacks, you still have to gather your forces and plan out a quick strategy before moving to counter the enemy. In that time, the enemy could have taken hostages, etc.

I also see your point about it being safer separately. I find, however, that grouping your forces together has more advantages - especially if you outnumber the enemy or are a 'freedom fighter'.

 

The order needed to be mobilize because they didn't know that there was a fight ahead. In a wqar, that wouldn't be the case, ja?

 

I personally find that this topic is something that should be left up to someones imagination. Rowling in no way really discussed limits with us, and with the amount of plot holes in her books, I don't really feel any need to take everything she says at face value.

Basically, I personally think that the Magical world can be whatever an author imagines it to be.

Not quite the answer your after, but thats my view.

 

I agree with canon in that most magical battles are much more guerrilla warfare than conventional warfare (aside from the final battle). It is mostly superior information, planning, assassination, sudden hit and run strikes, placement, etc. that wins the day.

A lot of the 'battles' I remember from later canon consists of 10-15 wizards on each side, give or take a few. These few skilled wizards fight against each other in pretty much all out, clusterfuck, free-for-all battles. Obviously if you have someone like Dumbledore on your side who can round up 5 wizards with one spell, or Voldemort, you will have a major advantage over the opposition.

I like this system because it fits with what we know against the wizarding world, and thus places importance on the stuff I mentioned above rather than classic standing armies fighting large battles.

A lot of the stuff happens behind the scenes unnoticed; as it should. We don't see Voldemort infiltrating the ministry until it's already too late and under his control. In the world of magic, subtlety is the key. Loud bangs and being conspicuous are not.

 

There's also factors like Dumbledore to consider. Not Dumbledore himself so much, as wizards like him, who can turn the tide of a battle by themselves. Somebody truly gifted with magic seems to be able to do quite a lot just by themselves. With magic, you can completely disappear, and continuously mount attacks from the position of surprise. And if you happen to have a high caliber wizard around, you can dispatch other wizards in ridiculously one-sided ratios as well.

 

In consideration of wizarding warfare, two magical powers are key: apparation and the fidelius charm, granting instantaneous troop movement and near-perfect secrecy. Most likely, a reasonable tactician would desire to keep their forces secreted away under the fidelius charm unless otherwise necessary, such as when making offensive strikes. Also, because of the limited lifetime of intelligence, outposts would probably be attacked as soon as the secret protecting them had been revealed. These powers also greatly affect the utility of large armies as commonly fielded by muggles. Any army wishing to gain any sort of advantage from its numerical superiority would have to carry with it an anti-apparation ward, else opposing forces could apparate into its ranks and sow chaos. Also, the fidelius charm makes it impossible to ensure that occupied territory has been cleared of enemy troops.

Furthermore, a trade-off is apparent, between keeping all one's forces in a central location with a single secret keeper and distributing them among many with multiple secret keepers. The first makes betrayal of the secret less likely, but the second makes any single failure much less catastrophic and provides a convenient method of rooting out spies. This trade-off is subject to two considerations concerning the limits of magical ability.

1. Can a wizard or witch be their own secret keeper? Dumbledore apparently does this for the Order, but this conflicts with the Potters' selection of Pettigrew as their secret keeper, when Lily and James presumably could have done it themselves.

2. Does a spell exist which prevents disapparation over a large enough area to prevent retreat? I recall an 'anti-apparation jinx,' but this spell sounds as if it must be cast directly on the witch or wizard whose apparation you wish to prevent. If such a spell exists, it presents great difficulty for the distributed outposts approach; an opponent could gradually depopulate one's force through many attacks of overwhelming numbers on the outposts.

As Taure concluded, wizarding warfare would by necessity consist mainly of gathering and manipulating information. Also, because of the practically nonexistent utility and non-defensibility of territory in the traditional sense, the objective of a wizarding war would almost certainly be the death of the leader of the opposing force and the popular destruction of its ideological position, because as far as I can think of, such is the only way to render the opposing faction unable to make war.

 

But we've also seen the kind of devastation Voldemort or Dumbledore alone can bring to bear against their enemies. There seem to be at least a few great wizards every century, and many more that are far beyond competent, with new magic being developed all the time. With magic, any individual wizard can do serious damage, which is why it's often "standing there and firing spells." I could see many battles coming down simply to which side had the more competent wizards.

EDIT: I would think that Dumbledore used an AOE anti-apparation jinx to keep the DE's from going anywhere in the DoM.

 

I'm firmly opposed to the idea you can be your own secret keeper. The spell is the Fidelius charm - based on trust. I've always thought that the person(s) who's home is being hidden places their trust in another person outside of their home to hide them. That's how Dumbledore was able to enter number 12 - the place wasn't his home, in name or spirit, so the magic would still work.

I think that when the Potter house was hidden, Pettigrew could have stayed with them - until their house became his home and the charm was broken (but he was a death eater anyway, so he wanted to be "caught"). Which is why Dumbledore could enter Grimmauld Place, but never stayed there.

 

I generally imagine wizarding warfare to be fairly similar to modern conventional muggle warfare, at least on the squad level. There are a few differences that can be taken advantage of before the fight starts (better concealment, apparation), but once the spells start flying, it seems to me that it ould pretty much work the same. From what I've been able to tell, most wizards can't keep a continuous shield up while casting offensive spells, so they would need cover, and the weapons are fairly similar: medium to long range weapons that can disable or kill with one hit.

Things like apparation wouldn't be too useful once the battle starts because of the possibility of beiing heard and the chance of anti-apparation wards/jinxes/whatever. Same goes for invisibility.