What would special forces of the 1600s look like?

>>33238441
A little later, but look up Roger's Rangers. Basically that.

File: Hakkapeliita.jpg (119KB, 1017x1013px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1017x1013px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta

>>33238939
that looks like an ordinary light calvary unit

>>33238441
Heavily depends on period.

For example Alexander had "special" forces in form of "mountain infantry" that scaled up on some mount above a fortress, broke in and opened the gate.

On the other hand, he also had "special" forces in form of his bodyguards - the companions. Very heavily armoured cavalry(for the time), usually all veterans of Philip army later replaced by veterans of Alexander's campaigns.

>>33240113
>mount
mountain*

>>33238441
Hussars you fucking idiot

>>33238441
I'll give you the answer when you tell me what the SPAAGs of the Paleolithic era were.

File: 2-samurai-stormtrooper-archer-in-action[1].png (369KB, 422x602px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 422x602px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJotVk7nGk

>>33240067
>ordinary
Cavalry WAS the special forces back in the day. They received much more training and much better equipment than foot soldiers, and were often assigned the critically important tasks of flanking, raiding enemy supply camps, and chasing down routing enemies.

File: Achilles Myrmidons.jpg (209KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1024x768px

>>33238441
>>33238939
>>33240172

We're looking for an element that
>did unconventional work
>was highly trained
>had high mortality rate compared to regular army
>had a higher degree of freedom and individualism

These things would become less and less socially acceptable the further back in time you want to look.

The elements that would most closely fit the category would probably be penal military units, minus the "highly trained" of course

I don't think that better equipped should actually be in the criteria, because most of the 19th and 20th century SMUs were actually very poorly equipped

Maybe the Myrmidons roughly fit the criteria, but they are highly fictionalized.

>>33240177
There were nomadic cultures that had armies composed of only cavalry though. It doesn't make sense to compare cavalry to special forces because then those groups would be the equivalent of a special forces army?

>>33240277
That's an interesting response and when you breakdown the elements of SMUs like that, it makes sense.

Would ninjas fit this criteria? They did unconventional work, were highly trained, had a high mortality rate compared to other soldiers, and were autonomous...

File: cuirassiers.jpg (62KB, 544x650px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 544x650px

Cuirassiers

>>33240349
Well sure but the really depends on how much about ninjas in fictionalized. My estimation is quite a bit.

File: Tool-making-Stone-Age.jpg (158KB, 1103x708px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1103x708px

>>33240141
>Paleolithic

File: 9d6e4c16109ae8eb41945e0c2650aa75.jpg (55KB, 422x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 422x600px

I believe the Grenadier might answer OP's question.
Ripped from wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt and all that but..
"A grenadier (from French, derived from the word grenade) was originally a specialized soldier, first established as a distinct role in the mid-to-late 17th century, for the throwing of grenades and sometimes assault operations."
For the time period that sounds to me like some operator tier shit.

>>33238939
good tires, too

File: Landsknecht.jpg (294KB, 1525x1075px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1525x1075px

>>33240277

>>33240404

Almost all of it, really. The whole modern-day perception about samurai and ninja is based on the flawed assumption that there was and always has been an actual distinction between the two, with all samurai being stiffnecked, honor-obsessed and cruel nobles, and the ninja being sneaky peasants who fought back at them from the shadows with tricks that the samurai considered DISNOHORABU.

In reality back when "ninjas" (not that they were even called that back then) were the most active, during the Sengoku period, the samurai themselves were very different from what they became later, and did things that would today be considered fairly dishonorable and un-samurailike. All samurai used "covert tactics" to some extent (such as reconnaissance, sabotage, infiltration, etc.), with some samurai clans of certain regions becoming very proficent/specialized in them due to various circumstances (mainly geopolitical), thus setting the stage for the earliest form of the ninja myth to be born during the peaceful Edo period. Further confusing this were spies, typically merchants, monks and priests who moved around and kept their eyes and ears open for useful information, but typically had no cool martial arts skills to speak of. Add several hundred years of folk legends and popuar media mixing with eachother, and you get the ninja.

For a real-life example of a ninja, look at Hattori Hanzō. He was a samurai from Iga region, today famous as a "ninja province", and used tactics that could be considered special forces-like today.

>>33240349
A special forces army would be an apt comparison if you look at how the Mongols fought and how successful they were.

>>33240546
Why they sorte of didn't Wear Full player Armour anymore? Is That because of the firearms?

>>33241102
partially, but also full plate was /i s fucking expensive.

>>33241067
special forces are the exact opposite of the mongol horde

>>33241102
Less melee combat, emphasis on firearms.

Why bother with a full suit of plate when some illiterate, grinning shit eating peasant can put you down with a literal tube on some wood

The big mistake for pre modern comparisons of 'special forces' is to assume a high esprit de corps and elite performance in set piece battles means they were special forces. We don't use special forces today in attrition slogfests, so 'muh spartan' or 'muh praetorians' or 'muh templars' is not an accurate comparison when in role and function they more resemble tanks or mechanized infantry though perhaps to the more prestigious degree - the Baath Republican guard rather than the rank and file Iraqi Tanks, for instance.

For the Roman period from the first century AD to the fall the 'special forces' would be your Auxilia. In Tacitus they are the ones, along with "gladiators" who ford a river lightly equipped to ambush an enemy, who scout ahead, who raid and perform special operations functions. Same thing with Marcellinus' work (4th century) and Vegetius (5th) - while the Legio Comitatenses and various border guard units are not so rigidly trained as engineer-heavy infantry like the legions of old it's the Auxilia Palatina and other half-Auxilia corps who are trained in a myriad of functions and adept at fighting variously in heavy light or no armor, on the battle line as well as in raids or amphibious operations, counter-raid pursuit and so forth.

The akritai and various predecessors for the Byzantines in Eastern Anatolia would assume a 'special forces' function - not the heavy trained cavalry or infantry of the state.

For classical antiquity some half-naked peltast or similar folk would have a closer comparison to a special forces than a Spartan. Though I do not think the heavy arms entirely preclude being rather special forces - I think Brasidas the Spartan kind of did shit similar to it up in Thrace but I may be mistaken and it was just good tactical thinking.

>>33240172
>Samurai
>Not using a yumi

I fucking hate weebs, man.

"Special forces" is mostly a modern world "we don't want to fight real wars so we just send a group of guys to commit warcrimes secretly on our behalf" meme. It's a tool for small wars.

>>33241972
What are you, like 14 or something?

>>33240277
>>did unconventional work
>>was highly trained
>>had high mortality rate compared to regular army
>>had a higher degree of freedom and individualism
Spies and saboteurs.

Sorry, but without the means for a single individual to kill many others from great distances, "unconventional warfare" isn't possible. There was no capacity for LRR without advanced optics and radios, that's why it was invented in the 40's.

File: 1470593505251.jpg (223KB, 599x600px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 599x600px

>>33238441
>>33238447
This.

>>33241172
not exactly. the mongol horde was the premier military of its time. they were incredibly well organized, had military engineers embedded in their army, and had military doctors.

File: Assault grenadier.jpg (194KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 500x346px

>>33240520
Grenadiers were elite troops, though they didn't operate independently like Special Forces. But yeah, they look Operator as fuck.

>>33246428
did grenadiers really have a foregrip on their musket? or did this artist take some artistic liberties

>>33247677

more like that's a stick they'd set into the ground and rest the musket on - kinda like a primitive monopod.

>>33240277
>>33238441
if you go further back to the crusader era, you have the Ismailis

>>33247907
that's interesting and it makes sense

File: $_58[1].jpg (87KB, 422x640px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 422x640px

>>33246428
>ywn go room cleaning with your flintlock, feathered hat and curly mustache.
What a shitty world.

>>33240277
How about something like the french muskeeters?

>>did unconventional work
Dumas taught me they did secret missions to England.

>>was highly trained
Nobles only, fought as infantry, dragoons, and regular cavalry, and was trained in the use of the musket instead of the simpler arquebuse.

>>had high mortality rate compared to regular army
Promotion to more comfy and prestigious units was done by doing well in battle, so they were very aggressive.

>>had a higher degree of freedom and individualism
You had to buy your own gear and attendants, and french noblemen are as individualistic as one can get.

>>33248260
>>33247907
Muskets began replacing harquebuses in the final third of the sixteenth century. However, the change-over was slow. Harquebuses were relatively light weapons, although their effectiveness was limited by their small calibre. Muskets provided the greatest possible penetration, but their large calibre made them too heavy. Around 1590, muskets weighed about 7.5 kg and fired balls about 21.7 mm in diameter. In order to aim them, the barrel, where most of the weight lay, had to be supported by a kind of forked rod, called fourquine, which was a major inconvenience.

The Dutch succeeded in somewhat lightening these miniature cannons. Around 1600, their muskets supported by forks weighed 6 to 6.5 kg and fired balls about 18.5 mm in diameter. Muskets continued to improve, benefiting from technical progress made in the production of barrels. The army of King Gustav Adolf I of Sweden, considered the most innovative in the first third of the seventeenth century, was the first to adopt new, lighter weapons. A chronicler of 1632 reported having seen a company of Swedish soldiers, and among them were "musketeers armed with the new, very light muskets without forks." This progress was made possible mostly by modifications to the wooden butt and the barrel. However, the reduction in weight came at the cost of a reduced calibre, and the balls were henceforth only 16 mm in diameter. Finally, around 1650, improvements to musket design produced a weapon weighing only about 4.5 to 5 kg and no longer requiring forks.

>>33238441
Silver Band, Spartans. I can't really think of anything else. Standard units that became highly distinguished and honored are another matter, though.

>>33248411
>room clearing with a 6 foot musket

>>33248534
>not wanting to wield a rifle that got massive stopping power and doubles as a club and smoke grenade
I wouldn't want to be near you in the next peasant revolt, my good sir.

File: SirArthurHaselrig.jpg (52KB, 398x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 398x500px

>>33238441
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_lobsters

>>33238441
so we've determined ITT that this did not actually exist.
however, my question to the thread:
how would you form medieval special forces?
go back as far as you want, but you cannot go more modern that 1699.
have fun.

>>33248683
I don't think special operations would be possible then or if it did, it would be something similar to being a ninja?

Even then, ninjas would be limited to a small group of individuals due to the communication problems.

If I were to create a medieval special forces group, it would be a light calvary force that creates false flag events and takes on the colors of our enemies. They would raid villages that are in support of our allies and kill their supposed allies.

That or an undercover poison group. They would take on the appearance of a civilian, go to areas of interest, poison the water or burn the crops, and try to poison the leadership of the opposition.

>>33248683
>so we've determined ITT that this did not actually exist.
we did no such thing.

>>33238441
Well they're not from the 1600s, but from the 1500s you have guys like John Dee and Ignatius of Loyola.

File: 10_Varangian_Guard-facts_Byzantine_9.jpg (117KB, 770x548px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 770x548px

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard
If we go even further back in time

>>33238939
Sweden also used a lot of Finnish irregulars.

What is the best way to strategically and tactically capitalize on the fact that your eastern domain is composed of forest dwelling mongolian barbarians? Use them to fight in forests and during night time. The latter being almost unheard of in the 17th century. Finnish irregulars were kind of early night stalkers in that regard.

>>33248884
didn't most armies eventually fight in forests and at night? that sounds like something that would be common

I am by no means an military expert, but imo only>>33241473 and>>33238447 have
described an example of special forces of old. The other units are large units of well equipped and trained man who formed the backbone of armies of old in pitched battles. I think a fitting comparison for them would be tanks or other mechanized units.

>>33250647
was Rogers rangers the creation of the army ranger?

Border Reivers

>>33253459
They were on the British side, but the Rangers consider them a spiritual ancestor. A slightly modified version of "Roger's Rules of Ranging" is taught at Ranger school. Even the original version is really shockingly modern in how it reads as a guide for asymmetric warfare.

>>33250647
That's because armies didn't have 'special forces' units they were organized to work as a team and people that proved valor were promoted to more important positions in the team, generally meaning less likely to get put in the front line or do a suicide mission. Less likely to lose a loyal and useful ally generally making them less likely to get killed was sort of a perk for the guy.
The romans practiced decimation so it's not likely they'd want to wipe out some of their 'special forces' just because they were standing in the 10th spot in formation that day.