Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What information do wounds of Alexander give us?
#1
Hi all,<br>
<br>
What information do wounds of Alexander give us?<br>
Arrian has given us this information.<br>
Wound a sword in a leg. Battle of Issus.<br>
arrow from a catapult. Battle of Tyre<br>
arrow in a leg. Sogdiana.<br>
He was sick of a dysentery<br>
In a head and a neck with a stone<br>
He is wounded in a shoulder with an arrow through an armour<br>
He is easily wounded with an arrow in an anklebone.<br>
arrow in a breast through an armour. India.<br>
<br>
Total wounds by arrows- 4<br>
by Stone - 1<br>
by Sword - 1<br>
by catapult – 1<br>
<br>
I think, that it is a picture of wounds of any brave soldier of Alexander.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think, that it is a picture of wounds of any brave soldier of Alexander.<hr><br>
I think that may be a bit skewed by the fact that Alexander would have had the best medical care available. I don't know how true that would have been for the rank and file. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#3
Kalvan,<br>
<br>
One thing we know for sure – soldiers in antiquity had a LOT of wounds. As far as I know, there was nothing unusual for an average valiant warrior to have 7 and more wounds. With all my respect to Greek doctors they were not THAT good to seriously ‘spoil’ wound statistics concerning mortality of generals and soldiers. IMHO the crucial thing for survival of any particular human being in that time were vitality of his body and seriousness of the wound.<br>
<br>
But that’s not the point.<br>
For me it is not interesting if someone died or was cured from some wound.<br>
What we have is statistics. One human body was seriously wounded 7 times: 6 times by missile weapons and 1 time by sword. That’s proportion, isn’t it?<br>
I assume that the wounds in question are serious. Alexander wouldn’t have noticed them if they had been just scratches.<br>
I am provoked to make a wild guess: in an average statistical battle against armies of region of Persian empire the casualties (severely wounded and killed) were like this – six parts inflicted by missile weapons and one part by non-missile weapon.<br>
<br>
Of course, that is nor rock-hard statistics. It is skewed by the fact that Alexander was a cavalryman, usually belonged to crack troops and had best quality armor available. But that’s the best we have.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
We have here something to consider, as I recall that in Napoleonic times most of the recorded wounds are by fire weapons, but most commanders of the time considered the bayonet far more efective than the bullet, so we have either<br>
They were plainly wrong<br>
or<br>
Bayonet (and close weapons in general) inflicted so severe wounds that they were almost always mortal<br>
<br>
I don´t have an opinion on this, anyone can help me? <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
Alexanders wounds are probable more than the rank and file soldier, he led the cavalry at most ( if not all ) of the break throughs in enemy lines. Also Alexander would have been a star target for persian soldiers so it should be safe to assume that he would have attracted a considerable amount of fire. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#6
Aryaman,<br>
<br>
You got interested in this problem too, didn’t you?<br>
I myself don’t have definite opinion on this either. That’s why it is so attractive to discuss.<br>
<br>
So, bayonet vs. bullet.<br>
IMHO many commanders preferred bayonet attack because it shook the enemy’s moral and they just ran away. Bayonet did not necessarily inflect more severe or mortal wounds. The enemy just got scared to death (hopefully, I mean, for attackers). As I see it, battles are won not by those who inflicted more wounds (slight and severe) on the opposing side. That is desirable but not crucial. Those who put the enemy to rout win battles.<br>
So, there is no contradiction here.<br>
<br>
I suppose there was something like that in Alexander’s time. He had rather effective missile troops, at least for sieges. But in battles Greeks and Macedonians preferred close combat. Persian troops were not psychologically (and technically) ready for it and usually routed.<br>
<br>
It does not mean (from my point of view) that Persian way of fighting was somehow inferior.<br>
I remember the battle of Gaugamela: While Alexander was winning on the right flank, his left wing under Parmenio command was on the brink of disaster. The ‘invincible’ phalanx stuck and was absolutely helpless against missile troops of the Persians. The ‘Cannaes’ scenario was on the way. Only unbelievable controllability and manoeuvrability of Macedonian cavalry saved the day.<br>
After that battle, I am sure A LOT of Macedonian and Greek soldiers had A LOT of wounds inflicted by missiles.<br>
<br>
<br>
QUOTE: ‘…close weapons in general inflicted so severe wounds that they were almost always mortal…’<br>
<br>
Aryaman, I see your point and understand your doubt and uncertainty. As I said I am not sure myself. We don’t have rock hard data on wound and mortality statistics. We only can guess.<br>
But we have a great number of literary sources on wars between Greeks, which preferred close weapons. One thing for sure – there were a lot of wounded in these close combat fights and they survived just fine.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#7
jhhoffman,<br>
<br>
You are right. He attracted more 'attention' than an ordinary warrior. But he certainly attracted the same amount of close-combat fighters as well. So, it does not seem to 'spoil' statistics on proportion of missile to non-missile wounds.<br>
<br>
BTW, Alexander had best bodyguards available which were inclined to protect him with their own bodies. (Hm..., it didn't help much, but somehow saved statistics.) <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#8
It tells us that Alexander was a blithering idiot, reckless as he was, and not a great statesman at all! He could fight, he could lead his troops, OK, he was a great general. But if he would have lived to rule this great empire of his, he would have been killed by the many people he would surely have antagonised with his moods.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#9
He was also hit in the head with an ax at Granicus. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
So THAT explains it! <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Forum Jump: