Today is St. Crispin's Day! How the 1415 Battle of Agincourt may have shaped the right to bear arms that continues today. đź§µ
The English were victorious today, due in large part to the prowess of the famed and feared English longbowmen. This historic win, famously memorialized by Shakespeare in Henry V, gave us the iconic “St. Crispin’s Day Speech” and the phrase “band of brothers.”
The French expected an easy win but underestimated the English, especially their devastating longbows. The English longbow was a game-changer, capable of penetrating armor and hitting targets hundreds of yards away. English archers held off the French cavalry and thinned out French infantry from a distance before they even reached the English lines.
By the time the French closed in for hand-to-hand combat, they were severely depleted, helping secure a legendary English victory. Agincourt highlighted the power of projectile warfare and shifted the course of battle tactics for centuries. The longbow became revered.
Laws were passed in England, most notably under Henry VIII, requiring militamen to keep bows and practice with them. Men keeping weapons at home, forming the roots of the "armed individual" concept, something already long established in Britain. Firearm ownership eventually replaced longbows, continuing this tradition of preparedness.
As firearms evolved, they required less training than longbows but offered similar advantages. Englishmen began keeping firearms at home, a practice that naturally extended to American colonists and influenced the development of our Second Amendment.
Unlike in America, where firearms were necessary for survival on the frontier, Englishmen kept arms primarily to maintain their combat skills.
This belief in an armed populace laid the foundation for our right to bear arms. Today’s celebration of St. Crispin’s Day serves as a reminder of the English heritage behind the Second Amendment. A historic day in battle, immortalized by Shakespeare, it’s a day we owe much to the spirit of the armed citizen.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Rhodesian Security Forces (RSF) during the Bush War achieved outsized tactical success against a numerically superior and externally supported insurgency through a highly specialized force structure.
They mixed regular, conscript, police, African, and special operations units that allowed for efficient allocation of scarce manpower (esp. whites). This scarcity mentality forced them to innovate; for example, Fire Force. It wasn't all just the Selous Scouts/SAS.
PATU (Police Anti-Terrorist Unit) was a police-led militia, basically. PATU operated in small, five-man “sticks” or patrols that combined white police reservists with black trackers. Their strengths included intimate familiarity with local terrain and farming districts, rapid deployment for farm protection and initial contact with guerrillas, and a focus on bush warfare and reconnaissance. Often the first on scene in remote areas, they provided immediate deterrence and intelligence gathering.
The RLI was the premier regular infantry unit that could deply on Fire Force missions on very short notice. They were the primary strike force for regular rapid-response counter-insurgency and larger operations, like Operation Eland (which you've probably seen on the TL here).
National servicemen supplied the manpower backbone through mandatory conscription. While not all were elite, draftees/reservists provided the volume needed for patrols, convoy escorts, and holding ground. They could be found across the Army, police, and Internal Affairs.
The Rhodesian African Rifles (RAR) complemented the white-dominated units with a core of volunteer black African soldiers under white officers. Highly disciplined and effective, the RAR excelled in conventional infantry roles, Fire Force deployments, and counterinsurgency.
The special forces handled unconventional warfare. The Scouts pretended to be terrorists, gathering intel and infiltrating to kill from within. The SAS focused on external raids, sabotage, and small-team direct action against insurgent camps and supply lines most often in Mozambique and Zambia.
The real strength of the RSF lay in how these units interoperated. PATU and police reserves handled local security and initial response; national servicemen and the RAR provided mass and sustained presence; the RLI delivered elite rapid-reaction firepower; and special forces supplied precision intelligence and deep strikes. Fire Force often integrated RLI sticks with RAR support.
But all was not sunshine and rainbows.
The core weakness was chronic manpower shortage. The white population could only sustain a small professional core. National servicemen provided volume but at enormous personal and economic cost. White males faced repeated call-ups (often 180+ days per year by the late war), cycling between combat and civilian roles. This exhausted individuals, disrupted farms and businesses, accelerated emigration (“the chicken run”), and hollowed out the economy.
The reliance on black African units like the RAR helped, but these remained a minority of the total force. Overall, the Security Forces could never match the guerrillas’ ability to absorb losses and recruit endlessly from the rural black population. All the terrorists needed to recruit was intimidation and resentment towards the whites. The insurgency ignited fires faster than the Security Forces could extinguish them.
As great as the RLI was, constant high-tempo deployments caused burnout (Chris Cocks "Fire Force" really shows this personally). They could not be everywhere at once. The special forces Selous Scouts, SAS) were brilliant at unconventional warfare like pseudo-operations and cross-border raids, but too few in number. Their successes were tactical and temporary.
Rhodesia failed because of demographics. The war was fought as a delaying action to preserve white minority rule without a credible long-term political vision acceptable to the black majority. The international community was not ready to accept the fact that blacks could not maintain a free, modern society; Rhodesia/Zimbabwe should have been an object lesson that prevented what we're seeing in South Africa today.
The Security Forces could and did absolutely slaughter on the battlefield with one of the finest light infantry forces in the world, but suffered from their inability hold terrain. Fire Force, tracking, and external raids produced high body counts, yet the forces rarely conducted sustained “clear-and-hold” operations.
Winning almost every tactical engagement does not translate those victories into permanent territorial control. Large areas became de facto “liberated zones” where ZANLA and ZIPRA moved freely, recruited, taxed, and intimidated the population. The RSF could raid or sweep these zones but could not hold them. Guerrillas routinely returned to these liberated zones after contacts. External sanctuaries in Mozambique and Zambia remained largely untouchable at scale due to political and logistical limits.
Whites were concentrated in cities and commercial farming areas. The black population was overwhelmingly rural, living in Tribal Trust Lands (TTLs) that bordered farms and frontiers. Since these were not garrisoned and only spottily patrolled, they became sanctuaries for terrorists. The guerrillas only needed to survive and keep the pressure on. The RSF had to defend everything—isolated farms, roads, convoys, key economic areas—with too few men.
You have no legal obligation to comply with anything these people are demand. Your sole legal obligations are to avoid unnecessary, unjustified uses of force and a civil duty to avoid causing injuries or property damage. These change if:
•You are attacked or in actual fear of being harmed
•You cannot avoid injury/damage to escape a dangerous situation
Legally you can't just drive through them, shoot them, or ram their cars without sufficient provocation and reason. Basically, if you aren't gonna be killed or beaten, criminally and civilly, those options are off the table. You can always just sit there (even if they are being annoying) or turn around.
Yes, you should be able to yeet (or have them arrested, at least) them for closing the road, forcibly detaining you, or threatening you, but that's not the world we live in. Remember, this is anarcho-tyranny where you go to jail because you are compliant, unresisting, and don't come with an army of lawyers, protesters, and politicians.
The most striking lesson from the October 7th Hamas attack is that you are on your own; you can't expect anyone to save you.
One of the most striking aspects of the attack was how it completely disrupted local response mechanisms. Soldiers were either dead or unable to deploy effectively, police were outgunned, and emergency services were unavailable. This paralysis gave Hamas free rein for hours, leaving civilians defenseless.
A future attack by terrorists in the west is theorized to look much the same. Hundreds or thousands of armed attackers seeking soft targets in locations where the police response is week. We've heard the rumors of potential attacks on rural hospitals.
So what are the lessons that an American prepper and patriot can take away from the October 7 incursion?
•Urban warfare is ugly and brutal. Expect to take casualties, see horrors done to the ones you love, and the enemy to enjoy it.
•Keep your rifle by your side, with plenty of ammo, and know how to use it. Americans aren't disarmed like Israelis are, but how many people have enough ammo for an extended firefight?
•Just because you live in a rural area or have a secured compound doesn't mean it's safe. What might deter lazy thieves won't deter armed insurgents.
•Get your comms situation squared away. Don't rely on phones.
How to do a Threat Assessment on Your Neighborhood
The goal of this exercise is to determine who, in a crisis (disaster, war, domestic conflict), in your neighborhood could be a potential threat or ally. The methods used will be ordinary observation, communication, and public-domain resources. While not foolproof, at least you will have basic friend/foe identification predictors, as well as a profile, of those who live around you.
(Note this is from an incomplete chapter/article)
You don’t have to use expensive people search subscription services. A lot is available online for free if you know how to use your Google-fu. You can use open-source (or subscription-free) services. Services are myriad; but at the cheap end just search names and addresses. Cross-reference them with popular social media like Facebook. Much more information can be had easily for low fees, depending on the service.
Create a map of your neighborhood. You can use pins on Google Earth, draw a complex map, or a simple map with a legend. A simple map, with street names, house/parcel numbers, and names with perhaps a few extra quick-reference symbols would probably be most helpful. Detailed information is then cross-referenced off a spreadsheet listed by street and then address. A digital map might have just a pop-up with the relevant file (though you should have paper files in case of EMP or something).
Obtain the name of the property owner. Generally this will be the homeowner, but you will need to conduct additional research if the property is in a trust or some sort of company. This step will not only tell you who probably lives there, but if the home is a rental or not. For instance, the GPS/mapping software I use for off-roading also has property registration details for nearly all parcels, which tells me who owns a given house.
Once you have a name of the owner/resident, search the Internet for them starting with the name + the town/city. You might use more specific tools like Facebook or “people search” sites to dig up more info. Do they have a criminal record or are they litigious? Most county courts have a website where you can search cases for past criminal charges or civil cases. Note their job as well, paying attention to those with critical skills.
Note details such as who lives in the home. Are they a family with young kids? Elderly people? List the number of residents, ages, and names if possible. Attempt to determine their job, if any, the politics, and any religious affiliation (if any).
If the home is a rental, see if it is titled to an individual, a small landlord’s LLC, or a large corporate property ownership group. Individual and small landlord companies are slightly more likely to have better tenants than large, faceless companies. Someone who lived in that house or might live there again, or has to manage the tenants themselves are more likely to choose better tenants. Better tenants mean better people and less potential problems.
Visual indicators like lot of cars parked outside a home may indicate many residents in a multi-family residence or a lower-income household. You can generally judge by the car; cheap car not in great condition (unwashed, unrepaired damage) probably indicates a poorer person. On the other hand, some cultures will have nice or expensive looking cars but live in a run-down home.
Is the house an Airbnb? If it is, you probably already know the potential downsides. Long term, an Airbnb may play host to squatters, either the traditional type or refugees who maybe stayed there at one time. Prepare for a LOT of people who are interested in that house, especially if it’s in a desirable bug-out location like the woods. Bad actors may be aware that the place isn’t habituated. Conflicts may erupt between renters/squatters and the owner who might be bugging out there.
The 70s Rhodesian Bush War was a revolution led by Black guerillas against the white minority gov & population. Their goal? Ruin the agriculture-based economy by driving white farmers off the land. How did the farmers survive the war?*
*Yes, we know RHODESIA didn't survive the war but quite frankly neither did Zimbabwe, which is a hellhole.
It sucked to live on a rural farm. Many were far from settlements or cities and extremely isolated. This is important to note because living far away from everyone isn't always the solution. Isolated rural properties need large numbers of defenders.
Rhodesian farms might get 1-2 guards to supplement the family that lived there, but often it was up to basically the dad and maybe his eldest son. The wife was expected to pitch in and carry a gun.
The goal of these attacks was to terrorize white farmers off the land and to prevent Africans from cooperating with the government. I believe that attackers in America’s troubled times ahead will want to capture and possess isolated properties that can sustain them.
Farm workers were coerced into helping the terrorists or were in league with them. How do you think Hispanics would do if cartels started putting pressure on them to help sabotage their employers?
How did average Rhodesians survive the Bush War under constant threat of ambush, sabotage, and assassination? What can Americans take from it if they fear SHTF? American preppers should stop romanticizing survival and start understanding it.
Perimeter Awareness Is Everything
Bush war farmers patrolled their fence lines. Not just for property upkeep, but to look for cut wires, buried mines, or signs of human passage. You must do the same. Walk your land. Check for disturbed earth, fresh footprints, broken branches, or tripwires.
Dogs Are Your First Alarm System
Nearly every Rhodesian farmer had dogs, and not yappy little ankle biters either. Big, alert, loyal dogs were often the difference between life and death. Dogs can sense human movement, detect strangers, and raise hell faster than you can fumble for a flashlight. Train them, keep them healthy, and alert. Dogs were often poisoned before attacks, so don’t leave their food unattended.