What were the kill-to-death ratios of individual elite soldiers in pre-gunpowder armies?

In movies you can find the warrior-heroes cutting wide swathes through enemy lines, but I doubt this is anything but Hollywood magic. However, I am curious how many men an elite soldier of any pre-gunpowder-era army could've been able to kill over the course of their careers (by their own hand). Thanks in advance!What were the kill-to-death ratios of individual elite soldiers in pre-gunpowder armies?
thats an interesting question.





first you have to think of the way armies were set up. Many were set up with officers controlling ';big blocks'; of people, and they moved them around as blocks, if you look at those tight roman formations you know what I mean, and it sort of carried on into the napoleanic era. War wasn't about individuals, it was a team effort. It was why the romans (ok--in MY opinion) did so well against the less structured people in Northern Europe.





A single person, no matter how well trained, would not do well against a cohesive unit of soliders.





During the peninsular campaign when Wellington and the spanish fouhgt Napolean, there was a greater use of ';irregualrs'; and that carried on into the american civil war. (also in my opinion, 'cause this kind of opinion is debateable, lol) I think it was the beginnings of what you consider an individual elite solider, like spec ops. Guerrila warfare, right? I would say, the kill ratio would have to be one hundred percent in a ';one on one';, because a group of people can easily take down a single solider, despite hollywood. No body is going to wait and attack people one at a time, and line up to do so, like in movies. Sure you got beserkers and trained people, but even Conan would go down if you were willing to throw away the lives to get up close and personal.





...so I'm gonna say, elite soliders? No. Not in the sense you mean them. I don't believe they existed except maybe in the sense of the renaissance condottiere--you know, swords for hire? There were mercenary bands during many time periods. And maybe you could say the mongols were an army made up of inidividuals, but....the true sum of people one person coud kill over the course of an individual career, taking as an assumption the fact that they would always meet the enemy one on one, away from a battlefield, would be---as many as it took until he went up against the wrong individual.





edited much later to read: I never thought of knights. I guess that's just my preferences showing. People who like miliatry history tend to focus on their favorite time periods and mine is the early napoleanicWhat were the kill-to-death ratios of individual elite soldiers in pre-gunpowder armies?
In the Middle Ages a knight would have been the elite soldier, their non-elite enemy would have been the man-at-arms. In terms of protection and training and equipment they would have a huge advantage, being mounted meant that they could carry the extra weight of armour and use weapons with longer reach from a high position from a highly-trained horse. Wheras the knight was, generally, born into the military life and received weapons and riding training ahead of education from childhood the men-at-arms were drawn from the peasantry and freedman classes, with less training and lighter armour. A knight to knight contest would probably be even, all other things (experience, strength, equipment) being equal, but against lighter-armed troops, especially when their line was broken by a charge gave them a superiority until they were unhorsed. There are situations where the apparent superiority became a liability, facing archers at Agincourt, for example.


Prior to the knight, elite soldiers either fought as units rather than individuals, for example, Immortals, various hoplites etc. or, in the case of the Viking Beserker or those tribal warriors who habitually fought individually rather than as units, their strength, literally, was their strength and size and attitude when these individuals were faced by a disciplined force their effectiveness would be limited, a legion, phalanx or shield-wall would eventually overcome them, frequently resulting in the demoralisation of their force. There is a question of whether this latter type of elite soldier are actually of long-term benefit as a defeat could mean the death of many of the best troops leaving the demoralised less experienced fighters with reduced leadership.


I realise this doesn't answer your question.