Sword vs axe then sword is narrowly favourable. Put a shield into the equation then the Axe over a sword by a large margin. Axe is high offence. Shield's is literally main function is active Defence. Mind I would rather a mace over axe or sword out of preference. I like clubbing, something satisfying about it.
I disagree with assumption for bludgeoning/blunt weapons like maces not requiring training or thought working on instinct not knowing better is to put all their force into the swing & do as much damage in one big blow. Any one can use a club/mace because well it a weight on a stick but to use well I say that is another matter. I Use half heated blows that are plenty enough to mortally injure or kill if you not where protective gear with non Hardened softer puffy material to disperse most of the impact. I tend to use relatively large arc of circles & figures of 8 to keep then enemy at bay in the initial early contact. The amount people trained that flinch who are use to mace twirling around near their face by having your elbow & wrist fixed neutral. While you sway the mace around like a fie hose with your body & shoulder facing the held side to the enemy. The end padded weight alone if it hits a shield or anything some one is wielding & watch it get flung out their hand our they fall flat on their back side. Your parry is non existent but twirl it around near them & they are forced to defend from the mace. Once you knock their curve & flick the mace head back to them. You feel ridiculous twirl weighted pole around with fixed elbow but few are willing to step forward into that & if they do you shift or reverse away from them. They are so unwilling to be hit by looping swing weight weighted arc. If you get surprised you to the away side they & slam the club to the side. Most try to get in close from the beginning & deliver 1 big blow. Don't do that unless if you F up & they chose to come in close distance because a full pelted swing of a weight will do worse then a sword cut. A cut can be patched up or sewn together a mace shatters bone & tissue with out the padding I put on. You can't put a caved in skull back together. Shield is a 1 handed maces best friend. 2 Handed mace I'd prefer a fair bit of Harness/Armour.
For my perspective on the subject I'm a retired infantry sergeant of the Canadian Forces and I've taught on a fair number of basic and infantry courses over the years. I think Matt is underestimating the amount of time it would take to train a complete novice in combat skills for even the simpler weapons. Maybe he's going on personal experience where he was able to pick up a spear and learned how to use it in a day. But this is probably after he'd been training in fencing or HEMA for some years so he had a lot of complimentary skills and physical conditioning that had primed him for the task. But dealing with raw recruits who have no previous experience with weapons or fighting? Just getting them to march in step can take a week or more. I can teach a new soldier how to do the drills with a gun so he's be safe on a static range in about 2-3 days and be able to fire and move across an open field in about 10-14 days but trench and house clearing? 5-6 weeks or even more from first time holding the gun to the point I'd trust them covering my back in a basic stack. And that's assuming I'd be able to train them non-stop with no other training or work interfering. It's not just a question of physical ability. Getting them past mental barriers of dealing with noise, confusion and being knocked around. As Matt mentioned bayonet training is pretty minimal these days but pugil fighting is still common as it lets the troops get used to being physically targeted. It may sound silly to someone who hasn't been through it but the first pujil session for most troops has them baffled as they try to internalize the concept, "This guys is hitting me! Seriously is no one seeing him hit me? He's hitting me. What makes him think he is allowed to hit me?" That's why military recruiters these days like to see people that have been part of a contact sport like football, rugby or hockey. They've been in an environment of working together with other people and have taken a few hits along the way to get them past the mental barrier of realizing that yes, other people can smack you around, and no, it's not the end of the world or justification for a panic attack if they do. That said, a paint ball champion can be a nightmare to deal with as they've usually collected a string of bad habits that would get them killed in a real fire fight. As mentioned by Matt, historically people from farms were preferred as there was a lot of hard physical labour involved so they'd have some muscular development and some of the work they'd done would have had a "wax on, wax off" complimentary training value. If you used a pitchfork to stab and toss several acres worth of straw or hay onto a wagon that's not too different from using a spear or bayonet. And clearing brush or relaying a hedge row with a bill hook may not be a perfect analogy for swinging a sword or mace but it would give you a head start for concepts like edge alignment and economy of motion so you're not winding up like you're swinging for the fences.
I agree. It took us 8 weeks to make grunts, 8 months more to learn a specialty.. I entered schooled in WW1, WW2 and Korea. We fought. I was the Oldman. 11c takes90 days.
This makes sense to me. I find the idea of trying someone to be militarily effective with a spear or gun in a day quite dubious, assuming no previous experience. I'm sure in desperation people did it, & it could work ok for some folks who have a knack for fighting, but most soldiers trained in a day would be terrible on the field. Personally, I'm an amateur scholar of military history who used to spar regularly a while back & still does solo practice with swords, shields, & sticks. Despite familiarity with fencing fundamentals & extensive knowledge of historical martial practices, I wouldn't be effective in war with a spear or gun after day of training. There's no way. I've shot an AR-15 & other guns on a couple different occasions. With another day of training, I might manage putting bullets in the correct general area & executing basic orders, but that's about it. I've been practicing with staves & spears on & off for most of my life & can perform a variety of techniques. I could fight with a spear as part of some medieval-type army, but I wouldn't be effective because I don't know how to move or fight in coordination with other people or how to fight in armor. I'm also not very good at all at spear fencing, & would get rolled by anyone with modest skill. Late-medieval armies may or may not have done much training proper, but the folks who made quality soldiers extensively practiced relevant skills in shooting guilds, hunting, tournaments, formal & informal sparring, & so on. Some of Renaissance soldiers were, as Cesare d'Evoli claimed, drawn by the sound of the drum & ignorant of the art of fencing, but others had training &/or experience, & presumably mentored the newcomers.
@@catsultan949 Paintball and airsoft can be useful for teaching basics of movement but competitive paintballers will get in the habit of taking risks because there isn't really any penalty beyond the minor embarrassment of losing a match. In the Canadian military we use a system of 9mm marker ammunition that's higher velocity and can break the skin if you don't have the right protective padding. We train with helmets and frag vests and extra protective equipment is provided for the face, neck, groin and knees but some of the advanced trainers will deliberately target the unprotected part of the legs if they see someone going Rambo. Pain can be a useful teaching tool.
The Rambo part gave me a smile... I got 4 months of infantery training, (and 6 months for AAA) and thats long ago. During an exercise we were "clearing" a farm complex. I was put in front in the beginning and so we started. All went well i thought, and suddenly i was alone and had almost reached the end of the complex. I did not get any complaints by the NCO for not taking cover or anything like that, but for not waiting and instead keeping on going. "You don't need to do that alone, you are not Rambo, you are an infanterist" i was told 😁. Never did that again. The most fitting quote to that i found is from the YT channel "military history visualized". He often says "War is a team effort" to counter people with a movie or game view on war. Paintball and airsoft were not that common here back then, and to this day i have tried neither, so weren't the reason for my mistake. Adrenalin and focussing on the correct movements and possible hiding spaces for me and an opponent had my brain completely occupied. Comparable to paintball and airsoft, i think if you look at the 3 gun competitions the US has, i would think that they also have plenty of "bad habits" you would need to untrain to make them into infanterists. (They are less used to taking cover than paintballers and airsofters, drop magazines along the way as if they were disposable ect. Fine for the match, bad in infantery use)
Yes. One of the Eastern Roman generals noted one out of every ten archers would be good. During the Hundred Years War, the English archers carried many battles, and the French continued to fight; it only took one loss similar in scale, the Battle of Patay, to knock the English permanently out of France. They simply could not replace their veteran longbowmen. The training required to weild a warbow effectively is not found in a typical levee. The English required all combat age men to practice the longbow in order to have a ready reserve for this peculiar skill.
Individual skill is extremely important in war. However, the skills that have the largest impact are not those that people might think of first. The skill of your logisticians, the skill of your animal handlers, the skill of your aircraft mechanics, etc. make up the tail that wag the dog. The Apache is a frighteningly deadly platform, a truly awesome weapon of war, but if they are deadlined 85-90% of the time on average, due to effects of dust and sand on improperly maintained turbines or lack of replacement parts, they may not be something to count on to achieve victory. The same applies with a warhorse. It certainly applies if your army is sick and starving and has to eat the horses, which would die soon anyway for lack of feed. Training and individual combat skills are important of course, but war is a team sport. The meta-skill of coordinating efforts and working as part of a cohesive unit is the trump card, and that applies at every level. That skill of creating disciplined, coordinated effort is what will carry the day, more often than not, and makes a fighting force truly lethal.
Until the Revolution in Russia there was a tradition of the “Wall on Wall” bare-knuckle brawl, it was the highlight of the Maslenitsa Festival, pre-lent. Two groups of 12 to 24 men would line-up, shoulder to shoulder, opposing each other. Each man would engage the man directly in front. Once your opponent was knocked down to the ground you were free to assist your comrades on either side of you. You were not allowed to wear long sleeve’s, because in medieval times some unscrupulous people used to hide horseshoes in the sleeves. These fights would be between two neighboring villages, towns, even noble houses. And if my family is typical, and there were grizzled old crusty battlefield hardened veterans in the family, they would effectively family “drill instructors”. Grandpa would be teaching boxing, wrestling, marksmanship, and assorted fieldcraft skills(trapping, tracking, hunting, shelter construction). It was hard, but there was an unbelievable level of euphoria of accomplishment and self confidence, whenever you mastered the skill.
One of the rare times I was not bored to death translating from Latin in high school, the text was about a "discussion" between roman military leaders. The issue was the training of soldiers. One of them was fixated with personal skills : beat a pole with a heavy wooden sword, shield proficiency, fitness in general. The other one responded with: "What you are describing is important, but for us (commanders) is more important teaching them how to move in formation, swap lines efficiently and keep their ground." and ended with something on the line of: "Every idiot can learn quickly how to stab with a sword, not every idiot can learn how to stay in line in front of a charging enemy."
In Lianbingshiji 练兵实纪, general Qi Jiguang 戚继光 focused on the ordinary soldiers' skill to used a certain weapon (of course they train with it on a daily basis). He said that: "If they can only used 2 or 3 of the 10 things that they've learned, our army is already invicible". He highlighted the soldiers' skills only after their morale and their ability to follow orders.
Something that came up in a discussion on modern air combat, oddly, was the Parthian shot, where the light horse archers would turn around in the saddle at full gallop in order to fire at a pursuing enemy. That particular skill obviously proved so important it has been remembered culturally, and now is the name given to the ability of an air-to-air missile to target a pursuing enemy, for example the AIM9-X is reputed to have a Parthian shot capability, while the earlier models didn't. The discussion was the excellent Justin Bronk, from the RUSI, talking to Ward Carroll on his channel.
The important aspect of air combat is the skill of the average pilot. Just look at the IJNs failure against the United States. Even the best pilots get shot down eventually. And if the new pilots aren’t being properly trained, it doesn’t matter how many good pilots you previously had. The average pilot is what matters. Not the ace.
Matt, I could counter a bit, because at least in the book recommended by you - Kinsley, D. A - Swordsmen of the British Empire - if to take the accounts by word, there are literally dozens of cases when accomplished swordsmen were killed (or embarrassingly saved by others) when they "gave point" to their opponents as they were taught. Especially in cavalry charge or storming of breaches that could mean inability to withdraw the blade if it stuck, or being killed by the not-yet-dead opponent, who hit them by his cutting implement (tulwar, khukri or some longer Afghan knife). There is often said in that book, that the opinion on how to use the blade in battle is more than 90:10 in the favor of cut - which was dismissed in Britain as in France.
I've heard discussed that double kills happened in sword duels as well, where both opponents stabbed each other at essentially the same time, or when a sword gets stuck leaving the first striker defenseless and the other opponent responds.
I’m confused is you’re point that skill isn’t a massive factor or something else because Matt obviously I think know that no matter how skill full you are three on one is basically impossible but that doesn’t mean that a army of slightly more skilled soldiers then there opponents wouldn’t be better on average“and the sword master against three would still last better then a novices against the same odds”
cut the head hand and legs in that order in one frail sweep when sticking down a opponent alot of ppl stab or swing n watch for the effect that alone gets u stabed backso crush ur oponnet or go about qaurting ppl in this fashion but you must take his spot to fight multiables only going forwards what rensai master would say if you remain incircled the skill won't matter
I think a sometimes overlooked aspect of troop training is in maintenance of weapons and other kit. The reason the AK-47 is such a common weapon, for example, isn't just that it was designed to be very easy to use, but also because it was easy to make and maintain. If a weapon can withstand weeks of abuse by indifferent troops in harsh conditions and still work, it allows you to field troops with less training, which in turn allows for rapid recruitment. You also see this in battle rifles that are deliberately limited to semi-auto or three-round burst settings, because otherwise low-quality troops will simply spray-and-pray on full auto. Equally maces and clubs have a big advantage in that they can't get blunt from neglect, and there's no need to align an edge to do damage with them.
How important is skill in mass battle? I would argue: More important than the unskilled would like, less important than the skillful would like. Numbers are probably more important. Which is specifically why the 300 Spartans (and their less famous Greek allies) fought in a position that limited their opponent's number advantage. Which highlights the importance of strategy. They are all just elements to a larger equation (which includes equipment) none of which will provide an automatic win by themselves. In the axe vs sword debate I feel that the unskilled person is unlikely to be able to effectively defend themselves with either weapon so the swords superiority in that regard isn't much of an advantage.
While personal fencing skill might be not very important the ability to operate as a unit and respond to commands corectly and swiftly is paramount. It was proven again and again from roman manipulus to spanish tercios. Talking about greeks at Thermopylae- they would be fucked up in an instant if they were untrained peasants unable to hold the line and quickly close the gaps in their defence. It takes certain amount of drill and skill to capitalize on strategical advantage. Same thing applies to european medieval warfare- cavalry charge was dominating strategy because it was effective against levies who made bulk of medieval armies. They were unable to hold the line and offten were already panicking and breaking even before the charge connects. With professional foot soldiers becoming more prevalent we see heavy cavalry charge used less and less- knights can't do shit against organized pikewall.
@@warwickthekingmaker7281 sources don't agree on how many other Greeks were there (or the size of the Persion army for that matter) so I don't presume to know how many there were.
Discipline, training and tactics will always trump individual prowess. The Gauls for example were formidable fighters individually but they were no match for the Roman legions.
Absolutely, but we must keep in mind that these societies promoted the individual to do great deeds on the battlefield. There was never a focus on fighting as a unit instead, the warrior that stood out amongst his peers was vaunted, so each man was basically out for himself. Hjuggernaut
That was true and yet they still were a pain for the Romans to deal with. Fas forward a century or two and the moment they got roman tactics and general defectors on their side they crushed Rome. Individual prowess is as equally important as everything you mentioned
@@alexanerose4820 Did I say individual prowess was more important? If you have equally good tactics and discipline then prowess is definitely the deciding factor, for example Spartans beating other Greek hoplites. The Romans weren't using the same tactics in the time period that I believe you are referring to, which wasn't in a century or two, it was more like four.
@@alexanerose4820 It wasn't Gaul "rising again" with Roman defectors, so much as semi-nomadic tribes whose entire noble classes were former Auxilia officers, if not the majority of their male populations former mercenaries in Roman employ.
Roman Legions is a perfect example of how important is personal skill, at difference of greek and macedonian phalanx, roman Legions used a modular strategy, very skilled individual sodiers, that can create powerful modular formation, capable to adapt themselves to fight both in formation and as individual soldiers, and they beated phalanx by crushing their formation and force greeks in close combat
The one type of soldier that would have a high requirement for individual combat ability is heavy cavalry, due to their relatively smaller number, the enforced spacing from their horses meaning you cant quite pack them shoulder to shoulder (meaning more room for individual skill), and skill meaning more when you can ease the relative quantitative advantage of multiple weapons coming at you with some kind of armor. In short, you need to be able to survive multiple weapons coming at you before you can show off your skill
Heavy cavalry charged shoulder to shoulder with lances. The skill is in controlling a horse in formation, couching a lance, charging in unison, breaking the target formation and getting out to form again. That is what heavy cavalry did.
I think different skills are needed. A bunch of top end duelist might be wiped out by what seems to be a much lower skilled bunch of troops if those troips were skilled at fighting as a team. Its pretty easy to see in a sports game how that breaks down. Personal skill is a huge issue but if that person doesn't work well in the team they can even become a liability. I think that it is still common to get troops from rural areas. Soldiers who had grown up hunting does have some skills that are useful. From what I understand it's not necessarily firearm skills since those are relatively easy to train. My wife is from Miami and is athetic. One of the things that always surprises me is that she doesn't have and understanding of how to understand unpredictable surfaces or rough country or to so when thing have changed as she walks through different areas or noticing when something happens. Even though she is a physical therapist she doesn't have an intuitive sence if body mechanics.
In reenactment fighting, we see the skilled opponents willing to put their ego aside and cooperate do much better than those who fight only for themselves.
Yes and feudalism favored unskilled team players(sarcasm). From castles to heavy cavalry; clearly medieval age preferred skilled individuals over large quantities of "team players" Rome indeed conquered the world but the "team players" they used are full time soldiers not peasants.
@@datuputi777 Different time, different Gov. Rome and its enemies could field ten thousand of full trained troops at will and keep them active for a long long time. Feudal Europe no longer had any centralized state with the manpower and resources of those old empires so they could only keep and core of elite fighters and support that with levy. But it is a mistake to call those troops untrained. They didn't have decade long service like those legionnaires/auxiliaries but they were trained enough for their time. Untrained peasant mobs happened very rarely as you need to supply your army so untrained peasants are drain og resource not strength.
In a modern context, I think individual fighting skill rarely if ever wins battles. It does, however, save the lives of individual soldiers and while that isn't important to military planners, it's extremely important to individual soldiers. From a psychological standpoint, teaching individual fighting skills might be a way of showing the soldier that he/she is considered valuable. I think that's reason enough for a military to teach and emphasize those skills.
And yet, cops only shoot once or twice a year to do quals, same thing with reservists... The thing that sets groups like Seals apart, is not just better gear and tactics, but thousands upon thousands of hours of repetition on skill sets. The point is, modern military, crack Roman legion, or Chinese crossbowmen, all units are better advantaged by both group and individual training. Sweat saves blood. And practice (repetition) makes perfect.
I had the opportunity to work with soldiers from several armies during my days in the service. I also served in a number of units at different stages of training. I felt a strong link between the average level of the soldier skills on those units and how effective they were in the field. There was also a clear effect in terms of their leadership's skill and their performance. My impression was that the unit's readiness was somehow the sum of those two factors.
Even in a medieval context, alot of the conflict individual soldiers may face won't be pitched battles. Skirmishes, scouting, ambushes. Small engagements mean each individual counts towards success more. If a group of soldiers outright beats another small group, that's a big morale victory right there. It gives the soldier confidence that he IS a skilled warrior.
It's a bit like sport, right? You got your personal skills (running, passing, shooting, etc.) And your team skills (positions, plays, communication, reading the opponent, etc.). You need sufficient training in both personal and team skills to get any measure of success. Your team can easily defeat a bunch of players who are more personally gifted, if you have the right balance of personal and team skills distributed evenly among your team. (I just coached some kids' soccer this morning, if you couldn't tell)
I think this is basically correct if we look at the development of arms in early modern history and the "infantry revolution"... organizational strategy, for a time, was everything and you could take some peasant boys and give them pikes and some drilling and have an army capable of going toe to toe with a comparably sized force of professional warriors who (because of the cultural context of existence within the class of hereditary professional warriors) COULD NOT adopt the level of rigid discipline that the peasant army would be expected to have.
@@420JackG Completely untrue peasants don't magically turn into professional armies the opposite is actually the truth there was inadequate amount of professional armies in short the competition is not steep.
@@datuputi777 obviously they didn't magically turn into professional armies, it took some drilling and some familiarization with doctrine. And notice I said they would be capable of going toe to toe with a force of "professional warriors" not another professional army, the implication there was obviously the knightly class. Those guys were obviously highly skilled fighters on an individual level, but I think we can also agree that a large host of knights does not necessarily (or even likely) indicate a professional army.
Yes that's how Italy won world cups, opening the catenaccio is super hard. Nevertheless all your players have to be good enough to play on the professional level. They are all skilled defenders, it's just that it is easier to become an skilled defender than let's say a skilled 10
Not soccer related, but I do remember WAY back in little league 'training' one of the things we kids were drilled on, aside from learning to throw and bat, was how to overcome the natural fear of pain to be able to field hopping ground balls by blocking with the whole body (and hoping to catch it in the glove). Some kids on my team learned to overcome the fear quickly, one never did. Military unit training also includes components to overcome natural fear and to stay in formations, and/or to stay on task.
Regarding modern militaries teaching bayonets or other hand to hand combat techniques most still teach something but you are right that is is dwindling with time. The United States even specifically developed a new form of hand to hand combat built entirely on the premise of putting your opponent on the ground as quickly as possible at which point you take multiple steps backward and point your gun (usually a rifle) at them. That's the whole thing. Different ways to put a melee attacker on the ground so you can point your gun at them. They are literally doubling down on firearm dependency. Special Forces and other specialized job descriptions get more advanced training, of course, but the rank and file don't.
I think this answer varies with the predominant technology of the time. A force of mounted cavalry assumes that each individual is both a skilled rider and archer as well as being able to maintain discipline if they become separated from their unit. At the same time a force of levied musketeers would require much less training, but would be much more dependent on its officers to function.
I had to add a comment to this video. It was an excellent example of your wide breadth of knowledge about things. I found many, many points you were making interesting. Just thanks so much for your great videos.
well...depending on the type of skill. seem to remember Polybius mentioning the skill of the Gaul's as fencers not being a match for the roman discipline and cohesion, and certain types of battle tactics, like shield wall and pike formation rely less on individual skill with the weapon and more on order and cohesion as a fighting group
I remember while playing Empire Total War, it had a lot of text for different aspects of the game. I do remember reading somewhere about how 1700s, 1800s soldiers would be lucky to get the chance to fire 1 round for the year for training. Armies were reluctant to do more because it cost more money to have extra rounds for training. The British Army was better off than most because they were able to do this several times per year. So, what you had was the British soldier was more familiar with their weapon while actually firing, while many of their counterparts were lucky to fire 1 round the past year. That looked like a huge deficiency in training. With more training you also get more confidence.
There were several times I've heard of in Afghanistan that both US and British troops had to fix bayonet and in fact use them. I agree we need to do more bayonet training. As an enlisted US Marine in the 1990's, I learned to use the bayonet but it was not training we did on a regular basis.
arguable morale and zeal is more important and obviously that comes with the belief that you are more skillful or elite than your opponent. Bayonet charge is probably the prime exampe. That type of attack is mostly moral based on the less hardned unit quickly breaking and routing while the more veteran unit will take the initial casualties and charge home. Both units holding ends in a blood bath for both sides. Bayonets aren't precisely skillful weapons, you stab people. If you would want to skillfully stab people you would not use a bayonet. But they are good enough for the job and lethal enough people will run away if the other sides looks like they mean business.
@@anthonywesley5306 I think improving the E-tool and giving training for use as a weapon is the most logical thing. People have definitely used it and similar tools to kill before, even going as far as WW1 we see countless examples of troops using makeshift maces and their trench digging equipment as effective weapons. I'd say the situations in which you can shoot someone with your sidearm are pretty much all going to be a situation in which you can shoot them with your rifle.
The Chieftain did a brief history of the transition of the US cavalry from horse to fully mechanized. Toward the end, one major factor was that finding "horse people" had gotten harder and harder.
I think part of the reason it is hard to determine how much skill matters, is that it is tied to too many other factors. Just as an example, people who are highly skilled are likely are also better equipped. Also the degree of skill likely matters. Going from completely untrained to knowing the basics probably has a much larger return than going from highly skilled to being a master.
Very good point. A lot of historical militaries expected most or all troops to bring their own equipment. If you were well-off enough to afford the best equipment of the day, you also had enough leisure time to physically train yourself and you'd inevitably land in a unit of other well-equipped men who also might have spent a lot of free time messing with weapons.
Can discipline be considered a skill? Or at least familiarity with war in general, usually experienced combatants tend to do better than younger soldiers. But if by skill we mean proficiency with a tool (or in this case weapon), you don't need the best swordsmen, you need guys who can use a weapon simple enough to defeat the enemy as easy as possible,, so you minimize the need for skilled fighters, war Is all about having the right scenario for you to win without relying entirely on the skill of the fighters.
War has every bit of interpersonal conflict you can find. Small skirmishes, foraging, scouting and harassing. They all counted as war. Not just set-piece battles. So personal skill definitely matters.
0:52 I know this is more of a gun thing than a sword thing, but the XM5 that the US military is replacing the M4 with comes with this optic that _literally_ does almost everything for you. It auto-calculates range, windage, ID's your target, and tells you where your holdover should be. It's almost like it's designed to essentially be an artificial stand-in for shooting capability, which tells me two things; first, that the US military seems to believe skill is very important, at least for modern warfare, and that two, in just a few years, none of our marines will actually be able to hit anything unassisted more than 250 meters away.
It might be discontinued now but when i did MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) we trained with bayonets with all kinds of complicated techniques, and pugil sticks are meant to to simulate bayonets.
MCMAP is not discontinued but also one must recall the level one must reach is not the same as the top level if I recall correctly all combat role Marines must reach Green belt whereas others don't need to and the top level being black belt.
I think skill can fall into two categories: 1. Individual combat skill and 2. How well trained you are are in movement and discipline. Essentially the warrior skills and soldier skills. I think it's important to not lump these two together
I remember reading that for a good chunk of the roman legion's lifespan, the primary "entry test" was a roughly 18-mile march. Anyone who lagged too far behind didn't make the cut.
Personal skills are important to the extend of "the adequate standard" to be able to fight effectively. I would argue that a personal skills in "leadership" generally play a bigger role in warfare. I am sure there were times were some warriors & knights being hailed or even worship by an army not only because of the power/technique prowess but also because of being very charismatic.
Personal combat skills also matter for offices, because that's what enables them to survive and move on to become generals. When he was a young Lt, George Patton famously survived a shootout with Mexican bandits during the famous Pancho Villa expedition in 1915. If he had been less skilled, there would have been no General Patton.
I think it very much depends what you are doing. If you're fighting in large formations, personal skill probably matters less than team work. If you're in the phalanx, you could be the best single combat fighter in the world, but if you don't you job and protect the guy next to you, that doesn't really count for much. You might kill a bunch of guys but if you do so by breaking formation then you just screwed over your buddies because there's now a gap in the line. I find this comes up a lot when playing objective based games. You can be the best player in the world and top the leader board but your team might still lose because you weren't actually helping to cap or hold the objective.
Reading about ancient Greek and Roman military tactics, you definitely get the impression that the more experienced and skilled a unit was, the more likely they were to be given weapons that required more confidence. Like, the roman legion at it's height, there's a reason *that* is the period where they had the confidence to give troops armor, a gladius and say "go crash into those guys and hack some limbs off". Later on when there was less training, more "we've got a big ol' hoard of barbarians to throw at them", they reverted back to spears and smaller shields that were more useful for less cohesive troops. Where in a sense, "individual skill" would matter more, but they just didn't have the training or morale to function like those old legionaries.
Marine squad leader in Viet Nam, 2 yrs. I know this shit. Skill very important. Quick reflexes, head on a swivel, quick decision making skills. Any hesitation, death. More important, luck. You can be a natural warrior, but if Marine in front of you steps on a Bouncing Betty mine, you're as dead as he. You can't beat luck.
I was thinking about personal skill in warfare as in comparison to someone who trained boxing and only boxing for his whole life. That means that guy is probably a pretty good boxer. Then that guy goes to mma and gets smashed. It doesn't mean that boxing isn't a usefull skill. It actually should be a nice basis for his future training. The problem is that mma requires soooo many different skills from you. In war it is similar. You can have a bunch of people who are great duelists. However, if your army doesn't have good leadership, tactics, communications and especially logistics, those guys are probably going to be deleted. Skill of the individual can be important but only as the element of the whole
One small point about the use of Bows, when they were used on the battlefield just about everyone were already adept at using a bow, albeit for hunting but, they were not novice bowmen.
In regards to games and archery skill; Total War: Three Kingdoms has the Yellow Turban DLC that introduces Archery Masters under Huan Shao. At a distance they are no better than ordinary archers really, but as the enemy charges forward the masters start shooting faster, and more accurately. An 80-strong unit of Ji infantry with be shredded down to 10 terrified and very lonely deserters before they could get within 50 paces, then the masters turn their attention to the next unit and just dismantle them in seconds. Any army in Huan Shao's faction starts with stealth deployment and movement, so if you hadn't had some fun in a Total War game in a bit, I recommend it. Archery masters squatting on a barricade during castle defence is the bee's knees.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin Matt plays games, I reckon he'd at least give it consideration. It's Han dynasty Total War; all kinds of fantastic weapons in there.
When I went to Basic in 2006-2007 we were the last training company at Fort Leanardwood to go through the Rifle Bayonet Course. (They may have continued this after however) Downrange our bayonets stayed in our connex's the entire time. We did however all have multiple knives on us, my platoon especially all got large, 6-8 inch bladed knives and had them mounted to our body armor for use in CQC/weapon malfunctions/out of ammo. Myself and others in my unit had to go hand to hand not uncommonly.
I agree with your point about archery not being easily picked up but think you could make a stronger case for its difficulty. I've been shooting bows my whole life, including traditional bows like longbows, and have trained/coached many others on their use over the years in casual friend-group circumstances. While its true that none of these eager students had quite the level of motivation of a person going into battle, I still would argue that they provide a good context for learning traditional archery from zero. The big thing with archery is form. Correct stance and posture, correct arm angles, good back tension, anchor points, a good release and follow through, all of these and more are essential skills that take time to develop if a person if going to shoot with any semblance of accuracy. Archery also requires muscles that are not easy to develop outside of archery. The best way to develop both good form and the relevant strength is practice with someone who can comment on your form. Given that archery is physically demanding, even with low draw weight bows, there is also only so much practice you can do in a day. As such, in my experience, it takes at least a month of shooting until exhaustion every day for a beginner to achieve consistency at 10 yards with a low weight bow (meaning 20-30 lbs). Longer range shots and heavier bows are less forgiving and require better form to achieve accuracy and consistency. Include the stress of shooting in a field situation and the case gets even more severe. I've blown many shots in a hunting context due to nerves, and in this context, there is no real risk of injury or death if I miss like there would be on a battlefield. The challenge of translating range skills to field skills is something all martial disciplines share, but combining this with the complexities of archery at battlefield ranges and battlefield draw weights makes archery that much more inaccessible to those without years of experience.
Another example of training disparity that isn’t special forces is the British in early WW1. They had a very high level of training compared to their opponents, but once those reserves were exhausted and the British were reduced to draftees the effectiveness of their forces plummeted. Bayonets are good for prisoner and crowd control because of instinctual fear of sharp objects makes them good for deterrence. In that capacity, if skill beyond knowing how to attach it, hold it threateningly, and poke people that come too close comes up it’s past time to use it.
Interesting points on modern bayonet training! Our army has conscription, and i was in a little over 20 years ago. We don't have bayonets, but a field knife. We spend an afternoon with "close quaters empty rifle defense techniques". Which basically translates to "my gun is empty, there's someone trying to bayonet me or stike me with a big stick or blunt thing, what do i do..." Was prettty interesting and relatively easy to comprehend. But we never trained knife fighting and our group commander once said: "in CQB, use the spade, it has proven it's worth in CQB in 2 World wars..." (We didn't train that either) But at least we got shown how it is when you get attacked by someone who also has an empty rifle. (i got a little taste with one instructor who attacked me when i was not aware of it and just reacted insstictively like we were taught to do. The surprise left out the "it's just training" thought in my brain in the first few miliseconds. So after parrying, i almost rammed the barrel of my rifle into his eyesocket. Was barely able to stop before that, realizing it was still part of training, so surprising was his attack. It could have ended with him loosing an eye or more.)
I thought there would be a discussion between skill in a group fight and skill in an individual fight. I went from 5 years of Olympic fencing to a group fight boffer larp and discovered a lot of what I had trained in was not applicable.
I feel like modern war has really increased the individual skill requirements of the common soldier. To be a good soldier before meant being able to hold rank, being proficient at drill, and physically fit. Modern war requires its soldiers to be marksmen, engage in scout-craft, maintain a high level of initiative and flexability, and be capable of taking in, interpreting, and acting upon an insane amount of info while coordinating with multiple units. The reason every military from the US to China to Russia are scaling down manpower is because it's been demonstrated that the gap in efficacy between resource intensive specailists/professionals and conscripts are so high that keeping extra, mediocrerly trained manpower around is more of a liability than their contributions would be worth, hence Russia holding off on mass mobilizationbfor as long as possible.
I think an import thing to note is macro scale strategy and tactics. sometimes raw bodies are just necessary. a converse example of a highly regarded, but rarely used, unit was napoleons old guard. where they were often never even employed, but their reputation was often much more of a battle changer than there active role. anyways, I think indivigual skill, like any single catagory, is simply one factor of many in the equation of war instead of the be all end all or conversely a non factor. To me it seems like many militaries throughout history had hammers and anvils. where the bulk of troops were trained to what was considered militarily passible and financially not too damning (i think thats an important thing to remember, every resource given to the bulk of an army is degrees more expensive than giving it to specialized troops, abd war is expensive to begin with), and then there were smaller prestige units of knights or artillery or some other more lucrative unit for more precision. sometimes you just need people to hold the libe ir hold a city rather than necessarily being great at opposing the enemy offensively. I mean, I believe most routes and defeats happen more to moral shock abd minor looses than outright killing a certain number of the opponent. so if you have 3 units of pikemen that scare of one unit of pikeman without a loose on either side, those three units were militarily effective regardless of their individual skill.
An important skill you did not cover is the ability to coordinate as small and large units. This in modern military training is the next step after gaining individual skill. The discipline and indeed often bravery to remain in the appropriate formation could be important in success or avoiding defeat.
I have to agree with much of what Mat has said, and I would like to add that Soldiers and Sailors in Armies and Navies were often drawn from Civilian Vocations that had experience in desired skills. Navies often recruited Sailors from Merchant Fleets as they were already used to life at sea. And Armies and Navies alike valued hunters for their Archery Skills and later on Skill with fire arms. I will also say that I know of several periods throughout history where the Ruler of a Nation did require Farmers and Peasants to train weekly with bows or other weapons but from what I have read the Farmers and Serfs were not as well trained as Regular Soldiers kept as members of a Standing Army.
Very interesting video! One thing to keep in mind is that a soldier is above all a component of an army. His main objective is not to be the best indivial figther but to do well enough as part of coordinated group effort. An incredibly skilled figther that would break formation, disobey orders, or refuse to cooperate can become a more trouble than it's worth pretty easily in that context, and can also be bested by the teamwork of lesser figthers. It also depends on the type of warfare. In small scale tribal warfare with minimal coordination personal skill may win the day, assuming, but something like a pike formation will rely a lot more on teamwork. One exception to point out could be specialist. Think a modern (or not so modern) sniper or a medieval siege engenieer in charge of calculating trajectory. Those can count as combat skills and while they still need to coordinate by the specialized nature of their role their individual skill shines more and can have a bigger impact. Then there's non combat skills that greatly affect war. Like planning logistic, creating alliances, motivating the population... I guess officials and commanders actually giving the orders could be counted here? It may depend, you may very well say that giving orders to troops in the middle of batthe reacting directly to what is in front of ypu is very different from sitting in a room with a radio or planning a battle before it starts. In any case these are vital, the higher in the chain of command the more important it potentially is and the guy giving orders could be a mediocre figthers and that would not matter much, other than a sligthy higher changer of keeping himself alive and maybe an easier time gaining respect from the troops. It can help that the commander is a good figther, helps him undestrand a lot of factors involved, but probably not the priority and in modern warfare is probably much less important that a lot of other knowledge.
Another example of weapons being well suited to agricultural workers in ancient China the Ji polearm was seen as being very good for farmer militias because it emphasizes the same muscles as you would develop from hoeing and other agricultural labor
Skill, along with experience, I would say are the two most important factors in not only being effective in battle but also surviving battle. That being said, the Roman soldiers were usually not nearly as skilled in single combat as Celtic or Germanic warriors were but managed to win battles due to overall strategy and numbers.
idk, sometimes good strategy is more important than both. if 2 units scare of 1 opposing unit (as most historical engagements did not fight to the point of major casualities), it doesn’t matter all that much if those two units were well trained or not. think napoleon and defeat in detail.
Hey Matt, I understand that this is posted on a video 2 months old, but I had a question I would love to see a video on. You mentioned you don’t like the term “muscle memory”. In my very limited practice of martial arts my impression of most combat is to drill basic motions into muscle memory and then to retrieve them at the right time in response to an opponent. There is of course tons more to training: strength, speed, flexibility, and general familiarity with combat and weapons. I’d be very interested in hearing your take on muscle memory and its place in training.
Re bayonets. I remember hearing a story from the Jessie Kelly show. He was a Marine in Iraq during the U.S. occupation in the mid 2000's. At one point he and maybe 50 marines were surrounded by a mob. They were all ready to do damage, but there were thousands of people. It would have been a blood bath and there was not enough ammunition for them all. Before things got ugly the commander announced on a loud speaker that they had 1,000 marines hiding on the other side of town behind the mob ready to strike. (It was a lie). He then announced his marines were prepared to charge if the crowd did not disperse. And then came the order, "men, fix bayonets." The marines fixed bayonets and positioned as if ready to charge. The crowd dispersed. No one wants to get stuck in the gut with a bayonet. There's books about how it's too much to handle doing it to another human and men switching to rifle butts because of the horror.
I love this video! When I was in the US Army infantry, we didn’t shoot all that much. When I got out and was a reservist in the ‘10s, we shot even less due to the budget cuts around the government shutdowns (thanks Tea Party). So, in my experience, we didn’t shoot nearly enough to satisfy the Joes. Training was sufficient but we weren’t badasses. I was mechanized, and the motto, “death before dismount,” doesn’t exactly inspire notions of individual excellence. I know that my brother in the Airborne infantry was way more individually proficient, but that’s approaching special forces territory. The light infantry fall somewhere in between and most soldiers can rank individual divisions pretty well by badassery. So, in the opinion of the dirtiest and nastiest of legs, I’d say the AVERAGE infantryman is proficient, but we don’t shoot enough to be excellent. (And yes, I do comment as I watch. I guess it’s good for engagement. Is that a thing in videos this old? Meh)
Based on my experience in combat (a little over 2 years in Iraq, having been conscripted to a military fighting with coalition troops) I would say: Often times, it seems entirely like chance that this guy dies and that guy lives. However, the better your training, the better your chances. At the end of the day, though, you're still taking your chances. Even with the best training and the best equipment, you can still fall foul of chance and cop a .50 calibre bullet to the head. Or catch a 155mm arty shell with your teeth. There's a quote from the bible (one of the very few things that the bible is good for; occasional literary quotes) that describes it rather aptly: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but time and chance happen to them all." So it seems that it always comes down to chance, but that you can improve your chance at survival by improving the quality of training and equipment.
Question (or questions): as cavalry impacts with the target, how does the unit push through a mass of objects that don’t want to move, because 1) they will stand and fight and 2) the rear rank forces no space to turn and run This is a question that’s come to me playing Total War Shogun 2 and seeing cav bunch up/squash on impact and gets me thinking about the mechanics, the drill/training for the real thing. It’s easy to say ‘oh well sheer weight of the charge’ but putting more metal on man and horse isn’t what stops the rear ranks of the cav just throwing ranks in front of thier horse whilst magically pushing the cavalry through the infantry. Horses don’t particularly like running into things either such as other horses or men because they (sensibly) know smacking thier leg on something like ranks of braced men can cause a broken leg - a death sentence for the horse. Are there any historians or chroniclers that spoke about what a commander was actually looking for when he ‘saw a gap in the line?’ Presumably it’s common sense that if the shield wall was supposed to interlock the captains or officers would make bloody sure numnuts has his shield ready and in place? Or was this gap more like a hole in the middle that was caused by ranks forming lines at unnoticeable but different angles until someone realised and tried correcting it, leaving a weak spot in the mass of men?
No one knows exactly what battlefields of the past looked like or exactly what real cavalry impacts looked like. But holding ground against cavalry seems to negate it. So in reality, cavalry probably induced panic and disorder. Most people survived battles because they run away or avoid contact. It wouldn't look anything like a 'Total War' battle.
From my own experience in the military, a certain baseline of skill is required, but individual skill is less important than group skill and the efficiency of teamwork a group has. A group that works well and coordinates efficiently can outperform larger less organized groups.
Matt is correct that hand to hand combat still happens in modern combat. There is a tendency among military leadership during and since World War I to believe that missile weapons such as guns have become so deadly that close combat weapons are not a good investment in time. History begs to disagree. Any weapon training can have critical benefits in combat. Muscle memory (sorry, instinctive or trained action?) take over when combat is moving too fast for logical thought. It can and will save your life. Bayonets are perhaps less useful than they once were. Mechanically, the change from steel and wood rifle components to plastic and lightweight alloys has reduced the flexibility of the firearm/bayonet combination. A butt stroke with a modern assault rifle is likely to break the weapon butt and recoil spring, rendering it unable to fire. A block against a heavy melee weapon is also likely to result in critical components breaking or bending. While the point remains the most effective option the bayonet offers, even that advantage has shrunk due the quest for compact, lighter firearms. Assault rifles have become shorter as urban combat has become more prevalent, especially with bullpup designs which reduce the effective weapon length to that of a submachinegun/machine pistol. These changes significantly reduce the reach advantage of a bayonet, it's chief advantage. In addition, bayonets are employed as individual weapons in the essentially 'skirmish' nature of modern infantry combat. The bayonet was primarily adopted to give shoulder-to-shoulder musketmen a defensive option once the enemy was too close to reload, creating a natural (if short-hafted) phalanx, particularly when facing shock cavalry. We no longer see the hedge of points employed en masse as occurred prior to the 20th century. Again, this peels away some of the bayonet's luster as a melee weapon on the modern battlefield. As Matt has discussed in earlier videos, during World War I bayonets mounted on rifles were often set aside as unwieldy for close quarters trench combat. Officer swords went by the boards around the same time for many of the same reasons. As the war dragged on entrenching tools (short shovels), hand axes, clubs, heavy knives and even bayonets wielded as knives were employed in close combat. For command actions, where a silent thrust was needed, specialized weapons like the Sykes-Fairbairn knife came into vogue. Given the changing nature of firearms and 'open-order' combat today I suggest that a return to individual close combat weapons issued as sidearms might be more effective than a refocus on the bayonet. I'd further suggest a Bowie style knife, supplemented by a large magazine pistol, as the most flexible option for modern close combat. While many modern forces now (re) employ combat armor there are still plenty of gaps to find with the point, and plenty of exposed skin to cut (hands, wrists, face, upper leg). My two cents.
If you enjoy fantasy fiction there is a book trilogy called "Night Angel" by Brent Weeks. without spoiling anything, there's a scene where a character turns the tide of an entire battle by eliminating a precisely selected handful of individuals from among the common ranks that he refers to as 'pillars of battle'. The theory is that, in a melee, those individuals among the common soldiers that are exceptionally capable or charismatic can bolster their nearby allies/squad/unit. eliminating them demoralizes and weakens the ranks in their immediate vicinity and can represent a more significant loss of effectiveness than their simple body accounts for, like removing a lynchpin holding a unit together.
When you talked about more recent comments such as commando units in WW2 being more proficient with weapons, I remember reading quite a bit about how the Germans in WW2 found some allied non-commando units to be extremely scary to face in combat, such as the US paratroopers. I also think that around WW1 you started to have individuals whose skill was able to win battles pretty much singlehandedly. You have people beforehand who were able to hold off armies for a time, such as the Berserker at Stamford Bridge and Benkei, I don't know if any of them won a battle like Alvin York did. I am not sure if Alvin York is the sole person who did that since the closest people I can think of used quite a bit more, such as White Death being a nightmare to the Russians, or when Audie Murphy hid inside a burning tank destroyer for an hour until the Germans gave up trying to find him and retreated.
I would say: The Samurai were pure warriors - people who relied upon skill to survive. They studied (from childbirth) to become the best swordsman possible. Singular Combat was their combat mode. A soldier is a cog in a machine. A soldier usually works with a "unit". This Unit then works with a larger unit. The larger unit ... Soldiers do not receive the training a Warrior receives. They receive standardized Military training (designed to work within units - working with greater units - ...). --- That is not to say that the Soldier can not be trained to work in a singular manner. SpecOps are just that soldier. But, SpecOps are elites. But, individual martial skill (or the lack of it) can make or break a unit and tactics. If one "element" of battle fails, that leaves a hole for the enemy to enter and then "work within" the force. That is not good. --- Thus, a Soldier must have Martial skill (individual) that combines with (other Martial skills (individuals)) to then create a much larger effective and capable armed force.
The sword was not samurai main weapon {they didn't use it much in war} they were horse archers. The bow and the Lance were there main weapons and no they acted in cohesive form in war
I think it's more relevant to ask how important individual weapon skill is vs. unit cohesion. The latter _is_ a skill, but it's a completely different kind of skill.
I think the part not discussed in the axe vs sword thing is just rudimentary armor. Even in the 900s, Nordic armies were wearing full chainmail hauberks. If you slash at someone's chest with an era sword and they're wearing a hauberk over a gambeson, you're going to upset them (2 handed swords were still a few hundred years away, even then it's minimal damage). If you smash into them with an axe, you're probably going to break their collarbone, ribs, or impart enough blunt force trauma to extremities to cause them damage. If you turn it around, it's a club. I don't really think considering it in a vacuum of "sword vs axe" is productive. People who marched into battle with an axe rarely did so without a shield, for starters, completely eliminating the need for the weapon to be used defensively. That whole argument seems to consider two naked men in a vacuum using only a sword and only an axe, which is a totally ridiculous fantasy scenario. But yes, in that scenario, sword wins every time. I think if I had to go back in time and I had unlimited resources to arm a peasant rebellion, I would arm them with spears and axes. In my mind, it's plainly obvious that giving a bunch of untrained people swords isn't going to have anywhere near the same effect, especially if my opponent is taking even the most primitive measures to protect their troops. Swords in war are for fancy dressed men on horses to cut down routing peasants from behind. Otherwise, they're for lords to dance around in front of Kings in exhibitions and are chosen because they're extremely expensive to make and are unlikely to kill an armored opponent (it's not productive to have the realm's knights killing each other). They're as ceremonial in modern militaries as they were in ancient ones. Sure, if you train your entire life and every day of it you'll probably be able to kill some farmer named Dave with a war standard. You and your puffy shirt wearing friends might even write a few books and draw some pictures about the best way to hit Dave in the head. That doesn't mean if you gave him some rudimentary armour that he wouldn't be able to walk past your fancy stick and put something sharp in your soft bits. The same applies to your sharpened fancy metal stick. When fighting a resisting, equipped opponent who isn't going to stand there T posing and waiting for you to kill him while naked, the axe is a far easier tool to become effective with quickly, easier to maintain and repair, useful as a tool while on the march, easier to store and carry, less unwieldy, more damaging and about a thousand other things that make it more practically useful than a shiny fairy wand if you lack a literal lifetime worth of dedicated training to dancing with the shiny fairy wand. At the end of the day, if I'm wearing armour, I can just approach you and pull your arms off your tiny little noble body with my big strong farmer muscles, and that happened plenty of times, which is why toward the end they started carrying BIGGER SWORDS and the objective became to hold the crowd at bay until your actually effective troops come and smash them in the flank and then pretend that you were the effective one because no one else can write to say you're just an arrogant arsehole.
Swords are garbage. For slaughtering unarmoured people and for martial arts dancing, they're fantastic. For actually killing armoured mercenaries and soldiers in an actual battle where you actually have to hew meat from bone and not just "land a hit to get a point", the axe is far superior, from ability to pick it up and use it effectively through to the killing blow. I don't know the exact names of all the fancy swords and the dates of battles, but one thing I do know is violence.
All of this is why Fencing and M1 are sports today, but War Axe fighting somehow is not. There isn't enough armour in the world, even with modern composite materials, to stop your brain bouncing around in your skull when an axe catches you cleanly in the head. The guys in M1 can go as hard as they want. The swords are blunt for extra safety, but the edge isn't cutting through steel plate, or bronze chain for that matter. But that axe will move your head hard and fast enough to break your neck if it doesn't pulverize your brain.
The main battle winning skills have nothing to do with martial arts / skill at arms. Hygiene, map reading, how not to die of exposure/heat,/food poisoning/medical skills, organizational skills. In ancient times disease, starvation, dehydration, weather and lack of organization often kill more than the enemy. in the Crimean War (1854-1856; 730,000 British, French and Russian combatants) 34,000 were killed in action, 26,000 died from wounds and 130,000 died from diseases. Being trained to boil your water so you don't get typhoid is more important than being able to strip your weapon blindfolded.
Yes and no, depending on the tactical and strategic doctrine at hand, and the employment of such troops. When dealing with forces where close formations are the norm, individual skills at arms take a back seat to being able to function as a coherent unit. For example, you have the Greek phalanx or a 17th century pike block where individual members, regardless of their individual skils with their weapons, had to be able to move without tangling those monstrous spears; also, perhaps a post-Marius Reforms Roman legion where the ability to remain shoulder to shoulder and hold the line no matter what was the key to their tactical superiority; or 18th and 19th century musketry where the ability to deploy your infantry quickly and efficiently to present either the greater amount of firepower in a given direction, retreat in good order, and perform their reloading, presenting and firing in unison as to be able to maximize volleys, especially when platoon fire was in use. It doesn't matter so much if a pikeman is an expert fencer with that 18-foot monster but can't keep control of his weapon in a pike block and tangles up everyone within reach of that shaft. Or an expert swordsman in a Roman legion where the norm was thrusting around or under shields while standing shoulder to shoulder. Or, barring employment in a rifle/skirmisher company in an 18th/19th century army, being an expert marksman while standing in a musketry line. Which is not to say they wouldn't have scouts, raiders, marksmen or the maniacs who'd be first into a breach who would be picked for having superior individual fighting skills, but they wouldn't be the norm. However, I would say that once the lines had broken and things would get messy, individual skills would become much more important, if only to be able to survive long enough to be able to consolidate and form back up in to a cohesive unit.
No. As long as you're good at your designated job it absolutely doesn't matter how amazing you are in other ways. How many masters of the blade have been speared in the face by the opposing phalanx, how many grizzled men at arms who honed their skills for a decade have caught a bolt to the face, how many expert marksmen have been picked off by some sucky conscripts? The unit doing it's task better than the opposing unit is the deciding factor, not the individual awesomeness of a soldier in the unit.
on D-Day there were several landing sites, divided by the forces involved. those planning the landings determined that the amphibious tanks were critical to the success, and without any tanks the landing forces would be wiped out entirely. 1 beach did not have any tanks (i think 1 made it to the beach), and yet the force not only survived they took the beach and met their time table unlike the British forces that had far less hardships. the British had a longer history of active duty, with better training and better equipment overall. the US forces won because they were de-centralized and thus individual skill and motivation was encouraged and the pool of people that fought in the army were from a group of people that had a more independently minded culture (there were even complaints of the US forces with the problems of such culture by the British). throughout all of history this sort of thing is pretty consistent, but the reason this doesn't end up being the trend is due to independence tends to result in dividing a country defeating a country from within. this means that the effectiveness of a military is not so much what is trained, but the skills that troops have when they get out of initial training.
One thing I expected to hear about that I didn't hear until a very quick mention late in the video was the difference between skill in individual use vs the skill in mass formation. Using a sword or spear alone is a very different proposition than using it shoulder to shoulder with a group of people and I was surprised not to hear much about that.
There are many cultures all around the world that practiced some form of wrestling. It probably came into practical use when your battle formation broke up and coming into direct close contact with the enemy, you grappled with your opponent with a knife/dagger or even bare-handed. I suppose you could call it a form of combatting skill.
In personal combat you can move at your will as long as it favors your advantage. When at war you are like a part of a huge machine. You must work almost as a specialized mechanism doing a particular action unless your side creates a situation where you must quickly change to exploit an opening. However if your side loses cohesion and you must quickly change to prevent a total collapse.
Massively, if I were to guess before even watching this video: Endurance meaning you can continue fighting consistently for longer. Strength, you can strike harder and deflect harder strikes. Awareness, less likely to be caught off guard. Speed and skill, you can out perform an adversary; parrying, striking and dodge more effectively. Experience, knowledge of how an enemy is likely to act.
There are two categories of skill that you circle around that have different applications and importance to the subject. They are individual and collective skill. Individual skill is of varying importance for war, depending on what the skill group you are talking about is. Collective skill is generally of more importance militarily for warfare. Once you get to unit fighting the individual skill of soldiers can be diluted or discounted, depending on context. The reason why you mainly see things like uniforms and other equipment being obsessed over is that they have importance to the groups ability to function correctly, versus the individual drill which can be quickly forgotten by commanders at the large scale. Essentially they come up with a good enough benchmark, and get everyone to that point, which ideally takes very little time. After that point they expect experience will teach everything else that is needed. This is why veteran units are so valuable and can have an outsized effect on battle; the individual and collective skill levels are higher across the board, leading to greater effectiveness and ability. Modern warfare has changed to where the actual physical experience is different and training methods advanced enough to make training a cheaper and more effective tool than experience.
Mr. Easton, you mentioned that you dislike the term "muscle memory", would you please expand on why? Regardless, thank you for your work, it has been a joy to see how far this channel has come.
The Australian Light Horse Regiments were mostly recruited from the country being farmers and stockmen and had to prove their horsemanship before being signed up, and many had been in the militia and were also already trained with the Lee Enfield.
I joined the US Navy at age 17 in Chicago. Not a country boy! I did a total of 25 months in counter insurgency operations in Vietnam. 6mo. 6 mo. and 13 months. Dozens of fire fights. Combat skill is of great importance. You get a feel for the ebb and flow of gun fights after about a half dozen. You learn to think clearly in the maelstrom of violence. I went on to do contracting (mercenary) for twelve years. The skills I developed in Vietnam helped me survive and prevail in many instances. I made a lot of money. I made enough money to go to college and law school and start a law practice.
The way I understood the topic was 1v1 combat skills versus unit combat skills. What use is it to be good at sword fighting in a spear formation? What use is target shooting when firing in formation? Is it more a question of personal fitness? Or does dueling make bettee soldiers?
I think the point about axes being easier to use than swords comes not only from a weapon training perspective, but also ease of use and common use of both. I mean that, if you've never fought or trained with weapons, you may still have used an axe. Of course, I'm talking about tool axes, like the ones used to chop wood. And yes, they are not the same as fighting axes, but the main concept of using it's own weight to gain momentum and deliver a powerful chop is still the same. That means that someone that's never been trained in fighting would probably have some understanding of how to use an axe, but not a sword. I myself have used axes a couple of times, but I've never used a sword. In a defensive sense, maybe it's easier to defend with a sword, but only if you have at least a bit of knowledge of what you're doing. If not, you probably will try to do the same with both: either you'll try to dodge the attack or you'll try to block it with your own weapon. Personally, I don't think there would be much difference between both with someone that's never used them to fight. In any case, I think the easiest weapon to use is a mace. It's pretty simple to understand (just hit with it and done) and there's no chance that you'll have trouble with it's edge alignment (something that both a sword and an axe have to be aware of).
1. If you want to find "Which weapons give you the maximum efficiency for a minimum of effort" it's always a good idea to look at city militias. Spears, long polearms (halberds, pikes etc), crossbows, muskets etc have always been the typical weapons of the miltias. Generally this is because city militias have the money to equip their troops with effective weapons (it's not a collection of farming tools), but the majority of their forces are going to be people who will do a minimum of training (raised as a part of the guild obligations). 2. 17th and 18th century is a good place to look at "Does training matter". Swedish Caroleans, british redcoats and prussian infantry were at different points considered the best infantry of Europe and were frequently able to win despite the numbers being stacked against them. Caroleans for their high morale and skill in close combat, redcoats for their firing drills (generally able to fire three salvos when other infantry could only fire two), prussians for a high allround skill and extreme discipline.
Axe vs. Sword brings to mind one of my favorite series of books. Drenai legends by David Gemmell, in particular the books Legend and White Wolf depicting Druss.
It depends on the time frame as well. In ancient times an extremely proficient fighter could have a huge impact on army morale. I would say that this was true up until WW1/ WW2 where it reached the lowest point before becoming redundant. A fighter ace or tank ace could instill fear in the opponents and reinforce troop morale to keep fighting. In the former it is driven by lifestyle and origin. A peasant can hold an axe and wield it better than a metropolitan person. In the latter case it is not driven by location but often caste. The red baron was a noble. There is also role. Are they acting as a block with many others like a phalanx or a tercio. In the phalanx like formation the Scots used they all worked together as an anvil so individual skill was not a problem. Keep the pointy end towards the enemy and it will work. In the tercio much more cohesiveness from each man was required. Each man must be trained to work in the square or mangas with skill. Early on the swords man also had to know when and how to act among the pikes and arquebuses. This is why tercios had a core of venterans while the Scotish schiltron had a bunch of levies. The bayonet is interesting. On average it is not as popular but there is also Jukendo/ tankendo. A martial art relying on bayonet like set up. It is similar to kendo in some ways.
Id say, individual skill is important in the sense that they should learn skills relevant to fighting with large numbers of other people. I dont believe duelling ability, or that kind of skill is relevant. Fighting neck to neck with allies really reduces the amount of "skill" you can bring to play, most duelist skills revolve around movement and space, something you arent guaranteed on a battlefield. Doesnt matter if you can dodge left or right or parry one weapon expertly if there is a thicket of spears coming at you. In war a quantitative advantage becomes a qualitative advantage. 10 common men with spears will kill a swordsmaster as easily as they would kill a peasant
Endurance and discipline is probably more valued as skills in a formation battle where its less about killing and more about pummelling the enemy until its time to switch ranks.
When you refer to the English lack of marksmanship, this was particularly shown by contrast with Afrikaner fighters in the South African War. Afrikaner boys would often spend time in the veld, camping, fishing, and of course hunting with rifles. This 'veldsmanship' and marksmanship were important factors in being able to successfully defend against the richest, best equipped military force on Earth. But in general, I think coordination is more important than individual skill in warfare beyond the 'tribal.' One great example - among the many that will be mentioned here - is the skill of English naval gun crews at Trafalgar which allowed them to fire more often and more accurately than their lesser trained French and Spanish opponents and had no small impact on the outcome of the battle.
A lot of the physical and combat-related training was also often conducted by the parents, alongside with the school stuff, because often military service was the only really profitable carreer path. You had no public service sector to give everyone office jobs back then.
Re. cavalrymen. My dad joined the 17/21 lancers in 1934. He was born and bred in Highbury, London. His ‘experience’ with horses was petting the odd rag and bone man’s horse that sauntered by. He enjoyed ‘pig sticking’ out in India but in general HATED horses. The happiest day of his life was when the horses were put out to pasture (or the glue factory) and he picked up his shiny new Valentine.
I'd argue that, in formation-based combat, soldiers should get more discipline and manoeuvre training than weapon use training. When you've got limited time to train your soldiers, it's better to prioritize skills that affect the unit as a whole rather than individuals. A single soldier breaking formation is likely to bring the whole unit down with them, and being skilled with their weapon doesn't matter if they're not using it or using it in the wrong situation. Of course, they'd still need to know how to use that weapon effectively, but there's no need to be able to win a duel, just to hold long enough for a comrade to pitch in.
Here is a list (from my personal experience) of weapons and what training they would require (from least amount of training needed to most): staffs (like quartersaff) - cuz it is really just a big stick. and anyone knows how to use a stick (who did not whack something with a stick as a child speak up now) Spears (poke poke whack) - still just a stick but with one end pointy. maces, hammers and bludgeouning weapons in general ( caveman instinct go bonk) crossbows and firearms (as you said Matt, they are relatively easy to use.) - key advantage here would be number of people firing them in general direction of the enemy Axes - i would say they require more skill to use than maces or even firearms. and swords are technically at the bottom requiring most skill alongside bows
Interesting discussion. Once you start talking about armies, you have consider economics and maintenance as well. So in the case of horses, they were like the fighter jets of their day. WE only think of the pilots, but in order to keep that plane in flying condition, it requires a large maintenance crew as well, so it really made sense that farmers would be desirable even if they couldn't ride. It's also worth asking what kind of weapons could a country afford to arm their soldiers with. Crossbows might be easier to use, but they're complicated and expensive to produce compared to a bow or a sling. Even swords can become quite expensive, while polearms have the advantage of both reach and cost to produce. I read somewhere that even George Washington had a fondness for arming his troop with pikes, which were inexpensive and reliable. When we're talking about weapons skills, there are a lot of variables. English longbowmen were notoriously influential in a lot of medieval battles. If I remember right, Henry VIII required by law all eligible men to own a bow and practice weekly, to be ready to be called up for national defense. (This may also be the root of America's contentious 2nd amendment). So skill is certainly a consideration there. Likewise, Switzerland made it's name and reputation on the quality of it's crossbow-weilding mercenaries.
The spear was the most common weapon after they replaced clubs and possibly the stone disks, usually called stone axes. Nobody really knows how the disks were used, so maybe it wasn't a martial weapon. On the subject of ranged weapons, slings were incredibly effective, except you needed to train from youth to actually be good with them. The Spanish Conquistadors found that the native Americans were on par with their muskets as far as lethality. It's just that bows are easier to train on and crossbows even easier like you said.
re: the town vs country recruitment thing, it is worth noting that until the 20th century there was no clean distinction between civilian and combatant, and in cities occupants were expected to act as a garrison in most places in recognition of the special privileges townsfolk used to have (which would include not being able to be sent off for military reasons, incidentally)
I think it's important to distinguish discipline and professionalism from fencing skill to answer this question. Because the former is always important. The latter varies a lot.
Another good point to enforce bayonet training is that when you do reach the point where you do actually need to use your bayonet, it's pretty much life or death. So, taking that scenario in to consideration, it would make sense to instil proper bayonet training into troops.
In modern US Army infantry battalions a certain amount of individual skill at rifle marksmanship is mandatory, but the single largest focus of training is squad-level maneuvers.
I'd in historical combat i'd say skill matters on defense more than it does on offence, looking at historical combat practically anybody can be quickly trained to savagely charge & bludgeon somebody with even the most basic of weapons but being able to hold the line requires much more skill see how the Roman army very rarely routed, even in losses usually a coordinated retreat appears to happen. In modern combat that training relates to how many different ways of being attacked can a unit deal with before discipline is lost, elite units can cope with being attacked by multiple different methods (i know there is an actual word for this which i'm sure someone will add) i.e. direct fire, indirect fire, air attack etc whereas a poorly trained conscript unit would struggle to deal with more than just direct fire before losing discipline and routing
all depends on the formation. In gallic armies assault infantry, cavalry and commanders were all personal skill, on the other hand most infantry deployed in shield wall or phalanx were all about formation
I remember a documentary in the 90s where the Roman army was described as "far from the best fighters, but by far the best soldiers" because their focus was more on having a consistent minimum standard and a focus on discipline over personal skill. This (supposedly) resulted in the ROman soldiers being much more likely to stay with their unit, and much more willing to follow orders coming from someone they believed to be legitimate.
Things more important then personal skill: -gear -fitness -organization -morale If everyone is disciplined, fit and works in unison, chances are higher that they received more training which resulted into more skill, but the first 3 are more key into the functioning as a unit then individual skill.
Meh I would say gear is less important than ,skill, put a bunch of militia in in airplane with a parachute, they won't suddenly change into paratrooper, you need to be trained to use a weapon to wield it effectively. A great example is sadly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Why do we ship infantry anti air and anti-tank weapon in priority compared to tank and aircraft, well that's because the amount of skills needed to use those is way lower than using vehicle, and even with that we still have plenty of video proof of ukrainian misuing those weapons wasting amunition by firing too close to their target.
While the video turned out much broader in topic then the original title, as far as the title goes, i think the question is not so much if personal skill important for army troops, but what sets of skills are important when in contrast to personal (gladiatorial, judicial or other) types of combat. This could even count for elites or specialized (say assault or storm) troops versus general purpose units. As such, while some skills like exceptional grappling and hand to hand skills, climbing, swimming, mounted archery might be very important for elites, just basic formation discipline and small unit tactics are usually far more important for the regular soldier. In fact, insistence on "heroics" might even be frowned upon if it leads to endangering the team. If we take a shield wall or a phalanx as an example, as a member of that unit, you are expected to cover your mate to the left with your shield, not perform cartwheels or show off your other gymnastic capabilities in battle.
I think that there are three types of skills in warfare and they are different. Much of your discussion is the skill in use of personal equipment and weaponry. In a modern context, there is normally a requirement for individual skill to be at a given level. Again in a modern context (and I will use modern context in this post until the end), rifle marksmanship is such a skill and the US Army requires that soldiers be able to score at a certain level on a given marksmanship test. The next level is unit level proficiency. Can the unit perform certain tactics effectively? For example, could an artillery unit get off counter battery fire within a specific time and specific accuracy. A number of jobs must be completed and communicated effectively. The final level is large scale proficiency. Can multiple units perform coordinated actions? Can artillery suppress some infantry to allow tanks to engage them? This requires lots of people to do their jobs and lots of communication. We see this more or less type of work all the way back in history. Whether this is Alexander or the Romans or other armies. So when you talk about skill in warfare, I think the Romans are a great example here. There are great examples through history where unit level proficiency of the Legion was quite important. Other places where large scale proficiency is important. How many battles happened where there was a stalemate in the center and each side won on opposite wings. What the wings did after winning the battle in front of them often decided the winner of many large battles.
The first 1,000 people to use the link or my code scholagladiatoria get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/scholagladiatoria05221
Sword vs axe then sword is narrowly favourable.
Put a shield into the equation then the Axe over a sword by a large margin.
Axe is high offence. Shield's is literally main function is active Defence.
Mind I would rather a mace over axe or sword out of preference. I like clubbing, something satisfying about it.
I disagree with assumption for bludgeoning/blunt weapons like maces not requiring training or thought
working on instinct not knowing better is to put all their force into the swing & do as much damage in one big blow.
Any one can use a club/mace because well it a weight on a stick but to use well I say that is another matter.
I Use half heated blows that are plenty enough to mortally injure or kill if you not where protective gear with non Hardened softer puffy material to disperse most of the impact.
I tend to use relatively large arc of circles & figures of 8 to keep then enemy at bay in the initial early contact.
The amount people trained that flinch who are use to mace twirling around near their face by having your elbow & wrist fixed neutral. While you sway the mace around like a fie hose with your body & shoulder facing the held side to the enemy.
The end padded weight alone if it hits a shield or anything some one is wielding & watch it get flung out their hand our they fall flat on their back side.
Your parry is non existent but twirl it around near them & they are forced to defend from the mace.
Once you knock their curve & flick the mace head back to them.
You feel ridiculous twirl weighted pole around with fixed elbow but few are willing to step forward into that & if they do you shift or reverse away from them.
They are so unwilling to be hit by looping swing weight weighted arc.
If you get surprised you to the away side they & slam the club to the side.
Most try to get in close from the beginning & deliver 1 big blow.
Don't do that unless if you F up & they chose to come in close distance because a full pelted swing of a weight will do worse then a sword cut. A cut can be patched up or sewn together a mace shatters bone & tissue with out the padding I put on.
You can't put a caved in skull back together.
Shield is a 1 handed maces best friend.
2 Handed mace I'd prefer a fair bit of Harness/Armour.
It couldn't hurt
Please keep your content about history. No need to be political and stuff as this is not your expertise
I'd say for small units and guerilla warfare, I'd say yes. for large-scale conventional war, no...
For my perspective on the subject I'm a retired infantry sergeant of the Canadian Forces and I've taught on a fair number of basic and infantry courses over the years. I think Matt is underestimating the amount of time it would take to train a complete novice in combat skills for even the simpler weapons. Maybe he's going on personal experience where he was able to pick up a spear and learned how to use it in a day. But this is probably after he'd been training in fencing or HEMA for some years so he had a lot of complimentary skills and physical conditioning that had primed him for the task.
But dealing with raw recruits who have no previous experience with weapons or fighting? Just getting them to march in step can take a week or more. I can teach a new soldier how to do the drills with a gun so he's be safe on a static range in about 2-3 days and be able to fire and move across an open field in about 10-14 days but trench and house clearing? 5-6 weeks or even more from first time holding the gun to the point I'd trust them covering my back in a basic stack. And that's assuming I'd be able to train them non-stop with no other training or work interfering.
It's not just a question of physical ability. Getting them past mental barriers of dealing with noise, confusion and being knocked around. As Matt mentioned bayonet training is pretty minimal these days but pugil fighting is still common as it lets the troops get used to being physically targeted. It may sound silly to someone who hasn't been through it but the first pujil session for most troops has them baffled as they try to internalize the concept, "This guys is hitting me! Seriously is no one seeing him hit me? He's hitting me. What makes him think he is allowed to hit me?"
That's why military recruiters these days like to see people that have been part of a contact sport like football, rugby or hockey. They've been in an environment of working together with other people and have taken a few hits along the way to get them past the mental barrier of realizing that yes, other people can smack you around, and no, it's not the end of the world or justification for a panic attack if they do. That said, a paint ball champion can be a nightmare to deal with as they've usually collected a string of bad habits that would get them killed in a real fire fight.
As mentioned by Matt, historically people from farms were preferred as there was a lot of hard physical labour involved so they'd have some muscular development and some of the work they'd done would have had a "wax on, wax off" complimentary training value. If you used a pitchfork to stab and toss several acres worth of straw or hay onto a wagon that's not too different from using a spear or bayonet. And clearing brush or relaying a hedge row with a bill hook may not be a perfect analogy for swinging a sword or mace but it would give you a head start for concepts like edge alignment and economy of motion so you're not winding up like you're swinging for the fences.
I agree. It took us 8 weeks to make grunts, 8 months more to learn a specialty.. I entered schooled in WW1, WW2 and Korea. We fought. I was the Oldman. 11c takes90 days.
This makes sense to me. I find the idea of trying someone to be militarily effective with a spear or gun in a day quite dubious, assuming no previous experience. I'm sure in desperation people did it, & it could work ok for some folks who have a knack for fighting, but most soldiers trained in a day would be terrible on the field. Personally, I'm an amateur scholar of military history who used to spar regularly a while back & still does solo practice with swords, shields, & sticks. Despite familiarity with fencing fundamentals & extensive knowledge of historical martial practices, I wouldn't be effective in war with a spear or gun after day of training. There's no way. I've shot an AR-15 & other guns on a couple different occasions. With another day of training, I might manage putting bullets in the correct general area & executing basic orders, but that's about it. I've been practicing with staves & spears on & off for most of my life & can perform a variety of techniques. I could fight with a spear as part of some medieval-type army, but I wouldn't be effective because I don't know how to move or fight in coordination with other people or how to fight in armor. I'm also not very good at all at spear fencing, & would get rolled by anyone with modest skill.
Late-medieval armies may or may not have done much training proper, but the folks who made quality soldiers extensively practiced relevant skills in shooting guilds, hunting, tournaments, formal & informal sparring, & so on. Some of Renaissance soldiers were, as Cesare d'Evoli claimed, drawn by the sound of the drum & ignorant of the art of fencing, but others had training &/or experience, & presumably mentored the newcomers.
I do airsoft but I also shoot real guns. Will airsoft give me bad habits?
@@catsultan949 Paintball and airsoft can be useful for teaching basics of movement but competitive paintballers will get in the habit of taking risks because there isn't really any penalty beyond the minor embarrassment of losing a match. In the Canadian military we use a system of 9mm marker ammunition that's higher velocity and can break the skin if you don't have the right protective padding. We train with helmets and frag vests and extra protective equipment is provided for the face, neck, groin and knees but some of the advanced trainers will deliberately target the unprotected part of the legs if they see someone going Rambo. Pain can be a useful teaching tool.
The Rambo part gave me a smile...
I got 4 months of infantery training, (and 6 months for AAA) and thats long ago. During an exercise we were "clearing" a farm complex. I was put in front in the beginning and so we started. All went well i thought, and suddenly i was alone and had almost reached the end of the complex. I did not get any complaints by the NCO for not taking cover or anything like that, but for not waiting and instead keeping on going. "You don't need to do that alone, you are not Rambo, you are an infanterist" i was told 😁. Never did that again. The most fitting quote to that i found is from the YT channel "military history visualized". He often says "War is a team effort" to counter people with a movie or game view on war.
Paintball and airsoft were not that common here back then, and to this day i have tried neither, so weren't the reason for my mistake. Adrenalin and focussing on the correct movements and possible hiding spaces for me and an opponent had my brain completely occupied.
Comparable to paintball and airsoft, i think if you look at the 3 gun competitions the US has, i would think that they also have plenty of "bad habits" you would need to untrain to make them into infanterists. (They are less used to taking cover than paintballers and airsofters, drop magazines along the way as if they were disposable ect. Fine for the match, bad in infantery use)
Yes. One of the Eastern Roman generals noted one out of every ten archers would be good. During the Hundred Years War, the English archers carried many battles, and the French continued to fight; it only took one loss similar in scale, the Battle of Patay, to knock the English permanently out of France. They simply could not replace their veteran longbowmen. The training required to weild a warbow effectively is not found in a typical levee. The English required all combat age men to practice the longbow in order to have a ready reserve for this peculiar skill.
Individual skill is extremely important in war. However, the skills that have the largest impact are not those that people might think of first. The skill of your logisticians, the skill of your animal handlers, the skill of your aircraft mechanics, etc. make up the tail that wag the dog.
The Apache is a frighteningly deadly platform, a truly awesome weapon of war, but if they are deadlined 85-90% of the time on average, due to effects of dust and sand on improperly maintained turbines or lack of replacement parts, they may not be something to count on to achieve victory. The same applies with a warhorse. It certainly applies if your army is sick and starving and has to eat the horses, which would die soon anyway for lack of feed. Training and individual combat skills are important of course, but war is a team sport.
The meta-skill of coordinating efforts and working as part of a cohesive unit is the trump card, and that applies at every level. That skill of creating disciplined, coordinated effort is what will carry the day, more often than not, and makes a fighting force truly lethal.
Until the Revolution in Russia there was a tradition of the “Wall on Wall” bare-knuckle brawl, it was the highlight of the Maslenitsa Festival, pre-lent. Two groups of 12 to 24 men would line-up, shoulder to shoulder, opposing each other. Each man would engage the man directly in front. Once your opponent was knocked down to the ground you were free to assist your comrades on either side of you. You were not allowed to wear long sleeve’s, because in medieval times some unscrupulous people used to hide horseshoes in the sleeves.
These fights would be between two neighboring villages, towns, even noble houses.
And if my family is typical, and there were grizzled old crusty battlefield hardened veterans in the family, they would effectively family “drill instructors”. Grandpa would be teaching boxing, wrestling, marksmanship, and assorted fieldcraft skills(trapping, tracking, hunting, shelter construction). It was hard, but there was an unbelievable level of euphoria of accomplishment and self confidence, whenever you mastered the skill.
Although the monarchs of Russia really cracked down on boxing, so it's no surprise that it died off
Sounds like a good way to settle disputes and let off steam.
@uNnHkP8mza I've seen a video of it a few years ago.
One of the rare times I was not bored to death translating from Latin in high school, the text was about a "discussion" between roman military leaders.
The issue was the training of soldiers.
One of them was fixated with personal skills : beat a pole with a heavy wooden sword, shield proficiency, fitness in general.
The other one responded with: "What you are describing is important, but for us (commanders) is more important teaching them how to move in formation, swap lines efficiently and keep their ground."
and ended with something on the line of:
"Every idiot can learn quickly how to stab with a sword,
not every idiot can learn how to stay in line in front of a charging enemy."
I've been looking for texts exactly like that. Thank you for summarizing it.
In Lianbingshiji 练兵实纪, general Qi Jiguang 戚继光 focused on the ordinary soldiers' skill to used a certain weapon (of course they train with it on a daily basis). He said that: "If they can only used 2 or 3 of the 10 things that they've learned, our army is already invicible". He highlighted the soldiers' skills only after their morale and their ability to follow orders.
Something that came up in a discussion on modern air combat, oddly, was the Parthian shot, where the light horse archers would turn around in the saddle at full gallop in order to fire at a pursuing enemy. That particular skill obviously proved so important it has been remembered culturally, and now is the name given to the ability of an air-to-air missile to target a pursuing enemy, for example the AIM9-X is reputed to have a Parthian shot capability, while the earlier models didn't.
The discussion was the excellent Justin Bronk, from the RUSI, talking to Ward Carroll on his channel.
The important aspect of air combat is the skill of the average pilot. Just look at the IJNs failure against the United States. Even the best pilots get shot down eventually. And if the new pilots aren’t being properly trained, it doesn’t matter how many good pilots you previously had. The average pilot is what matters. Not the ace.
@@Rokaize i'd say that example highlights the importance of numbers as well.
Matt, I could counter a bit, because at least in the book recommended by you - Kinsley, D. A - Swordsmen of the British Empire - if to take the accounts by word, there are literally dozens of cases when accomplished swordsmen were killed (or embarrassingly saved by others) when they "gave point" to their opponents as they were taught. Especially in cavalry charge or storming of breaches that could mean inability to withdraw the blade if it stuck, or being killed by the not-yet-dead opponent, who hit them by his cutting implement (tulwar, khukri or some longer Afghan knife). There is often said in that book, that the opinion on how to use the blade in battle is more than 90:10 in the favor of cut - which was dismissed in Britain as in France.
I've heard discussed that double kills happened in sword duels as well, where both opponents stabbed each other at essentially the same time, or when a sword gets stuck leaving the first striker defenseless and the other opponent responds.
I’m confused is you’re point that skill isn’t a massive factor or something else because Matt obviously I think know that no matter how skill full you are three on one is basically impossible but that doesn’t mean that a army of slightly more skilled soldiers then there opponents wouldn’t be better on average“and the sword master against three would still last better then a novices against the same odds”
cut the head hand and legs in that order in one frail
sweep when sticking down a opponent alot of ppl stab or swing n watch for the effect that alone gets u stabed backso crush ur oponnet or go about qaurting ppl in this fashion but you must take his spot to fight multiables only going forwards what rensai master would say if you remain incircled the skill won't matter
@@gwynbleidd1917 I understood it perfectly, he raised a good question aswell, what's so hard to understand precisely big boy?
I think a sometimes overlooked aspect of troop training is in maintenance of weapons and other kit. The reason the AK-47 is such a common weapon, for example, isn't just that it was designed to be very easy to use, but also because it was easy to make and maintain. If a weapon can withstand weeks of abuse by indifferent troops in harsh conditions and still work, it allows you to field troops with less training, which in turn allows for rapid recruitment. You also see this in battle rifles that are deliberately limited to semi-auto or three-round burst settings, because otherwise low-quality troops will simply spray-and-pray on full auto. Equally maces and clubs have a big advantage in that they can't get blunt from neglect, and there's no need to align an edge to do damage with them.
This is a fantastic comment. When my future children are playing soldier, I'll bring this up for their future consideration
How important is skill in mass battle? I would argue: More important than the unskilled would like, less important than the skillful would like.
Numbers are probably more important. Which is specifically why the 300 Spartans (and their less famous Greek allies) fought in a position that limited their opponent's number advantage. Which highlights the importance of strategy. They are all just elements to a larger equation (which includes equipment) none of which will provide an automatic win by themselves.
In the axe vs sword debate I feel that the unskilled person is unlikely to be able to effectively defend themselves with either weapon so the swords superiority in that regard isn't much of an advantage.
While personal fencing skill might be not very important the ability to operate as a unit and respond to commands corectly and swiftly is paramount. It was proven again and again from roman manipulus to spanish tercios. Talking about greeks at Thermopylae- they would be fucked up in an instant if they were untrained peasants unable to hold the line and quickly close the gaps in their defence. It takes certain amount of drill and skill to capitalize on strategical advantage. Same thing applies to european medieval warfare- cavalry charge was dominating strategy because it was effective against levies who made bulk of medieval armies. They were unable to hold the line and offten were already panicking and breaking even before the charge connects. With professional foot soldiers becoming more prevalent we see heavy cavalry charge used less and less- knights can't do shit against organized pikewall.
300 Spartans and their allies isn't a very fair way to describe an army consisting of what? 7000 hoplites? Where Sparta was one of the minor parties
@@warwickthekingmaker7281 sources don't agree on how many other Greeks were there (or the size of the Persion army for that matter) so I don't presume to know how many there were.
@@AdamWhitehead111 sources agree that they were in the thousands
Discipline, training and tactics will always trump individual prowess. The Gauls for example were formidable fighters individually but they were no match for the Roman legions.
Absolutely, but we must keep in mind that these societies promoted the individual to do great deeds on the battlefield. There was never a focus on fighting as a unit instead, the warrior that stood out amongst his peers was vaunted, so each man was basically out for himself. Hjuggernaut
That was true and yet they still were a pain for the Romans to deal with. Fas forward a century or two and the moment they got roman tactics and general defectors on their side they crushed Rome.
Individual prowess is as equally important as everything you mentioned
@@alexanerose4820 Did I say individual prowess was more important? If you have equally good tactics and discipline then prowess is definitely the deciding factor, for example Spartans beating other Greek hoplites. The Romans weren't using the same tactics in the time period that I believe you are referring to, which wasn't in a century or two, it was more like four.
@@alexanerose4820 It wasn't Gaul "rising again" with Roman defectors, so much as semi-nomadic tribes whose entire noble classes were former Auxilia officers, if not the majority of their male populations former mercenaries in Roman employ.
Roman Legions is a perfect example of how important is personal skill, at difference of greek and macedonian phalanx, roman Legions used a modular strategy, very skilled individual sodiers, that can create powerful modular formation, capable to adapt themselves to fight both in formation and as individual soldiers, and they beated phalanx by crushing their formation and force greeks in close combat
The one type of soldier that would have a high requirement for individual combat ability is heavy cavalry, due to their relatively smaller number, the enforced spacing from their horses meaning you cant quite pack them shoulder to shoulder (meaning more room for individual skill), and skill meaning more when you can ease the relative quantitative advantage of multiple weapons coming at you with some kind of armor. In short, you need to be able to survive multiple weapons coming at you before you can show off your skill
Heavy cavalry charged shoulder to shoulder with lances. The skill is in controlling a horse in formation, couching a lance, charging in unison, breaking the target formation and getting out to form again. That is what heavy cavalry did.
I think different skills are needed. A bunch of top end duelist might be wiped out by what seems to be a much lower skilled bunch of troops if those troips were skilled at fighting as a team. Its pretty easy to see in a sports game how that breaks down. Personal skill is a huge issue but if that person doesn't work well in the team they can even become a liability.
I think that it is still common to get troops from rural areas. Soldiers who had grown up hunting does have some skills that are useful. From what I understand it's not necessarily firearm skills since those are relatively easy to train. My wife is from Miami and is athetic. One of the things that always surprises me is that she doesn't have and understanding of how to understand unpredictable surfaces or rough country or to so when thing have changed as she walks through different areas or noticing when something happens. Even though she is a physical therapist she doesn't have an intuitive sence if body mechanics.
In reenactment fighting, we see the skilled opponents willing to put their ego aside and cooperate do much better than those who fight only for themselves.
A champion team will always defeat a team of champions.
@@lancerd4934 the Battle of The Horn between Ask and Ulfhednir in 1995 - 1997 proved that very much.
Yes and feudalism favored unskilled team players(sarcasm).
From castles to heavy cavalry; clearly medieval age preferred skilled individuals over large quantities of "team players" Rome indeed conquered the world but the "team players" they used are full time soldiers not peasants.
@@datuputi777
Different time, different Gov.
Rome and its enemies could field ten thousand of full trained troops at will and keep them active for a long long time.
Feudal Europe no longer had any centralized state with the manpower and resources of those old empires so they could only keep and core of elite fighters and support that with levy. But it is a mistake to call those troops untrained. They didn't have decade long service like those legionnaires/auxiliaries but they were trained enough for their time. Untrained peasant mobs happened very rarely as you need to supply your army so untrained peasants are drain og resource not strength.
In a modern context, I think individual fighting skill rarely if ever wins battles. It does, however, save the lives of individual soldiers and while that isn't important to military planners, it's extremely important to individual soldiers. From a psychological standpoint, teaching individual fighting skills might be a way of showing the soldier that he/she is considered valuable. I think that's reason enough for a military to teach and emphasize those skills.
I agree on that. People will be more cooperative if feel appreciated.
And yet, cops only shoot once or twice a year to do quals, same thing with reservists... The thing that sets groups like Seals apart, is not just better gear and tactics, but thousands upon thousands of hours of repetition on skill sets.
The point is, modern military, crack Roman legion, or Chinese crossbowmen, all units are better advantaged by both group and individual training.
Sweat saves blood.
And practice (repetition) makes perfect.
Can't ignore that troops that feel they're part of a well trained force are going to be much more cohesive, purely out of confidence.
I had the opportunity to work with soldiers from several armies during my days in the service. I also served in a number of units at different stages of training.
I felt a strong link between the average level of the soldier skills on those units and how effective they were in the field. There was also a clear effect in terms of their leadership's skill and their performance. My impression was that the unit's readiness was somehow the sum of those two factors.
Even in a medieval context, alot of the conflict individual soldiers may face won't be pitched battles. Skirmishes, scouting, ambushes. Small engagements mean each individual counts towards success more. If a group of soldiers outright beats another small group, that's a big morale victory right there. It gives the soldier confidence that he IS a skilled warrior.
It's a bit like sport, right? You got your personal skills (running, passing, shooting, etc.) And your team skills (positions, plays, communication, reading the opponent, etc.). You need sufficient training in both personal and team skills to get any measure of success. Your team can easily defeat a bunch of players who are more personally gifted, if you have the right balance of personal and team skills distributed evenly among your team.
(I just coached some kids' soccer this morning, if you couldn't tell)
I think this is basically correct if we look at the development of arms in early modern history and the "infantry revolution"... organizational strategy, for a time, was everything and you could take some peasant boys and give them pikes and some drilling and have an army capable of going toe to toe with a comparably sized force of professional warriors who (because of the cultural context of existence within the class of hereditary professional warriors) COULD NOT adopt the level of rigid discipline that the peasant army would be expected to have.
@@420JackG
Completely untrue peasants don't magically turn into professional armies the opposite is actually the truth there was inadequate amount of professional armies in short the competition is not steep.
@@datuputi777 obviously they didn't magically turn into professional armies, it took some drilling and some familiarization with doctrine. And notice I said they would be capable of going toe to toe with a force of "professional warriors" not another professional army, the implication there was obviously the knightly class. Those guys were obviously highly skilled fighters on an individual level, but I think we can also agree that a large host of knights does not necessarily (or even likely) indicate a professional army.
Yes that's how Italy won world cups, opening the catenaccio is super hard. Nevertheless all your players have to be good enough to play on the professional level. They are all skilled defenders, it's just that it is easier to become an skilled defender than let's say a skilled 10
Not soccer related, but I do remember WAY back in little league 'training' one of the things we kids were drilled on, aside from learning to throw and bat, was how to overcome the natural fear of pain to be able to field hopping ground balls by blocking with the whole body (and hoping to catch it in the glove).
Some kids on my team learned to overcome the fear quickly, one never did.
Military unit training also includes components to overcome natural fear and to stay in formations, and/or to stay on task.
Regarding modern militaries teaching bayonets or other hand to hand combat techniques most still teach something but you are right that is is dwindling with time. The United States even specifically developed a new form of hand to hand combat built entirely on the premise of putting your opponent on the ground as quickly as possible at which point you take multiple steps backward and point your gun (usually a rifle) at them. That's the whole thing. Different ways to put a melee attacker on the ground so you can point your gun at them. They are literally doubling down on firearm dependency. Special Forces and other specialized job descriptions get more advanced training, of course, but the rank and file don't.
I think this answer varies with the predominant technology of the time.
A force of mounted cavalry assumes that each individual is both a skilled rider and archer as well as being able to maintain discipline if they become separated from
their unit.
At the same time a force of levied musketeers would require much less training, but would be much more dependent on its officers to function.
I had to add a comment to this video. It was an excellent example of your wide breadth of knowledge about things. I found many, many points you were making interesting. Just thanks so much for your great videos.
well...depending on the type of skill.
seem to remember Polybius mentioning the skill of the Gaul's as fencers not being a match for the roman discipline and cohesion, and certain types of battle tactics, like shield wall and pike formation rely less on individual skill with the weapon and more on order and cohesion as a fighting group
Ya the romans considered all the groups around them as better individual fighters.
I remember while playing Empire Total War, it had a lot of text for different aspects of the game. I do remember reading somewhere about how 1700s, 1800s soldiers would be lucky to get the chance to fire 1 round for the year for training. Armies were reluctant to do more because it cost more money to have extra rounds for training. The British Army was better off than most because they were able to do this several times per year. So, what you had was the British soldier was more familiar with their weapon while actually firing, while many of their counterparts were lucky to fire 1 round the past year.
That looked like a huge deficiency in training. With more training you also get more confidence.
There were several times I've heard of in Afghanistan that both US and British troops had to fix bayonet and in fact use them. I agree we need to do more bayonet training. As an enlisted US Marine in the 1990's, I learned to use the bayonet but it was not training we did on a regular basis.
arguable morale and zeal is more important and obviously that comes with the belief that you are more skillful or elite than your opponent. Bayonet charge is probably the prime exampe. That type of attack is mostly moral based on the less hardned unit quickly breaking and routing while the more veteran unit will take the initial casualties and charge home. Both units holding ends in a blood bath for both sides. Bayonets aren't precisely skillful weapons, you stab people. If you would want to skillfully stab people you would not use a bayonet. But they are good enough for the job and lethal enough people will run away if the other sides looks like they mean business.
I wonder if it might not be better to provide infantry (former marine 0311) with sidearms for close combat.
@@anthonywesley5306 I think improving the E-tool and giving training for use as a weapon is the most logical thing. People have definitely used it and similar tools to kill before, even going as far as WW1 we see countless examples of troops using makeshift maces and their trench digging equipment as effective weapons.
I'd say the situations in which you can shoot someone with your sidearm are pretty much all going to be a situation in which you can shoot them with your rifle.
True, because America only engages war with poor,,small,weak countrys
The Chieftain did a brief history of the transition of the US cavalry from horse to fully mechanized. Toward the end, one major factor was that finding "horse people" had gotten harder and harder.
I think part of the reason it is hard to determine how much skill matters, is that it is tied to too many other factors. Just as an example, people who are highly skilled are likely are also better equipped. Also the degree of skill likely matters. Going from completely untrained to knowing the basics probably has a much larger return than going from highly skilled to being a master.
Very good point. A lot of historical militaries expected most or all troops to bring their own equipment. If you were well-off enough to afford the best equipment of the day, you also had enough leisure time to physically train yourself and you'd inevitably land in a unit of other well-equipped men who also might have spent a lot of free time messing with weapons.
Can discipline be considered a skill? Or at least familiarity with war in general, usually experienced combatants tend to do better than younger soldiers.
But if by skill we mean proficiency with a tool (or in this case weapon), you don't need the best swordsmen, you need guys who can use a weapon simple enough to defeat the enemy as easy as possible,, so you minimize the need for skilled fighters, war Is all about having the right scenario for you to win without relying entirely on the skill of the fighters.
War has every bit of interpersonal conflict you can find.
Small skirmishes, foraging, scouting and harassing. They all counted as war. Not just set-piece battles.
So personal skill definitely matters.
0:52 I know this is more of a gun thing than a sword thing, but the XM5 that the US military is replacing the M4 with comes with this optic that _literally_ does almost everything for you. It auto-calculates range, windage, ID's your target, and tells you where your holdover should be. It's almost like it's designed to essentially be an artificial stand-in for shooting capability, which tells me two things; first, that the US military seems to believe skill is very important, at least for modern warfare, and that two, in just a few years, none of our marines will actually be able to hit anything unassisted more than 250 meters away.
It might be discontinued now but when i did MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) we trained with bayonets with all kinds of complicated techniques, and pugil sticks are meant to to simulate bayonets.
MCMAP is not discontinued but also one must recall the level one must reach is not the same as the top level if I recall correctly all combat role Marines must reach Green belt whereas others don't need to and the top level being black belt.
I think skill can fall into two categories: 1. Individual combat skill and 2. How well trained you are are in movement and discipline. Essentially the warrior skills and soldier skills. I think it's important to not lump these two together
I remember reading that for a good chunk of the roman legion's lifespan, the primary "entry test" was a roughly 18-mile march. Anyone who lagged too far behind didn't make the cut.
Personal skills are important to the extend of "the adequate standard" to be able to fight effectively.
I would argue that a personal skills in "leadership" generally play a bigger role in warfare. I am sure there were times were some warriors & knights being hailed or even worship by an army not only because of the power/technique prowess but also because of being very charismatic.
Personal combat skills also matter for offices, because that's what enables them to survive and move on to become generals. When he was a young Lt, George Patton famously survived a shootout with Mexican bandits during the famous Pancho Villa expedition in 1915. If he had been less skilled, there would have been no General Patton.
I think it very much depends what you are doing. If you're fighting in large formations, personal skill probably matters less than team work. If you're in the phalanx, you could be the best single combat fighter in the world, but if you don't you job and protect the guy next to you, that doesn't really count for much. You might kill a bunch of guys but if you do so by breaking formation then you just screwed over your buddies because there's now a gap in the line.
I find this comes up a lot when playing objective based games. You can be the best player in the world and top the leader board but your team might still lose because you weren't actually helping to cap or hold the objective.
Reading about ancient Greek and Roman military tactics, you definitely get the impression that the more experienced and skilled a unit was, the more likely they were to be given weapons that required more confidence. Like, the roman legion at it's height, there's a reason *that* is the period where they had the confidence to give troops armor, a gladius and say "go crash into those guys and hack some limbs off". Later on when there was less training, more "we've got a big ol' hoard of barbarians to throw at them", they reverted back to spears and smaller shields that were more useful for less cohesive troops. Where in a sense, "individual skill" would matter more, but they just didn't have the training or morale to function like those old legionaries.
Marine squad leader in Viet Nam, 2 yrs. I know this shit. Skill very important. Quick reflexes, head on a swivel, quick decision making skills. Any hesitation, death. More important, luck. You can be a natural warrior, but if Marine in front of you steps on a Bouncing Betty mine, you're as dead as he. You can't beat luck.
I was thinking about personal skill in warfare as in comparison to someone who trained boxing and only boxing for his whole life. That means that guy is probably a pretty good boxer. Then that guy goes to mma and gets smashed. It doesn't mean that boxing isn't a usefull skill. It actually should be a nice basis for his future training. The problem is that mma requires soooo many different skills from you. In war it is similar. You can have a bunch of people who are great duelists. However, if your army doesn't have good leadership, tactics, communications and especially logistics, those guys are probably going to be deleted. Skill of the individual can be important but only as the element of the whole
In war, individual practice of arms counts little. Coordinated action counts for much. Courage counts for everything.
@@yeussean hate what America does
One small point about the use of Bows, when they were used on the battlefield just about everyone were already adept at using a bow, albeit for hunting but, they were not novice bowmen.
In regards to games and archery skill; Total War: Three Kingdoms has the Yellow Turban DLC that introduces Archery Masters under Huan Shao.
At a distance they are no better than ordinary archers really, but as the enemy charges forward the masters start shooting faster, and more accurately. An 80-strong unit of Ji infantry with be shredded down to 10 terrified and very lonely deserters before they could get within 50 paces, then the masters turn their attention to the next unit and just dismantle them in seconds.
Any army in Huan Shao's faction starts with stealth deployment and movement, so if you hadn't had some fun in a Total War game in a bit, I recommend it. Archery masters squatting on a barricade during castle defence is the bee's knees.
He's not playing total war, m8
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin Matt plays games, I reckon he'd at least give it consideration. It's Han dynasty Total War; all kinds of fantastic weapons in there.
When I went to Basic in 2006-2007 we were the last training company at Fort Leanardwood to go through the Rifle Bayonet Course. (They may have continued this after however) Downrange our bayonets stayed in our connex's the entire time. We did however all have multiple knives on us, my platoon especially all got large, 6-8 inch bladed knives and had them mounted to our body armor for use in CQC/weapon malfunctions/out of ammo. Myself and others in my unit had to go hand to hand not uncommonly.
I agree with your point about archery not being easily picked up but think you could make a stronger case for its difficulty.
I've been shooting bows my whole life, including traditional bows like longbows, and have trained/coached many others on their use over the years in casual friend-group circumstances. While its true that none of these eager students had quite the level of motivation of a person going into battle, I still would argue that they provide a good context for learning traditional archery from zero.
The big thing with archery is form. Correct stance and posture, correct arm angles, good back tension, anchor points, a good release and follow through, all of these and more are essential skills that take time to develop if a person if going to shoot with any semblance of accuracy. Archery also requires muscles that are not easy to develop outside of archery. The best way to develop both good form and the relevant strength is practice with someone who can comment on your form. Given that archery is physically demanding, even with low draw weight bows, there is also only so much practice you can do in a day.
As such, in my experience, it takes at least a month of shooting until exhaustion every day for a beginner to achieve consistency at 10 yards with a low weight bow (meaning 20-30 lbs). Longer range shots and heavier bows are less forgiving and require better form to achieve accuracy and consistency. Include the stress of shooting in a field situation and the case gets even more severe. I've blown many shots in a hunting context due to nerves, and in this context, there is no real risk of injury or death if I miss like there would be on a battlefield. The challenge of translating range skills to field skills is something all martial disciplines share, but combining this with the complexities of archery at battlefield ranges and battlefield draw weights makes archery that much more inaccessible to those without years of experience.
Another example of training disparity that isn’t special forces is the British in early WW1. They had a very high level of training compared to their opponents, but once those reserves were exhausted and the British were reduced to draftees the effectiveness of their forces plummeted.
Bayonets are good for prisoner and crowd control because of instinctual fear of sharp objects makes them good for deterrence. In that capacity, if skill beyond knowing how to attach it, hold it threateningly, and poke people that come too close comes up it’s past time to use it.
Interesting points on modern bayonet training! Our army has conscription, and i was in a little over 20 years ago. We don't have bayonets, but a field knife. We spend an afternoon with "close quaters empty rifle defense techniques". Which basically translates to "my gun is empty, there's someone trying to bayonet me or stike me with a big stick or blunt thing, what do i do..." Was prettty interesting and relatively easy to comprehend. But we never trained knife fighting and our group commander once said: "in CQB, use the spade, it has proven it's worth in CQB in 2 World wars..." (We didn't train that either)
But at least we got shown how it is when you get attacked by someone who also has an empty rifle. (i got a little taste with one instructor who attacked me when i was not aware of it and just reacted insstictively like we were taught to do. The surprise left out the "it's just training" thought in my brain in the first few miliseconds. So after parrying, i almost rammed the barrel of my rifle into his eyesocket. Was barely able to stop before that, realizing it was still part of training, so surprising was his attack. It could have ended with him loosing an eye or more.)
I thought there would be a discussion between skill in a group fight and skill in an individual fight. I went from 5 years of Olympic fencing to a group fight boffer larp and discovered a lot of what I had trained in was not applicable.
I feel like modern war has really increased the individual skill requirements of the common soldier. To be a good soldier before meant being able to hold rank, being proficient at drill, and physically fit. Modern war requires its soldiers to be marksmen, engage in scout-craft, maintain a high level of initiative and flexability, and be capable of taking in, interpreting, and acting upon an insane amount of info while coordinating with multiple units. The reason every military from the US to China to Russia are scaling down manpower is because it's been demonstrated that the gap in efficacy between resource intensive specailists/professionals and conscripts are so high that keeping extra, mediocrerly trained manpower around is more of a liability than their contributions would be worth, hence Russia holding off on mass mobilizationbfor as long as possible.
Usa and russia Only attacking small, weak countrys
I think an import thing to note is macro scale strategy and tactics. sometimes raw bodies are just necessary.
a converse example of a highly regarded, but rarely used, unit was napoleons old guard. where they were often never even employed, but their reputation was often much more of a battle changer than there active role.
anyways, I think indivigual skill, like any single catagory, is simply one factor of many in the equation of war instead of the be all end all or conversely a non factor.
To me it seems like many militaries throughout history had hammers and anvils. where the bulk of troops were trained to what was considered militarily passible and financially not too damning (i think thats an important thing to remember, every resource given to the bulk of an army is degrees more expensive than giving it to specialized troops, abd war is expensive to begin with), and then there were smaller prestige units of knights or artillery or some other more lucrative unit for more precision. sometimes you just need people to hold the libe ir hold a city rather than necessarily being great at opposing the enemy offensively.
I mean, I believe most routes and defeats happen more to moral shock abd minor looses than outright killing a certain number of the opponent. so if you have 3 units of pikemen that scare of one unit of pikeman without a loose on either side, those three units were militarily effective regardless of their individual skill.
An important skill you did not cover is the ability to coordinate as small and large units. This in modern military training is the next step after gaining individual skill. The discipline and indeed often bravery to remain in the appropriate formation could be important in success or avoiding defeat.
I have to agree with much of what Mat has said, and I would like to add that Soldiers and Sailors in Armies and Navies were often drawn from Civilian Vocations that had experience in desired skills. Navies often recruited Sailors from Merchant Fleets as they were already used to life at sea. And Armies and Navies alike valued hunters for their Archery Skills and later on Skill with fire arms. I will also say that I know of several periods throughout history where the Ruler of a Nation did require Farmers and Peasants to train weekly with bows or other weapons but from what I have read the Farmers and Serfs were not as well trained as Regular Soldiers kept as members of a Standing Army.
Very interesting video! One thing to keep in mind is that a soldier is above all a component of an army. His main objective is not to be the best indivial figther but to do well enough as part of coordinated group effort. An incredibly skilled figther that would break formation, disobey orders, or refuse to cooperate can become a more trouble than it's worth pretty easily in that context, and can also be bested by the teamwork of lesser figthers.
It also depends on the type of warfare. In small scale tribal warfare with minimal coordination personal skill may win the day, assuming, but something like a pike formation will rely a lot more on teamwork.
One exception to point out could be specialist. Think a modern (or not so modern) sniper or a medieval siege engenieer in charge of calculating trajectory. Those can count as combat skills and while they still need to coordinate by the specialized nature of their role their individual skill shines more and can have a bigger impact.
Then there's non combat skills that greatly affect war. Like planning logistic, creating alliances, motivating the population... I guess officials and commanders actually giving the orders could be counted here? It may depend, you may very well say that giving orders to troops in the middle of batthe reacting directly to what is in front of ypu is very different from sitting in a room with a radio or planning a battle before it starts. In any case these are vital, the higher in the chain of command the more important it potentially is and the guy giving orders could be a mediocre figthers and that would not matter much, other than a sligthy higher changer of keeping himself alive and maybe an easier time gaining respect from the troops. It can help that the commander is a good figther, helps him undestrand a lot of factors involved, but probably not the priority and in modern warfare is probably much less important that a lot of other knowledge.
Another example of weapons being well suited to agricultural workers in ancient China the Ji polearm was seen as being very good for farmer militias because it emphasizes the same muscles as you would develop from hoeing and other agricultural labor
Skill, along with experience, I would say are the two most important factors in not only being effective in battle but also surviving battle. That being said, the Roman soldiers were usually not nearly as skilled in single combat as Celtic or Germanic warriors were but managed to win battles due to overall strategy and numbers.
idk, sometimes good strategy is more important than both. if 2 units scare of 1 opposing unit (as most historical engagements did not fight to the point of major casualities), it doesn’t matter all that much if those two units were well trained or not.
think napoleon and defeat in detail.
Hey Matt, I understand that this is posted on a video 2 months old, but I had a question I would love to see a video on.
You mentioned you don’t like the term “muscle memory”. In my very limited practice of martial arts my impression of most combat is to drill basic motions into muscle memory and then to retrieve them at the right time in response to an opponent.
There is of course tons more to training: strength, speed, flexibility, and general familiarity with combat and weapons.
I’d be very interested in hearing your take on muscle memory and its place in training.
Re bayonets.
I remember hearing a story from the Jessie Kelly show. He was a Marine in Iraq during the U.S. occupation in the mid 2000's. At one point he and maybe 50 marines were surrounded by a mob. They were all ready to do damage, but there were thousands of people.
It would have been a blood bath and there was not enough ammunition for them all.
Before things got ugly the commander announced on a loud speaker that they had 1,000 marines hiding on the other side of town behind the mob ready to strike. (It was a lie).
He then announced his marines were prepared to charge if the crowd did not disperse. And then came the order, "men, fix bayonets." The marines fixed bayonets and positioned as if ready to charge.
The crowd dispersed.
No one wants to get stuck in the gut with a bayonet. There's books about how it's too much to handle doing it to another human and men switching to rifle butts because of the horror.
Not a good example, mob of civilians vs trained ,armed troops
I love this video! When I was in the US Army infantry, we didn’t shoot all that much. When I got out and was a reservist in the ‘10s, we shot even less due to the budget cuts around the government shutdowns (thanks Tea Party). So, in my experience, we didn’t shoot nearly enough to satisfy the Joes. Training was sufficient but we weren’t badasses.
I was mechanized, and the motto, “death before dismount,” doesn’t exactly inspire notions of individual excellence. I know that my brother in the Airborne infantry was way more individually proficient, but that’s approaching special forces territory. The light infantry fall somewhere in between and most soldiers can rank individual divisions pretty well by badassery.
So, in the opinion of the dirtiest and nastiest of legs, I’d say the AVERAGE infantryman is proficient, but we don’t shoot enough to be excellent.
(And yes, I do comment as I watch. I guess it’s good for engagement. Is that a thing in videos this old? Meh)
Based on my experience in combat (a little over 2 years in Iraq, having been conscripted to a military fighting with coalition troops) I would say:
Often times, it seems entirely like chance that this guy dies and that guy lives. However, the better your training, the better your chances. At the end of the day, though, you're still taking your chances. Even with the best training and the best equipment, you can still fall foul of chance and cop a .50 calibre bullet to the head. Or catch a 155mm arty shell with your teeth.
There's a quote from the bible (one of the very few things that the bible is good for; occasional literary quotes) that describes it rather aptly:
"Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but time and chance happen to them all."
So it seems that it always comes down to chance, but that you can improve your chance at survival by improving the quality of training and equipment.
Yep
Question (or questions): as cavalry impacts with the target, how does the unit push through a mass of objects that don’t want to move, because 1) they will stand and fight and 2) the rear rank forces no space to turn and run
This is a question that’s come to me playing Total War Shogun 2 and seeing cav bunch up/squash on impact and gets me thinking about the mechanics, the drill/training for the real thing. It’s easy to say ‘oh well sheer weight of the charge’ but putting more metal on man and horse isn’t what stops the rear ranks of the cav just throwing ranks in front of thier horse whilst magically pushing the cavalry through the infantry.
Horses don’t particularly like running into things either such as other horses or men because they (sensibly) know smacking thier leg on something like ranks of braced men can cause a broken leg - a death sentence for the horse. Are there any historians or chroniclers that spoke about what a commander was actually looking for when he ‘saw a gap in the line?’
Presumably it’s common sense that if the shield wall was supposed to interlock the captains or officers would make bloody sure numnuts has his shield ready and in place? Or was this gap more like a hole in the middle that was caused by ranks forming lines at unnoticeable but different angles until someone realised and tried correcting it, leaving a weak spot in the mass of men?
No one knows exactly what battlefields of the past looked like or exactly what real cavalry impacts looked like. But holding ground against cavalry seems to negate it. So in reality, cavalry probably induced panic and disorder. Most people survived battles because they run away or avoid contact. It wouldn't look anything like a 'Total War' battle.
From my own experience in the military, a certain baseline of skill is required, but individual skill is less important than group skill and the efficiency of teamwork a group has. A group that works well and coordinates efficiently can outperform larger less organized groups.
Matt is correct that hand to hand combat still happens in modern combat. There is a tendency among military leadership during and since World War I to believe that missile weapons such as guns have become so deadly that close combat weapons are not a good investment in time. History begs to disagree.
Any weapon training can have critical benefits in combat. Muscle memory (sorry, instinctive or trained action?) take over when combat is moving too fast for logical thought. It can and will save your life.
Bayonets are perhaps less useful than they once were. Mechanically, the change from steel and wood rifle components to plastic and lightweight alloys has reduced the flexibility of the firearm/bayonet combination. A butt stroke with a modern assault rifle is likely to break the weapon butt and recoil spring, rendering it unable to fire. A block against a heavy melee weapon is also likely to result in critical components breaking or bending.
While the point remains the most effective option the bayonet offers, even that advantage has shrunk due the quest for compact, lighter firearms. Assault rifles have become shorter as urban combat has become more prevalent, especially with bullpup designs which reduce the effective weapon length to that of a submachinegun/machine pistol. These changes significantly reduce the reach advantage of a bayonet, it's chief advantage.
In addition, bayonets are employed as individual weapons in the essentially 'skirmish' nature of modern infantry combat. The bayonet was primarily adopted to give shoulder-to-shoulder musketmen a defensive option once the enemy was too close to reload, creating a natural (if short-hafted) phalanx, particularly when facing shock cavalry. We no longer see the hedge of points employed en masse as occurred prior to the 20th century. Again, this peels away some of the bayonet's luster as a melee weapon on the modern battlefield.
As Matt has discussed in earlier videos, during World War I bayonets mounted on rifles were often set aside as unwieldy for close quarters trench combat. Officer swords went by the boards around the same time for many of the same reasons. As the war dragged on entrenching tools (short shovels), hand axes, clubs, heavy knives and even bayonets wielded as knives were employed in close combat. For command actions, where a silent thrust was needed, specialized weapons like the Sykes-Fairbairn knife came into vogue.
Given the changing nature of firearms and 'open-order' combat today I suggest that a return to individual close combat weapons issued as sidearms might be more effective than a refocus on the bayonet. I'd further suggest a Bowie style knife, supplemented by a large magazine pistol, as the most flexible option for modern close combat. While many modern forces now (re) employ combat armor there are still plenty of gaps to find with the point, and plenty of exposed skin to cut (hands, wrists, face, upper leg).
My two cents.
If you enjoy fantasy fiction there is a book trilogy called "Night Angel" by Brent Weeks. without spoiling anything, there's a scene where a character turns the tide of an entire battle by eliminating a precisely selected handful of individuals from among the common ranks that he refers to as 'pillars of battle'.
The theory is that, in a melee, those individuals among the common soldiers that are exceptionally capable or charismatic can bolster their nearby allies/squad/unit. eliminating them demoralizes and weakens the ranks in their immediate vicinity and can represent a more significant loss of effectiveness than their simple body accounts for, like removing a lynchpin holding a unit together.
When you talked about more recent comments such as commando units in WW2 being more proficient with weapons, I remember reading quite a bit about how the Germans in WW2 found some allied non-commando units to be extremely scary to face in combat, such as the US paratroopers.
I also think that around WW1 you started to have individuals whose skill was able to win battles pretty much singlehandedly. You have people beforehand who were able to hold off armies for a time, such as the Berserker at Stamford Bridge and Benkei, I don't know if any of them won a battle like Alvin York did.
I am not sure if Alvin York is the sole person who did that since the closest people I can think of used quite a bit more, such as White Death being a nightmare to the Russians, or when Audie Murphy hid inside a burning tank destroyer for an hour until the Germans gave up trying to find him and retreated.
I would say:
The Samurai were pure warriors - people who relied upon skill to survive. They studied (from childbirth) to become the best swordsman possible. Singular Combat was their combat mode.
A soldier is a cog in a machine. A soldier usually works with a "unit". This Unit then works with a larger unit. The larger unit ...
Soldiers do not receive the training a Warrior receives. They receive standardized Military training (designed to work within units - working with greater units - ...).
---
That is not to say that the Soldier can not be trained to work in a singular manner. SpecOps are just that soldier. But, SpecOps are elites. But, individual martial skill (or the lack of it) can make or break a unit and tactics. If one "element" of battle fails, that leaves a hole for the enemy to enter and then "work within" the force. That is not good.
---
Thus, a Soldier must have Martial skill (individual) that combines with (other Martial skills (individuals)) to then create a much larger effective and capable armed force.
The sword was not samurai main weapon {they didn't use it much in war} they were horse archers. The bow and the Lance were there main weapons and no they acted in cohesive form in war
I think it's more relevant to ask how important individual weapon skill is vs. unit cohesion. The latter _is_ a skill, but it's a completely different kind of skill.
Depends on whether you count the ability to work together and follow orders a "personal skill" or not.
I think the part not discussed in the axe vs sword thing is just rudimentary armor. Even in the 900s, Nordic armies were wearing full chainmail hauberks. If you slash at someone's chest with an era sword and they're wearing a hauberk over a gambeson, you're going to upset them (2 handed swords were still a few hundred years away, even then it's minimal damage). If you smash into them with an axe, you're probably going to break their collarbone, ribs, or impart enough blunt force trauma to extremities to cause them damage. If you turn it around, it's a club. I don't really think considering it in a vacuum of "sword vs axe" is productive. People who marched into battle with an axe rarely did so without a shield, for starters, completely eliminating the need for the weapon to be used defensively. That whole argument seems to consider two naked men in a vacuum using only a sword and only an axe, which is a totally ridiculous fantasy scenario. But yes, in that scenario, sword wins every time.
I think if I had to go back in time and I had unlimited resources to arm a peasant rebellion, I would arm them with spears and axes. In my mind, it's plainly obvious that giving a bunch of untrained people swords isn't going to have anywhere near the same effect, especially if my opponent is taking even the most primitive measures to protect their troops. Swords in war are for fancy dressed men on horses to cut down routing peasants from behind. Otherwise, they're for lords to dance around in front of Kings in exhibitions and are chosen because they're extremely expensive to make and are unlikely to kill an armored opponent (it's not productive to have the realm's knights killing each other). They're as ceremonial in modern militaries as they were in ancient ones. Sure, if you train your entire life and every day of it you'll probably be able to kill some farmer named Dave with a war standard. You and your puffy shirt wearing friends might even write a few books and draw some pictures about the best way to hit Dave in the head. That doesn't mean if you gave him some rudimentary armour that he wouldn't be able to walk past your fancy stick and put something sharp in your soft bits. The same applies to your sharpened fancy metal stick.
When fighting a resisting, equipped opponent who isn't going to stand there T posing and waiting for you to kill him while naked, the axe is a far easier tool to become effective with quickly, easier to maintain and repair, useful as a tool while on the march, easier to store and carry, less unwieldy, more damaging and about a thousand other things that make it more practically useful than a shiny fairy wand if you lack a literal lifetime worth of dedicated training to dancing with the shiny fairy wand. At the end of the day, if I'm wearing armour, I can just approach you and pull your arms off your tiny little noble body with my big strong farmer muscles, and that happened plenty of times, which is why toward the end they started carrying BIGGER SWORDS and the objective became to hold the crowd at bay until your actually effective troops come and smash them in the flank and then pretend that you were the effective one because no one else can write to say you're just an arrogant arsehole.
Swords are garbage. For slaughtering unarmoured people and for martial arts dancing, they're fantastic. For actually killing armoured mercenaries and soldiers in an actual battle where you actually have to hew meat from bone and not just "land a hit to get a point", the axe is far superior, from ability to pick it up and use it effectively through to the killing blow. I don't know the exact names of all the fancy swords and the dates of battles, but one thing I do know is violence.
All of this is why Fencing and M1 are sports today, but War Axe fighting somehow is not. There isn't enough armour in the world, even with modern composite materials, to stop your brain bouncing around in your skull when an axe catches you cleanly in the head. The guys in M1 can go as hard as they want. The swords are blunt for extra safety, but the edge isn't cutting through steel plate, or bronze chain for that matter. But that axe will move your head hard and fast enough to break your neck if it doesn't pulverize your brain.
The main battle winning skills have nothing to do with martial arts / skill at arms. Hygiene, map reading, how not to die of exposure/heat,/food poisoning/medical skills, organizational skills. In ancient times disease, starvation, dehydration, weather and lack of organization often kill more than the enemy. in the Crimean War (1854-1856; 730,000 British, French and Russian combatants) 34,000 were killed in action, 26,000 died from wounds and 130,000 died from diseases. Being trained to boil your water so you don't get typhoid is more important than being able to strip your weapon blindfolded.
Yes and no, depending on the tactical and strategic doctrine at hand, and the employment of such troops.
When dealing with forces where close formations are the norm, individual skills at arms take a back seat to being able to function as a coherent unit.
For example, you have the Greek phalanx or a 17th century pike block where individual members, regardless of their individual skils with their weapons, had to be able to move without tangling those monstrous spears; also, perhaps a post-Marius Reforms Roman legion where the ability to remain shoulder to shoulder and hold the line no matter what was the key to their tactical superiority; or 18th and 19th century musketry where the ability to deploy your infantry quickly and efficiently to present either the greater amount of firepower in a given direction, retreat in good order, and perform their reloading, presenting and firing in unison as to be able to maximize volleys, especially when platoon fire was in use.
It doesn't matter so much if a pikeman is an expert fencer with that 18-foot monster but can't keep control of his weapon in a pike block and tangles up everyone within reach of that shaft. Or an expert swordsman in a Roman legion where the norm was thrusting around or under shields while standing shoulder to shoulder. Or, barring employment in a rifle/skirmisher company in an 18th/19th century army, being an expert marksman while standing in a musketry line.
Which is not to say they wouldn't have scouts, raiders, marksmen or the maniacs who'd be first into a breach who would be picked for having superior individual fighting skills, but they wouldn't be the norm.
However, I would say that once the lines had broken and things would get messy, individual skills would become much more important, if only to be able to survive long enough to be able to consolidate and form back up in to a cohesive unit.
No. As long as you're good at your designated job it absolutely doesn't matter how amazing you are in other ways. How many masters of the blade have been speared in the face by the opposing phalanx, how many grizzled men at arms who honed their skills for a decade have caught a bolt to the face, how many expert marksmen have been picked off by some sucky conscripts? The unit doing it's task better than the opposing unit is the deciding factor, not the individual awesomeness of a soldier in the unit.
MOST of the time
on D-Day there were several landing sites, divided by the forces involved. those planning the landings determined that the amphibious tanks were critical to the success, and without any tanks the landing forces would be wiped out entirely. 1 beach did not have any tanks (i think 1 made it to the beach), and yet the force not only survived they took the beach and met their time table unlike the British forces that had far less hardships. the British had a longer history of active duty, with better training and better equipment overall. the US forces won because they were de-centralized and thus individual skill and motivation was encouraged and the pool of people that fought in the army were from a group of people that had a more independently minded culture (there were even complaints of the US forces with the problems of such culture by the British). throughout all of history this sort of thing is pretty consistent, but the reason this doesn't end up being the trend is due to independence tends to result in dividing a country defeating a country from within. this means that the effectiveness of a military is not so much what is trained, but the skills that troops have when they get out of initial training.
One thing I expected to hear about that I didn't hear until a very quick mention late in the video was the difference between skill in individual use vs the skill in mass formation. Using a sword or spear alone is a very different proposition than using it shoulder to shoulder with a group of people and I was surprised not to hear much about that.
There are many cultures all around the world that practiced some form of wrestling.
It probably came into practical use when your battle formation broke up and coming into direct close contact with the enemy, you grappled with your opponent with a knife/dagger or even bare-handed.
I suppose you could call it a form of combatting skill.
we all know it's "10% luck, 20% skill
15% concentration and power of will
5% pleasure, 15% pain
and 100% (???) to remember the name"
In personal combat you can move at your will as long as it favors your advantage. When at war you are like a part of a huge machine. You must work almost as a specialized mechanism doing a particular action unless your side creates a situation where you must quickly change to exploit an opening. However if your side loses cohesion and you must quickly change to prevent a total collapse.
Massively, if I were to guess before even watching this video:
Endurance meaning you can continue fighting consistently for longer.
Strength, you can strike harder and deflect harder strikes.
Awareness, less likely to be caught off guard.
Speed and skill, you can out perform an adversary; parrying, striking and dodge more effectively.
Experience, knowledge of how an enemy is likely to act.
There are two categories of skill that you circle around that have different applications and importance to the subject. They are individual and collective skill. Individual skill is of varying importance for war, depending on what the skill group you are talking about is. Collective skill is generally of more importance militarily for warfare. Once you get to unit fighting the individual skill of soldiers can be diluted or discounted, depending on context. The reason why you mainly see things like uniforms and other equipment being obsessed over is that they have importance to the groups ability to function correctly, versus the individual drill which can be quickly forgotten by commanders at the large scale. Essentially they come up with a good enough benchmark, and get everyone to that point, which ideally takes very little time. After that point they expect experience will teach everything else that is needed. This is why veteran units are so valuable and can have an outsized effect on battle; the individual and collective skill levels are higher across the board, leading to greater effectiveness and ability. Modern warfare has changed to where the actual physical experience is different and training methods advanced enough to make training a cheaper and more effective tool than experience.
Mr. Easton, you mentioned that you dislike the term "muscle memory", would you please expand on why? Regardless, thank you for your work, it has been a joy to see how far this channel has come.
The Australian Light Horse Regiments were mostly recruited from the country being farmers and stockmen and had to prove their horsemanship before being signed up, and many had been in the militia and were also already trained with the Lee Enfield.
I joined the US Navy at age 17 in Chicago.
Not a country boy! I did a total of 25 months in counter insurgency operations in Vietnam. 6mo. 6 mo. and 13 months. Dozens of fire fights.
Combat skill is of great importance. You get a feel for the ebb and flow of gun fights after about a half dozen. You learn to think clearly in the maelstrom of violence.
I went on to do contracting (mercenary) for twelve years. The skills I developed in Vietnam helped me survive and prevail in many instances. I made a lot of money.
I made enough money to go to college and law school and start a law practice.
The way I understood the topic was 1v1 combat skills versus unit combat skills. What use is it to be good at sword fighting in a spear formation? What use is target shooting when firing in formation?
Is it more a question of personal fitness? Or does dueling make bettee soldiers?
I think the point about axes being easier to use than swords comes not only from a weapon training perspective, but also ease of use and common use of both.
I mean that, if you've never fought or trained with weapons, you may still have used an axe. Of course, I'm talking about tool axes, like the ones used to chop wood. And yes, they are not the same as fighting axes, but the main concept of using it's own weight to gain momentum and deliver a powerful chop is still the same. That means that someone that's never been trained in fighting would probably have some understanding of how to use an axe, but not a sword. I myself have used axes a couple of times, but I've never used a sword.
In a defensive sense, maybe it's easier to defend with a sword, but only if you have at least a bit of knowledge of what you're doing. If not, you probably will try to do the same with both: either you'll try to dodge the attack or you'll try to block it with your own weapon. Personally, I don't think there would be much difference between both with someone that's never used them to fight.
In any case, I think the easiest weapon to use is a mace. It's pretty simple to understand (just hit with it and done) and there's no chance that you'll have trouble with it's edge alignment (something that both a sword and an axe have to be aware of).
1. If you want to find "Which weapons give you the maximum efficiency for a minimum of effort" it's always a good idea to look at city militias. Spears, long polearms (halberds, pikes etc), crossbows, muskets etc have always been the typical weapons of the miltias.
Generally this is because city militias have the money to equip their troops with effective weapons (it's not a collection of farming tools), but the majority of their forces are going to be people who will do a minimum of training (raised as a part of the guild obligations).
2. 17th and 18th century is a good place to look at "Does training matter". Swedish Caroleans, british redcoats and prussian infantry were at different points considered the best infantry of Europe and were frequently able to win despite the numbers being stacked against them. Caroleans for their high morale and skill in close combat, redcoats for their firing drills (generally able to fire three salvos when other infantry could only fire two), prussians for a high allround skill and extreme discipline.
Axe vs. Sword brings to mind one of my favorite series of books.
Drenai legends by David Gemmell, in particular the books Legend and White Wolf depicting Druss.
Great subject matter...
Good job Matt.
You're keeping the channel Fresh!
It depends on the time frame as well. In ancient times an extremely proficient fighter could have a huge impact on army morale. I would say that this was true up until WW1/ WW2 where it reached the lowest point before becoming redundant. A fighter ace or tank ace could instill fear in the opponents and reinforce troop morale to keep fighting.
In the former it is driven by lifestyle and origin. A peasant can hold an axe and wield it better than a metropolitan person.
In the latter case it is not driven by location but often caste. The red baron was a noble.
There is also role. Are they acting as a block with many others like a phalanx or a tercio. In the phalanx like formation the Scots used they all worked together as an anvil so individual skill was not a problem. Keep the pointy end towards the enemy and it will work. In the tercio much more cohesiveness from each man was required. Each man must be trained to work in the square or mangas with skill. Early on the swords man also had to know when and how to act among the pikes and arquebuses. This is why tercios had a core of venterans while the Scotish schiltron had a bunch of levies.
The bayonet is interesting. On average it is not as popular but there is also Jukendo/ tankendo. A martial art relying on bayonet like set up. It is similar to kendo in some ways.
Id say, individual skill is important in the sense that they should learn skills relevant to fighting with large numbers of other people. I dont believe duelling ability, or that kind of skill is relevant. Fighting neck to neck with allies really reduces the amount of "skill" you can bring to play, most duelist skills revolve around movement and space, something you arent guaranteed on a battlefield. Doesnt matter if you can dodge left or right or parry one weapon expertly if there is a thicket of spears coming at you. In war a quantitative advantage becomes a qualitative advantage. 10 common men with spears will kill a swordsmaster as easily as they would kill a peasant
What you are describing is formation discipline not really skill. The Roman Method of warfare.
Endurance and discipline is probably more valued as skills in a formation battle where its less about killing and more about pummelling the enemy until its time to switch ranks.
staying and moving in a formation and having a discipline is also a skill
When you refer to the English lack of marksmanship, this was particularly shown by contrast with Afrikaner fighters in the South African War. Afrikaner boys would often spend time in the veld, camping, fishing, and of course hunting with rifles. This 'veldsmanship' and marksmanship were important factors in being able to successfully defend against the richest, best equipped military force on Earth.
But in general, I think coordination is more important than individual skill in warfare beyond the 'tribal.' One great example - among the many that will be mentioned here - is the skill of English naval gun crews at Trafalgar which allowed them to fire more often and more accurately than their lesser trained French and Spanish opponents and had no small impact on the outcome of the battle.
A lot of the physical and combat-related training was also often conducted by the parents, alongside with the school stuff, because often military service was the only really profitable carreer path. You had no public service sector to give everyone office jobs back then.
Re. cavalrymen. My dad joined the 17/21 lancers in 1934. He was born and bred in Highbury, London. His ‘experience’ with horses was petting the odd rag and bone man’s horse that sauntered by. He enjoyed ‘pig sticking’ out in India but in general HATED horses. The happiest day of his life was when the horses were put out to pasture (or the glue factory) and he picked up his shiny new Valentine.
I'd argue that, in formation-based combat, soldiers should get more discipline and manoeuvre training than weapon use training. When you've got limited time to train your soldiers, it's better to prioritize skills that affect the unit as a whole rather than individuals. A single soldier breaking formation is likely to bring the whole unit down with them, and being skilled with their weapon doesn't matter if they're not using it or using it in the wrong situation. Of course, they'd still need to know how to use that weapon effectively, but there's no need to be able to win a duel, just to hold long enough for a comrade to pitch in.
Here is a list (from my personal experience) of weapons and what training they would require (from least amount of training needed to most):
staffs (like quartersaff) - cuz it is really just a big stick. and anyone knows how to use a stick (who did not whack something with a stick as a child speak up now)
Spears (poke poke whack) - still just a stick but with one end pointy.
maces, hammers and bludgeouning weapons in general ( caveman instinct go bonk)
crossbows and firearms (as you said Matt, they are relatively easy to use.) - key advantage here would be number of people firing them in general direction of the enemy
Axes - i would say they require more skill to use than maces or even firearms.
and swords are technically at the bottom requiring most skill alongside bows
Interesting discussion. Once you start talking about armies, you have consider economics and maintenance as well. So in the case of horses, they were like the fighter jets of their day. WE only think of the pilots, but in order to keep that plane in flying condition, it requires a large maintenance crew as well, so it really made sense that farmers would be desirable even if they couldn't ride.
It's also worth asking what kind of weapons could a country afford to arm their soldiers with. Crossbows might be easier to use, but they're complicated and expensive to produce compared to a bow or a sling. Even swords can become quite expensive, while polearms have the advantage of both reach and cost to produce. I read somewhere that even George Washington had a fondness for arming his troop with pikes, which were inexpensive and reliable.
When we're talking about weapons skills, there are a lot of variables. English longbowmen were notoriously influential in a lot of medieval battles. If I remember right, Henry VIII required by law all eligible men to own a bow and practice weekly, to be ready to be called up for national defense. (This may also be the root of America's contentious 2nd amendment). So skill is certainly a consideration there. Likewise, Switzerland made it's name and reputation on the quality of it's crossbow-weilding mercenaries.
No, the 2 amendment was about hundreds of ongoing slave uprisings
The spear was the most common weapon after they replaced clubs and possibly the stone disks, usually called stone axes. Nobody really knows how the disks were used, so maybe it wasn't a martial weapon.
On the subject of ranged weapons, slings were incredibly effective, except you needed to train from youth to actually be good with them. The Spanish Conquistadors found that the native Americans were on par with their muskets as far as lethality. It's just that bows are easier to train on and crossbows even easier like you said.
re: the town vs country recruitment thing, it is worth noting that until the 20th century there was no clean distinction between civilian and combatant, and in cities occupants were expected to act as a garrison in most places in recognition of the special privileges townsfolk used to have (which would include not being able to be sent off for military reasons, incidentally)
At Guranicus Alex3 was caught in a trap, he had his elite troops perform complex drill in silence. That fierce display bought the time to deploy.
I think it's important to distinguish discipline and professionalism from fencing skill to answer this question. Because the former is always important. The latter varies a lot.
Another good point to enforce bayonet training is that when you do reach the point where you do actually need to use your bayonet, it's pretty much life or death. So, taking that scenario in to consideration, it would make sense to instil proper bayonet training into troops.
In modern US Army infantry battalions a certain amount of individual skill at rifle marksmanship is mandatory, but the single largest focus of training is squad-level maneuvers.
I'd in historical combat i'd say skill matters on defense more than it does on offence, looking at historical combat practically anybody can be quickly trained to savagely charge & bludgeon somebody with even the most basic of weapons but being able to hold the line requires much more skill see how the Roman army very rarely routed, even in losses usually a coordinated retreat appears to happen. In modern combat that training relates to how many different ways of being attacked can a unit deal with before discipline is lost, elite units can cope with being attacked by multiple different methods (i know there is an actual word for this which i'm sure someone will add) i.e. direct fire, indirect fire, air attack etc whereas a poorly trained conscript unit would struggle to deal with more than just direct fire before losing discipline and routing
all depends on the formation. In gallic armies assault infantry, cavalry and commanders were all personal skill, on the other hand most infantry deployed in shield wall or phalanx were all about formation
I remember a documentary in the 90s where the Roman army was described as "far from the best fighters, but by far the best soldiers" because their focus was more on having a consistent minimum standard and a focus on discipline over personal skill. This (supposedly) resulted in the ROman soldiers being much more likely to stay with their unit, and much more willing to follow orders coming from someone they believed to be legitimate.
Things more important then personal skill:
-gear
-fitness
-organization
-morale
If everyone is disciplined, fit and works in unison, chances are higher that they received more training which resulted into more skill, but the first 3 are more key into the functioning as a unit then individual skill.
Meh I would say gear is less important than ,skill, put a bunch of militia in in airplane with a parachute, they won't suddenly change into paratrooper, you need to be trained to use a weapon to wield it effectively. A great example is sadly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Why do we ship infantry anti air and anti-tank weapon in priority compared to tank and aircraft, well that's because the amount of skills needed to use those is way lower than using vehicle, and even with that we still have plenty of video proof of ukrainian misuing those weapons wasting amunition by firing too close to their target.
While the video turned out much broader in topic then the original title, as far as the title goes, i think the question is not so much if personal skill important for army troops, but what sets of skills are important when in contrast to personal (gladiatorial, judicial or other) types of combat. This could even count for elites or specialized (say assault or storm) troops versus general purpose units. As such, while some skills like exceptional grappling and hand to hand skills, climbing, swimming, mounted archery might be very important for elites, just basic formation discipline and small unit tactics are usually far more important for the regular soldier. In fact, insistence on "heroics" might even be frowned upon if it leads to endangering the team. If we take a shield wall or a phalanx as an example, as a member of that unit, you are expected to cover your mate to the left with your shield, not perform cartwheels or show off your other gymnastic capabilities in battle.
I think that there are three types of skills in warfare and they are different.
Much of your discussion is the skill in use of personal equipment and weaponry. In a modern context, there is normally a requirement for individual skill to be at a given level. Again in a modern context (and I will use modern context in this post until the end), rifle marksmanship is such a skill and the US Army requires that soldiers be able to score at a certain level on a given marksmanship test.
The next level is unit level proficiency. Can the unit perform certain tactics effectively? For example, could an artillery unit get off counter battery fire within a specific time and specific accuracy. A number of jobs must be completed and communicated effectively.
The final level is large scale proficiency. Can multiple units perform coordinated actions? Can artillery suppress some infantry to allow tanks to engage them? This requires lots of people to do their jobs and lots of communication.
We see this more or less type of work all the way back in history. Whether this is Alexander or the Romans or other armies. So when you talk about skill in warfare, I think the Romans are a great example here. There are great examples through history where unit level proficiency of the Legion was quite important. Other places where large scale proficiency is important. How many battles happened where there was a stalemate in the center and each side won on opposite wings. What the wings did after winning the battle in front of them often decided the winner of many large battles.