Fighting multiple opponents in history

[@toska8664]

My favourite is a display of the effectiveness of the Quarterstaff by Richard Peeke; "Richard Peeke an English sailor whom was captured by the Spanish in the early 17th century. His Spanish captors decided to test his skill at arms to gauge what sort of resistance the Spaniards would expect to encounter during their intended invasion of England. Peeke fought first with rapier and dagger and bested a Spanish champion. Having their pride bruised, his captors asked how many Spaniard he would be willing to face at the same time. Peeke replied “any number under six” as long as he was armed with a weapon from his own country called a ‘Quarter-staffe’. The Spaniards fashioned him one by removing the head from another pole arm and Peeke was forced to fight three rapier men at once. Suffice to say he left one of his opponent’s dead and the other two seriously wounded. His captors being so impressed by his skill released him and gave him safe passage back to England. "

[@albertrayjonathan7094]

Of interest here is the bystander effect. Note that even on the battlefield, people don't want to get hurt and potentially killed, so they won't (unlike in the movies) simply charge onto an enemy formation. If they have other soldiers beside them, they'll think and expect the other guys to charge and risk themselves before charging in so that they're safer. Because everyone is thinking 'oh, he'll charge first, then I'll follow,' or 'oh, there are a lot of other people that can go and attack the enemy, so I don't have to,' and because most of those who do follow do not do so wholeheartedly, at any given formation, only a few of those potentially capable of engaging the enemy in battle actually are. This effect is actually worse in larger formations than in smaller ones, just like how the bystander effect is worse the more people there are around you instead of less. This means that a larger formation when engaging a smaller one might not actually outnumber the smaller formation in a way that the absolute difference in numbers suggest. Meaning that, for example, if a formation outnumbers another by 4:1, in reality only half will actually be willing to attack, so the real numerical difference is 2:1. Terrain constraints, communication difficulties, and just plain errors caused by the friction of warfare would also decrease the effects of numerical superiority.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

Which, according to many historical battles is totally true. Vetran troops, even in smaller numbers have been known to steamroll numerically superior forces. They have the training, the tactics and more importantly the will to use them.

[@MsDjessa]

8:19 Reminds me what Machiavelli said about Italians of his era in The Prince. That if an army of Italians face a foreign army they probably lose but if an Italian faces a foreigner in a duel, the Italian probably wins. Seems to reflect the martial culture of Italy at the time.

[@EmpiricalPragmatist]

As Fezzik says: "You use different moves when you're fighting groups, to when you're only fighting one". ;)

[@IncomitatusExcelsior]

Yeah, guys, in Latin "decimate" means to kill one in ten. In English it means "kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of" Language kind of changes over 2,000 years.

[@r.b.4611]

IncomitatusExcelsior Yeah

[@Ottuln]

Fighting in groups is a very different thing from dueling. I have seen a small group of people who are very used to fighting together destroy 5 times as many capable fighters that are fighting together for the first time. It is quite amazing to watch.

[@IkisDragonFist]

"...and they can DECIMATE a team of five people!" So, you mean, bring them down to 4.5 people...? ;P

[@crye1127]

+ikisdragonfist that word has two defintions

[@MiddleAgedMisfit]

+ikisdragonfist Such an underrated comment.

[@Abrazare]

Ikis DragonFist Correct! Decimating five people means you're bisecting one of them. Basic grammatical algebra of equivalencies. The more you knooowww....

[@benjaminholden7132]

No decimate means bring down to 0.5

[@tapioperala3010]

Great video, Matt! I really like the concept of fighting multiple opponents, melees, etc., because of the real-life aspect. I mean duels are just fine, but the real killing happens on the battlefields, and not all men are equal.

[@moreparrotsmoredereks2275]

My experience with multiple opponents is limited to sparring unarmed. The best strategy I've found is to move around constantly and force them to get in each other's way and kind of line up to get to you, so that you only really fight one at a time. Of course, this is only my experience and it would be very different than a real life fight with weapons, because obviously landing a few punches or kicks while sparring isn't going to take anyone out. Still, it seems like a good idea regardless of the situation. I've little weapons experience, but what you said about cutting rather than thrusting makes perfect sense to me, for a few reasons. 1. Cuts have a wider area in which they can strike, and can still hit someone if the original target moves out of the way. 2. Thrusts can more easily get stuck in an opponent, which obviously would be very bad when fighting multiple people 3. It's easier to change direction on cuts to get at someone at another angle.

[@demomanchaos]

When looking at the katana from a western stand point, I can see many of its traits are suited for its era where fighting multiple foes was not uncommon. The focus on sweeping draw cuts covers your from multiple angles and helps prevent your sword from being stuck in the foe (which goes along with the focus on using the last few inches to perform the cut). The length allows you use it in cramped spaces (and makes it easier to carry around). All the pieces add up and it explains to an extent why European swords that the Portuguese introduced didn't catch on. I'd still much rather have a large shield though.

[@SherlockHolmes000]

+demomanchaos The Katana is a glorified cutting sword made out of mediocre material. It does not matter what weapon you utilize, as long as you have the skill to make it work. I don't see how the length allows you to use it in cramped spaces, it is a very long bladed weapon, and it isn't even designed for thrusting...

[@demomanchaos]

Sherlock Holmes Long bladed? Since when is 27 inches long for a two handed blade? That's the same length as a naval cutlass. Meanwhile longswords are in the 40 inch range.

[@SherlockHolmes000]

demomanchaos Yes. Long. Swords. Thrusting is not effective with the Katana, it is a slashing weapon, yet you mean to suggest to me that the Katana is effective in close quarters? Have you ever tried to swing a two handed 25+ inch weapon in a hallway?

[@demomanchaos]

Sherlock Holmes Are you trying to say that a katana can't thrust at all? It isn't going to get through plate armor, but a longsword isn't either. A katana will get through almost anything a longsword can, and comparatively deep. The katana's point isn't the best design but they are quite rigid meaning a lot less power is spent flexing the blade and more is transferred into the target. So yes, thrusting with a katana is very effective against squishy humans. The katana was used during Japanese naval battles, and you don't exactly have a lot of room on a ship's deck. The katana's blade is the same length as a European cutlass (27 inches), which makes it quite a bit shorter than a European medieval arming sword (which were around 36 inches long). A katana is by no standard a lengthy bladed sword. I have tried swinging a katana in a hallway, just did it in fact. You can't do Hollywood -esque wide cuts nor horizontal ones very well. You can however do steep angled diagonal cuts as well as vertical ones quite well (particularly if you utilize pushing cuts). Perhaps you should give it a go.

[@SherlockHolmes000]

demomanchaos Have you ever seen a Japanese ship design? They had plenty of room on a ship's deck. Since when are you ever going to be thrusting against naked opponents? I also disagree, comparable to straight European swords, it is not effective at thrusting at all. The Katana to me is just a glorified two handed saber.

[@muktianandvidyashankar6966]

The longsword is more practical due to the continuous movement one can perform from one opponent to another .Slashing is the most practical .Thrusting is technical but less efficient if largely used on the battlefield .

[@raymondmorad6948]

In my karate days we used to practice sparring against 2 or three opponents. One key thing in this scenario is aggression.. You can't afford to hang back and fight defensively or you will simply be rushed and over whelmed. The key is to try and keep the person you attack in between you and the others so that they have a harder time getting at you with their own guy in the way. Not sure how much this is applicable here, but just my $.02. Nice insights on group fighting and looking out for your buddies to the sides.

[@JZBai]

As someone who has practiced kenjutsu and Chinese martial arts, it's interesting to note how fighting multiple opponents is something that according to you there isn't a lot of source material for in the historical treatises, but is front and center in a lot of the forms seen in East Asian martial arts. Many of the kenjutsu kata and taolu I've practiced are under the assumption of fighting multiple opponents and many of the "impractical" spins and "flashy" moves that people come to expect in Asian martial arts suddenly become useful in that context. Maybe that's part of the reason why a good number of Western martial artists can be a bit dismissive of Asian martial arts sometimes; both are teaching very different skills and are operating under very different contexts.

[@DanPFS]

It has a very strong dependence on the school. My biggest issue with my forays into Eastern martial arts is that sometimes they've simply forgotten why they are doing things, even if there were perfectly good reasons for it. Otherwise I do study Japanese arts (including some of the weapons) - there the biggest issue is false timing - and there are hints of fighting multiple combatants in some of the kata, but otherwise it's all one v one, which is not surprising as most of what has survived seems to be from the period where it was mostly used for dueling.

[@JanPospisilArt]

Most of the european treatises focus on duels and fighting one on one for a reason - their target audience. It only follows that fighting multiple opponents would've been taught by instructors in the army, or other positions where you'd need that kind of skill.

[@DanPFS]

JanPospisil42 I'm not a history buff but I don't know if I would completely agree with that. There are a lot of dueling treatises out there (I.33, all the Bolognese stuff, etc.), but there are also plenty of 'battlefield' treatises out there (Fiore, presumably the German stuff which also deals with armour, highland broadsword, etc.).

[@wcropp1]

Daniel Blay Purely from a weapon-design standpoint, the Bolognese-era side sword was not altogether that much different than a broadsword, and was still widely used in military settings. This is not to say, however, that the Bolognese treatises are teaching battlefield sword use. At this point in the chronology of fencing, many of the techniques are presumably still quite similar between dueling and the battlefield. This is especially true of judicial dueling, which used a larger variety of battlefield-oriented weapons and armor. The contextual difference, however, calls for different tactics. A true military treatise, even if limited to the individual combatant level as opposed to a more strategic/military science oriented text, would likely discuss fighting as part of a group, in formation, wearing some kind of armor (in earlier periods), on horseback in many instances, as well as the use of projectile weapons, etc. Nonetheless, though, before the advent of the rapier and its associated lunge/thrust-based linear footwork, cut-and-thrust fencing would have been perfectly usable in a melee. Even if the intent wasn't battlefield use, the amount of bleed over was considerable, hence partly why George Silver preferred a cut-and-thrust style of swordplay. The saber and broad/back sword continued this legacy, albeit in a slightly more dueling-specialized fashion.

[@JZBai]

One thing I'm noticing in the comments is that there seems to be an assumption that fighting multiple opponents usually means battlefield techniques. Who said that fighting multiple opponents was ONLY useful on the battlefield? Wouldn't learning how to fight multiple opponents be useful in a civilian self-defense context especially if your assailant brings buddies along to kill you? The reason I ask this is that a lot of iaijutsu kata seem focused on attacking multiple opponents, but the way they start often don't imply a battlefield context i.e. you start with your sword in the scabbard and are either sitting down or walking normally when the kata starts; that doesn't really suggest "battlefield" techniques to me :P . What I find strange is people seem to only be talking about two specific contexts for martial arts: either in the duel or on the battlefield. I don't think those are the ONLY contexts for martial arts. :\

[@minixx7240]

I play Chivalry which isnt a very realistic game but I am a bit surprised that the same groupfighting principles you mentioned actually applies to that game as well such as how you do not stab but keep swinging when fighting against multiple opponents and how you protect your buddies to protect yourself. It is true that dueling and groupfighting are pretty much different skill sets! The great duelists of that game arent necessarily good groupfighters either and vice versa. However the duelists often get all the glory :

[@matthiasguenther6576]

Nice. Good introduction. Looking forward to hear more about this important topic, which definitely does not have the coverage yet by the media it deserves. I would also consider to talk about the conquistadores who had been outnumbered to an insanely high degree. But nevertheless they were victorious almost all the time.

[@Dewderonomy]

This is so cool. I do rapier fencing and find myself struggling in 1-v-1 matches (like, I'm really bad lol), but in team fights and even 1-v-2 fights I seem to do better. That extra layer of involvement cannot be understated; it's something I took notice of, and it's cool to see historical accounts of similar situations

[@ukaszkos8233]

In MS 3227a there's also a bunch of tips regarding to fighting with multiple opponents: - Keeping opponents in front of you. - Stay in Iron Gate. - Whatever somebody strike or thrust, use 'absetzen' (set aside). - In binding use 'Pfobenzagel' (peacock tail, similar to circular parry in epee that ends with a thrust). - As feint you use "Wechselhau" (changing strike, form of 'Durchwechseln', changing-through). - Keeping pace (pressing) by series of strikes ('Krauthacke', herb hoe, striking upwards and down again). - Dealing with opponents in the end of the line. - Flee when it's too dangerous or you fight to long. "And run as fast as you can", "throw your sword across well behind over your head" to cover it and "leap sideways out of the way as soon as you think is he is near you". "Thus you strike him down as you wish".

[@satyajeet5732]

Hey Schola Namaste from India. Your videos are very informative. I love watching those. This video being about fighting with multiple opponents, reminds me of epic battle of ghodkhind now known as Pavankhind, between Maratha forces of Shivaji Maharaj Chatrapati and Siddhi Johar's forces. Bajiprabhu Deshpande the Maratha Sardar successfully defended the Siddhi, with 300 swordsmen against a huge army in many thousands. Bajiprabhu Deshpande lost his life in this battle but he set an example of fighting against multiple opponents. Thanks. Assuming that you already know about this battle. If not then please read about it. Thanks again.

[@enginnonidentifie]

Another good video as always! Though they are rare, I enjoy seeing mixed weapon encounters in treatises. Even rapier manuals offer mix-weapon encounter advice! (I can't remember the author at the moment, but a 17th century rapier manual even details how to fight an opponent armed with a gun!) I know you don't have unlimited time, but would it be possible for you to do a video about these mixed-weapon treatises? Or perhaps if any treatises dealt with non-European weapons? (I can only think of one or two that do). Thanks again for the videos!

[@lutherpatenge6313]

I imagine a lot of 1 vs. 2 or 3 scenarios come down to 'capsuling' (or at least that's what I've heard it called) or more simply, moving to make sure that there's always one opponent between you and the rest. This helps reduce the fight to a series of 1 on 1 encounters, which is not easy but at least gives you better odds. Sure, smart enemies will always move to outflank you, but you're life depends on not getting surrounded and overwhelmed.

[@ShantirelGalaerivel]

When you mentioned Indian martial arts I also thought of Wushu. Been practising the sports version (the one you see in movies, the flashy-dashy show, based on the real deal) for more than a year now and I can say that there's also a lot of circular motions in daoshu (sabre-play let's call it, or sabre art), including a circular block around your back.

[@ModernSwordsman]

In contrast to the Italian material, Figueiredo's montante manual features thrusts in several lessons where you're fighting multiple opponents. He doesn't discuss the virtues of the thrust in those situations but one maneouver is to ready a thrust towards an enemy in front of you and then give the thrust in the opposite direction while turning around. It might be a way to create space to continue the great sweeping cuts, it's hard to say for sure.

[@DamienZshadow]

Fascinating tip of the iceberg. I wish to definitely learn more on this subject so I look forward to future videos related to this. Thank you for your in depth description.

[@Heroesflorian]

nice video! 6:45 - "it will happen all the time that one group or one individual will be outnumbered by another group or... ahh ah ...of people" - quite understandable but funny :D

[@lukusridley]

These videos are very informative and excellently to the point. Keep doing them!

[@Oxnate]

Very much looking forward to learning more about this.

[@DanPFS]

We actually did a montante v multiple opponents demo recently - quite a lot of fun, albeit difficult. The issue with practicing it is that the person wielding the montante has to pull their blows so that they don't hammer you into the ground... makes it much easier to close on them.

[@JuanMonsalve]

indeed, this topic sees very little exploration. thanks and do more please!

[@ryanspodick4192]

Honestly when I fight multiple people, I find that situational awareness is key. Usually I focus more on positioning myself so I only have to deal with one person at a time, using the person I'm currently fighting as a shield to keep to others off of me. Keeping distances between me and the opponents I'm not engaging and not getting cornered is my usual strategy. I mostly use a sword and a strap shield so its easier to parry shots so I focus less on offensive weapon movement and more on defense. This usually only works when I have plenty of space to move. However, when I get caught in a crush of people, (this usually happens in linear style fights) Defense and technique go right out the window. I hack and slash and push and strike with my shield to create space for my self to maneuver. I usually don't settle down into a defensive mode of thinking until I have enough space to do so.

[@DiomedesTididax]

This channel is amazing.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

There is an even better way to fight multiple opponents. Unscrew your pommel... and you have heard that joke hundreds of times already, haven't you?

[@samahell29]

if I remember correctly, there is a good example of one man fighting multiple opponents in Japan : Myamoto Musashi, who wrote about that specific part in his book (the book of five rings). For that kind of fight, he specifically uses two weapons at the same time.

[@LaserTSV]

Thanks so much for this video!! It is so common to see 1 swordsman confidently taking on 3-6 opponents in movies. However, real world competitive fencing is always 1 on 1... Hence, I am skeptical about the one vs. many scenario. On a different topic, can spectators attend the 2014 Fight Camp? Please post the link.

[@wilhelmvonlaer5699]

You also call the tactics-part "situational awareness" ;)

[@paulpolito2001]

Colloquially (US English) also known as "Keeping ones' head on the swivel." & great advice

[@NirrumTheMad]

I'm told by a friend of mine who is working in part of a project to document chinese martial arts that Ba Gua Zhang was made for fighting groups of opponents, which is also why the weapons they use are very large Bagua Flying Dragon Sword

[@orangeiceice12]

Good point at minute seven. If you watch that Team MMA shit, its essentially whichever team fells the first opponent that wins, because it quickly snowballs after the first two-on-one.

[@jpf338]

awesome vido matt! exited about the fact that now you are exploring the "x vs x" fights in the fight camp :) great video

[@wiskadjak]

In his 2nd book Giganti recommends continuous mandritti & roversci in "the form of a wheel" against multiple opponents. He says to practice this movement 200 to 300 times a day in order to gain proficiency & stamina.

[@Arygo87]

Hey nice videos, i wanted to add a bit of extra information and maybe get you to talk about these in newer videos, it's about zoning, foot-work... as in side-steps, counter-attacks and catching your opponent on the wrong foot to throw them off balance. In a 1v1 if you throw your opponent off balance he usually retreats and re-engages, but in a group fight you at the very least create space.

[@runakovacs4759]

I've only experience fighting with quarterstaves, but I did learn a technique that was quite wide and circular in its motion in order to keep opponents at bay, followed up by thrusts and small jabs before returning to keeping distance.

[@VCBird6]

Neo? :P

[@mashfan2068]

I was wondering if you could do a video about heavy horsemen and their horses.

[@timothyheimbach3260]

On the city rather than thrust train of thought, they is a book series by diddley pipe called the Ramage series, it is about an officer in the British navy during the early 1800s. Any way in one of the books he says not to stab with the cutlass because it takes longer to get your blade out of your opponent.

[@ZaWyvern]

great vid. always have nice tips and insights.

[@53Redemption]

I also think that not being personally surrounded is a key factor to combating multiple opponents. Say 1 v 5. You are trying to hold off 2-3 people in your front. 2 people circle around you and surely will kill you. in the case of being so overly outnumbered, maneuverability is your best friend.

[@Matrinique]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS! I've always wondered if there is any popular action/historical movie that shows realistic fighting. I mean, even "covered in blood from head to toe" after a melee--don't see that happen very often, though I suspect it must.

[@carlcantrell4781]

In American street fighting in bad neighborhoods, you will almost always have to fight outnumbered because bullies don't pick fights they might lose so they prefer to gang up on individuals or smaller groups. Therefore you have to learn to fight outnumbered to survive and there are strategies and tactics for such fighting. The first thing is to understand the makeup of the group you are facing. They are not all equally good at fighting. The best fighter will be the leader in the middle at the front doing the talking with the second best fighter to his right and the third best fighter to his left. The rest are usually pretty lousy fighters and cowards who only feel brave in a group. If you take down the two or three best fighters pretty quickly, the rest tend to hear mommy calling and go running home to mommy, if you haven't already decked them. One strategy for this is to ask a question to distract their minds from the fighting to answering or hearing the answer to the question and then, with the first or second word out of the leader's mouth to answer the question, you surprise them by starting punching, starting with the leader and person to his right. This will usually buy you one to three seconds free fight time before they can get over the shock of the surprise attack and get their heads back in the fight, which, pending how good you are, can buy you plenty of time to deck most of them or all of them. It is one type of sucker punch. If you don't have the element of surprise, you create the element of surprise. I had a friend who decked six guys this way in just one fight before any of them could throw a blow. He was an excellent street fighter. Note, the only clean fight is the one you walk away from without a scratch on you. In street fighting, there is only one rule, survive. To win or survive such a fight, you have to immediately seize control of the fight and maintain control to level the playing field and you can do this in a number of ways. Napoleon said that war is chaos and the one who best controls the chaos wins the battle. Therefore, it is only logical that to control the chaos, you create the chaos, you control the chaos, you own the chaos, and you are the chaos. The most common strategy for fighting outnumbered is to control the fight so you don't have to fight more than one person at a time and there are a number of ways to achieve this. One strategy for fighting two or more people is the "hit and run" where you either faint hitting or actually hit the leader and IMMEDIATELY turn and sprint to string the group out so you don't have to fight more than one at a time. After they are strung out, you let one get right behind you close enough they won't have time to stop or put up their guard when you plant a foot, turn, and punch into them, quickly putting them down and, if done right, they won't get up and back into the fight. You might be able to put down as many as two or three people with your first such counter attack before turning to run again to stretch them back out for another such attack. As soon as they start to bunch up, you turn and run again. This works well because when you attack them at the start, they tend to plant their feet for the fight so that, when you turn to run, they are caught flat footed and you usually get a slight head start to string them out. Another strategy is to do what the military calls fighting a rear guard or a tactical retreat where you keep backing up to draw the most aggressive among them ahead of the others and then you maneuver left or right to put that person between you and the others so you only have to fight that one person at a time and then attack into that person to quickly put them out of the fight. Those are some of the basics, at least some of which you would use with weapons, especially with knives. There are other strategies and tactics such as blocking techniques. On the street, good guys fight outnumbered quite often with the better and smarter ones often winning. Fighting two or more people can be done but you have to be smart and a good fighter. If not both, then you will be in trouble. The most common rule on the street for fighting two or more people at one time is don't; always use tactics to make sure you never have to fight more than one at a time. You control the fight.

[@Dhomazhir]

Come to Pennsic, or any large SCA, war, and see small & large unit tactics abound. I was personally surprised at what carrying a "Big Scary Weapon" could do to decimate a line or convince 4 guys to chase you down. Sometimes presenting a threat, and then bacing away, can do more to win the fight than a single actual blow.

[@bigbonerm]

It takes constant and obscene amounts of drill practice to teach the men how to stand and march and fight together as a team, in closed and disciplined ranks, as you well know already, and the harsh task-masters/ trainers or drill sgts. (in modern context) are one of the interesting things that every single army throughout history have had in common. All the greatest pre-gunpowder Infantry units seemed too have used in one form or another either Closed Rank Tactics- like the Legions where two or three legionnaires could thrust their swords into the guy facing them at the same time because they were deployed so close together in ranks and drilled into working as a closed ranked heavy infantry team or a Viking shield wall- shoulder to shoulder where you parry the spear thrust, only to get struck down with an axe blow from the warriors working side by side, theres a million examples, or even more so a pikesquare where the opponent at the pointy end would be likely too be engaged by multiple spear tips at once from the hedge of overlapping pike points separated by only a 2 or 3 foot gap which can be covered either way by both sides, over and over down the ranks, it becomes a literal meat grinder, everyone working as a big ass team and the more disciplined and/ or experienced the better!!!! When ppl used bills or halberds or generally pole arms of any kind, mixed up together and deployed en-mass, and when they have a long reach to the weapons and theres lots of them about because youre in closed ranks, then those opposing you will , for the reasons just stated, will end up getting battered by multiple blows and thrusts from multiple men in the front rank or two. So, in its own ways, its the fighting of multiples vs. multiples, but on a much more grandeous scale. By fighting as that tightknit and disciplined team, working together, and as long as the fog of war doesn't envelope you too much, and given the million and one variables which a battle includes, and given that lucks not against you that day, then its those who work best together, and fight and kill together as a whole unit who stand the best chances not only surviving, but of grinding up the less disciplined and or looser formed up opponents they face all day long. Unless you're very lucky, stupid tough, or you weapon up, 1 person cannot hope to beat 2 people of roughly the same size and strength as you in a street fight. *One last point, one night when i was dj'ing at a strip club i used too work at, there was a huge fight between 15 army guys and 5 or 6 drunken assholes. Long story short- 3 of the drunken assholes teamed up and worked together to- one after the other, systematically. punched out and stomped out and smash right through at least 10 maybe more of the army dudes (who made a rather poor showing of themselves, all said and done), but they all got beat hard and quickly too!!! They worked as a team, and obviously had, b4 that night, done the same thing somewhere else, they were practiced at it for sure, and with machine like efficiency went thru 3 times their number in a matter of maybe a minute or two absolute tops!!! I was impressed until it came time for me too get them out of the bar, all be it at 'bar-stool- over my head too smash u with- point' but THEN....i got the 'triple team stomp' too when the useless security guard disarmed me from behind and then left me alone with them in an entranceway foyer, and since i was sober i at least put up a good fight until the stupid security gorilla, whos job i was doing for some reason, noticed i wasn't following him and came back out into the foyer where we were fighting, (actually it was more like those three fighting and me getting my ass kicked!!) and he smashed their faces into the wall one by one and left blood and teeth everywhere! End of Fight! So its a loosing prospect too fight outnumbered of you dont have too. Plus if it can be avoided, then you never fight your enemy where and when hes at his strongest and on his terms anyway! But that Fog Of War clouds quite a lot doesnt it???

[@TheGrammargestapo1]

+Richard Morrey there are tons of martial arts techniques for dealing with multiple opponents. The same rules apply as with weapons.

[@SherlockHolmes000]

+Richard Morrey 1) Roman Legionarii did not fight in extremely close ranks, infact they were considerably 'loose' compared to other such formations of the day, and even those of the dark ages/renaissance. In close order the Legionaries had 3 feet inbetween them to allow for fighting, however in most cases ranks would break down, and keep in mind the Romans tended to be charging, not in a static wall. They fought as individuals within a disciplined unit. 2) Bills, and most other such weapons were employed against cavalry, and were generally not mixed, but rather brought as supporting lines. You tended to not use a polearm or weapon such as a halberd in a close formation, it is a weapon that requires significant room to utilize, it is not a pike or a spear. 3) Not particularly. War is filled with luck, and teamwork pales in comparison to it. 4) Marcus Cassius Scaeva 5) I'm not sure what you're referring to with 'Fog of War', but it doesn't really apply to battles.

[@SherlockHolmes000]

Richard Morrey Pfthahahahaha. Did I touch a nerve or something? I don't care where you have been, you're still wrong about ancient warfare. Fog of War is a strategic issue, not a tactical issue. Once the battle begins, it is mostly out of the hands of the general. And that is how I know your 'PHD' is utter bullshit. There is 0 evidence at all for Roman rank rotation. In most situations described of Roman engagements, a rank rotation would actually be impossible. The 3 feet was so the Legionarius could fight effectively, and was maintained during shield walls.

[@bigbonerm]

God youre stupid. And obviously on your computer 24/7 as I suspected. Go fuck yourself looser. No one care wtf you say.

[@Atkrdu]

I remember a sample from an instructional DVD by Nick Hughes (the guy from the French Foreign Legion on Deadliest Warrior- it was the multiple opponents one): If I remember correctly, the drill was to deal with one guy while a bunch of others were around you & they would hold up a weapon as you two were sparring. You would call out what it was & then the number of people would increase.

[@LionofCaliban]

Are you familiar with an experiment done in Japan, I believe. It was the Three Musketeer's scenario, initially, the three were doing very well. As the numbers reduced, their opposition got more 'skilled' and it became much harder for them, the musketeers. I'd be interested in seeing what you do say about group fighting, as it's something I've done a lot of, though it was need more than interest on my part.

[@SilenRazvan]

Very cool video! And that's also what I noticed: you can find very little information in fencing manuals regarding this subject. PS: It would be great if you could post any sources you have regarding small melees guys.

[@camwyn256]

Very good points made. I'm alright one on one. I better in a team. I'm very good against multiple opponents. With the glaive in particular, I can decimate multiple people. One on five was the typical fight. Yes a fair amount of swings, to keep people back, but targeted thrusts against the ones who come forward. They either back out of the swing arc or get hit. The glaive that I used always had a butt spike. In one on two, they would try to flank. This is wrong. If two approach from the front, it's one weapon against two. Them flanking me it's now one weapon against one weapon. I got very good about separating the two, forcing them apart, to put me in the advantageous position. Some of the times in my one on five matches, I'd have no problem taking the team down to one, but once it's down to one on one (also I'm tired from fighting five people at once), I end up loosing or barely winning. Like you said, it's a different mind set. You also use different moves when you're fighting half a dozen people than when you're fighting just one.

[@khodexus4963]

"In just figured why you give me so much trouble." "Why is that... do you think?" "Well, I haven't fought one person in so long. I've been specialized in groups." "Why should that make such a... difference...?" "You use different moves... when you're fighting half a dozen people, than when you only... have to be worried... about... one!" "I do not envy you the headache you will have when you awake. But for now, rest well and dream of large women."

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

I love large women 🔥🔥

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

Where is that dialogue from?

[@khodexus4963]

@@korpzmarcelfranca6825 It's from "The Princess Bride", specifically the tail end of the fight between Westley and Fezzik.

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

@@khodexus4963 thx!

[@nothotsquidjunk2631]

Not exactly European, but close enough, during the American Civil War, Nathan Bedford Forrest was involved in a brutal melee during the Battle of Shiloh (I believe) in which he had to resort to his heavy double edged saber to beat back multiple opponents (which, unsurprisingly ended with him getting shot, but escaping nonetheless) after he'd expended all the rounds of his revolver.

[@Shadowofmyself182]

I like all your videos, that I've seen, but I found this one particularly fascinating. Are there any more videos on the subject? Can you direct me to anymore historical sources? Thank you.

[@r.b.4611]

Guys grown up, you don't own words. Decimate no longer means divide by ten, it's used almost exclusively to mean destroy now.

[@KarlKarsnark]

Japanese sword arts also emphasize the use of continually moving sword against multiple opponents, as well. There are also many drills/kata that are based around randori (multiple opponents) too.

[@jan23523]

when using your katana alot it will bend thats why I wouldnt advise em for a long fight

[@super_genius]

what are you doing to bend the blade?

[@qiangluo1974]

very true. for my experience, the easily way of winning the group fight is to strike the opponent that already occupied with your teammate. and manuverment is very important, its essence of creating more vs 1 situation. or creat opertunity to back stab your opponent.

[@ianthered9283]

Seeing as there is now an interesting context for the question , which weapon or weapon combination would be best suited for facing multiple opponents as an individual. I think it is fare to say that when fighting in a group shields will serve you and those around you best. But what if you are alone against three or four people with an array of weapons?

[@ModernSwordsman]

StealthKab In all historical places where I see it mentioned, the large two-handed swords are indeed held up as the weapons to use against multiple simultaneous opponents.

[@ianthered9283]

Thank you, that sounds familiar to me too. I think that was one of two things the two handed sword was optimized for, but I'm not sure. Also, at the risk of hearing about how difficult the style is, is it possible that the use of two swords (one in each hand) might be effective against two or three opponents?

[@ModernSwordsman]

Hitting anything when holding a greatsword with just one hand produces an uncontrollable amount of vibration in the handle. You need both hands to give stability, one of them at the pommel and the other one close to the cross.

[@seanrea550]

(not an expert opinion) The Rajput warriors of the Punjab region of India specialized in fighting multiple opponents according to "deadliest warrior" and they were shown in the show using and extremely long and flexible sword that required a lot of training to just not hurt themselves with it. so it seem that if you can keep an opponent out of their functional range and them in yours you will be able to function reasonably well. (not an expert opinion)

[@goblinrat6119]

Sean Rea Eh, Deadliest Warrior REALLY isn't a good source, and the weapon you're describing (the urumi or similar) wouldn't be a great weapon for this. You want something quick and easy to control, not a whip-like blade you have to maneuver around with and that could very easily get stuck to something and that does not have the killing power to quickly finish an opponent. People will not nicely stay back even if your weapon is long. Against multiple people, even if you attack one, the others could easily rush at you. And you will not be able to bring the rather cumbersome whip to bear with any speed or precision when that happens.

[@TesseraCraft]

I freeking love group fights. the best duelers suddenly becoming easy picking. I was with a 6v6 group once and I was pinning down 3 guys for my team at times. that freed up two of my team mates to be more opertunistic with others

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

It was in a larp?

[@TesseraCraft]

@korpzmarcelfranca6825 yes. But principal is the same

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

@@TesseraCraft Full contact larp 💀

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

@@TesseraCraft in larps people may not be as agressive as they would be in real combat i think, bcz this is the main problem in fighitng multiple people, is that they run against you at the same time Full speed, which means you cant position yourself to fight one at a time, bcz they are in your face

[@TesseraCraft]

@@korpzmarcelfranca6825 you would be wrong. if the larp I took part in there were alot of people who were running up and charging. we could not make physical body contact, but there was no fear of being hit because they were padded larp weapons. it only turned to a standoff because I was good enough to eliminate multiple people before getting eliminated, so they had to make a plan to get past me. It was a game of capture the flag in a hall a little smaller than a full size basket ball court. It may have been a 10v10, or an 8v8. I think back at it and it must have been more than a 6v6, but this was like 15 years ago, so my memory may be hazy. one of the important rules was that if you were eliminated you had to return to your backline before you could be an active participant again. depending on how far up or back I was anyone eliminated may have a long sprint to return to the action.

[@JeveGreen]

This sounds exactly like how a fight would go in Dark Souls 2, focus or awareness being of different value at different times. Skills and strengths aside, if you lack either focus or awareness you'll quickly find yourself in a bad state, whether your opponent is challenging you one-on-one, in a group or with ranged support hidden out somewhere beyond reach. I've both fallen prey to all of those things and bested them. And then there's fighting together with others... Do you let them take front, or do you step up yourself? Can you assist them with more than just your body? Yup, battles and tactics are complicated! We knew that much already. :D

[@lauramarx8098]

lmao yeah I thought of Dark Souls when they said about not thrusting against multiple opponenets

[@mikeg5616]

the battle of Stamford bridge is a good example of multiple opponent fighting.

[@DrVonHugenstein]

Hey SChola, You did a video a while back about cavalry men who cahrged into a musket square, is this the same book, ive been trying to find the video so i can get the book but cant find it, Are there any otehr sources you would suggest on the same topics as this book as well

[@chancedamont6939]

Brilliant Stuff. Question: Is it advisable(when possible) to circle a group to form them into a line or to as close there as?

[@MsDjessa]

I watched a video by Shastarvidiya and he did show Indian sword tactics against multiple opponents.

[@r.b.4611]

Thunderf00t has a video called "Can you win a war with MATH?" There's a mathematical principle which may apply here to some degree, his example was tank warefare in WW2.

[@kOfTheQ]

I remember dodge ball in highschool; focusing on one person while being aware of when one of his teammates was going in for a shot, and going for him.

[@G96Saber]

3:14 Is really cool, *damn*, I'd probably break my wrist attempting that.

[@wrathstorm1453]

Hi there. Could you please spell the move you describe at the 2.55 mark? Mullenet movement or what? Also could you please direct me on where to find a tutorial on it?

[@savagenature1]

Supposing you are fighting two or three opponents and no shields are involved which in you opinion would be a better combination: Two swords, Sword & dagger/knife, Just one sword, or a staff-like weapon???

[@SherlockHolmes000]

+savagenature1 Whatever you're best with. Do some research into Miyamoto Musashi.

[@koriy5915]

Thank you for the video, i love your channel ;P

[@Umbreona]

Watch that word Decimate. It means to reduce by one tenth. So if you had 100 men and you kill 10 of them then you Decimate them. The word you WANT is Devastate.

[@BlueMageWithSoulEdge]

Could you post the group battles.

[@nellyboy86.02]

Don't know if your familiar with the "Sharpe" tv series starring Sean bean that is set in the Napoleonic wars but I'd love to hear you critique it, the sword play and other fighting in general and the historical accuracy etc, also the protagonists preference for a heavy cavalry sword (sure that's what I heard it called)and how he uses it as a big chopper essentially lol and is a brawler more than a finesse fencer, would this style of ffighting actually work against well trained gentleman officers I.e raw power and aggression tops skill or is this just to make a good plot kind of thing?

[@nellyboy86.02]

@Reggie Jackman I guess Sharpe is somewhat skilled but uses dirty fighting techniques learned in the gutters of the slums....but yeah you are probably right! Still makes for a good tv series I guess watching the untrained (as in he has never had classical sword training that one presumes the gentleman officers would have had) man use his brute strength, cunning and dirty techniques best guys who are presumably well trained in classical fencing techniques. But hey..... it's just a tv show lol ✌

[@nellyboy86.02]

@Reggie Jackman also as far as armour goes I dont think many guys in the napoleonic era were wearing armour.....some cavalry guys had it I think but in general the soldiers weren't wearing it much by these times....I hear what you're saying tho! I guess any standoff between any pair of opponents is going to be based on a lot of factors when it comes down to judging who would or would not win....but yeah man it's just a tv show! A good one as well check it out if you've never seen it! The books are pretty good as well! As I say I'm not that sure of the accuracy of it all though hence why I said it would be good to hear Matt critique it! But it's a good watch/read man as I say check it out bro!

[@yvesgomes]

It seems like in For Honor the group fights will follow this logic: trying to flank enemies, even if it get you flanked.

[@Happii1010]

You should read the Book Of 5 Rings by Miyamoto Mushasi. Even though your not a big fan of Japanese swordsmanship it is very informative and the ideas can be applied to European swordsmanship. One thing he says is to round your enemy up and cut them down when there close together.

[@davec5310]

I am looking for a good less lethal weapon for home defense against multiple unarmed opponents. Does anyone think a quarterstaff would be a good option for this or should I get something shorter and faster? I have also considered an aluminum bat but I really don't prefer this as a weapon.

[@michaellittle226]

Thanks for sharing .

[@SRP3572]

you should review the sword fights in the movie Hook

[@strangeling3121]

This is a topic I am very interested in.

[@Goshin65]

Good stuff. Also I am amazed you came in under ten minutes... :D

[@RVM451]

I know that you're mostly into European Martial Arts... But Musashi covers this in some detail in "The Book of Five Rings" .....RVM45

[@TheEyez187]

RVM451 So Musashi is Lord of the Rings? - Sorry couldn't help myself, I know I'm sad :D Is the 5-ring method, rings/circles within each other, using different methods depending on how close your opponent/s are. Like a training circle?

[@MrBottlecapBill]

Yup and I believe he claims to have had to defend himself after a duel, against multiple opponents. He says something along the lines of.....don't be an idiot and try to take them on, because you'll lose if you do. Keep moving and evading so they appear to you as a string of fish, which brings the confrontation back to a one on one situation. Ultimately, the best thing to do is get out of there. lol.

[@drewr.schulz728]

I'd love to see a video of the melee.

[@ericsabin9066]

A Stand Against Many Opponents: - " A stand against many opponents is when an individual fights against a group, drawing both long and short swords you hold them out to the left and right, extending them horizontally. The idea is that even if opponents come at you from all four sides, you chase them into one place. Discerning the order in which opponents attack, deal with those that press forward first, keeping an eye on the whole picture. Determining the stands from which opponents launch there attacks, swing both swords at the same time without mutual interference, it is wrong to wait. The idea is to immediately adopt the ready position with both swords out to the sides, and when an opponent comes forth, to cut in with a powerful attack, over power him, then turn right away to the next one to come forth and slash him down. Intent on herding opponents into a line, when they seem to be doubling up, swoop right in powerfully, not allowing a moments gap. It will be hard to make headway if you only chase opponents around on mass, then again if you think only about getting them one after another as they come forth you will have a sense of waiting and so will also have a hard time making headway. The thing is to win by sensing opponents rhythms and knowing when they break down. If you get a group of practitioners together from time to time and learn how to corner them, it is possible to take on one opponent, or ten, or even twenty opponents with peace of mind, it requires thorough practice and examination." Quote from Thomas Cleary's translation of Miyamoto Musahi's The Book of 5 Rings, Water Scroll Chapter

[@ericsabin9066]

+Eric Sabin Also, I believe his "winning strategy" was to focus mostly on thrusting with his swords. If you get them all in front of you, you can still focus on thrusting instead of swinging the sword around hoping to hit enemies surrounding you.

[@danielwhite1233]

"Let me just grab a sword" who the fuck else just has that at their disposal

[@malapertfourohfour2112]

Looking forward to more on the topic! :D

[@muktianandvidyashankar6966]

Japanese swordmanship, mostly Iaido , not kenjutsu , includes such training engaging multiple opponents .In fact it is the only system that emphasizes practical defence against such attack .

[@StirbMensch]

Sometimes I really wonder about the possibility of Musashi actually taking on that entire kendo (kenjutsu?) school all by himself...

[@DesertFoxGameing]

Can somebody please give me a link to this "fight camp" it sounds interesting :)

[@scholagladiatoria]

www.fightcamp.co.uk

[@DesertFoxGameing]

Thank you :) great videos too !

[@scholagladiatoria]

Babbling Briton Cheers :-)

[@jonathangumpangkum5563]

+Babbling Briton First rule about fight camp, DON'T TALK ABOUT FIGHT CAMP!

[@hawks1ish]

First rule of fight camp :always talk about fight camp

[@OriginalSoulbourne]

How do you spell that techniques name? Mullinetting?

[@scholagladiatoria]

OriginalSoulbourne Moulinet

[@OriginalSoulbourne]

Thank you.

[@DoctyrEvil]

scholagladiatoria The little windmill. What a cute name for such a dangerous maneuver.

[@0hn0haha]

+scholagladiatoria Shashka's in Cossack culture have a similar drill; see "Cossack Sword art" on youtube, it's pretty cool.

[@psychedashell]

+DoctyrEvil Take a look at the names of some of the torture devices from the period- some of them are downright adorable.

[@marcussmith7409]

If Dark Souls 3 melee combat is at all similar to real combat 3 v 1's where the 1 guy beats the 3 then it really shows how a skill gap can make the difference. I was in a fight club where I guess everyone were pretty new because I was beating them handly 1 on 1. After I beat everyone except the host twice one of them got impatient and rushed me while another was fighting me. The host happened to keep summoning the same guys maybe they were on party chat. Normally the one supposed to be dueling me would back off or even attack the person who broke the fight club dueling rules but I guess they were also salty from losing and kept fighting me. I lost pretty badly to them and if you only saw that fight you wouldn't think I had beaten either of them even once, let alone rather easily. That being said, I've got I'd say a 20% win rate when I invade and there's 3 people fighting me. Usually it's clear they're not taking it seriously missing dodges and proper spacing because they're overconfident having other people as backup. They play like a completely different person when they're the last one left though now they behave more panicked and still probably not as well as if they were doing a proper duel with mental preparation.

[@Clembo]

Sounds like a good book. Is it on Amazon?

[@Tyler_Lalonde-]

I don't think so. And boo Amazon lol.

[@nutyyyy]

No, but Lulu does a good service, you can get it there, I would definitely recommend it.

[@randelldarky3920]

I bought a Munich Town Guard for Home protection. It will work great for a couple burglars and I won't shoot My Neighbors.

[@LarpMix]

Good video.

[@Azathoth43]

What is the word or term said at ~4:02?

[@WritingFighter]

Took me a long time to find it for us. The word is "moulinette", does not exist on Dictionary.com, and the origin of the word is French which means "roping".

[@Azathoth43]

WritingFighter Thank you.

[@DynV]

UnrealVoicebox My native language if French but I'm bad at it, but to me it come from "moulin" which is a mill (therefore turning like a mill).

[@Almosteasyese]

Depends the charector of your opponents. If you stack the fuckers so they're all in front of you and pick them off, you can survive long enough to get out and you can mangle them and make them trip over each other, use them as sheilds etc. If they're smart, and they're strong they're just gunna flank you and overwhelm you... if they do their job better than yours. However, psychological warfare is very real and most people aren't THAT brave. A psychopath would quite likely have no fear facing a few guys, but if he absolutely brutalizes the strongest man in the group, his friends are very likely to shrink and be demoralized. Just imagine the guy who you looked up to, the guy who would DESTROY everyone in sparring, the guy on your team who fired everyone up... if your squad isn't as brave as him, and you see that guy get fucked up, it's pretty normal to be like , " nope. I'm screwed ", and people will go into posturing mode trying to scare the threat off, or full on submit. All depends the group of guys. They might instead find strength in that moment and get stronger, who knows.

[@Gauteamus]

"Decimating a group of five people" would be like killing half a man? :D Sorry, I am being silly, thanks for your great work in those videos! Very interesting stuff!

[@greenjoe4206]

Thats how i train as if iam fighting multible opponents.

[@1johnnygunn]

yes when exactly do you think you might be putting out more videos on multiple opponents sparring?