"Who 'invented' special forces? " Topic

I was chatting to someone the other day who informed me that all modern day special forces owe their existence to the Boer Commandos of the 1899-1902 war.

I disagreed, and said that modern special forces units actually have very little in common with the Boer Commandos (which were basically a semi-trained compulsory militia, with no selection requirements, very little in the way of discipline and men who came and went as they pleased). I also pointed to units such a Rogers' Rangers which pre-date the Boer War Commandos in any case.

But I am sure we can go even further back than that. What would the great minds of TMP consider to the first attempt at 'special forces'?

(for the purposes of this, perhaps we can loosely define 'special forces' as a unit which has significantly higher entrance requirements than a line regiment, and / or those who pass selection undergo additional training, and / or which is required to perform tasks / duties which are different from the rest of the army to which it belongs?)

The Spartan 300.

Given the above, one could argue that the Ranger formations of the Seven Years War and the Rifles of the Napoleonic Wars were "special forces"

Given the definition you give, I'd say there have always been special forces. After all the Theban Sacred Band high entrance requirements. However, in the modern sense, I am inclined to say that Special Forces, at least in the modern sense, were created by PM Churchill in 1940. It was very much the sort of thing Churchill would tend to favor.

I thought the Boer commando was a unit type (like a company or battalion), rather than a specialty.

Modern special forces trace back to the British Army in WW2 who found themselves unable to continue conventional land warfare in Europe after Dunkirk so formed light raiding units of picked troops including many from countries occupied by the germans. They called these units Commandos after the Boer troops that had given them so much trouble in the Boer War.
The RAF and Marines joined in with the SAS and SBS and the US with Rangers and OSS and now everyone has special forces of one sort or another.

By definition 'Special Forces' are small, even tiny – a handful of men. Therefore, the first is probably Col David Stirling's Long Range Desert Group in the Western Desert 1941. The first use of tiny 4 man units to penetrate behind enemy lines, observe and call in air strikes or larger raids.

I don't think you can really identify modern special operations forces with ancient 'picked men'.

While the ancient elites may have been the best soldiers in the battle line, our modern special operations soldiers are essentially the light skirmishers from the edges of the battlefield, which were seen as the least of the troops.

Jim, 15mm is good when space is limited. You can do a dedicated 15mm skirmish table in a quarter of the size of a 25mm one.

Assuming people's accounts of the Trojan War are semi accurate when it came to how the Mycenaeans took down Troy….

I think the question is necessarily broad but that makes it difficult to address.

Are US Army Rangers Special Forces? They are battlefield troops but have also operated off traditional battlefields.

Is Delta Force a Special Forces unit? They have operated both on and off traditional battlefields.

Just because a unit is considered an elite battlefield force does not make it Special Forces but inversely Special Forces are used on traditional battlefields.

I think it comes down to: "elite troops capable of executing unique operations."

Mosby's Partisans during the American Civil War could be considered Special Forces as might some portions of Napoleon's Gendarmes d'ιlite.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Lion in the Stars

Yes – I am with you on this. There have always been units throughout history which are better than the average, or which have pulled off a great feat of arms – but I am not thinking in terms of a Guard Regiment, or the defenders of Rorke's Drift or something: I am thinking more along the lines of men selected from the 'normal' units for specialist roles / training / deployment.

I guess an example could even be the Camel Corps formed in the Sudan campaign of 1885, in which men were selected from various infantry and cavalry regiments to re-train in 'specialised' units which were rather unconventional compared with the rest of the army. I agree it would be a bit of a stretch to say the SAS owes its existence to the Camel Corps, but I guess it is no more or less valid than saying it owes its existence to the Krugersdorp Commando!

Bandit

Yes – it is a bit of a broad question, and I agree with all your points. I don't suppose there is a definitive answer – I was hoping to learn of some other examples akin to Rogers' Rangers… its just for a bit of fun anyway – I'm working night shift and I am bored!

Sun Tzu's "The art of war" talks about normal and extraordinary forces. But he is not very specific.

The Assassins (from Arabic: حشّاشين‎ Ḥashshāshīn) were an order of Nizari Ismailis,particularly those of Persia and Syria, that formed in the late 11th century
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

Hannibal…..remember the night attack with the flaming brands tied to cows horns

Imperium et libertas,

Yeah as I said, *necessarily* broad, it is not a bad question, I think to dig into it, it'd have to be broad.

Now here is a funny thought, did some units that started with specialist roles initially correlate with Special Forces and later cease being such?

Think grenadiers, at first, it was a very unique role, but well prior to the SYW it translated to "elite, heavy infantry" which would not necessarily (and in practice definitely were not) Special Forces.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit

Good point – I imagine those selected to serve in the first machine gun units / tank units were also 'picked men' to an extent, but these units later became more 'standard'.

Macedonian Hypaspists?

'picked troops' are mentioned in the Old Testament
Gideon vs the Midainites

"Picked troops" is certainly one prerequisite for "Special forces". We lack a definition of the term "special force" for a sound debate, though.

If you add "unconventional warfare" to the mix, then many elitist forces drop out, as they were used mainly for conventional missions (like raids).

If I may suggest "reconnaissance, sabotage, deception, pinpoint spearhead assaults" as major missions then afaik the introduction of regular special forces is a more recent phenomena, like the British Commandos or the German Brandenburg units that were crucial in the early "Blitzkrieg" phases. In a less form style small units specializing on unconventional missions certainly showed up since the introduction of warfare created standing units.

Tricky to define. Most of those requirements listed above would include most partisan groups or light cavalry. I initially thought Alexander's hypaspists as well. However, if the definition is a small body of men who recon, sabotage, assassinate etc, how about 15th century ninja?

I'd have to say it was the British in about 1940 who invented modern special forces. I think it was a piece of 'Churchillian blue sky thinking'.

Armies have always found troops to do the kind of tasks special forces are for but I think the British were the first to make a point of selecting and training men for it rather than simply using what they had.

The Americans copied the British system for their WW2 Ranger units AFAIK and then built on it. Due to the US obsession with 'COIN' it went rather off at a tangent in the 1960s.

The Boer Commandos only link is their name.

'Kommando' is German for a command or detachment – I guess the Boer term is similar.

Sparker – the LRDG wasn't David Stirling's baby, but Ralph Bagnold's, who doesn't get anything like the recognition that he deserves. link
lrdg.hegewisch.net/OClrdg.html

Ninja's?

Not that I am a big fan, or have any special knowledge, but I think they'd hit the wickets mentioned.

Something like 14th century.

Infiltration, espionage, sabotage, assassination, sometimes open combat.

Selected, highly trained, specially trained for unique missions other forces could not do, worked in small teams?

Romans specially equipped with extra armour to take on Dacian falx-armed men.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Ninjas certainly were "special", but where they "forces" in the sense of military units? Afaik they worked mainly alone, at most in small groups, but not as "units" in a military sense.

On WW2 and the "invention" of special forces by the British, I would throw in that the Brandenburg units predate any British special forces. The modern tradition certainly goes back on the British units, though.

The Old Kingdom Egyptians had an elite unit known as the Night Walkers. They specialized in covert black ops. :-)

Puster, the reality is far less grander, but still VERY respectable, than the myth.

Ninja's (shinobi) worked mainly in small groups, conducting raids, gathering intelligence (passwords, making maps and notes of structures weak points, etc.) and doing sabotage (arson, mainly.) Rarely did they work alone, and history does have record of them engaging in open "line" combat as well.

Exactly the role of MODERN Special Forces today.

Assassinations by ninja's were very rare, only a handful over many centuries, but widely publicized because they were always influential victims.

They were not, "nigh-unstoppable lone wolves," who only really specialized in assassination missions, that is pure fantasy, their training was well-rounded for the variety of missions noted.

All that being said – ninja's did have a mercenary-streak, so despite hitting all the other wickets, may be knocked out of the running because they were not necessarily loyal to one, "state," like Modern Special Forces are.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the various legionary corps raised during the WAS and SYW, whose role included unusual duties, often behind enemy lines.

I second Supercilius. The "korvolan", i.e. "flyng columns" of the Russian army around Colberg in 1760-61 are a typical example. Picked light infantry and dragoons selected to operate behind the enemy lines.

Judean People's Front suicide squad, obviously:

YouTube link

The name commando and the method of fighting come form the Boers. They were as has been pointed out not the first irregular forces to be used behind enemy lines but they WERE the inspiration for the British Army commandos who were in turn the inspiration for modern "special forces"…

Ancient Spartans, the Crypteia.

'picked troops' are mentioned in the Old Testament
Gideon vs the Midainites

"Picked troops" is certainly one prerequisite for "Special forces". We lack a definition of the term "special force" for a sound debate, though.

If you add "unconventional warfare" to the mix, then many elitist forces drop out, as they were used mainly for conventional missions (like raids).

I think Gideon fits the bill, but you could argue Abraham too. In both cases these men assembled small, picked bands of highly experienced and trained troops and took them on very SF style missions.

Abraham took his "operators" on a counter-terror night raid op to recover hostages, in particular his nephew Lot!

YouTube link

That is around 1500 or so B.C.

Gideon's took his "operators" on a couple of missions. The first was to launch a night raid on an enemy encampment (like Abraham!) to break up an enemy army!

YouTube link (note that is later in this vid)

Then he took his "operators" on an Osama/Saddam style manhunt to find the leaders of the enemy army to bring them to "justice".

That's in Bible Battles 5/6.

So special operations/operators have been around for a very long time indeed. And I would bet that there are examples that predate mine!

As for the modern special forces- that's really WWII with the Brit commandos, Stirling's SAS, Skorzeny's commandos, and even the Russian Spetsnaz troops.

Operating behind enemy lines, self-sufficient, garnering intelligence, conducting small scale operations and so on.

Lots of candidates but I would suggest that the Cossacks meet this definition as well as the LRDG. Obviously the C3I aspect differ due to the technology differences.

Cossacks is more a way of life that Special Forces within an army organisation.

Then there is SOE, trained specialists to lead local partisan forces. Sounds similar to the liaison between the British and guerillas in the Penininsula.

Here's an early biblical one, Die Drie Helden Davids,
The three heroes of King David.

2 Samuel 23:8–17

Also, it might be worth mentioning that the original ninja families made their bones as castle-crackers. All the other skills were learned in support of that; it was only later that the other skills were why ninja were employed.

And to dismiss them as mercenary ignores the Japanese (and Western) methods of hiring soldiers during those days.

But I suspect that "special operations" are the original way to engage in warfare — it's harder to gather armies than it is to point Hercules at a problem.

If Special Forces = Picked troops for a special task, does that include the Forlorn Hope?

Jakethedog got it right: The guys inside the Trojan Horse were the first 'Special Forces'. Ironically, they are also the only such group which actually affected the outcome of a war. All the ones that have come since are just wannabes. Brave, highly trained, etc. etc. but totally irrelevant in a real war.

Brave, highly trained, etc. etc. but totally irrelevant in a real war.

Wow. That's cute, opening a debate as to "real war"…

Cheers,

The Bandit

Roman cuneus exploratorum? Allegedly doing sneaky beaky things north of hadrians wall, but who knows really?…

Any unit that had a job and training that most of an armies troops could not do or were not trained for "are Special forces"….

I'd certainly add light cavalry of any nation to the 'maybe' list. After all, light cav is supposed to be scouting ahead of your main forces.

Some great suggestions already with Spartans a favourite . Do special forces have to be small in numbers to be truly special ? Mongols anyone? Elephants and Chariots?
Always considered the Vikings and powerful leaders personal guard as special forces too.
Also one sides special forces are the enemies guerrilla troops in some cases.

I don't think we will ever agree on a definition – plus it seems to have evolved and changed through the ages – but a bit of Googling came up with these ones for 'modern' SF:

"the units of a country's armed forces that undertake covert, counterterrorist, and other specialized operations"

and:

"U.S. Army personnel trained to organize, instruct, supply, and supervise indigenous forces engaged in guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency operations, and to themselves conduct unconventional warfare"

and:

"ιlite, highly trained military forces, specially selected to work on difficult missions"

Would it be fair to say that the move towards an association with guerrilla warfare / counter insurgency / counter terrorism is a peculiarly modern role for special forces? Or is that just because those are the sort of wars which are generally fought these days?

Either way, perhaps the controversial Bushveldt Carbineers of the Boer War can stake a claim as one of the first to embrace this more 'modern' role: my understanding is that they were pioneers of using 'turned terrorists' to help with intelligence gathering and deception: 10% of the BVC were made up of surrendered Boer 'joiners'.
Or had such things been done by other units previously?

What about the Brandenburgers? They fit all the bullet points for modern SF and predate even the British Commandos. Or the WW1 German Stormstroopers.

Judean People's Front suicide squad, obviously:

YouTube link

Pussies!

What about the People's Front of Judea!

:-)

The name commando and the method of fighting come form the Boers. They were as has been pointed out not the first irregular forces to be used behind enemy lines but they WERE the inspiration for the British Army commandos who were in turn the inspiration for modern "special forces"…

A Boer "Commando" was a local militia unit, possessing no special training (little training of any kind, actually) and usually consisting of every man who could ride a horse and fire a rifle. As far as their method of fighting was concerned, you could as easily argue that the British drew their inspiration from the Hurons or the Gurkhas, both of whom they had encountered before the 1st Boer War.

Winston Churchill, who had some face-to-face experience with the Boers, originally suggested "Leopards" as the name for the special troops being raised to raid occupied Europe.

LT

brass1

Absolutely

If anything, the Boer Commandos were the antithesis of special forces: every burgher in the district between 16 and 60 had to serve – they were not volunteers, there was no selection criteria or specialist training. English residents of the area were even forced to join the Commando against their will.
Furthermore, there was little or no discipline, men came and went as they pleased, orders were optional, men simply refused to join attacks if they thought they were too dangerous, or abandoned exposed positions without permission. Men could choose which officers of the Commando they served under, and many preferred one who would keep them out of danger.

Indeed, it is actually difficult to think of much that later special forces adopted from the methods of the Boer Commandos, other than their rather catchy name. Perhaps Leopards would have been more suitable afterall: any idea why it was dropped? I was unaware it had been considered.