My current project is historical fiction, fifteenth century. The conflict, if you will, principally involves three nations. There's a few others, but one has to stop somewhere in terms of the storytelling.
I've given each of the three nations a representative main character along with a sidekick.
I've considered some options in which one of the three, Character A, has a limited third-person POV. I like limited third in general because I'm into the whole psychology, motivation thing, and I can get into the character's thoughts, dreams, etc. However, with a sidekick, this can be accomplished with dialogue.
The other two characters, let's call them B and C, I'm presenting as more distant third-person omniscient. Still, these other two are equally as compelling at times, and Character C in particular is part of the epic battle scene (which I'm having a blast writing!). I would prefer not to write C in third-person omniscient now that I'm into it.
Plenty of fantasy novels promote a character during battle sequences in terms of POV with apparent ease only to have them drift back. I can do this, but it seems to me that talking about Homeland C with Character C is simply not as interesting without giving Character C an equal (third-person limited) POV.
As an aside, the reader will want A to save face, B to lose, and C to win. Unfortunately, this is not how history played out, so I'm being inventive while trying not to be misinformed.
My question is: Can anyone help me make sense of my POV mess? My real concerns are in the jumps from Homeland A to Homeland B to Homeland C and the POV when the trio comes together.
To give 3 third-person limited accounts seems too jerky, but I'm finding it to be the best way to get at the motives. I can appreciate the "easiest" thing to do is to write the whole thing as third-person omniscient and call it good.
(It is not typical for this site to give exact details, and I'm not sure if I want to, but I will if it will help solve my vexing problem!)