(...) all infantry actions, even those fought in the closest of close order, are not, in the last resort, combats of mass against mass, but the sum of many combats of individuals – one against one, one against two, three against five. This must be so, for the very simple reason that the weapons (...) are of very limited range and effect.”
As Keegan suggest in his Face of Battle – one of the most reviewed, criticized, but also honoured publication stressing warfare and its impact on the single warrior facing both the receipt of rewards and death – that any kind of combat appears to be an individual conflict, either. This circumstance has not been changed over all periods of violent actions between human beings. For the last decades, even the myth of a peaceful prehistoric community has been declared to be wrong-turned. However only few historical, anthropological or sociological/psychological works seem to be of large interest questioning the causes of death, fatal wounds and injuries throughout a war, even though this (my Italics) might be a timeless interrogation. This paper, hence, will not demand to revolutionize the hiatus of research on the central question, but it attempts to allow an insight into the circumstances of prehistoric, Egyptian and Mediterranean warfare. By underlining especially the most common lesions of these periods as well as pointing out the reasons behind apparently unnecessary casualties, it will give a short introduction to a warrior‟s/soldier‟s particular behaviour while battling. Additionally the paper tries to offer both various arguments, which may support Keegan‟s intention referring above and – which appears to be even more important – a critical view to the reader to obtain an objective review. As a result, it will be undoubtedly significant to elucidate as much archaeological, textual and visual sources as possible including the interpretative utilization of currently discussed examines due to the central of the paper.
Prehistoric warfare was underestimated in perspectives of offering only little substantial evidence stressing the causes of death and injuries during and after battle actions for a long time.
[...]
Table of Contents
1. What were the major causes of death and injuries during and after ancient battles?
a) The trauma is frequently due to a number of projectiles being embedded.
b) Traumatic lesions caused by bladed weapons mainly result in sharp force wounds.
c) Blunt force wounds including crushed bones are archetypal verifications of club-like weapons and lead to death quickly.
a) comradeship and almost unreservedly loyalty to a general/commander.
b) in contrast a strong style of leadership or a less-skilled commander/general regarding his military assessment of a specific situation.
c) bravery and single combats.
d) over-exceeded and often superfluous bravery grounded in the prospect of receiving awards.
e) unofficial rewards including plundering and enslavement being indicated as causes of death especially after a battle.
f) limits of morale and courage.
g) Head-taking and drunkenness on the battlefield.
h) punishment, captivity, torture and executions.
i) death and specific lacerations due to the modernization (my Italics) of warfare.
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper aims to provide an insight into the causes of fatal wounds and injuries during prehistoric, Egyptian, and Mediterranean warfare. It examines the interplay between battlefield tactics, weaponry, and individual psychological factors, while highlighting the limitations of modern archaeological and historical research in identifying specific combat-related injuries.
- Analysis of archaeological evidence for prehistoric trauma.
- Evaluation of medical and textual insights from Ancient Egypt.
- Examination of the psychological impact of command and comradeship.
- Investigation of systemic factors like plundering, torture, and siege tactics.
- Critical review of source material reliability in historical reconstruction.
Excerpt from the Book
What were the major causes of death and injuries during and after ancient battles?
(...) all infantry actions, even those fought in the closest of close order, are not, in the last resort, combats of mass against mass, but the sum of many combats of individuals – one against one, one against two, three against five. This must be so, for the very simple reason that the weapons (...) are of very limited range and effect.
As Keegan suggest in his Face of Battle – one of the most reviewed, criticized, but also honoured publication stressing warfare and its impact on the single warrior facing both the receipt of rewards and death – that any kind of combat appears to be an individual conflict, either. This circumstance has not been changed over all periods of violent actions between human beings. For the last decades, even the myth of a peaceful prehistoric community has been declared to be wrong-turned. However only few historical, anthropological or sociological/psychological works seem to be of large interest questioning the causes of death, fatal wounds and injuries throughout a war, even though this (my Italics) might be a timeless interrogation. This paper, hence, will not demand to revolutionize the hiatus of research on the central question, but it attempts to allow an insight into the circumstances of prehistoric, Egyptian and Mediterranean warfare. By underlining especially the most common lesions of these periods as well as pointing out the reasons behind apparently unnecessary battling. Additionally the paper tries to offer both various arguments, which may support – which appears to be even more important – a critical view to the reader to obtain an objective review. As a result, it will be undoubtedly significant to elucidate as much archaeological, textual and visual sources as possible.
Summary of Chapters
What were the major causes of death and injuries during and after ancient battles?: This foundational chapter introduces the paper's central investigation into the causes of fatal injuries across prehistoric to Mediterranean eras, setting the theoretical stage for the subsequent analysis of historical and archaeological evidence.
Keywords
Ancient Warfare, Battlefield Trauma, Archaeological Findings, Prehistoric Conflict, Egyptian Medicine, Psychological Pressure, Military Leadership, Comradeship, Siege Warfare, Sharp Force Wounds, Blunt Force Trauma, Historical Methodology, Combat Injuries, Source Criticism, Roman Army
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work focuses on identifying and analyzing the major causes of death and injury in ancient battles across prehistoric, Egyptian, and Mediterranean history.
What are the central thematic areas covered?
The paper covers archaeological trauma analysis, the role of leadership, individual bravery, the impact of unofficial rewards like plundering, and the evolution of military tactics.
What is the primary goal of the study?
The goal is to provide insight into the circumstances of ancient warfare and the specific types of lesions common to different periods, while maintaining a critical view of available source materials.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The study utilizes a cross-disciplinary approach, combining archaeological findings, human remains analysis, and the critical interpretation of classical, textual, and artistic sources.
What does the main body of the paper discuss?
The main body details specific causes of injury, such as projectiles, bladed and club-like weapons, and examines the roles of psychological factors like morale, captivity, and punishment.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Ancient Warfare, Battlefield Trauma, Archaeological Findings, Military Leadership, and Combat Injuries.
How do Egyptian sources contribute to the research?
Egyptian sources, including the Edwin Smith and Ebers papyri, offer medical insights into how ancient societies treated major wounds, complementing the archaeological evidence of skeletal remains.
What significance does the author attribute to psychological factors?
The author emphasizes that morale, leadership, and group dynamics were often as critical as weaponry in determining the outcome of battles and the resulting casualties.
- Quote paper
- Holger Skorupa (Author), 2008, What were the major causes of death and injuries during and after ancient battles?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/121082
