How much individual fighting prowess mattered in pre gunpowder

Not that much. You fought in huge formations. All you had to do was stay in formation. Keep your weapon and shield up. Poke and slash at anyone that got close.

If it turned into a rout. Then it was more a matter of cardio. You needed to retreat to the forest before their cavalry chopped you up.

individual fighting skill really didn't matter until after ww1. Where soldiers fought in loose formations.

>>1788336
The Swiss managed to win pretty much every single battle, normally highly outnumbered, mostly due to superior discipline and fighting prowess. They steamrolled most of Europe's major forces of the time for two centuries until guns and artillery beat them.

>>1788458

The swiss were top dogs for 70 years at a most. Not 200. Also, they fought as pikemen in formation so thus their individual fighting prowess mattered much less than their collective fighting prowess - as is always the case.

>>1788418

that's only for heavy infantry you retard

individual fighting prowess was highly important for cavalry, archers, skirmishers, slingers, horse archers, etc

fighting prowess is a meme all survivability in war boils down to how competent your officer is and blind luck

>>1788761
I dunno man, their halberdiers were the shit before they switched to pikes.

>>1788418
> Poke and slash at anyone that got close.
Can't you just arrow them to death, why would you even got close to this murder brick of people?

If modern combat is anything to go by, then the answer is shitloads. The difference in effectiveness between a properly trained grunt and an angry moron with a rifle is immense. If dipshits in the middle east don't know how to aim a rifle properly or don't grasp basic tactics then there probably are similar examples of poorly trained people going to to battle and being utterly useless in combat.
It also needs to be noted that not all pre-gunpowder combat was a big setpiece battle. Sometimes the terrain didn't allow for proper formations, or you were fighting in a fortified/built-up area, and so on. In these cases the chances of ending up in a skirmish or so were markedly greater. In these cases your individual skill would become more significant.

>>1788772
>archers

not at all how is relasing a rain of arrows in the general direction of the enemy before the main force closes in and does the fighting a feat of individual fighting prowess?

>>1788806
There was a thing called fucking armor.

>>1788899
Handling a proper warbow takes skill and strength. Crossbows were similar in that heavy duty ones had a complicated reloading process, requiring an expert to properly handle and maintain one.
In addition, it has to be noted that archers and crossbowmen participated in melee combat. English archers for example were required to own a sword and in many cases had a polearm close at hand for when the enemy got close. The archers and "billmen" oftentimes were the same people, why pull out all that manpower after the skirmish when they could grab a melee weapon and join in the fight?

>>1788761
They started wining battles at around 1300 and stopped winning around 1500, in between they where flawless. Also pikes where just part of their armies, the Halberdier component was more important.

>>1788761
What about the tercios?

Individual skill keeps an individual alive. Formation skill keeps a formation alive. If one person dies in a solid block one person dies. If one block in a formation dies the whole formation dies.

>>1789545
this this this
your ability to work in a team and keep your shit together is what really won a battle, a drilled militia phalanx will win against a gagglefuck of champion gladiators

File: alexandr.jpg (40KB, 400x260px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x260px

>>1789600
now imagine a well drilled phalanx, composed of Champion gladiators who are also your society's 'smartest' class. (Royal Agema). Alexander and his inner circle.

moral of the story, is if you can get phalanx's or cavalry brigades (so on and so forth) and teach them to be masters of their skill.............you can conquer the world

>>1788336
>How much individual fighting prowess mattered in pre gunpowder era?
The "pre gunpowder era" is hardly a single era. We're not talking about 200 years here.

I would assume you mean in conflicts of a military nature, seeing as how martial ability would be wholly important in individual combat between two individuals. But the beginnings of conflicts of a military nature are hard to pinpoint as well.

The first armed conflicts would have been bands of raiders encountering bands of people who didn't want to be raided. Of course this would have happened in different years for different locations. But to use Rome as the almighty historical example it is, this time would have been around the founding of the city and earlier.
Even according to Roman legend, the first people attracted to Rome were bands of rough men who were united under the leadership of Romulus in their pursuit of freedom and Sabine women. Probably also in the pursuit of their neighbor's livestock.

The conflicts around this time would have been very much about martial ability. Romulus is said to have been the first to perform an incredibly religious rite known as Spolia opima, where one commander slays the other commander in single combat, offers the kill to Jupiter, and takes the armor. It would have been common at the time for "armies" to line up and have champions step forward to face other champions in single combat. It would be to win individual glory and morale victories that would embolden the rest of the "army". Think David and Goliath.

It would become less important in formations, but the development of formations is, like everything else in history, a gradient. These "armies" (mobs) would have started bunching up for protection and for the direction of the senior or strongest fighter in the group. Formations got more advanced, people could rely on each other and the formation itself to do some of the work as time went on.

>>1788336
Fucking important. Romans placed great value on actual skill in combat, and roman formations are spaced-and armed-the way they are to allow men to use footwork and individual fighting skill to the best of their ability.

>>1788806
That was the Persian tactic and they got Rekt by the Greeks.

>>1788782
Nigger, you DO realize romans won battles with mediorce officers through better skill and equipment, right?

They literally had ONE tactic for several centuries.

>>1789849
Look up the silver shields. Alexanders veterans largely stayed together in the wars after his death, and they absolutely terrified-and shit all over-men young enough to be their grandsons.