The Weekly Warfare   Musings martial from across the SCA

Driving back from Champ’s practice, Gawin and I got to talking about advanced melee tactics. It inspired a little more thought along a line I had previously touched upon.

I mentioned in my Stierbach BB post that I thought analyzing a 2v1 as a microcosm of melee could be a valuable exercise for informing melee pedagogy. I have since amended my position:

2v1 is not a microcosm of melee; 2v1 is melee. There is only 2v1.

This is a bit of a logical leap. It’s worth spelling out some of the basics. A 3v2 is, really, the same as a 2v1, even if neither unit splits. At some moment, one of the 2 is going to have to occupy or deal with two of the 3 simultaneously. There’s no way around that. 4v3, 5v4, etc, it all reduces to a 2v1 somewhere, somewhen.

And in a 5v5? When a line fighter retreats, he’s created a momentary 2v1 against his own line. When a line fighter lunges or advances, he’s created a 2v1 against himself. When the line as a whole buckles and folds into itself, and the enemy surrounds? That’s several 2v1’s.

Now I find this very interesting, because this is exactly how offensive strategies in lacrosse were characterized by my father (who attained national recognition as head coach of Duke lacrosse back in the 80’s). Put simply, the offense creates a 6v5 by temporarily taking one defenseman out of the equation; they want to reduce it to a 2v1 as quickly as possible to get the best chance to score.

In lacrosse, there are two basic ways to do this: either by exploiting a skill mismatch (the attackman uses footwork, quickness, or deception to get around a defenseman he outclasses) or by coordinated movement among the offense (several attackers use footspeed to outpace their defenseman, confuse or flood their zones, etc. The classic “running a play”).

In small melees, we have the same options available. We can look to isolate an enemy fighter against one of our best, hoping to create an unfair matchup and win what is essentially a 1v1 fight, which converts to a numerical advantage over our opponents as a whole; or we can move in a coordinated fashion (i.e. maneuver) to create a local and temporary 2v1, which we then exploit. In the final analysis, all maneuvering is ultimately for the purpose of either creating 2v1 situations, or foiling our opponent’s attempts to do the same. (Uncoordinated movement, such as the collapse of a line, usually accompanies a desperate or panicked attempt to avoid a 2v1. Delicious irony, and the closest we ever get to enjoying a rout.)

No good 5-man team remains stationary and linear–they always have a plan to create 2v1 situations via maneuvering. Even the Black Tigers regularly maneuver in such a way as to avoid and interdict 2v1 situations, because they are confident in their ability to win a series of 1v1 matchups.

Melee does, of course, incorporate other aspects. C2 and field vision are important. Static lines do occur and are necessary for holding objectives, and when the line is arbitrarily long, it’s going to fight a little differently–but only up to the point where one side gains a local advantage in numbers, that vaunted “tempo of acknowledgement”.

As far as training solid melee skills at the individual level, it all comes down to knowing how to 1. recognize and exploit a numerical advantage, and 2. recognize and deal with being outnumbered. 2v1 or 1v2. Everything else–unit formations, commands, maneuvers, tactics, strategies–is built up from this.

So … we really ought to train that more.