- This topic has 23 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Human nature being what it is, I’d say not that often, actually.
Battlefield archaeology across Europe being what it is, I’d say quite often, actually.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/916452.Skeletons_of_bloodiest_day_/
How the bones of 1185 soldiers became part of the largest battlefield skeletal collection
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
Perhaps in this. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004306455_003
I’ve read through this book now. Sadly, it does not answer the question I posed. Still, it was interesting. The main point I picked up was that analysing battlefield injuries from the archaeological record is complicated, and that many researchers have been over-imaginative in their interpretation of what the injuries mean in terms of the progress of the fight. A secondary point, which I have always thought but is nice to have some evidence for now, is that the majority of injuries are to the head and limbs. Armour protects the body, and one does not simply drive a sword through a coat of mail, despite Hollywood depictions to the contrary. This gives greater weight to the argument that descriptions of armpit and groin wounds in the Icelandic sagas represent a very real fear of being struck in these vulnerable areas. In terms of swirling melees, there was nothing in there about infantry fights that suggests they broke up in the way that they do on Vikings or The Last Kingdom. However, one of the articles did reference late medieval descriptions of a cavalry charge that broke up into a lot of individual fights. So there’s that. A third thing I took away from this book was how well people survived grievous injuries. So many really bad wounds had healed or partially healed. Many more than I would have thought possible. Oh, and honey. Honey seems to work as an antiseptic and was used to treat wounds. I never knew that. Finally, I am particularly intrigued by the various comments about how facial scars might reduce one’s social status rather than being seen as heroic. I need to do more reading on that.
If you can, get a copy of SPADA 2: Anthology of Swordsmanship (v. 2). In it is an article by Richard Swinney and Scott Crawford, Medical Reality of Historical Wounds. Swinney is an Emergency Medicine Physician makes comparisons with a selection of cases of trauma involving 2 inch deep thrusts and light cuts and some serious ones, like a drunken guy getting run through the abdomen with a swordcane at a party and still dancing for 5 hours.
While you’re at it, get Spada Volume 1 too, as Chivalry Bookshelf went under, due to mismanagement.Even in skirmishing, there will be something resembling group tactics, with wounds aimed at immobilization, with a possible finishing blow by someone else. One on one duels are just for entertainment, though cavalry combat has always been fluid after the first collision of formed bodies and spanning a larger area, akin to fighter combat. This is why having a formed fresh body was important, even in medieval warfare, involving men-at-arms engaging in separate groups of 25-50.
I suspect that Red Badge of Courage is a nice, easily absorbed corrective to the clockwork soldier view of combat that many wargamers have.
However I’d agree that while pretty accurate considering Crane wasn’t ever near a battle, it isn’t the end of the story regarding the psychology of combat.
But much the same could be said about Marshall – his figures are under some considerable doubt regarding accuracy and methodology, and Grossman who has been flavour of the months for many many months now, has his own growing band or doubters, revisionists and critics
Is a nice intro – see Tom Aveni for a police critique of Grossman’s ‘Killology’ theories as sold to North American policing.
As for Contact in mediaeval melee – good luck!
Start with The Western Way of War and end up with Grossman – be prepared for a lot of side tracks, blind alleys, political agendas – no really! and differing models of human nature – ‘Bambi’ vs ‘innate evil’ (?) and everything in between. Are fighters born or made, is it all about a reluctance to kill, is battle innoculation all you need, how does slaughtering animals on a routine, pre industrial, basis affect the equaton, if at all? Try extricating religious beliefs/ cultural strereotypes/racial ‘theories’/plain bias and propaganda from the recording of battle never mind more recent interpretation of the data.
Add in modern burgeoning thories of brain and mind, and letting ’em charge in and throw a d6 will, for the time being, produce as convincing a model as anything (you can then argue about whether they lost the ‘posturing battle’ and were slaughtered as they ran, or won the physical ‘fencing’ or ‘shield pushing’ tournament. Unless you can persuade a few hundred of your friends to get together and attempt to slaughter each other with edged weapons one Saturday (no re-enactments, all sharp weapons and real intent to kill only please) you are unlikely to find a definitive answer to what really happened in the last 25 metres of the mediaeval infantry battle. (and even then people would argue that people are less violent now so the result would be moot – and of course illegal
).Yep! I thought I would let their path be a heuristic experience!
But if they missed Contamine, they probably would not be worthy, grasshopper.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
