Darth Roach

Let's face it, most soldiers were grown men, of decent fitness. I personally believe that less trained troops can prevail against more trained troops depending on the circumstances - motivation, state of supply, overall confidence and things like sicknesses, etc. Training enhances one's combat ability, but it doesn't mean untrained men were incapable of fighting!

What are your opinions forum?

Kevinmeath

Didn't English/Welsh longbowmen have to train for upto 10 years before they were strong enough to use the weapon?

Then they had to practice each day by law?

Abracadabra123

I think training was wildly important even more so than now. Not so sound blunt but its pretty easy for one to point a gun and spray, and thats capable of killing many people. To use sophisticated bows and swords, and to be able to ride horses even, required much training.

AlpinLuke

In pre-modern age there were military corps which requires, anyway a heavy training. I can mention, as example, the medieval knights, but in general chivalry required a considerable training.

Furthermore, organized armies had particular units and formations which weren't suitable for "rookies" [the phalanx, the testudo ...]

G-Money

Really, it would depend on the settings (opponents, time period, etc.). For instance, if you are fighting with clubs, you obviously probably just need natural brute strength and quickness. However, as others brought up earlier, with a bowmen need to be trained more thoroughly. Skills such as accuracy and synchronized volleys would be harder to accomplish if the soldiers were greenhorns.

Another thing to consider is formations. Alexander the Great's dad, Philip, made his hay from sending highly trained phalanxes into battle. A disorganized band with mixed weapons would have no chance against them.

Brisieis

You think someone could easily use a sword, a bow or ride a horse with zero training?

Now I've heard it all....

AlpinLuke

In some environments the children grew learning to use a sword, on the other hand, some armies had not common swords which allowed different fighting techniques. The short Roman Gladio was easy to use as a "long knife", but actually there were special usages which were connected with the characteristics of that short blade.

Belloc

Certainly heavy cavalry and infantry required considerable training. Light infantry and cavalry maybe less so. Irregular forces were probably the least trained of all(and their effectiveness varied as a result).

infestør

i think training was even more important than today's standards. imagine archer cavalries. you shoot while the horse is moving! must have taken immense amount of practice.

irishcrusader95

"to take untrained men to war is to throw then away"- Confucious