What were the skills of the ancient generals, and was it really the same as chopping vegetables agai

Of course, the generals in ancient times were superb in martial arts and had strong command ability, but ordinary soldiers were also trained, and it was not necessarily as easy for the general to kill them as it was to chop vegetables.

Ancient generals were definitely stronger than ordinary soldiers in terms of fighting skills, but when they really fought, it depended on various factors such as the opponent's size and equipment, and it was not as simple as chopping wood.

The reason why generals can become generals is also because they have superb martial arts, and of course, generals against soldiers will not be as simple as chopping vegetables.

Look at the period! Theoretically, it was possible before the Warring States period, but it was not legally possible after the Warring States period.

Before the Warring States period, you can think of the soldiers as slaves with special roles, all soldiers have no personal freedom, and the upper nobles can be high-ranking officers and enjoy all rights.

At the beginning of the Warring States Period, from the State of Qi began to organize the people of Qi, and later the State of Zhao became more obvious, and the soldiers were products from the conscription system. In this case, it is a premise that the individual soldier has a certain amount of life rights and cannot be deprived. From this time on, the upper non-commissioned officers gradually lost the "ownership" of each non-commissioned officer in the lower army

However, in comparison, the wars that began in the Warring States period were much more tragic than those in the Spring and Autumn Period. During the Spring and Autumn Period, although you can dispose of the lower-level soldiers at will, they are your belongings. You are usually idle, you have nothing to do, you won't tear down your house and go to the house to uncover the tiles!

Therefore, the battle at that time was very ruled, and it also produced strange laughing stocks such as Song Xianggong. However, during the Warring States period, once a soldier became a free individual and was not subordinate to the property of the upper non-commissioned officer, it in turn meant that whether or not he could survive on the battlefield depended on his own ability, and the battle became the goal of destroying the opponent's living force. 】

It is possible to kill soldiers without permission, because under slaves and feudal society, human life is insignificant.

Of course. The ancient feudal society was not a legal society, and it was still okay for the general, as an upper-class figure, to kill a soldier. Especially in troubled times, the general has become a local separatist force with self-respect, and he is the most authoritative in the local area.

For example, Cao Cao had a suspicious personality, and once when he was sleeping, he suspected that the guard at the door had assassinated him, so he killed a soldier casually, and from then on, the soldiers did not dare to approach him when he slept. Of course, there must be a reason for killing, otherwise it is easy to cause mutiny in the army for no reason. As long as the general casually says a passable reason, no one dares to question it.

In ancient times, generals were not allowed to kill soldiers at will. There is a saying called military law, which means that the act of being beheaded must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of military law, and a soldier will only be killed if he violates these military laws.

In ancient times, generals were not allowed to kill soldiers casually, in the film and television dramas we saw, generals could kill soldiers, but the actual situation is that generals, most of them are soldiers like children, and the number of personnel in the era of cold weapons has played a vast majority of roles, and the people's hearts and minds also determine that generals will not kill their soldiers at will.

Hello, the general can't kill soldiers casually, doing so will cause public outrage or mutiny, of course the general has the right to deal with soldiers who violate military law!

No, because although the lives of soldiers are not as valuable as those of those big officials and nobles, the lives of soldiers still need to be cared for, and they are not killed by generals casually.

No, unless it is a violation of military rules in the army, the indiscriminate killing of soldiers may cause a mutiny, and the lives of soldiers in ancient times were at least high.

In ancient times, generals were not allowed to kill soldiers casually, such people were bound to be killed by generals or soldiers, which basically did not exist in reality, except for a few suspicious ghosts and mental illnesses.

In ancient times, the rules of conduct for managing the army were also military regulations, and generals could send soldiers to do dangerous tasks, but they could not kill soldiers without permission, otherwise the morale of the army would be scattered.

In the army, the order is like a mountain, there are twenty-eight beheadings in the army, in ancient times it was a feudal country, there were classes, as long as the general ordered, the soldier had to carry it out, the general wanted to kill a soldier, and there were many capital crimes in the army, as long as he could find an excuse, he could kill.

In ancient times, you were not called to kill soldiers casually. It is also necessary to win the hearts of the people, and it cannot be killed if you do not make mistakes.

In fact, in ancient times, you couldn't kill soldiers casually, and there was a proper noun for this, "punish without teaching". The reputation of such generals will be very bad, and in serious cases, it may lead to the occurrence of bad situations such as mutiny, defection, and camp roaring.

No, you can't! The ancient army also had military discipline, indiscriminate killing of innocents would cause mutiny, and generals who could lead soldiers would love soldiers like sons.

Of course not, it depends on the period.

If it is a troubled time, if you kill it, you will kill it, and human life is like a mustard, and no one cares if you kill it. If you kill people casually in the peaceful era, someone will definitely sue or ask.

Generals also want to win the hearts of the people, and if they kill casually, they will be killed by others.

Depending on the timing, it was theoretically possible before the Warring States period, but after the Warring States period, it was theoretically impossible. Soldiers before the Warring States period can be seen as slaves in a special role.

Of course not.

Generals can dispose of or kill soldiers according to military orders or military law, but certainly not casually.

Not really. Military law is required to govern the army. Sun Wu said three orders. If the generals are not considerate, it will cause a mutiny.

Yes, in ancient times, there were strict hierarchies, and superiors could misact subordinates at will.

Even in ancient times, murder was subject to military law!

The so-called punishment without teaching is abuse!

When a general kills someone, he must be violating military law.

Blindly relying on killing people to establish power, this kind of army will not last long.

This is also the main example that gives the impression that in ancient times you could kill people at will...Escaping punishment at a small cost, or no cost, also reaches the level of casual killingAlso, if you have a skill that allows you to kill invisibly, then you can kill casually...

As long as you can get away with it...From this, we can make an induction.

It should be understandable that peacetime designation is no longer possible. There is not much problem during the war, and it is called the enforcement of battlefield discipline. When the warlords are fighting and dividing one side, look at the people.

In ancient times, there was a lack of laws and extreme decentralization, and it was common for generals to kill soldiers who violated military discipline.

In ancient times, some generals who marched and fought may have gone through the back door and had unqualified strategies, but most of them were different from ordinary people, otherwise he would not have been able to be a general. Everyone looks at the top ten famous generals in ancient times, except for Han Xin, everyone else is a hero among people, with a strong physique and unparalleled wisdom in the world. Naturally, there are still many generals who have not been included in the general's coding sequence, perhaps because they are not resourceful enough, but they can stay in the barracks for a long time, and their physique must be abnormal.

It would be a bit pompous to ask if resistance to ordinary soldiers is like chopping vegetables.

It's because mortals have a limit to their energy, and even if they do chop vegetables, they have to take a break if they cut more. Therefore, no matter how awesome the general is, he will die if he is surrounded by ordinary soldiers, and if he says it, he will be exhausted by the war, and if he says it is ugly, he will be beaten to death by the group. Therefore, it is very rare for the battle general and the line to cut each other, and those who can survive are all famous in history, and at most, the general brings a large group of relatives to fight, and the general helps to block the knife and gun, and the general bears the responsibility of collecting people.

But it's not really impossible to fight, if it does, three or five lines really can't deal with a general.

First of all, the vast majority of generals are not famous generals, if they are not born as wealthy businessmen, they have gradually worked hard since they were young, strengthened their exercise, and their families are willing to spend a lot of money. This principle is basically similar to whether the generals in ancient times could be one to be a hundred, even if the generals in ancient times were much stronger than the military line in terms of physical fitness or literacy, <>

However, it cannot reach the level of resisting ordinary soldiers such as winning a complete victory, because no matter how bad the line is, if the strategy of "vast crowds" is used, no matter how strong the general is, he will have to finish the game. Ancient military generals are much better than ordinary soldiers in terms of strength and martial arts, and it is easy for one person to fight more than 10 enemy troops alone, but to deal with the encirclement of dozens and hundreds of people, the long-term battle will feel tired in energy and spirit, and the final conclusion is that the strength is weak, and the fate of a captured or killed person will be killed.

The skills of the ancient generals are definitely better than those of ordinary soldiers, but they can't do it like chopping vegetables, at most ten like Ip Man.

Their skills are more ferocious, just like chopping vegetables, in fact, they are all powerful people, and they can kill people with a swing of a knife.

The skill is on the higher side, otherwise there can be no one against ten, ordinary soldiers are like ants in their eyes.

The skills of the ancient generals are definitely better than ordinary soldiers, but they are far from the level of "cutting melons and vegetables" in the TV series. After all, the greatest role of a general is to "strategize and win a decisive victory thousands of miles away", relying on command tactics rather than personally going into battle to kill the enemy. <>

Is there a situation where the general personally went into battle to kill the enemy? Of course there is, but not much. When morale is low or besieged, the Lord will charge after arranging his tactics.

The main general is surrounded by the military flag, and the soldiers' low morale will improve when they see the military flag and the main general personally leading the charge. In other words, it is very rare for the main general to go into battle to fight the enemy in person, and this decision will only be made when forced to do so. In most cases, generals are in charge of the Chinese army, and adjusting the allocation of troops according to the real-time situation on the battlefield to achieve victory in the war is the greatest value of military generals.

Since generals don't often go into battle to fight, why do they say that their martial arts are better than ordinary soldiers? Because most of the generals came from military families, few generals were promoted from ordinary soldiers. According to the analysis of the ordinary situation, it is normal for these generals to practice martial arts since childhood, and they often practice against others, so they are better than ordinary soldiers in a few clicks.

It is not a problem to fight three or five ordinary soldiers, and a dozen or so are fine, but if fifty or sixty soldiers besiege together, not to mention the general, even the monks who have practiced the "Golden Bell Jar" will not be able to withstand it. Therefore, in the TV series, the military general led the soldiers to break the enemy army, and it was impossible to "cut melons and vegetables" against ordinary soldiers.

Let's go back to the situation when the general personally went to the battlefield. Even if they want to go to the battlefield, they will be surrounded by pro-soldiers, and once their lives are in danger, pro-soldiers will sacrifice their lives to save the generals, which is their "duty". Therefore, in the ancient army, the pro-soldiers were the most trusted group of military generals, and there was no one.

To sum up, the general's skills are definitely better than ordinary soldiers, and there is no problem in beating three or five ordinary soldiers, but they can't do the "elegant" cutting melons and vegetables like in the TV series.

The skills of the ancient generals were very good, but it was not as simple as chopping vegetables, after all, even an ordinary person would have the ability to resist.

The general's martial arts are very good, and they are also slowly promoted through ordinary soldiers, and they must be more powerful than ordinary soldiers.

The general's skills are very strong. Although their martial arts are also very strong, it is not very easy to deal with many small soldiers.

In real history, did the ancient generals, who were the commanders-in-chief of the whole army, possess superb martial arts? If they fight with ordinary soldiers, can they really cut melons and vegetables, and defeat hundreds of people with one man?

The generals of ancient times gave the impression that they were as fierce as Cheng Biting Jin. In fact, a large percentage of many ancient generals did not win by brute force. Therefore, it is natural that the generals of ancient times did not kill strangers and did not report their names.

I am so-and-so, who are my ancestors, how many heads were cut off in what battles, and when arguing, slashing each other with knives. Whoever wins, the other side must admit defeat as a whole. Hanshin should also be listed here.

They are characterized not by fighting, but by sitting in the ranks, strategizing and winning thousands of miles.

These promises from a young age are not empty words. Step by step, he realized this. In the Battle of the Giant Deer, a small number can win a big number.

It is absolutely not advisable for a general to go to war alone. He brought a group of people to do it. In the same sentence as to why there would have been any private soldier equipment in the past, it is difficult to support a hero with one tree and three happy ferocious plagiarism will only kill hundreds of people.

Take the head of the great enemy in the army of great chaos, and let him live forever in the hearts of the heroes and the broad masses of the people. It's also kind of romantic.

Over the years of training, you often get injured and need to take supplements and medications. Clean up the wounded in time to avoid leaving hidden dangers that affect the formation of future martial arts. In ancient times, many ordinary soldiers were children of poor families, and there is no record of his superb martial arts in history.

It is recorded that four discoveries ended in failure, and there are many differences in the most technical aspects. Ancient generals were much better equipped than ordinary soldiers. I don't know how many times.

Even some servicemen do not have a decent **. Generals, generals without generalist armor and on warhorses, have a good chance of defeating ordinary soldiers. Therefore, from this point of view, there is no big problem for a general to fight ten fights with ordinary soldiers.

The skills of these ancient generals are very good, and they can easily win victories against ordinary soldiers, and their martial arts are also relatively strong.