Statistics

[Conal]

Website which looks at deaths in conflict :

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

Bits & bobs on Roman & Byzantine stats ..... interesting that someone has sat down & worked this through :?

[Octavianvs]

Not bad , some nice information there, thanks

[Metalstrm]

Related to the Roman death tolls, I read in A Companion to the Roman Army that the average mortality rate for a Roman legionary in battle was something around 5% (if I'm not mistaken).

I always thought that it would be somewhere in the high 10s or low 20s, assuming that a losing army would probably have a high proportion of its men killed when routing (I was thinking around 50% for a lost battle). But the book gives the mortality rate for a soldier in a losing battle at only 16% and somewhere around 2% for a winning one.

Can anyone shed more light on this please?

[Carlton Bach]

Related to the Roman death tolls, I read in A Companion to the Roman Army that the average mortality rate for a Roman legionary in battle was something around 5% (if I'm not mistaken).

I always thought that it would be somewhere in the high 10s or low 20s, assuming that a losing army would probably have a high proportion of its men killed when routing (I was thinking around 50% for a lost battle). But the book gives the mortality rate for a soldier in a losing battle at only 16% and somewhere around 2% for a winning one.

Can anyone shed more light on this please?

Numbers of this kind are invariably problematic (the ones cited on the website probably doubly so, at least from some of the sources given), but these are not completely improbable (if surprisingly low). In a pre-gunpowder battle, much depended on psychology and group cohesion. Especially in feep formations and large engagenments, only a small fraction of the men would actually get to fight and thus kill or die. Defeat began when cohesion buckled, which could (especially in untrained forces) happen quite quickly. Conversely, a unit that did hold together could defend itself for very long (recall the Spartans at Thermopylae). In most battles, the end would come when one side began being convinced they were losing, not, like in modern wars, when attrition whittled down its strength to the point of impotence.

Of course I would still argeu the 2% figure is a bit low and the 16% assumes the fleeing enemy is allowed to escape without pursuit or encirclement. But this is not like in the American Civil War. By way of a thought experiment, a legion of 59 centuries (54 of 80 and 5 of 160 men), arrayed in triple formation by cohort, three men deep. The frontage of the force is 12 centuries. The first rank of each century is 26 men. There are thus 300-odd men at the sharp edge of 5,000. Of course the other ranks may also come into play as gaps are plugged and risk their lives in the exchange of arrows, slingstones and pila. But iof they wion, the rear centuries might not be needed until the pursuit begins, and if they lose, the rout may well start once the front units dissolve. Neither scenario engages all troops.

[Metalstrm]

Bach, but the author (AFAIK, I haven't read the whole cahpter yet) takes in the factor of pursuit too. I think he calculates the mortality rates not directly from battle sources but from some kind of statistical analysis (not so sure again, I'll just reread the whole chapter).

I didn't expect the mortality to be 90% obviously, but battles like Cannae and Trasimene, they should bring the percentage way up I think.

Edit: Ok, I've looked up the part of the book that deals with this stuff and the numbers are quite different. Besides, the book quotes Nathan Rosenstein and the figures were not obtained by Blackwell. They are (for the period 200BC to 168BC):

8.8% for Roman troops involved in documented battles, split as follows:
4.2% for victories and 16% for defeats

If one includes Roman troops that did not take part in battles the number goes down to 2.6% (annual).

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Ross Cowan in Osprey Warrior No. 71 - 58 BC - AD 69 cites Scheidel:

In times of relative peace a legion of 5,000 men probably suffered a decremental mortality rate of about 40 per cent over a 25-year service period (indicative of the endemic diseases in the Roman world), and a further 15 per cent through soldiers invalided out of service. Consequently the legion would require 280 recruits annually to maintain optimum strength.

This calculation applies to lost and won battles and reflects therefor only the average of the losses.

[Paullus Scipio]

While it is very difficult to generalise, most major battles throughoout history ( including modern times) when carefully analysed (to preclude obvious exaggerations) average around 5-10% losses for winners, and 10-20% for losers. Decisive battles often have higher figures for losers.This is no more than a useful 'rule of thumb'.

The whole subject of casualties in ancient battles is fraught with difficulties - often the winning side had an idea of its own casualties, but none of the enemy's beyond 'piles of bodies'. Ancient historians then may 'estimate' enemy casualties from the number known to be present....for example, if the enemy army was known to number 20,000 and 5.000 were taken prisoner, with an unknown number in the 'piles of bodies' , the enemy army might be called 'destroyed' with 15,000 dead when in fact the majority may have simply fled and dispersed......
They also tend to play down their own casualties too....Herodotus for example speaks of those who 'died outside the battle', meaning those who died of wounds subsequently, as not counted among those who died 'in battle'(killed on the field).

[Octavianvs]

Would you also assume that the romans had a better medical system especially for its military compared to the barbarians they fought? Also if you assume that the romans had a better military medical system then the barbarians should loose a higher percent after battle because of infection not enough medical people to take care of the wounded and perhaps not enough knowledge to deal with some of the injuries ( roman military would or should have had more experience with military related injuries especially during times of war , barbarians probably not as much war wounds experience and definitly not as many medical persons for thier army like the romans have )

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Also if you assume that the romans had a better military medical system then the barbarians should loose a higher percent after battle because of infection not enough medical people to take care of the wounded and perhaps not enough knowledge to deal with some of the injuries [...]

The strength of the Roman medical service was caused through its ability to react quickly. Before battle from every contubernium or centurie a number of men were drawn who remained behind the front ranks and were responsible for immediate recovery of wounded and dead. This happened more for psychological/moralic reasons, I would say. I was a combat medic and learned that in WWII and later wars only one in four wounded soldier survived until he arrived in the field hospital. So as the Romans knew no chirurgy what dealt with abdominal or thorax injuries, an individual with such injuries was almost invariably lost, even if it was taken to hospital.
As to infection, I know no way this to avoid in the pre-penicillin age (may be certain plants? :? ). So one would be on the safe side to say what virtually all wounded had infections. Surviving this would have been a matter of personal health / nutrition and physical nature. I doubt the Barbarians were necessarily worse at this.
So summarizing, I would think that of the Roman soldiers who were badly wounded, 75 per cent died, without chance. The remaining 25 per cent (mostly fractures, leg/arm cuts) who finally arrived at kind of medical facility had a chance when initially treated immediately (e.g. paching up, anti-shock measures), but still had to come through infection.

[Metalstrm]

Though I can only hypothesize on medical treatment during that age, would it be too much if we assumed that soldiers with serious gut wounds and thoracic wounds were left to die (unless maybe they had a dignified rank)?

I think the Roman army had neither the resources nor placed enough importance on the individual to be burdened by carrying around soldiers who were bound to death. Again, that is just what I think and I could badly be mistaken.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

It seems impossible to me that dying soldiers were left alone, when an opportunity existed to make their situation a bit more comfortable to them. You can't save all every time, but you can help one to die (this has a double meaning). There was strong comradship between legionaries especially on the contubernium-level. Even from a economical point of view it is bad for troops morale not to care for those who die.

[Decius]

jap. leaving soldiers to die alone and the effects on moral of the troops...

[M. Demetrius]

but you can help one to die (this has a double meaning). There was strong comradship between legionaries

Don't forget that in many situations, suicide was both honorable and proper in Roman society. Likely, a soldier with a mortal wound (such as a deep intestinal trauma) would rather have a quick suicide, or assisted euthanasia by sword, than a three or four day lingering agonizing death. Heck, who wouldn't, given only those choices?