2019-07-23, 12:06 AM (ISO 8601)
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII
The answer is that small-scale fighting wouldnít. Even in the modern day with less focus on The Great Captains and more on small unit combat, the likes of Skorzeny and Bagnold as small unit masters are not universally known. In the muscle powered era, strength of sinew and ferocity of character was worth more for small unit fame than tactical acumen. You get sagas about heroes and generals, but little in between until the modern day.
Part of this is because small unit combat is far less cerebral. Itís having an eye for terrain and intuitively knowing how it will play out. Itís understanding the craft of war at the spear-meets body level, and then being able to make quick decisions with little and often fuzzy information on how that is going to apply. Itís knowing your troops and trying to have a feel for theirs. Itís reading morale, and shock, and fatigue and trying to put it all together how that will work today.
Itís having the feel and knowledge about men, morale, weapons, and terrain to inform a decision; the quickness of mind to pick a decision while tired and nervous with no information formally presented, the quality of communication to tell people what they want to do in a way that hopefully wonít screw up what your decision actually was, having the mental courage to decide firmly what to do, and having the physical courage to see it done with yourself on the board.
Which is an entirely different skill set than that which can be recorded in sage books and broken into clean intellectual lines, or the skills to efficiently manage an organiation. And being good at one in no way means youíll be good at the others.