I am guessing having better equipment and training than the opposition helps; but seriously, once battle is joined and it’s a free-for-all melee, is there anything you can do to survive? As an addendum to the question, are those “1 vs 100” champions mentioned in history for real or just exaggerations?
One way is to stay in/as a group. Individuals who get seperated are dead men walking. Staying in your formation means that they enemy can only come at you from limited directions, and you can keep an eye on that. Your partners “cover your six”, and you cover theirs.
Well, don’t let it become a free-for-all melee. Units that remained in formation could chop howling mobs of individual warriors to bits. And foot units with some spears could skewer charging cavalry…as long as they remained in formation.
The key to battle in pre-gunpowder days wasn’t so much in killing lots of the enemy. It was in breaking the morale of enemy units. When one side or another starts to run away is when the real slaughter begins.
Entreat Almighty God that your cause be righteous, that he may guide your blade swift and true. Also, break their lines with a wedge formation to separate their ranks and flank them with your cavalry.
a. wear a greatcoat. In the Crimean War, Russian great coats were a source of frustration for swordsmen who preferred thrust to cut (there was much argument amongst swordsman in the 19th century as to which was superior). Armies have recently rediscovered armour, but armour won’t warm you in a harsh winter’s march.
b. put straw in your scabbard to keep your sword sharp, and don’t unnecessarily draw it because it will lose its edge. Again in the Crimean War, Russian swords were frequently blunt, and many English soldiers suffered multiple head wounds which involved being struck with Cossack swords none of which broke skin.
c. hang out with a seasoned combat veteran. Many officers were landed gentry and frequently didn’t know what they were doing. Men who had served in combat before knew what to expect.
d. don’t carry the regimental colours. It makes you a target for cannon and also for skirmishers out to seize the colours as a trophy. It was considered more a death sentence than an honour in the Peninsula War.
e. if suffering a cavalry charge, form a square promptly. Infantry squares are almost impervious to cavalry, aside from one or two disasters at Waterloo.
f. its all about training and gusto. One reason the English were so successful in land wars from the 1700s to 1850 was because the soldiers had confidence in their infantry charges. Disciplined troops who charge with determination will scare entrenched opponents facing a charge.
g. have a language in common with the enemy. If they can’t understand that you want to surrender, then they’ll run you through. French was it in the 19th century - the Russian and English officers surrendered to each other in French. Oh, and pretend to be an officer if you’re captured because you’ll increase your likelihood of being treated as a gentleman by enemy officers rather than being gutted by enemy foot soldiers.
h. have your wife near the front line (regimental wives were common in the 19th century). If you’re stacked and packed for surgery then its best to have a dedicated nurse nearby to increase your prospects of surviving injury.
i. keep your eye out for battlefield spoils of war. You might need to exchange it for food after the event.
That’s all I can thnk of off the top of my head.
What exactly do you mean with the cold-steel era? A little clarification would help. Pre-gunpowder, I’m guessing?
First the 1 vs 100 tend to be myths. In reality such contests are doomed no matter you skill or training, UNLESS, you manage to get away and flee before they cut you to ribbons.
As other’s have mentioned, stay in your group and do as the other soldiers are doing and hope that they are well trained. If you get into some sort of sword fight with some soldier, expect to die. Painfully. You’re best bet would be to retreat before your opponent is on you, and hope your unit covers you.
Sorry about it, let me try to clarify. ‘Cold steel era’ is a term used in Chinese - but yes, it’s before gunpowder. But I have no idea how much difference there is between an Mesopotamia army, compared to a Greek Phalanx as compared to a Dark Age/Medieval army…
Statistically speaking, boiling your water before you drink it would greatly enhance your chances of survival vis a vis your comrades.
The answer is lots. In terms of the professionalism of the troops, their numbers and organization, their equipment, and the likely tactics to be used on the field of battle, the differences are all over the place.
But I’m not sure if that would change the overall answers much. Stay with your unit, do as they do, and pray you don’t have to actually fight.
Seriously? Boil your water, dig a latrine, do your best to keep the lice off, look out for mosquitos, and, if you get wounded, bribe the doctor to wash his damned hands before sewing you back up.
Disease probably killed off more soldiers than battle did.
No probably about it. The doctors were all excited that they were going to make World War I the first war where fewer soldiers died of disease than of the actual war. Then the Spanish Influenza came along, so it definitely didn’t happen then. Not sure what the first one really was, but certainly well into the gunpowder era.
Even in battle they need people on guard duty. I’ll stay back and guard the supply train or the general’s tent. 
You probably don’t want to avail yourself of any of the prostitutes among the camp followers or participate in any of the raping that characteristically accompanied the fall of a city in those days. A dose of the clap in those pre-antibiotic days was extremely bad ju-ju. Soldiers were known to be a poxy bunch too.
The pointy end goes into the other man.
Not strategy, but three rules given by a seasoned warrior to a young pup looking for glory (in Before They Are Hanged by Joe Abercrombie.
“First, always do your best to look the coward, the weakling, the fool. Silence is a warrior’s best armor, the saying goes. Hard looks and hard words have never won a battle yet, but they’ve lost a few.”
This makes sense to me. Assume that your opponent will try to get the big bad guys out of the way first, before his sword arm gets tired. If you don’t look big and bad, you won’t be an early target.
“Second, never take an enemy lightly, however much the dullard he seems. Treat every man like he’s twice as clever, twice as strong, twice as fast as you are, and you’ll only be pleasantly surprised. Respect costs you nothing, and nothing gets a man killed faster than confidence.”
This seems more suited to individual combat but it makes sense and fits nicely with the first rule.
“Third, watch your opponent as close as you can, and listen to opinions if you’re given them, but once you’ve got your plan in mind, you fix on it and let nothing sway you. Time comes to act, you strike with no backward glances. Delay is the parent of disaster, my father used to tell me, and believe me, I’ve seen some disasters.”
I like this advice, except that it doesn’t seem to leave room for adjustment to rapidly changing conditions. Has there ever been a battle where the plan was flawed and forging ahead anyway had a good result? The fourth rule should have been “There’s no shame in retreat.” Live to fight another day and all that.
Speaking as a devout and confirmed coward I can only say…“Turn around and run like fuck away from that big bastard who is intent on introducing a sharp pointy thing into your innards”
Then hide
Somehow I don’t think this way really an option in most cases. Desertion has been a serious offense since war was invented. Being impaled on a friendly sharp pointy thing is no better than an enemy one.
If you run like animals, you get slaughtered like animals. The weapons of the cold steel era (and, hell, the early gunpowder era) were all dedicated to tight formation fighting where the sheer mass of coordinated weapons, shields, and motion would carry the day. Breaking formation only leaves you and everyone else without a single effective weapon, tactic, or hope in hell. The phalanx is why the Romans were so effective against the barbarians (except the smart ones to their north… WHERE ARE MY LEGIONS!!!) and the square is why pikemen were so effective against armored cavalry.
All that said, though, I second the notion that disease control would be a very good way to survive the war, as opposed to just one battle. Remember: Colonels think of tactics, generals of logistics, and veterans of latrines.
Actually the phalanx is why Alexander was so effective against the known world. The legions didn’t use the phalanx formation and in fact didn’t pack into sardine-like formations like the Greeks were fond of doing, preferring to use a much looser formation. Of course, they did still rely on coordinated formation tactics to carry the day.
Thanks for the answers so far; and I have enjoyed some of them 
Let say it has to come down to a fight, and you are on the front of the line; does your personal combat skill counts for anything at all, or it’s really more of luck and how well your buddies are covering you?
At the same time, movies always show the leaders charging first – did that really happen (I betting it’s not but hey, who knows?) and how likely will they survive?