How important was individual skill in formation fighting? Why train an soldier in individual skills?

Griffith

Banned
Before I created my account on reddit, I saw two posts much earlier this year when I was lurking.

https://old.reddit.com/r/MilitaryHi...w_important_is_individual_marksmanship_is_in/

https://old.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArm...the_skill_of_individuals_in_martial_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?
 
Last edited:
Because while formation is an automatic force multiplier, you still need the force to be multiplied. If your recruits aren't skilled at using their swords, they will inflict less casualties on the opposing formation and it will last longer. If they are not skilled at parrying then they will take more casualties and their formation will break first. You want the formation to have a baseline of skill and conditioning to be multiplied, the higher those are the better the formation does, if you recruits are in good shape your formation can move faster for longer

Archers and Javelineers are also skirmishers, those fight in loose formations so being able to hit individual targets is important there

Mongol light cavalry was multirole, they were usually archers, but when they saw an opprutunity, spears were useful
 
The team has to be capable. No individual training, and it doesn’t matter how many pikemen or javeliners you have. If none of your soldiers can hit anything, or they can’t get maneuver their spear around the enemy shield, then your army is useless.
 
Also, 1. having faith in your own personal combat skills (justified by all that training you put in) is a huge morale multiplier, 2. training gives something to do to bored young men who would otherwise be making trouble, on top of keeping them fit for marching and fighting, 3. individual fighting skills are useful on patrol/on forage/on raiding/during sudden attacks and retreats, and honestly, 4. sometimes individual moments of bravery and skill did swing battles even in the era of formation fighting, so it's not a total waste of effort.

Finally, for people within warrior cultures, skill at arms is something that's prized socially in peacetime too. That might not apply to the average Roman infantryman but would certainly apply to a Greek Citizen or a medieval city militiaman or man at arms.

But I'd love to hear other opinions on this because it's an interesting question.
 
Last edited:
Everything matters. Equipment, individual training, formation training, marching, etc...just having your soldiers form a phalanx or in triplex acies won't win the battle.

The Roman Soldier needs to train swordsmanship so that he has, at the very least, a basic idea of what to do, but also to develop endurance. Roman training gear was heavier than the equal weapons and shields that they would use while on campaign and the objective was a simple one, endurance. If the recruits can last two hours with such heavy equipment during the mock training battles then they, most likely, will also be able to endure doing the same with lighter weapons during the actual battle.

The English yeoman is the same, they train to develop endurance. Without years and years of training a man won't be able to keep using a longbow during the battle, plus you also need to develop technique. A normal longbow would require 105 pounds draw force, without constant training a person wouldn't be able to fire more than two shots and even then they would be hard pressed to even draw the bow.

Well the javelineers were taught how to throw spears the farthest because, well, first they need to be taught how to successfully throw the spear -you can't just grab a thousand men of the street give them throwing spears and expect them to be able to do anything useful on the battlefield - and the further a man can throw the spear is important because if he needs to get close to the enemy to be able to hit them, then he's going to die because that spear is all he has. So the further he knows how to throw the spear ensures that he doesn't needs to get all that close to the enemy meaning that his odds of surviving are increasing.

Just a little question on the phalanx are you referring to a Macedonian Phalanx or something like the hoplite phalanx?

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?

Because you can never assume that that light cavalryman won't find himself in a situation in which he may need to know how to fight hand to hand, plus during a battle he will be needed even after he runs out of arrows so having them trained on how to use a spear can and will be useful on the battlefield. The Romans trained individual hand to hand combat for the soldiers to perform the moves without conscious thoughts, build up their muscles and so that they get some experience on how combat was.

Holding the phalanx the longest assumes that both sides are using the same tactics and gear and that only the training is different between the two sides, but what if the enemy, as it happens many times, fights in a different way? The soldiers need individual training so that they can adapt to the unexpected, if a Roman Manipule hadn't trained its troops in individual fighting then how would they be able to fight in terrains where fighting in close formation just isn't possible? What would the Mongolian Light Cavalryman do if runs into enemy cavalry, can't escape, and doesn't knows how to use the spear? They would just die, the extra training ensures that the soldiers are adaptable to the conditions of the battlefield and increase their odds of survival.
 
Top