Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Survival rates from combat: wrong concepts?
#1
This rather radical rethinking of the combat injuries at the battle of Waterloo by the Univ College of London means that Roman casualty rates might have been entirely different than we might suppose. I don't know the books on the Roman military doctors & hospitals off hand, but if interpreted with a 20th/21st century bias as the UCL suggests, the numbers and return to duty rates might be entirely wrong.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4035849.stm">Multiple<br>
Trauma survival<br>
<br>
It might also make a rethink of the effects of new weapons, such as the hispaniensis, and armor's real effect. If the wounded could suffer honorably and recover reasonably intact, that puts another interpretion on getting a limb hacked off. <p>Legio XX<br>
Caput dolet, pedes fetent, Iesum non amo<br>
<br>
</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=richsc@romanarmytalk>RichSC</A> at: 11/24/04 4:30 pm<br></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#2
Interesting article.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#3
That is amazing! That would explain the relatively low death tolls on winning sides somewhat (not counting chaotic retreats). Considering that you have tens of thousands of men with sharp objects charging at each other and fighting for several hours, 1200 causualties is not many. This definately explains something about that. <p></p><i></i>
Paul Basar - Member of Wildfire Game\'s Project 0 AD
Wildfire Games - Project 0 A.D.
Reply
#4
<em>This rather radical rethinking of the combat injuries at the battle of Waterloo by the Univ College of London means that Roman casualty rates might have been entirely different than we might suppose.</em><br>
<br>
We have to be careful to distinguish between causalties and dead, since frontal combat may well lead to high rates of casualties who enjoy a high recovery rate, whilst pursuit and flight will have lead to a higher proportion of dead amongst those casualties (amongst the fleers, at least) and (probably) higher numbers of overall casualties. This is why Roman v natives statistics are usually hundreds v tens of thousands and this is what the Roman cavalry were for: hackfests. Besides, the Roman medical service may well have had as dramatic an effect on those wounded in the line of battle as medevac did in Vietnam (and, of course, subsequently).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#5
although the study is new- Im not entirely sure if the idea that Drs/medical treatment do more harm than good is necessarily--I remember reading an account in WW1 where a severly injured soldier refused all medical help - because he had seen so many mates die. the actaul transportation to medical centres, rough medical treatment etc leading to death...rather than perhaps the injury itself<br>
<br>
<br>
of course he survived otehrwise he couldn't have told the tale<br>
<br>
<p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
</p><i></i>
Reply
#6
To see the entire picture we'd need to know how many of those killed in the ancient battles were killed outright in combat and how many died of their wounds afterwards. Obviously we'll never know that, but it would be interesting.<br>
<br>
I am assuming the care of weapons would have any affect on the chances for wound infection i.e. dirty Germanic spearhead. Plus a nice heavy cuirass like a segementata might have had an added bonus: keeping dirt and other filth out of the wound. Yeah you would have your own bile and chyme to deal with but at least it is your own, not off the ground. <p></p><i></i>
Paul Basar - Member of Wildfire Game\'s Project 0 AD
Wildfire Games - Project 0 A.D.
Reply
#7
Interesting article! My only hesitation with it is that studies like this are very problematic when attempting to apply them to other periods. While the basic premise, that more wounded soldiers might survive than was once thought possible with little or no medical attention, might hold for ancient battles, we have to remember that Napoleonic battles were fought in a very different way than ancient battles and the weapons they used inflicted very different injuries with different associated risks of infection, etc. Just something to think about... <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#8
I noted the article and its an interesting indication of the way the medicos are going. The body has worked out the best way of healing itself over the millenia and we tend to want to interfere because we can. This is the same with blood transfusions which were raising the blood pressure and bursting open wounds protected by low blood pressure. Maybe this justifies Hollywood and numerous historical novels whose heroes seem to survive regardless of injury.Does any later data from the ACW justify this? <p></p><i></i>
Quod imperatum fuerit facimus et ad omnem tesseram parati erimus
Reply


Forum Jump: