All military operates as a unit (aka also seaprate units have different functions) because that is the cohesion needed to stop any assault!
You have the barrage from the heavy guns to soften the target, then the main units (groups) to come in from front, back and flanks to meet and destroy the enemy. Again despite being different groups, the command and control still needs coherence i.e. who does what when!
Individual proficiency in H2H is a tool to allow that if a weapon is lost, the individual uses this H2H to find a weapon and use it. H2H never replaces a weapon. Special units use H2H to infiltrate behind lines and cause havoc while exploiting weaknesses and still coordinating with the main assault or probing units. Forward observers behind enemy lines use new technology to “light up” targets while not engaging the enemy!
Same function as the Trojan horse! Get a few soldiers to come in the dark, wait for the right time and sow discontent behind the lines until the large forces embark on their mission.
As someone said coordination and cooperation are part of the 3C’s!
most soldiers were peasants, and did what equated to pointing a spear in one direction and shouting.
a duelist is better at fighting one on one.
a soldier is better at fighting with an army.
quite simple.
would you learn how to take down one opponent if you were trained as a skirmisher, yes but you wouldnt do so well in civilian combat.
saying that msot soldiers would have the advantage over duelists is just rubbishbecause the two have seperate roles.
spartan and roman society didnt seem to have a peaceful period also, they were always recruiting soldiers to fight somebody. so individual combat and duelling wouldnt have been too good for recruitment, what can they do with a class of young men killing each other? so they promoted duelling as an unworthy persuit, there was no tokugawa period like in japan where everything settleed down and people worried about honour, it wsa just about serving with the army, fighting the germanii or celts etc coming home.
most soldiers in the roman army were not peasants. they were professional soldiers trained in professional military institutions with one job, to be a soldier, not a part time farmer, not a part time merchant, a full time soldier.
The unit tactics of the roman legions are pretty well documented. Testudos, pike lines, etc. All based on working in teams.
If you join the military now you will be expected to work as part of a team and not as an individual. All you can be is a cog in a larger machine in other words.
That is the way of soldiering. There’s no such thing as a one man army, that’s marketing nonsense to get you young impressionable guys to get your boots on teh ground in country somewhere. suckers.
[QUOTE=SimonM;873486]Just to be clear, we both do agree that single-combat significantly predates mass warfare, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but in terms of specialized training, training for war predates training fro duels.
But we must remember, liek I said before, training for “mass warfare” began with single combat, truth be told, no matter how “MASS” the battles began it tend to be individualistic in its core.
[QUOTE=Lucas;873488]professional soldiers had plenty of time in the practice yard, including countles hours of one on one matches to equate to more than standard profeciency.
Not all mind you, but the men who were completely addicted to warfare and combat would NOT overlook single combat.
[QUOTE=golden arhat;873566]most soldiers were peasants, and did what equated to pointing a spear in one direction and shouting.
a duelist is better at fighting one on one.
a soldier is better at fighting with an army.
quite simple.
would you learn how to take down one opponent if you were trained as a skirmisher, yes but you wouldnt do so well in civilian combat.
saying that msot soldiers would have the advantage over duelists is just rubbishbecause the two have seperate roles.
spartan and roman society didnt seem to have a peaceful period also, they were always recruiting soldiers to fight somebody. so individual combat and duelling wouldnt have been too good for recruitment, what can they do with a class of young men killing each other? so they promoted duelling as an unworthy persuit, there was no tokugawa period like in japan where everything settleed down and people worried about honour, it wsa just about serving with the army, fighting the germanii or celts etc coming home.[/QUOTE]
Spartans and Romans were PROFESSIONAL warrior-soldiers, with Spartans being BORN into a warrior caste.
High level individual skill was highly priced, indeed, that was the focus in terms of early development.
most soldiers in the roman army were not peasants. they were professional soldiers trained in professional military institutions with one job, to be a soldier, not a part time farmer, not a part time merchant, a full time soldier.
Correct.
If you join the military now you will be expected to work as part of a team and not as an individual. All you can be is a cog in a larger machine in other words.
Individual skill was still highly priced and well developed, a group of highly skilled individuals working as a highly skilled unit.
Individual skill might be most highly prized to the individual. After the group is dimantled or has holes where people had been depended upon group training with kill instinct could have helped but it seems out of its element and that individual skilll at individual reliance fighting might be highly prized.
The Fighter. The Duelist. The Warrior. The Roman soldier. The Spartan. The Greek.
All of these are fighters. The Greeks trained near all, if not all accepted males in wrestling and warfare I might think. They were taught as children and therefore every man in the City-State could fight individually–one-on-one or one getting jumped. Also, as a group or part of a group.
The Greeks had warrior skill yet might have sought pursuits other than warring. Warriors do not need to be trained from youth. adolecents or fuuly mature might be the beginning for warriors. Romans did not all train by rule systematically fighting or warfare. Though by virtue of the living then might have individually aquired understandings. And famnily might have in its defense given what instructions it could. This being so hunting for extinct martialarts (not that there are–what ever was useful was stolen and integrated. The artist dies but useful parts of the art likely continued…Stories of family might also be a source. A mention of a father playing in the afternoon with his son. On mention of a move, a strike, then a description of the intent or effect to inform of the use or intended or potential results of the technique.
The duelist seems a one-on-one fighter if not Warrior. Not grasping getting jumped. Not grasping the mechanics of systemized group attack. I think of Kung fu movies and comic books indicating Formations. At best you might know you No Know and this is position other than preferred. The formations (Chinese, Greek Japanese, Mongolian, English…nomad, barbarian,Viking…) were supposedly staged. Either repeat action or when this happens go to this.
[QUOTE=golden arhat;873566]most soldiers were peasants, and did what equated to pointing a spear in one direction and shouting.
a duelist is better at fighting one on one.
a soldier is better at fighting with an army.
quite simple.
would you learn how to take down one opponent if you were trained as a skirmisher, yes but you wouldnt do so well in civilian combat.
saying that msot soldiers would have the advantage over duelists is just rubbishbecause the two have seperate roles.
spartan and roman society didnt seem to have a peaceful period also, they were always recruiting soldiers to fight somebody. so individual combat and duelling wouldnt have been too good for recruitment, what can they do with a class of young men killing each other? so they promoted duelling as an unworthy persuit, there was no tokugawa period like in japan where everything settleed down and people worried about honour, it wsa just about serving with the army, fighting the germanii or celts etc coming home.[/QUOTE]
many societies had a ‘warrior class’, whom were not peasants.
[QUOTE=bodhitree;873600]many societies had a ‘warrior class’, whom were not peasants.[/QUOTE]
Yes, not just the Spartans or the professional warrior of Rome, or the samurai, but there were warrior castes in India, The Ottoman empire and even in europe of course.
And of course the professional macedonian army.
On this SR and I agree. Professional armies were not primarily made up of conscripted farmers who could point a spear the right way. In times of considerable war peasant conscripts might potentially have been appended to the army for the purpose of providing warm bodies but most of the great ancient civilizations (particularly the Chinese, the Macedonians and the Romans) had a large, organized, professional army.
My assertation is simply that, all else being equal (time training, size, natural aptitude, etc.) a person trained as a duelist will be more successful in single combat than a professional soldier because of the difference in training regimen. Once we postulate a difference in training (eg: soldier spends greater time training than duelist), aptitude, available technology, etc. the assertation becomes null.
My assertation is simply that, all else being equal (time training, size, natural aptitude, etc.) a person trained as a duelist will be more successful in single combat than a professional soldier because of the difference in training regimen. Once we postulate a difference in training (eg: soldier spends greater time training than duelist), aptitude, available technology, etc. the assertation becomes null.
I counter your assertion and raise you this POV (:D):
Duelist, typically, fought under specific and mostly pre-determined circumstance, with know adversaries and established rules ( no matter how minimal).
He had Time on his side as well as seconds to avoid the issue of surprises outside the norm.
The soldier/warrior had none of that, other than perhaps the location be forknown and certain tactics being assumed.
The duelist had the “luxury” of “feeling out” his adversary and even “time outs” at time (sound familiar?), the soldier had none of that.
I’d counter that ambush became part of military doctrine precisely because soldiers handle sudden suprise not consideribly better than the average person. Battlefields were largely that… fields.
Battles in forests, mountain passes, etc. were most often slaughters in favor of the home team.
[QUOTE=SimonM;873636]I’d counter that ambush became part of military doctrine precisely because soldiers handle sudden suprise not consideribly better than the average person. Battlefields were largely that… fields.
Battles in forests, mountain passes, etc. were most often slaughters in favor of the home team.
<coughthermopylaecough>[/QUOTE]
Uh, the Spartan’s lost, albeit very well
Ambushes work because people lack chi, never see a wudang master get ambushed…
Seriously though, Soldiers actually have established tactics for dealing with ambushes, how well they do it depends on the quality of the ambushers and ambushees.
Duelist rarely trained such tactics.
Again, we are on the same page more than we are not, I think I simple have issues with the theory that warriors that were trained to fight in a group had less skilled than those trained to fight one-on-one by simple virtue of “assumption”.
We need to remember that, regardless of “ideal tatctics” ancient warfare was still basically, at its core, one-on-one, just multiplied by the 100’s.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;873637]Uh, the Spartan’s lost, albeit very well
[/quote]
They may have lost but they held that pass for way longer than their numbers should have allowed.
Again, we are on the same page more than we are not, I think I simple have issues with the theory that warriors that were trained to fight in a group had less skilled than those trained to fight one-on-one by simple virtue of “assumption”.
We need to remember that, regardless of “ideal tatctics” ancient warfare was still basically, at its core, one-on-one, just multiplied by the 100’s.
The assumption is that when one has to train additional material than one’s training time is split and one will likely not be as well trained in areas that a specialist has concentrated on. That’s, IMO, a fair assumption.
They may have lost but they held that pass for way longer than their numbers should have allowed.
ANd Spartans were highly trained in individual combat as well as group tactics.
The assumption is that when one has to train additional material than one’s training time is split and one will likely not be as well trained in areas that a specialist has concentrated on. That’s, IMO, a fair assumption.
A fair assumption, IF one views the types of training as either/or and not compliments.
Remember, a legionaire (using him as an example again), only trained as a group when training group tactics, which he could only do when in a group, he probably did as much if not more “individual training” as group, logistics being what they are.
In regards to Rome, ‘peasants’ could not be soldiers. if you became a soldier you were awarded property and land, land that peasants worked for you. its a class thing. you couldnt be both.
Peasants in rome were almost slaves (servi). they could not own land, they worked and lived on the land that was owned by someone in the military or someone of higher status. often times the servi lived in far better conditions than the peasants.
Until Tiberius started a reform that would allow peasants, in some cases to own small lots of land. but then at that point they would be drafted into the military…this didnt even go over very well, as you can imagine. this took cash out of the pockets of the elite.
there were something like 20 or more ranks in the roman military.
your intelligence and ability to advance determined your rank.
legionnairs being one of the lowest ranks were still required to have great physical fitness. everyone in the military was required to be able to run a long distance and fight a battle afterwards.
among other things the entire army was required to practice fencing every day. yes, one on one practice. every day. You can imagine that some of these guys would get pretty good after a few years.
so as you showed your own ability, you would recieve advancement based upon that.
so likely the higher the ranking you had, the better fighter you were, unless you went into a specialized field.
The Peoples History of Rome is a good read if you can get around to it.
[QUOTE=Lucas;873660]In regards to Rome, ‘peasants’ could not be soldiers. if you became a soldier you were awarded property and land, land that peasants worked for you. its a class thing. you couldnt be both.
Peasants in rome were almost slaves (servi). they could not own land, they worked and lived on the land that was owned by someone in the military or someone of higher status. often times the servi lived in far better conditions than the peasants.
Until Tiberius started a reform that would allow peasants, in some cases to own small lots of land. but then at that point they would be drafted into the military…this didnt even go over very well, as you can imagine. this took cash out of the pockets of the elite.
there were something like 20 or more ranks in the roman military.
your intelligence and ability to advance determined your rank.
legionnairs being one of the lowest ranks were still required to have great physical fitness. everyone in the military was required to be able to run a long distance and fight a battle afterwards.
among other things the entire army was required to practice fencing every day. yes, one on one practice. every day. You can imagine that some of these guys would get pretty good after a few years.
so as you showed your own ability, you would recieve advancement based upon that.
so likely the higher the ranking you had, the better fighter you were, unless you went into a specialized field.
The Peoples History of Rome is a good read if you can get around to it.[/QUOTE]
