| Author |
Message |
|
Bruce Wilson
|
 Posted: Sun 18 Dec, 2022 3:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | I think people use the word kill when talking about combat too much. Rather, they should use words like seriously injure or defeat. Sometimes just defeating the enemy is “good enough” but most of the time defeating the enemy without killing him is even better. |
Indeed! I got to the very end and found you have articulated exactly what I was thinking all of the way through reading this thread. Of course, sometimes the only way of stopping a determined opponent may well be killing them or perhaps an injury sufficiently serious that it turns out to be lethal eventually (but is not necessarily immediately so, or even the intended result) but on many levels this is actually a suboptimal outcome.
Yes, by all means disable an opponent and, most importantly, take them out of the fight -- they may be overwhelmed, pinned down, captured... but that does not require lethal force. Outright killing of an opponent deprives the winner of the opportunity for ransom and potentially signifiant wealth. There would have been occasions where this was unavoidable, or perhaps one or both sides knew that capture would inevitably lead to execution and would fight on regardless, but for the most part this would largely have been regarded as a "bad" result.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Fri 31 Mar, 2023 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Wilson wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: | | I think people use the word kill when talking about combat too much. Rather, they should use words like seriously injure or defeat. Sometimes just defeating the enemy is “good enough” but most of the time defeating the enemy without killing him is even better. |
Indeed! I got to the very end and found you have articulated exactly what I was thinking all of the way through reading this thread. Of course, sometimes the only way of stopping a determined opponent may well be killing them or perhaps an injury sufficiently serious that it turns out to be lethal eventually (but is not necessarily immediately so, or even the intended result) but on many levels this is actually a suboptimal outcome.
Yes, by all means disable an opponent and, most importantly, take them out of the fight -- they may be overwhelmed, pinned down, captured... but that does not require lethal force. Outright killing of an opponent deprives the winner of the opportunity for ransom and potentially signifiant wealth. There would have been occasions where this was unavoidable, or perhaps one or both sides knew that capture would inevitably lead to execution and would fight on regardless, but for the most part this would largely have been regarded as a "bad" result. |
It is good to know that someone agrees with me 
I have learned some more since last posting here. There are some attacks, that will be fatal in the long term but will have less effect short term, then a less fatal wound. For example, hits to the head can hinder the ability to fight, even if that just means blood is blocking the vision. Whereas, a thrust through the torso can be fatal, but the opponent can move up the blade and still attack you.
Looking at battlefield graves, the bones show a lot of injury to the skull, like between 60 -80%. The exception is Wisby, where most of the injuries were to the legs. Now, battlefield graves have a selection bias, in that it is only people who died. It is, however, surprising how many injuries to the skull there are, with multiple wounds to the head, and some that had already healed. Besides Wisby, the other battlefields have no armour, so it is hard to say what the dead were wearing. In Wisby, it is known that the legs were unprotected. In Uppsula there were more, but not statistically significantly more, injuries near the joints, suggesting the weak points in armour were attacked.
My conclusion is that if you wanted to kill a knight, or other armoured combatant, the best way would be to stab him in the face, which possibly means removing his helmet, which in turn, means disarming him first, which probably involves inflicting a less fatal injury first, or at least establishing a dominant position (knock him to the ground). For higher chance of success, get help from a friend. (Analysis from Towton suggests that the deceased were attacked from multiple opponets).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 318
|
| Posted: Fri 31 Mar, 2023 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Now, battlefield graves have a selection bias, in that it is only people who died. |
They have another, which is we are relying on spotting causes of death that leave skeletal indications in the vast majority of cases. Causes which only cased soft tissue damage would be underrepresented. That said, the high proportion of head wounds would still be a noticeable feature. We might also note, in relation to the original bias, that healed skull injuries are also quite commonly met, so non-lethal head injuries would be a feature of medieval battlefields too.
Anthony Clipsom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Fri 31 Mar, 2023 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: | | Quote: | | Now, battlefield graves have a selection bias, in that it is only people who died. |
They have another, which is we are relying on spotting causes of death that leave skeletal indications in the vast majority of cases. Causes which only cased soft tissue damage would be underrepresented. That said, the high proportion of head wounds would still be a noticeable feature. We might also note, in relation to the original bias, that healed skull injuries are also quite commonly met, so non-lethal head injuries would be a feature of medieval battlefields too. |
Right, from watching movies, you would expect a lot more people to die from having their throat slashed or being stabbed in the stomach, and thus have no bone damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parker D.
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Apr, 2023 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depends.
A charging 2000lb war horse.
Exhaustion in combat.
Disease killed many.
Thirst or starvation for many crusader knights.
Like a few mentioned hooking the legs and bringing him down.
Most commonly well known of course is the gap in the arm pit or perhaps by the thighs, (both regions have major blood flow through them).
War bow if lucky.
Sometimes a crossbow against weak maille could do it.
When the visor or helmet is removed the face or neck becomes a target.
Heat stroke also killed a few in the holy land.
Even suffocation in specific examples.
Could be a hundred things.
This is a great thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Apr, 2023 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: | | Quote: | | Now, battlefield graves have a selection bias, in that it is only people who died. |
They have another, which is we are relying on spotting causes of death that leave skeletal indications in the vast majority of cases. Causes which only cased soft tissue damage would be underrepresented. That said, the high proportion of head wounds would still be a noticeable feature. We might also note, in relation to the original bias, that healed skull injuries are also quite commonly met, so non-lethal head injuries would be a feature of medieval battlefields too. |
Any skull injury is likely to be fatal or at least mark it.
There often a number of people who lost limbs or had majoir damage to the bones but survived.
Only they rarely returned to the battle field and soon lost the battle context, without good records spelling it out the loss of a limb becomes a mystery.
Its the same with amputation, there was likey a few dozen or more shattered limbs burred in the hours an days after every battle but they lack any linking context as to who's limbs there where and what happened to there owners.
Its important to remember that while medical care was primitive and crude, this was due to the demands of speed.
They could be ambitious fixing bones with osteosynthesis , attempting brain surgery and really anything that might not kill patient
https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/amputation-of-the-lower-limbs-of-the-early-middle-ages-and-their-prostheses/
There's a large period where the core areas are well protected but the limbs where not.
Here's some wound analysis from the Battle of Visby , where famously the poor Gotlanders had just coats of plate and helmets.
Note that the simple coat's kept the skeleton's from archaeologically visible damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Apr, 2023 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I made a mistake earlier when I mentioned Uppsala. The site I meant was Sandbjerget. I read about it in an abstract from an article: https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/30028/1/Boucherie%20et%20al_Final_Manuscript.pdf
The study focuses on a new technique to discover smaller wounds. Therefore, it discovered a lot more injuries than from other sites. Here is a quote:
| Quote: | 3.1.1. Analysis by body region
Significantly more injuries were found in cranial elements (23.5%), as opposed to 6.7%
postcranial elements (χ²=32.64, df=1, p<0.05) (table 4, table A.10). The number of traumatic
injuries was also significantly higher for the crania than the postcranial skeleton, 177 injuries
(3.9 per individual) versus 24 injuries (0.5 per individual) (t=8.11, p<0.05) (table 5, table
A.10). Every cranium showed at least one traumatic injury |
| Quote: | Two hundred and one traumatic lesions were detected at Sandbjerget, with a mean number per
individual for cranial injuries of 3.9. This prevalence is similar to that of Towton, suggesting
the respective conflict episodes to have been highly intense (Novak, 2000). Of the total
number of injuries, 88% were localized on the skull (n=177) while only 24 injuries were
present on the postcranium. Similarly, uneven distributions were observed in the Towton,
Uppsala and Bucharest mass graves (table 1). For instance, at Uppsala, 60% of the skulls
showed 92 traumatic injuries whereas only 11 lesions were postcranial (Kjellström, 2005). In
contrast, at Visby, 60% of the traumas were displayed on the postcranium (Ingelmark, 1939). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic