Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 8827493" data-attributes="member: 9254">Yeah, it depends a lot.It is probably true that in total, some variant of peasant levies comprised the vast majority of troops in all battles. Which is not to say the same as saying most armies consisted of untrained peasants pressed into service.  After all, soldiers drafted by the US military were effectively a peasant levy, were they an undisciplined mob? (not at all in WWI or WWII but probably as close to one as the US ever got in Vietnam)Most armies had a core cadre of skilled warriors. Depending on the army they might be in the front,  hold the flanks, be in the rear to keep the levee from running, or intermixed. Training varied wildly. You can go back 3,000 years to find phalanxes, not of professional soldiers, but of part timers. Pretty sure the Sumerians, Greeks and Macedonians were capable of holding formation.  It took another couple of centuries before Romans established a standing professional army in Europe. And in the meantime, I don't think anyone would have said Hannibal's army was undisciplined without being laughed out of the room.Prior to the Spanish tercios, the Swiss peasants of the 15th century recreated the phalanx with pole-axes and crossbows to defeat cavalry, which is only possible if they can hold formation.Looking farther east the huns and Mongols were cavalry, but not random mobs of horsemen. Much like the Parthians before them, they worked in their own special formations designed to break up enemy armies through intimidating charges, blinding dust, or the appearance of a routed force in retreat, only to whirl around en masse to decimate pursuers. Arabs demonstrated similar tactics.Various armies across east Asia were  mixtures of peasant levy and cadre soldiers of different castes and yet some would stand strong against those Mongols and Huns. Looking south, the Zulu would hardly be considered a mob at any time in the 1800s nor industrialized. Shaka created a highly trained force, including changes in weaponry. The British underestimated the Zulu to their detriment.If you look through history books, any army that lasted more than 3 battles became disciplined and trained even if they didn't start that way. Otherwise they wouldn't have survived. Luck might get them one or two victories but by three the phrase "battle tested" applies.</blockquote>

Verification