Vince Morris is a Karateka that has become world renowned for his no-nonsense approach to martial arts and fighting. He is also the founder of the Kissaki Kai.

The history of warfare continually underlines the fact that strength (even when combined with capability and experience) is not enough to determine the outcome of any encounter, either between individuals or armies.

The art of gaining victory lies to a great extent in the ability to be flexible in tactical planning - understanding the nature of force in both general and specific instances, and in developing an appreciation of the manner in which it is best employed!

However, history also teaches us the value of study; researching salient topics and examples from the past, of learning from both the successes and failures of others.

The rise and obvious successfulness of guerrilla warfare employed over centuries by the ancient warriors, continuing through to modern times with the emphasis placed upon guerrilla methods of the North Vietnamese against the forces of the USA, to the present undeniable gains won by the IRA in Ireland, incontrovertibly demonstrates that the mere possession of the largest and most heavily armed forces will not guarantee winning the battle.

No, it has always been the case - and I see no reason to expect any change - that the determining factor is frequently the ability of one protagonist to perceive a weakness in the tactics employed by the opponent and to possess the imagination and flexibility to devise and institute strategy to utilise this weakness against him.

On an individual level, one is immediately struck by the fact that the Japanese combat art of Ju-jutsu is founded upon just such a proposition, and both it and the later development of Judo to which it gave birth even encapsulate the concept of 'flexibility' (tactics) defeating greater strength in their nomenclature.

With the development of written language comes the ability to study events of the past which can be recorded in far more detail than is possible in a society confined in the main to using the spoken word and memory to record non-theological matters, such as, for example, the Early English (Anglo Saxon) oral tradition which was essentially the only way major battles, histories of legendary heroes and gnomic sayings were encapsulated within the structure of orally declaimed poetry.

Non-secular teachings and histories did of course rely upon the ability of the learned priesthood to record and transmit knowledge. However, this, by its nature, was initially confined to the world of spiritual affairs, although it soon enlarged its scope to include matters temporal such as the judiciary and politics.

In the western world, few outside the world of the clergy had chance to receive an education which included reading and writing, and in Britain it was not until the coronation in the year 871 of Alfred, the only British king who has ever received the appellation "The Great," that these skills were encouraged in a language other than Latin.

A serious consequence of this is that with no easily accessible written word to document past events, it was impossible to learn from those events unless they had by chance been subsumed into the oral tradition.

Therefore in the tumultuous times following the decline of the Roman influence in Britain in the early to mid 5th century, very few of the lessons to be learned from the conflict that followed were recorded in readily available forms which could be studied to advantage by the warriors of future generations

This was a time of tremendous political and social upheaval. With the steadying influence of Roman legions withdrawn, the country was subjected to continual warfare as Pictish and Irish invaders were defeated by the native British factions under the war leader Vortigern who called upon foreign Saxon warriors to aid in this struggle.

This invitation to foreign mercenaries was a huge tactical error of judgement leading to disastrous consequences for contemporary British society as these same Saxons then rebelled against their leader, Vortigern, and the forces opposing him, which in turn opened the gates to the influx of foreign warrior - settlers which was to form the basis of the settlement of England and the shape of its counties to this day.

The requirement to read and write in Latin largely died, (except for the priesthood) vanishing with the disappearance of the major Roman structure of society.

So, without records written in the colloquial tongue, strategy and tactics on a national scale could not easily be studied, especially by leaders engrossed in the immediacy of everyday struggle and survival.

By the same token, it was also impossible to learn from the more specific experiences of earlier battles and thus apply the lessons to be drawn in an advantageous fashion.

Take, for example, the use of cavalry in this period.

Possibly dictated by the nature of the terrain, it seems that the ancestors of the present day Welsh, centred in hilly, even mountainous country demanding mobility and speed, formed small armies which were largely cavalry, whereas the armies of the English were almost to a man made up of foot soldiers.

This dictated the strategy of 'hit and run' - overwhelming, fast moving, sudden attacks depending upon surprise; and the riding - down and killing of the enemy as he turned and fled from battle.

In this period the use of the stirrup was not known in Britain. This meant that a mounted warrior would be unable to deliver heavy, destructive blows without danger of losing his seat; thus a determined enemy force on foot, providing the element of surprise had been lost, could more than adequately defend themselves.

A fiercely defended shield wall, sprouting a forest of spears, would be a major threat to any cavalryman

This would be a readily apparent fact to all engaged in combat at this time; learned, no doubt, by bitter experience.

Thus - as is always the case - a tactic was constructed to defeat or defend against a stratagem.

However, no more than a few hundred years later this most obvious of lessons was apparently unknown.

In the year 1066, the dawn of Saturday the14th of October to be precise; on Caldbeck Hill (orig. "Senlac"), an area of higher ground to the west of a place in the south of England called Hastings, for the very first time the battle tactics of the English footsoldiers who had just force-marched south after successfully defeating another invader (Harold Hardrada) at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, failed miserably because of lack of knowledge!

What was the decisive tactic which brought about the defeat of the defending army and changed the entire course of British history?

For the very first time the English footsoldiers came up against the mounted cavalry of the Normans!

In all other aspects the armies were similarly armed, most soldiers wearing the ubiquitous knee-length chain mail armour and metal helmets sporting the typical metal nose guard.

Although for centuries the horse had been used as a means of transport by the Anglo Saxon warrior, when battle was enjoined he dismounted, formed the characteristic wall of shields and fought on foot. The horses were never actually used in combat.

We know from our ability to study the records of the past that hundreds of years earlier the lowland British were frequently harassed by marauding light cavalry of their lightly armed foes, and they were well aware that the most important tactic to defeat such attacks was to build earthwork defences and at the least remain behind the protection of the shield wall.

However, this simple knowledge was either unknown to the forces of King Harold, or as a tactic it was discounted. The forces lined up against the invaders were arrayed in typical fashion, following the usual dispensation of the young, strong shield-bearing warriors forming a line in front of more lightly armed second ranks. Some 7 thousand men in all, many of whom, however, were not well trained and were tired by the march from the north.

The King together with his personal guard would be at the rear, to oversee and give directions. (Although by the nature of the composition of medieval armies there was no real 'chain of command' as such, and the King was expected to set an example by fighting himself!)

It also seems clear that following their tremendous route march down from their earlier battle in the north of England there was little or no time to gather intelligence about the composition of the enemy forces, and the King drew up his troops as he had countless times before, but this time it was to be different!

For the very first time, the traditional method of hand-to-hand battle on foot was denied them.

The house troops - personal guard - of the English King Harold are depicted on the famous Bayeux Tapestry as wielding their huge and deadly two-handed battle axes, whilst the main body of both opposing forces comprised men fighting with spear and sword, but, importantly, only the Norman invaders made telling use of archers, the English were using slingshots.

The significant difference, however, lay in the Norman use of horses, (destriers) equipped with bridles and stirrups, especially trained for war and mounted by experienced cavalrymen well-used to battle.

The forces of William were arrayed with the archers to the fore, behind them the footsoldiers, and to the rear he positioned three groups of his cavalry.

Initially it seems that the battle was capable of being won by the English who formed up their shield wall on the higher ground, forcing the invaders to fight uphill, across marshy ground.

Harold's English army, without archers and cavalry, the men, too closely grouped, provided an excellent target for William's archers, who opened the Norman attack but they suffered heavily from the English slings and spears.

William then sent forward his cavalry, which was so badly mauled by the English footsoldiers, wielding two-handed battle-axes, that the attack was repelled, the cavalry retreated in disarray.

William regained control and throughout the day launched a series of alternate cavalry charges and flights of arrows to wear down the English defences

We are told in our histories that after Harold at first managed to stand against the attacks of the Normans, two feigned retreats by the invaders drew a counter-attack from the defenders who broke the cardinal rule of infantry versus cavalry and gave the fast-moving mounted warriors the opportunity to sweep down upon the English foot, now unprotected by the phalanx of shields, and wreak havoc amongst them.

Gradually the English were worn down; two of Harold's brothers fell, and in the late afternoon he himself was killed. There is evidence from the famous tapestry (which seems in fact to have been fashioned in England - probably commissioned by Odo, bishop of Bayeux to honour his relative the victorious William some 16 years after the battle) that the end of the English resistance was instigated by the fall of Harold, pierced in an eye by a Norman arrow.

However, the end was actually in sight as soon as it became clear that there were no clearly devised tactics to deal with the constant harrying of the Norman armoured cavalry.

The 'hedge of spears' crumbled as warriors were enticed to break out and chase after apparently fleeing foes, thus becoming easy targets to be ridden down by the strong well trained mounted Norman cavalry.

The leaderless English continued to fight desperately until dusk, then they finally broke; after a last rally they scattered, leaving William the to be awarded the appellation "The Conqueror" and the kingship of England.

So, what lessons do we learn from this?

Well, first of all, conditions have to be right. Maybe we can call this the 'luck' factor.

What do I mean by that? Simply that the technology has to be available.

We have noted that the horse borne warriors of the 5th and 6th centuries in Britain had no knowledge of the stirrup.

This limited the power of any attack delivered from horseback and thus also the effectiveness of cavalry against footsoldiers.

This metal device originating from China was brought, together with the horse collar, into Europe in the 6th century by the Slavs and Avars, and completely revolutionised cavalry warfare as now the warrior could be more heavily armed and armoured, and, riding especially bred strong horses, he would have much greater control of his mount.

Thus the Normans had available to them vast experience of this type of warfare. They had embraced the new technology and devised tactics to ensure that it was used to full effect, whilst the English did not, maintaining their battle strategy much as it had always been.

In a way, you can see the parallel between this situation and that which existed in World War One when the bloody stalemate of trench warfare on the Somme being controlled and enforced by the use of the machine gun, was broken by the British introduction of Tanks1 for the first time onto the field of battle.

The second lesson to be learned is that it is vital to have good intelligence when confronted by a foe.

"Know your enemy"

Which Harold patently didn't!

And finally, the last lesson is that intelligence (knowledge) and the availability of technology are - on their own - no determiners of the outcome.

The missing element is the study of and development of Tactics, the means by which the two former aspects are utilised to good effect.

In any situation that I can conceive, in single combat or general warfare, the deciding factor will always be the correct choice of tactics!

Thus an irrefutable conclusion is that all who face the possibility of combat should do their utmost to prepare for the event by studying not just the physical aspects, but also the historical lessons to be learned. One should become a warrior of the intellect and intelligence as well as of the spirit and the body!

There are some who will always maintain that all one has to do to develop as a martial artist is to "train hard!"

Of course I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view, but, frankly, it needs to be looked at carefully.

What if - for no fault of the student - the training is flawed somehow; for example based upon retracting one hand whilst punching with the other?

Simply training hard for years doing this will certainly make the student very good at it indeed! But! Is it the best way of fighting a real foe?

Of course not!

I can cite hundreds of other such examples made by very serious and dedicated martial artists.

The fact is, whatever you train at you will eventually become good at.

But what if what you have spent years developing tremendous skill in something that is just plain wrong for real combat -how good does that make your defence?

Hence my little observation: "If you train to do something wrong for 20 years, you become very good at doing something wrong!"

Clearly it is not enough to just 'train hard.'

The English house carls (the personal guard) of King Harold were probably the finest and most powerful killers of the age in England.

But they hadn't kept up with the times - they simply 'trained hard.'

They trained as they had always done, using the techniques, weapons and strategies that they had always known.

Unfortunately for them, the enemy also used their brains, different weapons, and different tactics designed to use them effectively, and, in the end, the English maintainers of "tradition" mostly died.

What may have been good for warriors in one age cannot be considered as acceptable for all ages to come, as, clearly, different weapons require different tactics.

However, when the only weapons are those of the human body we are faced with a somewhat different situation.

The tactics of face-to-face combat will essentially always remain the same, so in this case it becomes even more important that the warrior in his or her training does not 'simply train hard' but should be very careful to study and review exactly what the training should comprise!

Remember, most of the training in the Dojo today is far removed from that originally tried and tested in real life.

It is a big mistake to confuse the ability to carry out 'successful' defences against 'attacks' in the safety of the Dojo; frequently selected waza will be chosen because of the delight of the exponent in demonstrating high levels of skill and competence.

Beware, however, because in reality the most effective is also the most direct and straightforward!

I often see 'experts' becoming 'weak at the knees' as they devote hours of intense study to the most intricate of waza.

Nothing wrong with such enthusiasm you might think, but if at any time the 'victim' were to turn around and deliver a quick smack in the mouth, the stupidity of 'gilding the lily' of real martial combat would soon be apparent!

Yet another consideration seldom addressed, is that because a technique was successful in antiquity does not mean that it has not been improved upon in the light of current experience!

Therefore, just 'hard training' will never be enough, nor will just studying the experiences of former warriors in isolation. No, the best weapon that we each possess is the human brain, and we are driven by logic to the conclusion that the contemporary warrior has to both train hard and study the methods of the masters, but in addition, has also to continually test and try any conclusions in contemporary situations and conditions in order to arrive at a training regime which fulfils all the right criteria.

Of course, if you are perfectly happy that the ultimate aim of training is not defensive proficiency, then so be it!

But just suppose that you really do wish to base all your martial endeavours, even the search for personal enlightenment or the achievement of potential development in your life, on your training, then - assuming that these latter aspects are considered to be manifestations of 'Truth' would you not consider that a training based firmly upon the bedrock of reality and simplicity might form a fit and proper basis?

And speaking of 'Truth', some may have found my reference to a quick 'smack in the mouth' somewhat jarring in the context of a literary argument.

May I simply remind the reader that it is well recorded that many a Zen master would reply to the questions of the acolyte by delivering a swift crack on the head with a stick!

Sometimes the search for the infinite blinds one to the obvious - to parody Confucius - "He who walks with head in clouds constantly treads in dog shit!"

1 The name derives from the code words adopted to confuse enemy intelligence as the design and construction were ascribed to water carriers, hence water tanks, thus "Tanks"

Interestingly, the development was initiated on the orders of Winston Churchill who was at the time First Lord of the Admiralty.