I remember reading somewhere that it was said the Viking berserks, though they seemed mad in battle, would routinely dodge spears, swords, and arrows or perform complex parries. That sort of thing helped give rise to the myth that 'blades could not touch them' in battle. Like you said, they drilled since childhood and fought as a game. Just like modern police and soldiers fall back on their level of mastery in a combat situation, they just had a high level of individual mastery. You covered a lot of good points in this.
@alex woods This is a common misconception. I don't know if you're joking, but if you're not, I will elaborate. The little evidence we do have of berserkrs being wild battlefield champions is in the sagas, where other hyperboles and miracles happen, which makes its credibility on historical subjects questionable at best. It's most likely that these people titled "berserkr" which meant "bear skin" or something along those lines were more like duelists or hired muscle. The myths of them biting their shields and eating hallucinogenic mushrooms and going into battle killing people all around them is really just awesome fantasy.
Well, there is historical record of them biting their shields, and then taunting, then biting again. It wasn't cause they were crazy, it was cause they wanted to look crazy. Berserkr means bear shirted not bear skin, and they were likely honored fighters and duelists, not some half naked duelist or brute for coin.
Patrick yes and no. There are lots of reports in Icelandic literature of beserkers being in a trance like state before and during battle. altho your correct that is no evidence of them taking mushrooms, there is evidence of siberian tribes taking them, but they live miles away altho they are on the same latitude. There is evidence that Vikings used henbane however, which is a known hallucinogenic. Can't say it was 100% used in battle but is was certainly used in rituals. More than a few seer/seeres graves n sited have been found with stocks of henbane or henbane seeds. It's not a huge leap to jump to that berskers perhaps did use some drugs and/or meditation (of whatever form) to enter a war like trance. Many battle cultures have done, from Siberia to Africa. But your also right to point out they weren't mad dogs they were very very skilled like those boxers who favour low hands to high guard so they can use their reflexes.. at times they can seem unhittable too
with enough practice you can dodge or parry pretty much any blow. source: was bullied, constantly attacked from behind, had shit thrown at me and did 3 years of taekwondo. i can dodge objects thrown at the back of my head and most punches.
kein ding yo bot.de Yeah.. Spears are really great if you use them in formation. Battleformations always beat unorganised knights or Warriors trained in martial arts. That's why I hate people who think they would have a chance on a ancient battlefield because they are trained in hema, learned kenjutsu or can do some kind of shaolin kempo kungfu.
2:35 EXACTLY. The relation I like to draw is to our modern soldiers. A navy seal or spetznaz or british SAS or even swat team in a combat scenario doesn't resort to flailing his gun side to side spray and pray style. Even non combat scenarios with well-trained individuals like the Apollo disaster that a movie was made out of are quite tame. The REAL thing that training gives these people is the ability to be *CALM UNDER HIGH STRESS SITUATIONS* . If you listen to the Apollo 13 disaster (the real life version) it was super calm and tame. They never freaked out at all, and they were insanely in control of their stress. Military people are the same way (the well trained ones), and thus I can imagine the well trained knights and samurai etc were exactly the same. Being well trained doesn't mean you absolutely will or will not resort to "wild battle thrashing." It means that when everyone around you are flailing wildly, you are cold calm and calculated enough to perform some move you trained 50 times a day for to incapacitate or kill the attacker. Another example, and I know it's not a historically accurate game by any means, is the Chivalry Medieval Warfare game. If a rank 50+ guy shows up on a server with a bunch of people rank 1-15, he has hundreds of hours more experience than they do. He utilizes parries, feints, spinning, dancing, rotationary attacks, and all the tiny details that make rank 50+ people in Chivalry terrifying to fight. Experience shows in combat. Hell, an experienced levy peasant who's fought many battles and survived might know some stuff the knight who trained a bunch but never fought a battle doesn't know.
Yes, there are plenty of examples to show the benefits of training, which prevents the kind of panicked instinctive reaction that untrained people have.
Apparently all Lusitanian boys trained with weapons, but only the best became warriors while the rest became craftsmen, merchants, and farmers. Still, everyone was trained to a decent degree. The basic warriors of the Lusitani were regarded as almost on par with the Romans, only lacking in armor and unit cohesion (they did use wedges effectively though).
The same is said about most of the British Celts who fought the Roman invasion in I guess it was the year 50. And as far as I know, the lower Samurai had the duty to train the man they brought to their Lord for the battle.
There is a huge disconnect from reality with a lot of people who try to argue things like: This style beats that style; This warrior is better than those warriors; Combat doesn't include this facet; etc etc. Absolutes just don't happen in real life. Martial prowess plays an integral role in combat. Martial prowess is not just an individual characteristic though, it also applies to every level of combat. The individual tactical, the team tactical, the higher organization strategy, the martial culture of an entire organization. It's steeped in this stuff. It becomes very complex, but isn't exercised in a complex way - it's exercised from moment to moment actions. It's exceptionally variable. Training is what decreases that variability - but you can never delete that variability. Martial training aims to provide yourself in the best environment possible to succeed in; that is to say, it's designed to give you the best ODDS of surviving and winning. But it can never give you the absolute 1:0 odds.
My advice is to drink a lot of water a couple of hours before you record. It hydrates to drink, but it takes time for the water to really work into your throat. My experience- choral singing.
Not just water also warm up your voice works like a muscle. also learning how to use your air better for projecting your voicce can reduce the strain on it over a period of time by a rediculous amount. also a choral singer and stage performer.
Bryan makes a good point. Swallowing water doesn't wet your vocal folds. Getting water onto your vocal folds is called choking, and getting water past them is called drowning. The water has to work its way through your digestive system and then bloodstream. The only immediate benefit water has is comfort.
I think people underestimate how effective muscle memory can be. Intense drilling was used to deeply ingrain proper techniques into soldiers to the point that it was almost automatic, like turning a light switch on or off when entering/exiting a room. This way, they could easily keep a somewhat proper technique even when terrified, tired, fatigued, and undernourished. Garden-variety conscripts, however, might not have received the same level of training as professional soldiers, so they might be more prone to throwing technique out the window in the heat of battle.
Aldrick Fon Dracul Yep muscle memory is super important in all kinds of stressful activities. I played American football for 10 years and without muscle memory you would be unable to run plays. You needed it in order to have your mind be able figure out higher tactics while still hitting the opponent.
In Game of Thrones terms: You've got Jamie Lanister and you've got The Hound. Professional Soldier and big, immovable object. Both are effective. Both existed historically. Both will kill you.
The whole point of any training, is to help keep your cool as much as possible when shit goes sideways, and to be able to do the thing that need doing without really thinking about it. It doesn't matter if it's fire fighting drills, or abandon ship drills, hockey drills, or combat drills. It's to give you a solid footing in what's important. the basics. I'm betting anyone making the critics is a couch commander. Speaking of which, I should be canoeing, and i'm wasting the day here... lol
Let's just put the discussion to the for now, cause damnit Cara's voice when she checked up on you was the sweetest, most heartwarming thing I've seen on this channel.
The Roman Legions in particular used basic formation and extensive drills to train even farmers into proper soldiers. When the training is done properly and taken to diligently the "fancy fighting" becomes normal to that person. And in absence of complete panic typically stress will make someone reaort to their basic forms that have been drilled into muscle memory.
In Anglo-Saxon poetry and other accounts of the time we have plenty of descriptions of battles and the discipline of warriors holding position, fighting in the shield wall, etc.. The lowest class of soldier in the fyrd was still expected to be able to fight effectively, they were all still churls (freemen) who could make time to train, not thralls (slaves) who were banned from possessing weapons and were not expected to fight. The sheer act of repetitive training will produce muscle memory and the automatic pilot that the body goes into under stress will lean towards trained responses rather than the panicked flailing of the untrained. History tells us that training ways makes its mark on the batt field.
I love watching the light off the finish of that sword while you're talking. Even minor amounts of training can be a huge advantage. I had a job that forced me into numerous physical altercations. Before I became a martial artist I relyed on my strength and toughness. Once I became somewhat proficient fighting unknowledgable people because almost silly it was so easy
WColdblooded357W Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. I get the sense that most of these people have never had any training or never have been in any fights.
What I remember from college regarding Greek phalanx: Everybody equipped with shield on left arm and spear on right arm. When the two lines charge each other each line drifts slightly to the right, as every man want's to maintain the shield coverage on his right. When the lines contact there is an overlap on each right end. The move is to wheel the overlapped end 90 degrees and attack the enemy line from the flank. Most Greek hoplites are farmers who are rich enough to afford the armor. But they don't practice in peacetime. One city has a slave population that does all the farming and the adult males can be full time soldiers. That's the Spartans. And their skill in executing the 90 degree turn is what wins them battles. That is until another city, I think Thebes, figures out a way to beat them by concentrating the attack on one spot in the Spartan line. They free the Helots, the Spartan slaves, and Sparta is never the dominant Hellenic city again.
Martial arts are beautiful to train in. Being trained in itf taekwondo being trained in it since i was 5. I cant attest in a fight muscle memory does take over at some point. Muscle memory just means the basics, because the basics wins a fight.
"Martial Arts arent Martial Arts." I assume you mean that ma as is practiced today is of little practical purpose in actual combat. In age of drone atrikes, full automatic rifles and IEDs that is true. Ma main purpose in my opinion is to maintain the high level of physical strength and mental focus to survive in the intense stress of war. That said I freely admit I am talking out of my ass.
No, Tae Kwon Do was turned into a sport same with other styles but you use it on the street against someone and you have a higher chance of winning the fight.
German has a nice thing for this: "Kampfkunst" vs "Kampfsport" - the former is about actual "kämpfen" aka fighting, the later as the name implies is practiced as a sport. If you look at Martial arts tournaments you can say that basically half of them are just for show - in a real fight they would still lose against hooligans despite training for years. martial arts were invented for people to survive - there are no taboos there - if you win you win and that's it.
As another person who trained in taekwondo, it really depends on the instructor. I trained under two different masters and my last instructor actually did a lot of sparing, did a lot of basic drills, and even basic level of boxing and ground work. I agree that people entering tournaments are training for sport, but there are instructors who can teach you self defence. My master was also a mma fighter so that could be why he did that.
Rigoberto Escobar if ur talking out of ur ass shut it. Martial arts even now even more relevant today than ever. Close quarters combat, is close and when something knocks the pistol/rifle out of ur hand and ur fighting an enemy who's up close trying to kill u. If u don't know how to disarm an opponent or even do the simpliest of punches. You will die.
Great video, I think one about muscle memory and how it's stored in the nervous system, and not the brain, and it's effects in combat would be a good idea. Often a trained fighter has a harder time doing the "Wrong thing" as movements are now reflex. A demonstration of an untrained, aggressive brute against a trained HEMA student would I think be a great way to show this in the format you have, and you would likely have fun shooting that video. All love Brother Skall!
I think I remember one of the instructors at Blood and Iron, in a video, demonstrated that because he was so much stronger than his opponent, he would have gotten away with some form of poor technique in the moment. I like to think that largely that's what would have happened in the life or death situations in the middle of any large battle
Emilio Singh but that's only if they were stronger than their opponent. Sure, maybe an elite top tier warrior going up against the cannon fodder could do that, but once they found another warrior they would both probably have the same training, discipline, and strengths, meaning that they couldn't get sloppy or they'd die.
Certainly not. But I'd imagine that if anyone fighting for any amount of intensity will be better at the start than at the end. Towards the end of any serious fighting engagement, it seems as if someone might be more likely through tiredness to fall to bad habits. Still interesting to think about
Strength is a large factor, technique is more consistent, but strength can save you when your technique fails, that is why warriors condition their bodies instead of only practicing forms. And technique can help you defeat a more powerful by less skilled opponent. My sensei says, the first strike is the most important, and you aim to end a fight in 3 seconds, because the longer a fight goes on, the more luck becomes a factor.
this idea that technique wnt out the window and everyone just ended up wildly thrashing can largly be defeated by comparing to a modern analogue in modern combat, do all soldiers just end up spraying and praying? or do they still keep calm, remember how to aim and fire properly even when underfire themselves? cos thats basicaly the same situation just with a different weapon
Chri AAtor that’s not true look at history and you will see that’s actually the opposite their instincts kick in usually and they actually perform at a higher level
I don't always agree with Skallagrim, this time i do, but what i want to point out is how much i appreciate the umility of this guy who's always gentle and humble while sharing his knowledge and experience with others, without any sort of arrogance in it. he have my admiration for that. P.S. sorry for my bad english, it's a lot of time i dont have occasions to practice it.
Were most martial arts used on the battlefield? Probably not. Was martial skill used on the battlefield? Absolutely. Was "brute forcing" always your default method of combat? Only until the guy with with better martial skills came along and ended you rightly. Let me put this way who would you bet money on in a no rules, no holds barred, hand to hand fight: a strongman with no fighting experience or a veteran army soldier who's done two tours of duties and is well-veresed in CQC? The strongman might look impressive and he might swing a mean punch, but my bet would still be on the veteran soldier coming out on top. And I can see that applying just as much to medieval close quarters combat as I could to modern hand to hand combat.
If I had to choose between a young, strong man in their prime whose never been in a fight and an old, way past their prime martial artist who has studied the art their entire life, I'd choose the martial artist. The point isn't that speed and strength aren't valuable or that they don't kind of come with the territory of training.... it's that they are being treated as having MUCH higher value than training.
Kamekaizen it all comes down to the ratio of strength and size vs skill and experience. If you're only slightly more skilled than ur opponent but they're significantly stronger and larger then they'll win and vice versa
Practicing enough to commit actions to muscle memory is quite an amazing thing. I've done a great deal of training in performance motorcycle riding. The 'natural' reactions of an untrained rider are generally the exact opposite of what you want to do in a panic situation. When you've trained your responses you end up automatically taking the right action, instead of the untrained instinctive action. In effect the right thing becomes YOUR instinctive response.
Thanks for the video! Sure we don't know exactly how soldiers fought on battlefields, but training in any martial art enough develops skills that become automatic. You don't think about what to do, you simply act.
Awwww that's adorable that she came to check on you! Anyways I agree with the majority comment which is basically (at least the way I read them) that we'll eventually have a better understanding of how battles were accurately fought Maybe not hit for hit but... Y'know
I am learning weapons as part of martial arts training and it makes a massive difference. you learn katas of blocking and attack. when you spar it is messy but you find yourself automatically using the techniques rather than just doing what ever and getting hit.
Informative and balanced as always. It occurs that in ... ahem ... "ancient times", even among the "untrained" peasantry, invasion, raiding and violent disagreement would be more common. The will to violence overriding fear would be a factor and combat wouldn't be confined to recreational brawling and levy. Practicing fighting and actually fighting of course being different, at least psychologically even today? Professional trained elite had the, equipment, expertise, practice, aptitude and experience; the whole package.
Finally! At first i feared that this was going to be more of a "dissing" to people like me that criticize your attitude at times! I like that you addressed this "issue" in the "medieval(and ancient) combat fan society". I've seen both extremist ideologies and i have to go with let's measure it like a ~30% professional/had experience to a ~70% played with a sword/ unprofessional when it came to large scale wars and battles.The numbers could change drastically depending on the period and the battle.Example a raiding viking party had more professionals or experienced men than the towns defending. My "conclusions" come from the problem of if you have too many people training extensively they are not working which it could be bad for the economy(plus a bored soldier with no money can easily turn to banditry). Of course the training helped at least to a physique level and to mental level that you wouldn't freeze or get shocked i believe. From my experience from friends that almost got mugged the training does help!One was a long time blackbelt taekwondo dude that downed 2 of the 4 people that tried to mug him before they could finish their sentences and the other is an incredibly buffed dude that actually got stabbed but adrenaline and physique overcame!
Skall that is a gorgeous sword and the fuller is simple superb, what is the maker or that blade. Also your knowledge of ancient warfare if incredibly good, as a student of ancient history I really enjoy your personal opinions and input on weapons and your research into how combat functioned
I think one of the things fuelling this perception in modern times is that most martial arts people are likely to see without specifically digging into them are now meant almost strictly for sport and/or display. The Olympics, martial arts demonstrations or tournaments and other events like these can be a fantastic display of skill, but they all return to the rules required in a sport to keep the contest safe and fair, or to the need for the demo to look impressive. It's much more rare to see a true display of purely practical self-defence or martial skill applied, but when you do find them they are often terrifyingly direct, quick and effective. And the people who have trained in those practical methods absolutely will have an advantage over simple brute physical power. The other point which can be easily overlooked is muscle memory. By drilling the proper techniques over and over, a trained fighter will by instinct move and hit with nearer to the proper technique, allowing them to hit harder and move more efficiently without thinking about it. It also generally means the trained fighter can react more quickly through automatic response.
I've practiced martial arts for 10 years, and he's totally right about beginners being trash at sparring because they're too tense. he'll even a couple years ago, during sparring, I would sometimes put down my guard and relax my shoulders for a few seconds if I had the space, because getting stiff was that much of an impairment.
I am training in Shotokan ( Traditional Karate). I am nothing special, but our sensei told us the following: "Always try to end a fight in one hit. Never prolong a fight. Exhaustion never helps you. If you finish your oponent in one strike, you will be ready for the next one. But, do remember this. If you are exhausted before a fight, always rely on skill to make the oponent as exhausted as you are and then go in for the "
I watch your videos a lot...but wasn't really feeling like it right now. But I'm not gonna lie...I clicked anyway because that sword is so fucking cool. Just needed to look at it for a minute haha.
6:20 Having trained for years to be a modern soldier, I can tell you this is precisely when technique takes over. When you are cold, hungry, tired, afraid and realize someone is trying to take your life you fall back on your training. Training is powerful conditioning. It isn't perfect, but it is much better than not.
I know someone at my place of employment who has found out that I study in HEMA, and has since found any opportunity to ridicule me about it. Constantly calling me Sir Lancelot wannabe or other such names, insisting that what I do isn't a martial art (usually calling it "Fantasy fighting" and saying that my classmates and myself are just "running through the woods pretending to rescue princesses"), also saying that he could kick any of our arses but refuses to attend any classes, even just to watch, so we can show him what it is. Do you have any advice on how to educate someone like this?
Andrew Millett What your describing is a bully. Bullies are insecure people who find pleasure in belittling those who they think they can get away with that behaviour. You have have several choices going forward. Number one, you can report this to a superior and have them do something about it. Personally I would not do this, it only serves to spur a bully onward. Number two, you can talk to the person in question and try to resolve the issue. Number three, you can also ignore the bully. Doing this you have to totally ignore any comment the bully makes and show no emotion to the behavior. This can be affective but not all the time. Number four, you can also resort to physical action. Basically tell them that if they cant keep the comments to themselves that you will put foot to ass. This can go wrong real fast if they are a better fighter. Usually I will let them instigate the violence, since it gives me the advantage of legal action. Use this option at your own peril In closing you need to decide in a course of action, once you do do not stop untill the situation is resolved. You have every right to enjoy your life without someone giving you shit about it. Good luck ☺
Nikolau's Fleet I don't believe that HEMA is so important that no one can talk shit about it, I was simply asking for advice on how to maybe educate him, as he believes that the ONLY fighting styles that can be called a martial art is Karate and other Asian variants. I have nothing against these styles, in fact I have studied some of them myself.
Well, if he's so interested in your art (even disparagingly) maybe play along a bit and see if he wants to come out. A trial class or two ought to change his mind.
000Bob000jones000 Main problem is more prongs, harder to dislodge. It's why people still used spears which were straight and smooth. Better to just use a Pike. But yeah farmers just grabbed whatever they had and gladiators used them though when it comes to gladiators u have to remember this was more for entertainment. It wasnt about having the most efficient or practical weapon.
the unforgiven ones We have very little coverage of Roman Martial technique. We have some battle tactics, but not nearly enough to be called a cohesive martial art.
I have my doubts that wild flailing was a common panic reaction. Every time I saw someone panicking I saw a very defensive behavior. So they weren't very effective but didn't put the others in danger to get hit by them. (Dark Souls panic rolling was physically not an option.)😁
It's worth noting that in a duel or similar situation, game theory would suggest that it's in your interest to draw out the fight. This is especially so if you think you're the more experienced fighter. The longer the fight goes on the more likely your opponent will chicken out or make a mistake that will allow you to properly set up a more complex technique that takes your opponent out of the fight without putting yourself at risk. A more experienced fighter will make fewer mistakes than a less experienced one, so the longer the fight goes on, the further ahead you get. On the other hand, as a less experienced fighter, you want to go in for a less fancy, higher-risk action to end the fight early. In a context with multiple opponents, you fight in the second category. In this case, it is ideal do a technique that opens up an opponent and inflicts a strike really fast, even if it's not super flashy or lethal. You need to start taking opponents out of the fight quickly, since every enemy standing is another sharp point that might get rammed into your squishy bits the second you aren't looking. So you always want to use technique, but you use it super differently depending on what you're doing.
To answer this question fully, I think you'd need to look at different time periods and different styles individually. I'd expect some battles to be won almost entirely by planning and strategy at the highest level. I'd expect other other battles to be won or lost by skills at a more individual level. I"d expect other battles to be won or lost based on the physical attributes of the individual soldiers, but I suspect that endurance was more important than brute strength for most of them. In the American Revolution, the battle of King's Mountain was fought between regular British troops on one side and a colonial militia on the other side. The militia gathered a week or so before the battle and marched over the mountains to face the British forces. There was no real training of the militia forces, so the British would have been the more skilled fighters by every measure of those days. The British commander also believed that his position on King's Mountain was nearly unassailable. When the colonial militia reached the mountain, they beat the British handily. The situation just wasn't one that favored the British strategies or skills. While great technique can help a soldier last longer, I suspect that much of endurance was related to a soldier's individual physical traits. In some cases, endurance may have been the result of the army knowing how to keep the soldiers as fresh as possible on the march so that they would arrive at the battle in the best possible condition.
Do you wanna know why they let you repeat those martial arts moves over and over and over and over? It's so they could replace your scared, flailing, totally open, and ballistic reactions with reliable move sets that wouldn't get you killed so easily and make those your natural reactions . It's like a blunt sword. Yes they're the same in function (to attack someone with) but would you rather have said blunt sword or spend the time repetitively sharpening it so you can actually cut something?
I assume that the best skill to have in a massive combat with many participants is situational awareness and thus not becoming overpowered by adrenaline, but keeping the senses sharp and by that utilizing what was learned in training. If you get tunnel vision from the adrenaline, you are done and so are your comrades beside you in the battle line.
One of the oldest things ive heard was that highly trained masters could lose to amateurs because the amateur would do some borderline crazy reckless dangerous maneuver that would catch the master off guard because they stopped expecting the sloppy technic. One time (and only one time) i (the noob) was sparring with my friend (much more practiced and studied than i), he kept winning (obliviously), until i sidestepped dropped to my knee and swung up at his thigh under his guard. Because he wasnt expecting it, it worked.
Jigen Ryu is a katana school of fencing designed for battlefields. Sasaki Kojiro was famed for his dueling style. His favorite technique was both respected and feared throughout feudal Japan. It was called the "Turning Swallow Cut" or Tsubame Gaeshi (燕返し, "Swallow Reversal / Return"), and was so named because it mimicked the motion of a swallow's tail during flight as observed at Kintaibashi Bridge in Iwakuni. This cut was reputedly so quick and precise that it could strike down a bird in mid-flight. There are no direct descriptions of the technique, but it was compared to two other techniques current at the time: the Ittō-ryū's Kinshi Cho Ohken and the Ganryū Kosetsu To; respectively the two involved fierce and swift cuts downward and then immediately upwards. Hence, the "Turning Swallow Cut" has been reconstructed as a technique involving striking downward from above and then instantly striking again in an upward motion from below. The strike's second phase could be from below toward the rear and then upward at an angle, like an eagle climbing again after swooping down on its prey. Sasaki created this technique around 1605.
Invest in some good alcohol based pastel lozenges, although they are hard to find nowadays(at least here in Saskatchewan) and overhydrate a half hour before, especially if you have been drinking caffine or eating allot of starch/sugar. Cheap humidifiers for the room before you tape might help too.
I would suggest looking at videos by roland warzecha. One he recently made is called the top priority in combat. It shows how humans in constant life or death situations will naturally try to fight in a different manner. Does this mean all? No but it gives a great perspective.
As a guy that does a lot of fighting, it is definitely beneficial to be skilled and in shape to use your weapons effectively. Being strong can be helpful, but only in the sense that finessing your weapon is way easier if moving your weapon around is a piece of cake because you can move your weapon easier than your opponent. I do have to say that "newbiefoo" is definitely a thing. Flailing around aggressively can definitely throw a fighter that is used to dealing with a set group of techniques makes it very hard. A good analogue to skill in fighting is skill in tennis. At first, the balls go everywhere, which can actually be really helpful in winning a match against a good opponent, but you also miss the court a lot. As an intermediate, you always hit the ball straight and to similar places. You lose originality and you aren't thinking about the responses that your shots provoke your opponent to make. As an advanced tennis player, you hit the ball all over the place, but you never miss, and you are only using some of these positions intentionally to manipulate your opponent. So what's best? Technique, conditioning, and strategy will always beat flailing around wildly with no organization or consideration for your choice in actions. That's why there is always a difference on the fighting field between fighting groups who use tactics, techniques, and are conditioned for battle and groups who don't think about their fighting strategy. An example from history: Leonidis at thermopalie (forget my typos). The Spartans were better trained, brutally conditioned, used strategy, and had excellent battlefield tactics. They ultimately lost the battle of course, but they held much longer than expected and picked off an incredible number of opposition. A counter example would be how Romans lost several battles in northern early Europe as those armies headed south to sack Rome, but I would argue that they were ill prepared for the difference in fighting style and for an attack each time those battles were lost. Numbers also make a significant difference in some of those examples.
Skall, my question to you is this. If I gave an angry drunken man your size and same fitness level a longsword, are you confident you could come out on top? If yes, then you are truly a master. However for people who give martial arts a stab, but give up before mastering it, this is not the case. One of my favorite anecdotes in HEMA comes from George Silver, talking about the various times of fighting. Time of hand, time of foot time of feet. The one time that is not set in stone is time of mind. The more you train, the faster your time of mind. However, time of mind does not come into play when flailing! For this reason you can flail very fast. If you have learned the martial art but haven't practiced enough, your time of mind is too slow to face a flailer!!! They aren't using technique, and they have opening and gaps, but you simply aren't fast enough to exploit those gaps, BECAUSE YOU NEED TIME TO THINK AND REACT. As a result you either get confused and get hit, or start flailing yourself and double. The solution is practice! once you think you've mastered the techniques, face someone who is very doubly and flails a lot. If you are fast enough to beat them with style, then and only then can you say you have mastered the art.
Would that "angry drunken man" flail though? I think he would try to cleave through his opponent with one mighty blow, and get beheaded by the "colpo di vilano" technique.
I used to do some bar work many years ago. Friday or Saturday nights were always fun. I made a point of staying sober (at least while we were open to the public); it's amazing how many very large drunk guys I've thrown out a pub and I'm talking brawlers not just a dumb punk. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I'm some great martial artist or anything, indeed precisely the opposite. My edge? Not being influenced by alcohol. It doesn't take much either, just a couple of pints is enough to ruin someone's coordination and ability.
Connor Minx decent points, but being able to use techniques on reflex doesn't require you to master them. you can drill a set of good foundational techniques, and basic strategy, have it on muscle memory, and still be nowhere near mastering a skill.
Personally. I think people nowadays given flailers too much credit because we no longer brawls with long blade weapons anymore and they are mostly talking about fist fight. Random flailing works much better in fist fight, but as soon as both sides are armed with blades, your flailer with wild swing will die to quick sword jabs most of the time. If the fighters have shields, the mad swings are even less effective because block and stab wins 9/10 times against storms of random wild swings of clubs or bades. There is a reason why Roman fought the way they are because Marian Reform military is initially aimed directly at countering numerically superior but poorly trained Barbarian tribes.
I think it's also George Silver who says that the best swordsman in Europe doesn't fear the second best swordsman in Europe; he fears the worst swordsman in Europe. That said, you can easily(ish) tailor your fighting strategy to your opponent's skill level; you can expect a beginner to make lots of mistakes, so you should fight conservatively and keep yourself safe until they screw up and give you a clear opening. You don't want to do any high-risk moves, because beginners don't know what they're doing and often won't react rationally when threatened. So doing a kind of gambit that requires your opponent to react to your threat is a bad idea. Against a more experienced fencer, you can't count on them making more mistakes than you, so you want to end the fight more quickly. You can expect a better fighter to prioritize defending himself against any realistic threat you establish, so you can predict how they will react to a greater extent and use this to set up quicker hits.
When I am think about bigger battles, I think the best comparison are modern riot polices. Okay, they are not supposed to kill but they use a lot of tactics used in those periods. The their equipment is also similar with armor, riot shield, and stick. And you get see how they advance as groups into the situation to reduce casualties. So the combination of tactics and training helps here and I think that it not so far off from the way warriors would have thought.
Another thing that would contribute to pre-battle fatigue: illness. IIRC, the US Civil War was the first war where combat fatalities outnumbered deaths by illness amongst the troops. Something about putting a large group of people together in miserable conditions, with high stress and low sanitation.
Something that you hint at but I don't think you said clearly enough is that most of the techniques taught today are dueling techniques (I think) where you would be confined to a much more static location and less able to move around. I do remember reading that during the later wars between Scotland and England, the English started training their soldiers to stab not at the Scot charging him, but at the one charging the guy next to him.
"It is not the man who practices a hundred strikes a day you should fear, but rather the one who practices a single strike a hundred ties a day": Musashi Miyamoto, Gorin No Sho. As a martial artist (and former soldier) I found that in MY case in actual combat my advanced techniques go out the window, while my basic strikes & kicks just "feel natural" and more appropriate in more situations. Still not sure if that's because of the amount of practice, or if that "naturalness" is why those techniques make up "the basics"
Guys I have a great idea for a collaboration video. It's a video about the two handed sword around the world. ThegnThrand would start to talk about the two handed sword in the antiquity, like the development of the dacian folk, for example, then Shadiversity would continue with the templar period, like in the maciejowski bible, and why did they start to us them again . Then skallagrim continued with the development of the longsword and the kriegmesser. Matt Easton continues with the usage of two handed sword after the middle age, like in the Renaissance and after, like the firangi and the khanda used in India against the English invaders. Then Metatron would talk about the two handed sword in China and Japan, like the dadao the katana, and so on and their usage until the WW2. Then they would conclude the video.
This is a whole point of training: you're doing countless swings and thrusts every day so you could perfectly swing one time to save yourself on a battlefield. Prepared beats the unprepared (generally).
Martial arts where developed so weak or not so strong people could defend themselves from naturally strong oponents. If you have 2 people who don't know how to fight but one of them is bigger and stronger, he'll always win, but, if the other guy has training he can effectively defend himself, even if the stronger guy has training too. In a battle, regardless of the size and strenght, a trained army will win against an untrained one, even if the latter is filled with strong people. In ancient China there was a time where weapons where forbidden, so people started to learn how to defend themselves with just their hands and every day tools. Great videos man!
Great Video. Although, partly, the equipment and rations could be brought on those small chariots pulled by men. Also, for those that did not train officially, they would depend on their wits on the battlefield. And some instinct on how to use a weapon and stay away from danger, maybe.
An effective soldier doesn't need a lot of "fancy techniques", but he does need to know a few effective techniques and execute those very well. Most warriors in history probably never mastered more than the basics. But with enough men who are solid on the basics it's enough to win battles.
I can attest to this. Normally, when I am in a battle raeg, I use muay thai roundhouse kicks. But after studying tai chi for even just a few months (and learning the drop stance), I found myself doing Sub-Zero slides instead.
I think you’re totally right, Skall. It’s not really hard to understand if you parallel it to martial arts today. If someone that has practiced Krav Maga gets into a fight, they are probably going to be a lot less controlled than they would be while sparring, but that doesn’t mean that the training doesn’t help. Techniques do go out the window sometimes, but the ones that don’t keep you alive. That’s why you train more.
RE: Throat, sounds like a dehydrated throat, drink more, or else take some tea with a few spoonfuls of honey to lubricate the throat. English archers tended to be yeomanry I believe, rather than levies. A yeoman was a free man with some possession, so they were definitely not low class, more like middle class.
Repetition with training any type of combative system you will always revert to the lessons learned. Through experience you gain the ability to relax and you see more openings. Combat though you have to be tough has always been a thinking mans game.
Has he ever done a video about the technique and/or practicallity of the duels and war scenes in Game oF Thrones? That would be very interesting; if he could go though the major scenes one by one.
are you ok Skall?that throat seemed serious.don't wanna lose my man on these kinda things.now that you mentioned it i noticed that in your recent videos your voice is raspier than before.have that throat checked out,love.
Here in England our full contact medieval combat doesn't use a point system but goes on untill 1 fighter is so tired or beaten that he yields, I have seen a lot of guys fight in hema as skilled fast fighters then turn into flailing nutcases when in the FCMC. The first fight I saw one fighter landed a great stomach shot on his opponent who just walked through it and knocked him out with an epic headbutt. With full plate combat using predominantly Tudor period armour strength and endurance is the most important factor due to how much the armour absorbs the impact but thats for fighting with a sword so If footmans hammers and axes were used it would be more realistic but far more dangerous.
You can say the same thing about more modern warfare. I remember documentary of soldiers in WWII describing the differences between training and actual combat. In boot camp they were trained to aim and fire but once on theater we're instructed by vets to shoot in the direction everyone else is shooting at because you don't have the luxury of aligning sights when the target is shooting back
It´s a diffrence between longrange engagements and close quarters. WWII was in the time when the still belived that point shooting made you a better soldier.
Curious question. Have you seen anything in hostorical texts which speaks about the mess which one would find on a battlefield. I mean I imagine that in a battle there would be a rather large number of corpses lying around and these might get in the way of those who are still fighting. Have you come across any writings which talk about the importance of making sure corpses aren't an issue?
Bob Leonheart Probably would depend on the era no? If I am not mistaken casualties weren't actually that common. Most often the goal was to break the enemies morale and either make them flee or force them to surrender. Of course there is also the common practice of skirmishing
This reminds me General Qi Jiguang(1528-1588). In his book Jixiao Xinshu(New Treatise on Military Efficiency, 1560) he wrote: 開大陣，對大敵，比場中較藝、擒捕小賊不同。堂堂之陣，千百人列隊而前，勇者不得先，怯者不得後；叢槍戳來，叢槍戳去，亂刀砍來，亂殺還他，只是一齊擁進，轉手皆難，焉能容得左右動跳？一人回頭，大眾同疑；一人轉移寸步，大眾亦要奪心，焉能容得或進或退？平日十分武藝，臨時如用得五分出，亦可成功；用得八分，天下無敵；未有臨陣用盡平日十分本事，而能從容活潑者也。 Sorry that I don't know how to translate it well into English.
Deploying a large army against a large group of enemies is nothing like fighting in arenas or dealing with small groups of bandits. In a disciplined and orderly army, thousands of people stay in formations and march forward together. Those who are brave are not allowed to go first, those who are cowardly are not allowed to stay behind. If your enemies thrust you with a jungle of pikes, thrust them back with a jungle of pikes. If they slash you with numerous swords, answer that with slashes of numerous swords. People crowd in together and how can one moves freely when it is difficult for him even to turn around?
If one man looks back, the whole army will be worrying. If one man retreats, the whole army will be in fear. How can one move around in that situation?
I think we can basically say: 1. High-Level-Soldier (like Knights & stuff): good skill, ok to great endurance/strenght 2. "official" Soldiers (spear soldier nr. 184 for example): ok to great skill, good endurance, moderate to great strenght. 3. peasants (cannon fodder): wild flailing while having good endurance and strenght due to hard farmwork. I know thats VERY rough outline but I think its more or less fitting.
Something else for all of you who can't be bothered to read books and think the movie 300 is a primary source; there were very few pitched battles in real life, even in the Hundred Years War all the battles that happened can be counted on two hands. There were however lots and lots of sieges and most combat was done with missile weapons like crossbows and longbows.
I very reluctantly clicked the video because of the text in the thumbnail. Because I figured that you like many other martial artists would say technique would always triumph over brute force.
![แค่บอก - Atom ชนกันต์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kgwhtg8bAxY/mqdefault.jpg)
"until everything around them was dead or friendly"
that's how I approach all social events.
Bechaffen Projects ALWAYS ANGRY
This reminds me to the Red Wedding
AMERICA FUCK YEAAAAH !!!
I see that you play Dungeons & Dragons.
I use chemical warfare and unfortunately it's indescrimanite.
I remember reading somewhere that it was said the Viking berserks, though they seemed mad in battle, would routinely dodge spears, swords, and arrows or perform complex parries. That sort of thing helped give rise to the myth that 'blades could not touch them' in battle. Like you said, they drilled since childhood and fought as a game. Just like modern police and soldiers fall back on their level of mastery in a combat situation, they just had a high level of individual mastery.
You covered a lot of good points in this.
BlackWolf18C They also took drugs to make them full of adrenaline making them feel less pain increase reaction speed and strength
@alex woods This is a common misconception. I don't know if you're joking, but if you're not, I will elaborate. The little evidence we do have of berserkrs being wild battlefield champions is in the sagas, where other hyperboles and miracles happen, which makes its credibility on historical subjects questionable at best. It's most likely that these people titled "berserkr" which meant "bear skin" or something along those lines were more like duelists or hired muscle. The myths of them biting their shields and eating hallucinogenic mushrooms and going into battle killing people all around them is really just awesome fantasy.
Well, there is historical record of them biting their shields, and then taunting, then biting again. It wasn't cause they were crazy, it was cause they wanted to look crazy. Berserkr means bear shirted not bear skin, and they were likely honored fighters and duelists, not some half naked duelist or brute for coin.
Patrick yes and no. There are lots of reports in Icelandic literature of beserkers being in a trance like state before and during battle. altho your correct that is no evidence of them taking mushrooms, there is evidence of siberian tribes taking them, but they live miles away altho they are on the same latitude. There is evidence that Vikings used henbane however, which is a known hallucinogenic. Can't say it was 100% used in battle but is was certainly used in rituals. More than a few seer/seeres graves n sited have been found with stocks of henbane or henbane seeds.
It's not a huge leap to jump to that berskers perhaps did use some drugs and/or meditation (of whatever form) to enter a war like trance. Many battle cultures have done, from Siberia to Africa.
But your also right to point out they weren't mad dogs they were very very skilled like those boxers who favour low hands to high guard so they can use their reflexes.. at times they can seem unhittable too
with enough practice you can dodge or parry pretty much any blow. source: was bullied, constantly attacked from behind, had shit thrown at me and did 3 years of taekwondo. i can dodge objects thrown at the back of my head and most punches.
thats why there were alot of spears used in battles. effective, easy to produce and use.
kein ding yo bot.de Yeah.. Spears are really great if you use them in formation. Battleformations always beat unorganised knights or Warriors trained in martial arts.
That's why I hate people who think they would have a chance on a ancient battlefield because they are trained in hema, learned kenjutsu or can do some kind of shaolin kempo kungfu.
ZIRKEL MAGISTER RAVING I know right? Numbers always win. You just need enough soldiers.
or significaly better technology/formation.
laundered silvrr go look up metatron's video on Hannibal, the Romans had numbers and that didn't make a difference
Not necessarily, macedonian spears (ok actually pikes) required extensive training to use.
Cf. th-cam.com/video/juH-ckrN-cQ/w-d-xo.html at 5:45
2:35 EXACTLY.
The relation I like to draw is to our modern soldiers. A navy seal or spetznaz or british SAS or even swat team in a combat scenario doesn't resort to flailing his gun side to side spray and pray style. Even non combat scenarios with well-trained individuals like the Apollo disaster that a movie was made out of are quite tame. The REAL thing that training gives these people is the ability to be *CALM UNDER HIGH STRESS SITUATIONS* . If you listen to the Apollo 13 disaster (the real life version) it was super calm and tame. They never freaked out at all, and they were insanely in control of their stress. Military people are the same way (the well trained ones), and thus I can imagine the well trained knights and samurai etc were exactly the same.
Being well trained doesn't mean you absolutely will or will not resort to "wild battle thrashing." It means that when everyone around you are flailing wildly, you are cold calm and calculated enough to perform some move you trained 50 times a day for to incapacitate or kill the attacker.
Another example, and I know it's not a historically accurate game by any means, is the Chivalry Medieval Warfare game. If a rank 50+ guy shows up on a server with a bunch of people rank 1-15, he has hundreds of hours more experience than they do. He utilizes parries, feints, spinning, dancing, rotationary attacks, and all the tiny details that make rank 50+ people in Chivalry terrifying to fight. Experience shows in combat. Hell, an experienced levy peasant who's fought many battles and survived might know some stuff the knight who trained a bunch but never fought a battle doesn't know.
Yes, there are plenty of examples to show the benefits of training, which prevents the kind of panicked instinctive reaction that untrained people have.
In anime this is called battle IQ
So sweet to hear Cara's concern after the coughing.
That pommel looks like it would FUCK someone up.
It would probably end someone rightly.
Apparently all Lusitanian boys trained with weapons, but only the best became warriors while the rest became craftsmen, merchants, and farmers. Still, everyone was trained to a decent degree. The basic warriors of the Lusitani were regarded as almost on par with the Romans, only lacking in armor and unit cohesion (they did use wedges effectively though).
The same is said about most of the British Celts who fought the Roman invasion in I guess it was the year 50. And as far as I know, the lower Samurai had the duty to train the man they brought to their Lord for the battle.
There is a huge disconnect from reality with a lot of people who try to argue things like: This style beats that style; This warrior is better than those warriors; Combat doesn't include this facet; etc etc.
Absolutes just don't happen in real life. Martial prowess plays an integral role in combat. Martial prowess is not just an individual characteristic though, it also applies to every level of combat. The individual tactical, the team tactical, the higher organization strategy, the martial culture of an entire organization. It's steeped in this stuff. It becomes very complex, but isn't exercised in a complex way - it's exercised from moment to moment actions. It's exceptionally variable. Training is what decreases that variability - but you can never delete that variability. Martial training aims to provide yourself in the best environment possible to succeed in; that is to say, it's designed to give you the best ODDS of surviving and winning. But it can never give you the absolute 1:0 odds.
My advice is to drink a lot of water a couple of hours before you record. It hydrates to drink, but it takes time for the water to really work into your throat. My experience- choral singing.
I guess, he just swallowed saliva and it got in to wind pipes?
Not just water also warm up your voice works like a muscle. also learning how to use your air better for projecting your voicce can reduce the strain on it over a period of time by a rediculous amount. also a choral singer and stage performer.
vodka is better, mother russia cant be wrong
Taking advice from the Hobbit when Benedict Cumberbatch was voicing Smaug -- he used honey as a lubricant.
Bryan makes a good point. Swallowing water doesn't wet your vocal folds. Getting water onto your vocal folds is called choking, and getting water past them is called drowning.
The water has to work its way through your digestive system and then bloodstream. The only immediate benefit water has is comfort.
I think people underestimate how effective muscle memory can be. Intense drilling was used to deeply ingrain proper techniques into soldiers to the point that it was almost automatic, like turning a light switch on or off when entering/exiting a room. This way, they could easily keep a somewhat proper technique even when terrified, tired, fatigued, and undernourished. Garden-variety conscripts, however, might not have received the same level of training as professional soldiers, so they might be more prone to throwing technique out the window in the heat of battle.
Aldrick Fon Dracul Yep muscle memory is super important in all kinds of stressful activities. I played American football for 10 years and without muscle memory you would be unable to run plays. You needed it in order to have your mind be able figure out higher tactics while still hitting the opponent.
In Game of Thrones terms:
You've got Jamie Lanister and you've got The Hound.
Professional Soldier and big, immovable object.
Both are effective.
Both existed historically.
Both will kill you.
The hound was still a trained soldier.
The whole point of any training, is to help keep your cool as much as possible when shit goes sideways, and to be able to do the thing that need doing without really thinking about it.
It doesn't matter if it's fire fighting drills, or abandon ship drills, hockey drills, or combat drills. It's to give you a solid footing in what's important. the basics.
I'm betting anyone making the critics is a couch commander. Speaking of which, I should be canoeing, and i'm wasting the day here... lol
can confirm. got into a fight with my back to a wall dodged a punch and the guy broke his hand.
environmental awareness is handy as fuck.
Let's just put the discussion to the for now, cause damnit Cara's voice when she checked up on you was the sweetest, most heartwarming thing I've seen on this channel.
The Roman Legions in particular used basic formation and extensive drills to train even farmers into proper soldiers.
When the training is done properly and taken to diligently the "fancy fighting" becomes normal to that person. And in absence of complete panic typically stress will make someone reaort to their basic forms that have been drilled into muscle memory.
In Anglo-Saxon poetry and other accounts of the time we have plenty of descriptions of battles and the discipline of warriors holding position, fighting in the shield wall, etc.. The lowest class of soldier in the fyrd was still expected to be able to fight effectively, they were all still churls (freemen) who could make time to train, not thralls (slaves) who were banned from possessing weapons and were not expected to fight.
The sheer act of repetitive training will produce muscle memory and the automatic pilot that the body goes into under stress will lean towards trained responses rather than the panicked flailing of the untrained.
History tells us that training ways makes its mark on the batt field.
Strength doesn't matter, it's all about how fast you are in unscrewing pommels
I love watching the light off the finish of that sword while you're talking.
Even minor amounts of training can be a huge advantage. I had a job that forced me into numerous physical altercations. Before I became a martial artist I relyed on my strength and toughness. Once I became somewhat proficient fighting unknowledgable people because almost silly it was so easy
WColdblooded357W Were you law enforcement, or some sort of private security?
WColdblooded357W Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. I get the sense that most of these people have never had any training or never have been in any fights.
Talking about technique and brute fighting while holding the "Berserkr", i don't know if that was intentional but it was an awesome detail
Quoth the Lindy: "BERSERKER!"
Your lady sounded really worried. These bits of humanity are really precious.
What I remember from college regarding Greek phalanx: Everybody equipped with shield on left arm and spear on right arm. When the two lines charge each other each line drifts slightly to the right, as every man want's to maintain the shield coverage on his right. When the lines contact there is an overlap on each right end. The move is to wheel the overlapped end 90 degrees and attack the enemy line from the flank. Most Greek hoplites are farmers who are rich enough to afford the armor. But they don't practice in peacetime. One city has a slave population that does all the farming and the adult males can be full time soldiers. That's the Spartans. And their skill in executing the 90 degree turn is what wins them battles. That is until another city, I think Thebes, figures out a way to beat them by concentrating the attack on one spot in the Spartan line. They free the Helots, the Spartan slaves, and Sparta is never the dominant Hellenic city again.
Martial arts are beautiful to train in. Being trained in itf taekwondo being trained in it since i was 5. I cant attest in a fight muscle memory does take over at some point. Muscle memory just means the basics, because the basics wins a fight.
"Martial Arts arent Martial Arts." I assume you mean that ma as is practiced today is of little practical purpose in actual combat. In age of drone atrikes, full automatic rifles and IEDs that is true. Ma main purpose in my opinion is to maintain the high level of physical strength and mental focus to survive in the intense stress of war. That said I freely admit I am talking out of my ass.
No, Tae Kwon Do was turned into a sport same with other styles but you use it on the street against someone and you have a higher chance of winning the fight.
German has a nice thing for this:
"Kampfkunst" vs "Kampfsport" - the former is about actual "kämpfen" aka fighting, the later as the name implies is practiced as a sport.
If you look at Martial arts tournaments you can say that basically half of them are just for show - in a real fight they would still lose against hooligans despite training for years.
martial arts were invented for people to survive - there are no taboos there - if you win you win and that's it.
As another person who trained in taekwondo, it really depends on the instructor. I trained under two different masters and my last instructor actually did a lot of sparing, did a lot of basic drills, and even basic level of boxing and ground work. I agree that people entering tournaments are training for sport, but there are instructors who can teach you self defence. My master was also a mma fighter so that could be why he did that.
Rigoberto Escobar if ur talking out of ur ass shut it. Martial arts even now even more relevant today than ever. Close quarters combat, is close and when something knocks the pistol/rifle out of ur hand and ur fighting an enemy who's up close trying to kill u. If u don't know how to disarm an opponent or even do the simpliest of punches. You will die.
Strength and technique. It seems to my laymen eyes that a wide enough disparity between either one could overcome the other.
Great video, I think one about muscle memory and how it's stored in the nervous system, and not the brain, and it's effects in combat would be a good idea.
Often a trained fighter has a harder time doing the "Wrong thing"
as movements are now reflex.
A demonstration of an untrained, aggressive brute against a trained HEMA student would I think be a great way to show this in the format you have, and you would likely have fun shooting that video.
All love Brother Skall!
Great video! This is actually something I’ve wondered about for a long time.
I think I remember one of the instructors at Blood and Iron, in a video, demonstrated that because he was so much stronger than his opponent, he would have gotten away with some form of poor technique in the moment.
I like to think that largely that's what would have happened in the life or death situations in the middle of any large battle
Emilio Singh but that's only if they were stronger than their opponent. Sure, maybe an elite top tier warrior going up against the cannon fodder could do that, but once they found another warrior they would both probably have the same training, discipline, and strengths, meaning that they couldn't get sloppy or they'd die.
Certainly not. But I'd imagine that if anyone fighting for any amount of intensity will be better at the start than at the end. Towards the end of any serious fighting engagement, it seems as if someone might be more likely through tiredness to fall to bad habits.
Still interesting to think about
Strength is a large factor, technique is more consistent, but strength can save you when your technique fails, that is why warriors condition their bodies instead of only practicing forms.
And technique can help you defeat a more powerful by less skilled opponent.
My sensei says, the first strike is the most important, and you aim to end a fight in 3 seconds, because the longer a fight goes on, the more luck becomes a factor.
Thank you for the great content love learning about the historical fighting techniques
this idea that technique wnt out the window and everyone just ended up wildly thrashing can largly be defeated by comparing to a modern analogue
in modern combat, do all soldiers just end up spraying and praying? or do they still keep calm, remember how to aim and fire properly even when underfire themselves?
cos thats basicaly the same situation just with a different weapon
It depends on the individual and their experience
When suprised or pushed from sides, even best would spray and pray
Chri AAtor that’s not true look at history and you will see that’s actually the opposite their instincts kick in usually and they actually perform at a higher level
Buy A Halberd!
...and Gang up with hundreds of other Halberd wielding dudes. Gg
yes
Poleaxe.
No re
But a sword has a pommel
Training makes muscle memory. You nailed it right away.
10:59 The way Cara said that melted my heart :(
The best way to win a fight is to calm. Calm under the storm.
I don't always agree with Skallagrim, this time i do, but what i want to point out is how much i appreciate the umility of this guy who's always gentle and humble while sharing his knowledge and experience with others, without any sort of arrogance in it. he have my admiration for that.
P.S. sorry for my bad english, it's a lot of time i dont have occasions to practice it.
Super interesting video! The orange light that was reflecting off of the sword was really distracting.
Were most martial arts used on the battlefield? Probably not. Was martial skill used on the battlefield? Absolutely. Was "brute forcing" always your default method of combat? Only until the guy with with better martial skills came along and ended you rightly.
Let me put this way who would you bet money on in a no rules, no holds barred, hand to hand fight: a strongman with no fighting experience or a veteran army soldier who's done two tours of duties and is well-veresed in CQC? The strongman might look impressive and he might swing a mean punch, but my bet would still be on the veteran soldier coming out on top. And I can see that applying just as much to medieval close quarters combat as I could to modern hand to hand combat.
Sinapth
Basically Mayweather vs McGregor.
If I had to choose between a young, strong man in their prime whose never been in a fight and an old, way past their prime martial artist who has studied the art their entire life, I'd choose the martial artist.
The point isn't that speed and strength aren't valuable or that they don't kind of come with the territory of training.... it's that they are being treated as having MUCH higher value than training.
madhatten00 not even close, wtf
Eluem yep
Kamekaizen it all comes down to the ratio of strength and size vs skill and experience. If you're only slightly more skilled than ur opponent but they're significantly stronger and larger then they'll win and vice versa
10:58 the way she asked sounded so sweet ^^
Practicing enough to commit actions to muscle memory is quite an amazing thing. I've done a great deal of training in performance motorcycle riding. The 'natural' reactions of an untrained rider are generally the exact opposite of what you want to do in a panic situation. When you've trained your responses you end up automatically taking the right action, instead of the untrained instinctive action. In effect the right thing becomes YOUR instinctive response.
Thanks for the video! Sure we don't know exactly how soldiers fought on battlefields, but training in any martial art enough develops skills that become automatic. You don't think about what to do, you simply act.
That "You're okay?" from Cara at 10:57 was the most cute thing I've heard in my week.
Awwww that's adorable that she came to check on you!
Anyways I agree with the majority comment which is basically (at least the way I read them) that we'll eventually have a better understanding of how battles were accurately fought
Maybe not hit for hit but... Y'know
I am learning weapons as part of martial arts training and it makes a massive difference. you learn katas of blocking and attack. when you spar it is messy but you find yourself automatically using the techniques rather than just doing what ever and getting hit.
Informative and balanced as always. It occurs that in ... ahem ... "ancient times", even among the "untrained" peasantry, invasion, raiding and violent disagreement would be more common. The will to violence overriding fear would be a factor and combat wouldn't be confined to recreational brawling and levy. Practicing fighting and actually fighting of course being different, at least psychologically even today?
Professional trained elite had the, equipment, expertise, practice, aptitude and experience; the whole package.
Finally! At first i feared that this was going to be more of a "dissing" to people like me that criticize your attitude at times! I like that you addressed this "issue" in the "medieval(and ancient) combat fan society". I've seen both extremist ideologies and i have to go with let's measure it like a ~30% professional/had experience to a ~70% played with a sword/ unprofessional when it came to large scale wars and battles.The numbers could change drastically depending on the period and the battle.Example a raiding viking party had more professionals or experienced men than the towns defending. My "conclusions" come from the problem of if you have too many people training extensively they are not working which it could be bad for the economy(plus a bored soldier with no money can easily turn to banditry). Of course the training helped at least to a physique level and to mental level that you wouldn't freeze or get shocked i believe. From my experience from friends that almost got mugged the training does help!One was a long time blackbelt taekwondo dude that downed 2 of the 4 people that tried to mug him before they could finish their sentences and the other is an incredibly buffed dude that actually got stabbed but adrenaline and physique overcame!
Wow tmi!
I would say that drills beats wild thrashing most of the time. you should never forget that stupid luck exists.
Exploatores drills are part of training...
Skall that is a gorgeous sword and the fuller is simple superb, what is the maker or that blade. Also your knowledge of ancient warfare if incredibly good, as a student of ancient history I really enjoy your personal opinions and input on weapons and your research into how combat functioned
I just love it how Cara rushes in and asks "Are you okay?!"
Always loved you Skall, always will 🖤💚🖤💚
The Berserker is such a nice...oh wait, what did you talk abaut? ^^
Sexy sword is sexy.
I think both of you are talking about different things
Altomisstec guy Nah... The Berserkr is the name of the sword Skall is holding...
I think one of the things fuelling this perception in modern times is that most martial arts people are likely to see without specifically digging into them are now meant almost strictly for sport and/or display. The Olympics, martial arts demonstrations or tournaments and other events like these can be a fantastic display of skill, but they all return to the rules required in a sport to keep the contest safe and fair, or to the need for the demo to look impressive. It's much more rare to see a true display of purely practical self-defence or martial skill applied, but when you do find them they are often terrifyingly direct, quick and effective. And the people who have trained in those practical methods absolutely will have an advantage over simple brute physical power.
The other point which can be easily overlooked is muscle memory. By drilling the proper techniques over and over, a trained fighter will by instinct move and hit with nearer to the proper technique, allowing them to hit harder and move more efficiently without thinking about it. It also generally means the trained fighter can react more quickly through automatic response.
Loved the bloopers at the end
I've practiced martial arts for 10 years, and he's totally right about beginners being trash at sparring because they're too tense. he'll even a couple years ago, during sparring, I would sometimes put down my guard and relax my shoulders for a few seconds if I had the space, because getting stiff was that much of an impairment.
I am training in Shotokan ( Traditional Karate). I am nothing special, but our sensei told us the following: "Always try to end a fight in one hit. Never prolong a fight. Exhaustion never helps you. If you finish your oponent in one strike, you will be ready for the next one. But, do remember this. If you are exhausted before a fight, always rely on skill to make the oponent as exhausted as you are and then go in for the "
I watch your videos a lot...but wasn't really feeling like it right now. But I'm not gonna lie...I clicked anyway because that sword is so fucking cool.
Just needed to look at it for a minute haha.
6:20 Having trained for years to be a modern soldier, I can tell you this is precisely when technique takes over. When you are cold, hungry, tired, afraid and realize someone is trying to take your life you fall back on your training. Training is powerful conditioning. It isn't perfect, but it is much better than not.
I know someone at my place of employment who has found out that I study in HEMA, and has since found any opportunity to ridicule me about it. Constantly calling me Sir Lancelot wannabe or other such names, insisting that what I do isn't a martial art (usually calling it "Fantasy fighting" and saying that my classmates and myself are just "running through the woods pretending to rescue princesses"), also saying that he could kick any of our arses but refuses to attend any classes, even just to watch, so we can show him what it is. Do you have any advice on how to educate someone like this?
Andrew Millett What your describing is a bully. Bullies are insecure people who find pleasure in belittling those who they think they can get away with that behaviour. You have have several choices going forward. Number one, you can report this to a superior and have them do something about it. Personally I would not do this, it only serves to spur a bully onward. Number two, you can talk to the person in question and try to resolve the issue. Number three, you can also ignore the bully. Doing this you have to totally ignore any comment the bully makes and show no emotion to the behavior. This can be affective but not all the time. Number four, you can also resort to physical action. Basically tell them that if they cant keep the comments to themselves that you will put foot to ass. This can go wrong real fast if they are a better fighter. Usually I will let them instigate the violence, since it gives me the advantage of legal action. Use this option at your own peril
In closing you need to decide in a course of action, once you do do not stop untill the situation is resolved. You have every right to enjoy your life without someone giving you shit about it. Good luck ☺
Seems like he has no idea what the difference between LARP and HEMA is...
Nikolau's Fleet I don't believe that HEMA is so important that no one can talk shit about it, I was simply asking for advice on how to maybe educate him, as he believes that the ONLY fighting styles that can be called a martial art is Karate and other Asian variants. I have nothing against these styles, in fact I have studied some of them myself.
Well, if he's so interested in your art (even disparagingly) maybe play along a bit and see if he wants to come out. A trial class or two ought to change his mind.
Throw a pommel at him.
Strength is just an attribute just like speed, technique is what gives shape to your attributes and makes you a lethal warrior
Is there any section of HEMA for pitchforks/tridents? That would be interesting to see Skal try
im guessing there is because Romans had trident gladiators which im pretty sure hema covers the romans
000Bob000jones000
Main problem is more prongs, harder to dislodge. It's why people still used spears which were straight and smooth. Better to just use a Pike. But yeah farmers just grabbed whatever they had and gladiators used them though when it comes to gladiators u have to remember this was more for entertainment. It wasnt about having the most efficient or practical weapon.
Would gladiators have had a manual of arms? It seems like they were much more "just wing it" than soldiers were.
they would be trained in the weapon they used so probably
the unforgiven ones We have very little coverage of Roman Martial technique. We have some battle tactics, but not nearly enough to be called a cohesive martial art.
I have my doubts that wild flailing was a common panic reaction.
Every time I saw someone panicking I saw a very defensive behavior. So they weren't very effective but didn't put the others in danger to get hit by them.
(Dark Souls panic rolling was physically not an option.)😁
It's worth noting that in a duel or similar situation, game theory would suggest that it's in your interest to draw out the fight. This is especially so if you think you're the more experienced fighter. The longer the fight goes on the more likely your opponent will chicken out or make a mistake that will allow you to properly set up a more complex technique that takes your opponent out of the fight without putting yourself at risk. A more experienced fighter will make fewer mistakes than a less experienced one, so the longer the fight goes on, the further ahead you get.
On the other hand, as a less experienced fighter, you want to go in for a less fancy, higher-risk action to end the fight early.
In a context with multiple opponents, you fight in the second category. In this case, it is ideal do a technique that opens up an opponent and inflicts a strike really fast, even if it's not super flashy or lethal. You need to start taking opponents out of the fight quickly, since every enemy standing is another sharp point that might get rammed into your squishy bits the second you aren't looking.
So you always want to use technique, but you use it super differently depending on what you're doing.
i just love that : Are you okay!? reaction ^^
To answer this question fully, I think you'd need to look at different time periods and different styles individually. I'd expect some battles to be won almost entirely by planning and strategy at the highest level. I'd expect other other battles to be won or lost by skills at a more individual level. I"d expect other battles to be won or lost based on the physical attributes of the individual soldiers, but I suspect that endurance was more important than brute strength for most of them.
In the American Revolution, the battle of King's Mountain was fought between regular British troops on one side and a colonial militia on the other side. The militia gathered a week or so before the battle and marched over the mountains to face the British forces. There was no real training of the militia forces, so the British would have been the more skilled fighters by every measure of those days. The British commander also believed that his position on King's Mountain was nearly unassailable. When the colonial militia reached the mountain, they beat the British handily. The situation just wasn't one that favored the British strategies or skills.
While great technique can help a soldier last longer, I suspect that much of endurance was related to a soldier's individual physical traits. In some cases, endurance may have been the result of the army knowing how to keep the soldiers as fresh as possible on the march so that they would arrive at the battle in the best possible condition.
Do you wanna know why they let you repeat those martial arts moves over and over and over and over? It's so they could replace your scared, flailing, totally open, and ballistic reactions with reliable move sets that wouldn't get you killed so easily and make those your natural reactions . It's like a blunt sword. Yes they're the same in function (to attack someone with) but would you rather have said blunt sword or spend the time repetitively sharpening it so you can actually cut something?
Your also less likely to hit the person behind you the formation.
I assume that the best skill to have in a massive combat with many participants is situational awareness and thus not becoming overpowered by adrenaline, but keeping the senses sharp and by that utilizing what was learned in training. If you get tunnel vision from the adrenaline, you are done and so are your comrades beside you in the battle line.
One of the oldest things ive heard was that highly trained masters could lose to amateurs because the amateur would do some borderline crazy reckless dangerous maneuver that would catch the master off guard because they stopped expecting the sloppy technic. One time (and only one time) i (the noob) was sparring with my friend (much more practiced and studied than i), he kept winning (obliviously), until i sidestepped dropped to my knee and swung up at his thigh under his guard. Because he wasnt expecting it, it worked.
Jigen Ryu is a katana school of fencing designed for battlefields. Sasaki Kojiro was famed for his dueling style. His favorite technique was both respected and feared throughout feudal Japan. It was called the "Turning Swallow Cut" or Tsubame Gaeshi (燕返し, "Swallow Reversal / Return"), and was so named because it mimicked the motion of a swallow's tail during flight as observed at Kintaibashi Bridge in Iwakuni. This cut was reputedly so quick and precise that it could strike down a bird in mid-flight. There are no direct descriptions of the technique, but it was compared to two other techniques current at the time: the Ittō-ryū's Kinshi Cho Ohken and the Ganryū Kosetsu To; respectively the two involved fierce and swift cuts downward and then immediately upwards. Hence, the "Turning Swallow Cut" has been reconstructed as a technique involving striking downward from above and then instantly striking again in an upward motion from below. The strike's second phase could be from below toward the rear and then upward at an angle, like an eagle climbing again after swooping down on its prey. Sasaki created this technique around 1605.
Invest in some good alcohol based pastel lozenges, although they are hard to find nowadays(at least here in Saskatchewan) and overhydrate a half hour before, especially if you have been drinking caffine or eating allot of starch/sugar. Cheap humidifiers for the room before you tape might help too.
I would suggest looking at videos by roland warzecha. One he recently made is called the top priority in combat. It shows how humans in constant life or death situations will naturally try to fight in a different manner. Does this mean all? No but it gives a great perspective.
As a guy that does a lot of fighting, it is definitely beneficial to be skilled and in shape to use your weapons effectively. Being strong can be helpful, but only in the sense that finessing your weapon is way easier if moving your weapon around is a piece of cake because you can move your weapon easier than your opponent. I do have to say that "newbiefoo" is definitely a thing. Flailing around aggressively can definitely throw a fighter that is used to dealing with a set group of techniques makes it very hard.
A good analogue to skill in fighting is skill in tennis. At first, the balls go everywhere, which can actually be really helpful in winning a match against a good opponent, but you also miss the court a lot. As an intermediate, you always hit the ball straight and to similar places. You lose originality and you aren't thinking about the responses that your shots provoke your opponent to make. As an advanced tennis player, you hit the ball all over the place, but you never miss, and you are only using some of these positions intentionally to manipulate your opponent.
So what's best? Technique, conditioning, and strategy will always beat flailing around wildly with no organization or consideration for your choice in actions. That's why there is always a difference on the fighting field between fighting groups who use tactics, techniques, and are conditioned for battle and groups who don't think about their fighting strategy.
An example from history: Leonidis at thermopalie (forget my typos). The Spartans were better trained, brutally conditioned, used strategy, and had excellent battlefield tactics. They ultimately lost the battle of course, but they held much longer than expected and picked off an incredible number of opposition.
A counter example would be how Romans lost several battles in northern early Europe as those armies headed south to sack Rome, but I would argue that they were ill prepared for the difference in fighting style and for an attack each time those battles were lost. Numbers also make a significant difference in some of those examples.
Skall, my question to you is this. If I gave an angry drunken man your size and same fitness level a longsword, are you confident you could come out on top? If yes, then you are truly a master. However for people who give martial arts a stab, but give up before mastering it, this is not the case. One of my favorite anecdotes in HEMA comes from George Silver, talking about the various times of fighting. Time of hand, time of foot time of feet. The one time that is not set in stone is time of mind. The more you train, the faster your time of mind. However, time of mind does not come into play when flailing! For this reason you can flail very fast. If you have learned the martial art but haven't practiced enough, your time of mind is too slow to face a flailer!!! They aren't using technique, and they have opening and gaps, but you simply aren't fast enough to exploit those gaps, BECAUSE YOU NEED TIME TO THINK AND REACT. As a result you either get confused and get hit, or start flailing yourself and double. The solution is practice! once you think you've mastered the techniques, face someone who is very doubly and flails a lot. If you are fast enough to beat them with style, then and only then can you say you have mastered the art.
Would that "angry drunken man" flail though? I think he would try to cleave through his opponent with one mighty blow, and get beheaded by the "colpo di vilano" technique.
I used to do some bar work many years ago. Friday or Saturday nights were always fun. I made a point of staying sober (at least while we were open to the public); it's amazing how many very large drunk guys I've thrown out a pub and I'm talking brawlers not just a dumb punk.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I'm some great martial artist or anything, indeed precisely the opposite. My edge? Not being influenced by alcohol. It doesn't take much either, just a couple of pints is enough to ruin someone's coordination and ability.
Connor Minx decent points, but being able to use techniques on reflex doesn't require you to master them. you can drill a set of good foundational techniques, and basic strategy, have it on muscle memory, and still be nowhere near mastering a skill.
Personally. I think people nowadays given flailers too much credit because we no longer brawls with long blade weapons anymore and they are mostly talking about fist fight. Random flailing works much better in fist fight, but as soon as both sides are armed with blades, your flailer with wild swing will die to quick sword jabs most of the time. If the fighters have shields, the mad swings are even less effective because block and stab wins 9/10 times against storms of random wild swings of clubs or bades. There is a reason why Roman fought the way they are because Marian Reform military is initially aimed directly at countering numerically superior but poorly trained Barbarian tribes.
I think it's also George Silver who says that the best swordsman in Europe doesn't fear the second best swordsman in Europe; he fears the worst swordsman in Europe.
That said, you can easily(ish) tailor your fighting strategy to your opponent's skill level; you can expect a beginner to make lots of mistakes, so you should fight conservatively and keep yourself safe until they screw up and give you a clear opening. You don't want to do any high-risk moves, because beginners don't know what they're doing and often won't react rationally when threatened. So doing a kind of gambit that requires your opponent to react to your threat is a bad idea.
Against a more experienced fencer, you can't count on them making more mistakes than you, so you want to end the fight more quickly. You can expect a better fighter to prioritize defending himself against any realistic threat you establish, so you can predict how they will react to a greater extent and use this to set up quicker hits.
When I am think about bigger battles, I think the best comparison are modern riot polices. Okay, they are not supposed to kill but they use a lot of tactics used in those periods. The their equipment is also similar with armor, riot shield, and stick. And you get see how they advance as groups into the situation to reduce casualties. So the combination of tactics and training helps here and I think that it not so far off from the way warriors would have thought.
Skallagrim well stated as usual.
Another thing that would contribute to pre-battle fatigue: illness. IIRC, the US Civil War was the first war where combat fatalities outnumbered deaths by illness amongst the troops. Something about putting a large group of people together in miserable conditions, with high stress and low sanitation.
Something that you hint at but I don't think you said clearly enough is that most of the techniques taught today are dueling techniques (I think) where you would be confined to a much more static location and less able to move around.
I do remember reading that during the later wars between Scotland and England, the English started training their soldiers to stab not at the Scot charging him, but at the one charging the guy next to him.
"It is not the man who practices a hundred strikes a day you should fear, but rather the one who practices a single strike a hundred ties a day": Musashi Miyamoto, Gorin No Sho. As a martial artist (and former soldier) I found that in MY case in actual combat my advanced techniques go out the window, while my basic strikes & kicks just "feel natural" and more appropriate in more situations. Still not sure if that's because of the amount of practice, or if that "naturalness" is why those techniques make up "the basics"
Guys I have a great idea for a collaboration video. It's a video about the two handed sword around the world. ThegnThrand would start to talk about the two handed sword in the antiquity, like the development of the dacian folk, for example, then Shadiversity would continue with the templar period, like in the maciejowski bible, and why did they start to us them again . Then skallagrim continued with the development of the longsword and the kriegmesser. Matt Easton continues with the usage of two handed sword after the middle age, like in the Renaissance and after, like the firangi and the khanda used in India against the English invaders. Then Metatron would talk about the two handed sword in China and Japan, like the dadao the katana, and so on and their usage until the WW2. Then they would conclude the video.
Dr. Fuck who want to participate can
This is a whole point of training: you're doing countless swings and thrusts every day so you could perfectly swing one time to save yourself on a battlefield. Prepared beats the unprepared (generally).
Martial arts where developed so weak or not so strong people could defend themselves from naturally strong oponents.
If you have 2 people who don't know how to fight but one of them is bigger and stronger, he'll always win, but, if the other guy has training he can effectively defend himself, even if the stronger guy has training too.
In a battle, regardless of the size and strenght, a trained army will win against an untrained one, even if the latter is filled with strong people.
In ancient China there was a time where weapons where forbidden, so people started to learn how to defend themselves with just their hands and every day tools.
Great videos man!
Great Video. Although, partly, the equipment and rations could be brought on those small chariots pulled by men. Also, for those that did not train officially, they would depend on their wits on the battlefield. And some instinct on how to use a weapon and stay away from danger, maybe.
Sword in each hand windmill style.
An effective soldier doesn't need a lot of "fancy techniques", but he does need to know a few effective techniques and execute those very well. Most warriors in history probably never mastered more than the basics. But with enough men who are solid on the basics it's enough to win battles.
I can attest to this. Normally, when I am in a battle raeg, I use muay thai roundhouse kicks. But after studying tai chi for even just a few months (and learning the drop stance), I found myself doing Sub-Zero slides instead.
What sword were you holding? It looks nice. I love your videos, keep up the good work!
How 'bout a video on fanning revolvers? We've not had a firearm vid in a while...
I'm imagining a templar knight performing round house kick...
Brute Strength is useful for maces, axes and such. Dexterity is used for blades, pikes, spears etc.
I think you’re totally right, Skall. It’s not really hard to understand if you parallel it to martial arts today. If someone that has practiced Krav Maga gets into a fight, they are probably going to be a lot less controlled than they would be while sparring, but that doesn’t mean that the training doesn’t help. Techniques do go out the window sometimes, but the ones that don’t keep you alive. That’s why you train more.
"Wild Battle Thrashing" Man...The Dark Ages just got a whole lot more Metal.
RE: Throat, sounds like a dehydrated throat, drink more, or else take some tea with a few spoonfuls of honey to lubricate the throat.
English archers tended to be yeomanry I believe, rather than levies. A yeoman was a free man with some possession, so they were definitely not low class, more like middle class.
Own, listen to that worried Cara, so cute!
Repetition with training any type of combative system you will always revert to the lessons learned. Through experience you gain the ability to relax and you see more openings. Combat though you have to be tough has always been a thinking mans game.
Has he ever done a video about the technique and/or practicallity of the duels and war scenes in Game oF Thrones? That would be very interesting; if he could go though the major scenes one by one.
Don't think he did, but there are videos on that particular subject made by other TH-camrs.
Yeah I think he did that one fight with that guy with two swords and other 5 people.
Just to clarafy I don't watch GoT.
He did this one th-cam.com/video/nCjYrTEioNI/w-d-xo.html.
are you ok Skall?that throat seemed serious.don't wanna lose my man on these kinda things.now that you mentioned it i noticed that in your recent videos your voice is raspier than before.have that throat checked out,love.
Someone is really happy with his single edged viking sword! Have you named it yet?
Here in England our full contact medieval combat doesn't use a point system but goes on untill 1 fighter is so tired or beaten that he yields, I have seen a lot of guys fight in hema as skilled fast fighters then turn into flailing nutcases when in the FCMC.
The first fight I saw one fighter landed a great stomach shot on his opponent who just walked through it and knocked him out with an epic headbutt.
With full plate combat using predominantly Tudor period armour strength and endurance is the most important factor due to how much the armour absorbs the impact but thats for fighting with a sword so If footmans hammers and axes were used it would be more realistic but far more dangerous.
You can say the same thing about more modern warfare. I remember documentary of soldiers in WWII describing the differences between training and actual combat. In boot camp they were trained to aim and fire but once on theater we're instructed by vets to shoot in the direction everyone else is shooting at because you don't have the luxury of aligning sights when the target is shooting back
It´s a diffrence between longrange engagements and close quarters. WWII was in the time when the still belived that point shooting made you a better soldier.
Curious question. Have you seen anything in hostorical texts which speaks about the mess which one would find on a battlefield. I mean I imagine that in a battle there would be a rather large number of corpses lying around and these might get in the way of those who are still fighting. Have you come across any writings which talk about the importance of making sure corpses aren't an issue?
Bob Leonheart sometimes in Hungary corpses was the issue for stopping the combat. They have to clean the field up before it smells like hell.
Bob Leonheart Probably would depend on the era no? If I am not mistaken casualties weren't actually that common. Most often the goal was to break the enemies morale and either make them flee or force them to surrender. Of course there is also the common practice of skirmishing
This reminds me General Qi Jiguang(1528-1588). In his book Jixiao Xinshu(New Treatise on Military Efficiency, 1560) he wrote: 開大陣，對大敵，比場中較藝、擒捕小賊不同。堂堂之陣，千百人列隊而前，勇者不得先，怯者不得後；叢槍戳來，叢槍戳去，亂刀砍來，亂殺還他，只是一齊擁進，轉手皆難，焉能容得左右動跳？一人回頭，大眾同疑；一人轉移寸步，大眾亦要奪心，焉能容得或進或退？平日十分武藝，臨時如用得五分出，亦可成功；用得八分，天下無敵；未有臨陣用盡平日十分本事，而能從容活潑者也。 Sorry that I don't know how to translate it well into English.
Deploying a large army against a large group of enemies is nothing like fighting in arenas or dealing with small groups of bandits. In a disciplined and orderly army, thousands of people stay in formations and march forward together. Those who are brave are not allowed to go first, those who are cowardly are not allowed to stay behind. If your enemies thrust you with a jungle of pikes, thrust them back with a jungle of pikes. If they slash you with numerous swords, answer that with slashes of numerous swords. People crowd in together and how can one moves freely when it is difficult for him even to turn around?
If one man looks back, the whole army will be worrying. If one man retreats, the whole army will be in fear. How can one move around in that situation?
I think we can basically say:
1. High-Level-Soldier (like Knights & stuff): good skill, ok to great endurance/strenght
2. "official" Soldiers (spear soldier nr. 184 for example): ok to great skill, good endurance, moderate to great strenght.
3. peasants (cannon fodder): wild flailing while having good endurance and strenght due to hard farmwork.
I know thats VERY rough outline but I think its more or less fitting.
Something else for all of you who can't be bothered to read books and think the movie 300 is a primary source; there were very few pitched battles in real life, even in the Hundred Years War all the battles that happened can be counted on two hands. There were however lots and lots of sieges and most combat was done with missile weapons like crossbows and longbows.
Fantasy weapons rambling : What weapon would you pick to farm giant, small, armored or skinny monsters ?
I very reluctantly clicked the video because of the text in the thumbnail. Because I figured that you like many other martial artists would say technique would always triumph over brute force.