Print Page | Close Window

Combat skills in pre-gunpowder warfare

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25922
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 10:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Combat skills in pre-gunpowder warfare
Posted By: calvo
Subject: Combat skills in pre-gunpowder warfare
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 16:29

Prior to the spread of firearms, raising an army was a much more complex matter because fighting with the sword, bow, javelin, and spear demanded much greater skill and technique than pulling the trigger of a rifle.

Even among the soldiers of ancient and medieval armies, the technical skills in mastering different weapons required a different degree of training; and soldiers were valued according to how difficult their combat skills could be acquired.
Swordsmen more commonly held a higher status than pikemen because learning fencing techniques required considerably more drill and discipline than a pikeman whose entire role was to hold his ground and stand in the ranks of a mass formation. Calvarymen also held a higher status compared to infantry, simply because they had to learn to master the horse as well as mastering their weapons.
 
I'd like to being a discussion regarding the technical level of each of the following classes of soldiers in pre-gun-powder warfare.
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 16:37
Cavalry - in descending order of skill level
 
THE MOUNTED WARRIOR
"The mounted warrior" was no doubt the elite of all the soldiers.
He could fight with sword, lance, and bow both while riding a horse or while on foot. These individuals were very few because mastering all these skills required a considerable amount of time, effort, and money. Usually, they were members of the high aristocracy or elite warrior castes. The European knights, the Sassanid Cavalry, and most legendary generals in Chinese history could all fit into this category of "the mounted warrior".
 
CAVALRY CATAPHRACTS
Unlike the full "mounted warrior", cataphracts were heavily-armed horsemen whose duty was to charge the enemy ranks and break their ranks with their lances. However, they were not necesarily capable of engaging in a sword-duel whilst on horseback.
 
LIGHT CAVALRY
These were usually horse-archers or mounted javelinmen and formed the bulk of the steppe armies. Mastering the art of firing arrows with presicion while on full gallop required considerable skill and training; especially firing-backwards. However, for most steppe nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, and Mongols, horse-archery was pretty much a second nature.
 
 


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 16:50
infantry- in descending order of skill level:
 
HEAVY INFANTRY SWORDSMEN
These were heavy infantrymen who fought with swords in close-distance hand-to-hand combat. Most Roman legionaries belonged to this category. Learning to master the sword and shield would require substantial training as swordsmanship could be considered a martial art. In ancient Greek armies, only the richer hoplites learned to fight with the sword after paying an extra fee in their military training.
 
HEAVY INFANTRY PIKEMEN
All pikemen had to be physically and mentally strong. In most military formations, their only role was to hold their ground in a mass-formation in order to keep the enemy at a distance and to prevent the calvary from charging their missle-troops.
Pikemen did not have to undergo substantial training before being deployed on the battlefield. Most peasant militia armies consisted of pikemen.
 
ARCHERS
To master the skills of archery required a considerable amoung of drill. English longbowmen required a lifetime of training to reach an advanced technical level. Nevertheless, in most ancient battles, archers did not shoot aimig at certain targets, but instead fired blindly into the enemy formation with the aim of causing the greatest amount of casualty; therefore, archers were regarded in many armies as "second-rate" soldiers.
 
JAVELINMEN
Like archers, they fought mostly as skirmishers. Their role on the battlefield as light infantry could be vital, but their skills required were considerably more simple than that of swordsmen or pikemen. In most armies they were regarded as very "secondary" troops.
 
CROSSBOWMEN
Crossbow had a greater killing power than ordinary bows, yet mastering the use of them required considerably less skill. With the crossbow being the basic weapon in ancient Chinese warfare, the Chinese empire was one of the very few that could muster a large army by the means of mass-levy similar to those held in the 19th century.
 
 


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 19:11
Originally posted by calvo

Cavalry - in descending order of skill level
 
THE MOUNTED WARRIOR
"The mounted warrior" was no doubt the elite of all the soldiers.
He could fight with sword, lance, and bow both while riding a horse or while on foot. These individuals were very few because mastering all these skills required a considerable amount of time, effort, and money. Usually, they were members of the high aristocracy or elite warrior castes. The European knights, the Sassanid Cavalry, and most legendary generals in Chinese history could all fit into this category of "the mounted warrior".
 
CAVALRY CATAPHRACTS
Unlike the full "mounted warrior", cataphracts were heavily-armed horsemen whose duty was to charge the enemy ranks and break their ranks with their lances. However, they were not necesarily capable of engaging in a sword-duel whilst on horseback.
 
LIGHT CAVALRY
These were usually horse-archers or mounted javelinmen and formed the bulk of the steppe armies. Mastering the art of firing arrows with presicion while on full gallop required considerable skill and training; especially firing-backwards. However, for most steppe nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, and Mongols, horse-archery was pretty much a second nature.
 
 
 
 
 
Calvo the cataphract was a horse archer as well as a lancer, and they could fight on foot as pikemen with bows, and they were in my opinion the equal of any horse archer, who says they can't fight on horseback? you might want to check out the arma website they have tons of stuff on medieval martial arts and a bunch of links, and you might want to do some research on pankration, As medieval soldiers had martial arts that just as advanced as EMA   


-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 20:31
Now what exactly do you mean by technological level?

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 21:33
"technical level", not "technological level".
Technical level means the skill and training required to master the use of the weapon. For example, a swordsman requires a considerably more skill to be trained up to standard than a pikeman.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 21:53
So did you check out arma? you also should look up byzantine warfare on de re militari


-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 21:54
Also a pikeman has to know use his sidearm

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 06:41
Yes, I did look up on http://www.thearma.org - www.thearma.org and pankration.
 
Although martial arts such as pankration existed, it was probably not mastered by ALL soldiers in the army except the elite fighters. This is demonstrated by the very fact that a pankration athlete with his bare hands had beaten a fully-armed pikeman of Alexander the Great's army; which implied that the phalanx pikeman was not schooled in the art of close combat.
 
The Imperial Roman legionary was supposed to be a well-rounded fighter capable of sword combat, throwing javelins, and firing arrows; yet most were incapable of fighting on horseback. Most of them might ride a horse as a means of transport to travel from one place to the another; but when they had to fight they usually dismounted.
It wasn't until the late Roman- early Byzantine period did "the mounted warrior" come into the scene, probably inspired by the Saravan elite cavalry of the Sassanid Empire.
 
Knights formed a very small fraction of the medieval armies; while the bulk of the peasant levies served either as archers or as pikemen; because the required combat skills were less sophisticated.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 14:27
I remember reading on wiki (so it may not be one hundred percent accurate, although its sources were fine)  that Alexander's men were trained in pankration. Could I see your
source for that? and the roman legionarie was also trained in martial arts.
 
BTW Calvo your definitons are a little to broad, archers took years to train properly 


-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 21:51
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I remember reading on wiki (so it may not be one hundred percent accurate, although its sources were fine)  that Alexander's men were trained in pankration. Could I see your
source for that? and the roman legionarie was also trained in martial arts.
 
BTW Calvo your definitons are a little to broad, archers took years to train properly 
 
This is based on a well-known historical anecdote of one of Alexander the Great's top soldiers by the name of Corrhagus challenging and Athenian athlete named Dioxippus who was well-schooled in the art of pankraton.
The contest was viewed by the Macedonian king and the entire army.
The former turned up to the contest in full armour and a long spear, while the latter showed up naked; and in a couple of movements the latter had the fomer knocked out on the ground.
 
Regarding the archers, I might have been a little broad. In the strict sense, any weapon would take years of training to master its use; and an archer would require a lifetime of practice to perfect his marksmanship. However, in most battles, archer fired blindly into the enemy formation; therefore the skill of the acher was not as important as the skills of the heavy infantry swordsman.
In most ancient and medieval armies, mass-conscripted peasant soldiers served either as pikemen or as archers; while swordsmen and mounted warrior were almost always professionals. The only exceptions being with warlike nations where every individual was capable of weidling a sword, such as the Roman republic.
 


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 00:20
The english longbowman took years to train since they had to be very accurate and could fire twenty rounds a minute and they were also trained wirth sword buckler and martial arts, and I think they were pros or semi-pro at least

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: perfectinsanity
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 17:51
Originally posted by calvo

The only exceptions being with warlike nations where every individual was capable of weidling a sword, such as the Roman republic.
 


I wouldn't say that a state being a 'warlike nation' makes its people naturally adept at wielding swords.

Unless there is compulsory military service or conscription then the average member (i.e. civilian rather than military) of any 'warlike' society is unlikely to be any more skilled in combat than the average pacifist.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 20:01
For the army as a whole holding the line was primary in warfare, thus if the army lost the line in one spot a high chance of failure occurred. by keeping the line secure a possible encirclement could occur, which provided victory in many situations.

-------------


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 23:53
Originally posted by perfectinsanity


I wouldn't say that a state being a 'warlike nation' makes its people naturally adept at wielding swords.

Unless there is compulsory military service or conscription then the average member (i.e. civilian rather than military) of any 'warlike' society is unlikely to be any more skilled in combat than the average pacifist.
 
I agree with you, but the usual case is that most "warlike nations" had the practice of compulsory military service for all free men; such as the Spartens, most of the Greek city states, and the Roman Republic.
Children of the citizen class were probably taught how to bear a shield and spear before they learned to read and write.
 
In warrior nations such as the Celts and Mongols, there was no word for "soldier", because technically every free-born male was automatically a soldier.
 
 


Posted By: mazuk
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2009 at 01:54
I think there is no way to catergorise by 'skill level' as different units required different training in many forms whether it be weaponry / discipline / tactics etc and like said before in an earlier post a British longbowman was a hefty asset regardless of him being stereotyped under the archer catergory. Remember Agincourt? the peasent longbowmen taking out chivalrous french nobles etc on horseback...



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com