Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How important was individual skill in formation fighting?
#1
Before I created my account on reddit, I saw two posts much earlier this year when I was lurking.

https://old.reddit.com/r/MilitaryHistory...hip_is_in/

https://old.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/co..._arts_and/

As both discussions state,indeed you always see the notion of "teamwork trumps all" in beginners book on history and history channel documents as well as internet discussions. I am wondering if individual skills matter in formations too? For example would how well a Roman raw recruit could stab his sword an important factor in formation? Like the poster in the two links state many statements such as "the side whose phalanx holds together longest will wins" makes it sound as though its pointless to learn how to aim at a target when throwing javelins at a mass of enemies. However even formation-heavy cultures like the Romans still emphasized training an individual to be both in his best physical shape and to individually stab at an enemy in single combat or aim at wooden target dummies to practise hitting darts on with individual marksmanship.

Is formation simply an automatic force multiplier like many TV shows or 5th grade history books imply? Since its always pointed out that the individual doesn't matter but the team does in pop history media such as games? Why even bother teaching a new Roman recruit in bootcamp the weak points of the human body or make an English yeoman practise his own bow skills by shooting targets as an individual if formations is the most important thing? I mean if you're going to shoot volleys I don't see why its important a javelineer  be taught how to throw a spears at the farthest distance possible. If you're going to be protected by a phalanx, why teach Athenian militia how to use his spear to parry and defend against attacks?

Can anyone explain why Mongol light cavalry would be taught how to hold a spear properly for a single jousting style duel even though his role is to be a hit-run archer? Or why Romans had young boys just recruited into camp practise one-on-one dueling if the Roman formations are what win battles? Why bother with these specific training if the side that holds the Phalanx longest is the winner?
Reply
#2
Isn't the boring answer that you need both? Individual training builds confidence and weapons handling which helps cohesion, thus ideally helping team tactics. Troops that are not individually well trained and confident in their weapons and abilities would appear to be more shaky.

I think it's more a matter of there being cases of indivudally skilled warriors that for various reasons (such as lack of group practice, uniformity, or command and control) would not perform up to par in group combat. Examples of this could be everyting from gaudy aristocrats to tribal warriors.
Reply
#3
A soldier in combat must be competent in his use of his weapons in order to defend himself and inflict casualties on the enemy. If he is flailing around with his weapon and shield, he won't be of much use. His peers won't trust him. He also must have confidence in his ability to fight effectively and survive, and that of his follow soldiers standing in rank with him in order to have the willingness to stand and fight instead of running away. When he has done this in combat and become a veteran, he becomes even better. That experience and confidence is important in instilling the discipline to remain in rank and fight.
Robert Reeves
Reply
#4
Besides the very good reasons explained above, there's another point that comes to mind. Hand-to-hand combat did happen during battles in ancient times, although only in short outbreaks. Being able to cut down an opponent and penetrate the enemy formation was a very effective way to spread panic and ultimately provoke a rout. Even more so if the enemy lacked confidence and experience, of course. Although the importance of discipline is undisputable, having unskilled troops at close combat was certainly not desirable.
Reply
#5
wrangle29r wrote: "the side whose phalanx holds together longest will wins" makes it sound as though its pointless to learn how to aim at a target when throwing javelins at a mass of enemies.

As a hunter I was taught to never aim at the flock/herd. Instead I should pick out an individual target because it sharpens your focus and increases the likelihood of hitting something. Seems that that would be true whether your target is a ring-necked pheasant or a torc-necked peasant.

Smart soldiers prepare for contingencies. When the shield wall breaks down, it's helpful to the soldier and to the legion that the individual soldiers can defend themselves ably.

I was taught by the US Army how to effectively engage the enemy at distances of hundreds of yards. I was also taught how to fight man-to-man. Being prepared isn't just for the Boy Scouts.

The Romans sometimes had units comprised of gladiators in their battle lines. I bet they utilized standard shieldwall tactics whenever they could. I wonder if there is any evidence for how those gladiator/soldiers performed in battle.

Bruce
Reply
#6
(12-11-2018, 02:28 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I wonder if there is any evidence for how those gladiator/soldiers performed in battle.

The Spartacus rebellion is a good place to start. The short answer to your question is "not well". Skill is important but discipline and experience are more important when fighting in formation.


(10-15-2018, 02:51 PM)Wrangler29 Wrote: Can anyone explain why Mongol light cavalry would be taught how to hold a spear properly for a single jousting style duel even though his role is to be a hit-run archer? 

Because the premise is false. Some light cavalry acted as hit and run archers, others were skirmishers with javelins, others charged in with lances. The Mongol success was due to masterful employment of mixed-unit tactics.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#7
(12-11-2018, 02:28 PM)Brucicus Wrote: As a hunter I was taught to never aim at the flock/herd.  Instead I should pick out an individual target because it sharpens your focus and increases the likelihood of hitting something.  Seems that that would be true whether your target is a ring-necked pheasant or a torc-necked peasant.

Now that's interesting. In the game I'm currently developing, when it comes to throwing your first pilum, you have exactly the same choice: aim at the mass or pick off a specific target. In the former case, it's easier to avoid a shameful throw, but you'll get no appreciable results even if you do it right; only in the latter you may wound/kill an opponent, or make his shield unusable, though you have to be quite skilled (or very lucky). I'm glad to find out that the concept is well-estabilished.
Reply
#8
Dan Howard: That is an interesting point vis-à-vis individuals (gladiators) fighting against formations. In that particular instance the slaves in rebellion had not been drilled or equipped to fight in the Roman style. Is there any evidence of how gladiators who were trained to fight with standard Roman tactics fared? I've read of some battles they were used as part of the battle array, but I've seen no reports specifically mentioning their success/failure.

Bruce
Reply
#9
(12-12-2018, 07:03 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I've read of some battles they were used as part of the battle array, but I've seen no reports specifically mentioning their success/failure.


During the civil war of AD69, Otho enlisted a unit of gladiators. Tacitus (Histories 2.11) calls them "a disreputable kind of auxiliary force — two thousand gladiators — but it was a means resorted to even by strict generals in civil war" (Sulla had also used gladiators in the previous century, to try and defend Rome, I think, against Marius).

Otho's gladiators were initially successful in a surprise assault against Vitellius's auxiliaries, but when called to defend a crossing of the Po river by a new force of Germanic auxiliaries, they did less well:

"Gladiators have not the same steadfast courage in battle as regular soldiers, and now in their unsteady boats they could not shoot so accurately as the Germans, who had firm footing on the shore; and when the gladiators in their fright began to move about in confusion so that rowers and fighters were commingled and got in another's way, the Germans actually jumped into the shallow water, held back the boats, and boarded them, or sank them with their hands." (Histories 2.35)

The end came for the surviving gladiators when the Vitellians brought up Batavian auxiliaries: "They had routed the gladiators who had crossed the river in boats, by meeting them with cohorts which cut them down while still in the water".

All this suggests that gladiators might have made quite good 'shock troops', but were less use in a straightforward battle - their training probably emphasised flashy moves and individual display more than endurance, discipline or 'steadfast courage'.

However, I do recall reading somewhere that a Roman commander used gladiators to train his troops at some point - I don't recall who or when; perhaps somebody else knows?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#10
Thanks Nathan! That seems to answer the OP's query as well.
Reply


Forum Jump: