The Major Causes of Death and Injury During Ancient Battles - Essay Example

MAJOR CAUSES OF INJURY AND DEATH IN ANCIENT BATTLES Introduction In battle, no soldier comes out unscathed, whether physically or mentally. Those who escape death may be injured, and if one is lucky enough to escape both, they take internal turmoil with them as they head home. This has been the occurrence in the battlefields across all history, and still occurs today. The only variation between different battles is that the ways of death, injury and trauma differ depending on the weapons used, time of battle, and natural factors. Nature is seen as one of the most devastating factors in the ancient battles, manifesting itself as hunger, thirst, harsh weather, and plagues. The following study text highlights two major world battles; the Greek and Egyptian battles and discusses the major causes of injury and death during and after their times. Egypt Digging into Egyptian archaeologies, researchers have identified head injuries as one of the main causes of death or suffering to Egyptian fighters. The intensity and number of head injuries as compared to other factors suggests that this was the most deadly form of weakening the opponent. This evidence is derived from observations made with regards to some studies conducted on skulls. One of the chief conclusions made is that most skulls had structures which suggested deliberate violence being inflicted on the head. Again, the fact that most of the fractures were either on the frontal or parietal bones, mostly on the left side of the head suggest that the attackers held their weapons on their right hands. Most of these skulls (about 71%) belonged to males of the adult age (Filer 1992, p. 281). This means that adult men went into battle, and that the skull manipulations could not be originating from domestic disputes. Collectively, the skulls indicated severe gashes, pierced lesions, depressions, mandibular fractures, nasal fractures and cuts (Prag and Neave 1997, p. 16). These in turn indicated that crude weapons with gashing power, crushing ability, and intense dismantling power were used. The 1274 BC battle of Kadesh between Ramesses II’s Egyptian empire and Muwatalli II’s Hittite empire provides more specific evidence regarding soldier deaths and injuries. This is mainly because the war is ranked as one of the largest chariot battles recorded in history, constituting averagely 5,000 chariots. These battles suggest different methods of war apart from head injuries. Excavation teams in the areas of battle indicated that from the angle of penetration and type of injuries, that mostly arrows had been used. Soldiers from either side might have been positioned on the ramparts, shooting arrows elevated at 45 degree angle so they hit the targets from upward angles, steeply. This is supported by the fact that most of the injuries were on the head and upper part of the body. Skeletal parts of the chest and skull’s front showed that the targets were hit from upward angles using heavy combustibles or were struck using gashing weapons such as axes. This indicates that during fort attacks, soldiers would use ladders to ascend up walls, which rival (defending) soldiers would throw combustibles down on them, push the ladders away, or hacked at those who got to the top of say, walls (Sanchez 2003, p. 58). In the event that some rivals met at battlegrounds or managed to enter rival strongholds, the skeletal studies showed that one-on-one battling activities resulted in the death of the men. This provides the third deadliest form of combat applied. These include gashes on limb bones, altered backbones, crushed skulls, and pierced bones to mention but a few. The observations pointed at close-range tackling or thrusting of weapons. Additionally, fractures of the fore limbs indicated parrying between rivals as they sought to overpower their opponents. This showed resistance as well, probably offered by captured soldiers (Winlock 1945, p. 32). Their final and most assumed factor of death and injury is that medical aid was unavailable or insufficient in some cases. Medical assistance would be helpful if a soldier encountered any of the above highlighted factors and did not die. They would however die if medical aid did not arrive. The evidence of some form of medical aid is in that there were traces of healing or bandaged wounds in the studied remains. Although wounded soldiers were likely to die of their wounds and maybe hunger, rival soldiers would return and finish off some of the survivors. Apart from that, some soldiers would die after being piled together with dead bodies in the assumption or mistake that they were dead. Suffocation, hunger, and pressure would kill them. Finally, and particularly in devastated situations such as situations when one or both armies had to leave the battlegrounds, some left-behind men would be feasted upon by vultures or other beasts of prey. This conclusion is based on the fact that some of the remains showed missing or torn flesh and muscles; of which these could not be related to any activities of the battlefield in any way (Vogel, 2003, p. 244). Greece In ancient Greek, the warfare was largely defined by the Hoplite Phalanx which was a structure of organized systems of war in which middle-class soldiers were trained and armed to fight using formations. During the era in discussion, warfare was limited in terms of intensity, technology, and distance. This means that battles were fought at close range (set-piece), and the fighters used swords, long spears and shields during combat (Christ 2001, p. 398). These formations and weapons contributed to the following discussed injuries or fatal hits. The Hoplite Phalanx fought using formations in which creation of pressure (force) would be the first application in engaging the rival army. This was done by using dense shields held by the Frontline soldiers, who were backed by soldiers armed using spears, swords and smaller shields (Lazenby 1991, p. 58). As such, the first injuries or deaths occurred upon the first collision between the frontiers. The shields were metallic and with the force provided by the backing soldiers, fractures were the overly likely. The fractures would occur, especially in the limbs, chest, and heads upon impact. This is so because studies on skeletal remains showed crushed chest bones, fractured upper limbs, forehead depressions, and neck fractures associated with the resulting impact when shield and shield collided (Vaughn 1991, p. 15). This was the first and the very fatal source of injury and death. The second major cause of injuries and death in Greek battles was physical trauma. This trauma resulted from being wounded when defensive or offensive mechanisms applied by the rival hit a target. Physical trauma here represents body injuries which if unattended to would result in extensive harm to the victim. Historical studies suggest that gashes by swords, piercing by spears, fractures, and crushes by blunt weapons marked the Greek warfare such as Spartan wars. The larger number of physical trauma resulted from spearheads which were thrust forward. The spears were elongated such that a soldier could strike at a safe distance during charging. Evidence from skeletal remains showed spear-inflicted damages. Concisely, most of the cases were from severing (Scott 2005, p. 16). Severing led to the third most deadly cause of death and injury; blood loss. In battle, blood loss is inevitable; after all, it is what determines who wins, and who loses. However, in lyrical definition, it refers to haemorrhage. Haemorrhage occurred when gashes, crushing, or when any kind of bodily penetration happened such being struck by spears, swords, stones, shields, or just any act which led to oozing of blood. Loss of blood was dangerous in that it weakened a person, caused much pain, and raised the chances of one developing infections, which endangered, or at times, ended one’s life. On average, most signs of blood loss occurred on the torso and limbs. This is so because when devising weapons, rivals ensured their spears could penetrate protective gear (Wees 2004, p. 149). This is why most of the spear wounds were on the chest and stomach areas. The limbs were affected, especially by being crushed or gashed. In ancient Greece, armies would move in to attack another, or they would converge at common ground and fight. One of the most dominant of such battles was the battle of Marathon. It was fought at around 490 BC between Persia and Athens. It was fought as a result of Persia invading Greece. In the case of such battles, the one which travelled furthest ended up with exhausted soldiers. Exhaustion is a suffering. Again in the battleground, such engagements would be densely supplied that they would last days on end. In short, soldiers would fight for days on end pursuing victory and protecting their lives. If one survived the arrows, swords, or stones, exhaustion was a potential threat. Once exhaustion set in, a soldier would be vulnerable to attack, would not move, while others died out of its extremities (Nachmani 1990, p. 16). Nature also played a large role in this battle. If one was lucky enough to escape all the above discussed factors, they were unsure of what nature had in store for them. For instance, when the Greeks charged against the invading Persian army, the Persians fled towards their ships unfamiliar with the geography of the place. It is recorded that multiples of them ended up in the swamps where they drowned. Others would succumb to harsh weather, diseases, or shipwrecks. Closely related to unavoidable nature is psychological damage (trauma). According to Tritle (2004, p. 34), psychological torture was intense in both Egyptian and Greek warfare. It may have been the least contributor to injuries and death, but its effects were significant. Much trauma occurred because most of the soldiers went into war for the first time in their lifetime (Hammond1989, p. 56). This prepared the grounds for them to be overwhelmed by the events which would follow. For instance, the intensity and brutality of the flying arrows and sword fights scared the first-timers. One case also occurred when the Greeks made extra large shields and placed them on the Persians’ path. When the Persians came across them, they were convinced that the Greeks had giant fighters who they would have difficulty fighting. Rivals would also capture enemy soldiers, behead them, and catapult their heads into enemy camps or cities. All these factors combined, soldiers would develop post-traumatic stress (Shay 1991, p. 561). That would in turn result to depression, anxiety disorder, and loss of perception, substance abuse, despair, chronic disorders, and worst of all suicides (Greaves, p. 60). Collectively, the above revelations depict similarities and differences in the way that the two cultures conducted war. First of all, the skeletal studies showed that most of the injured or killed were males of adult age. This tells us that one, battlegrounds were meant for men, or again, both cultures did not believe in harming women and children. Additionally, the injuries in both cultures’ remains showed that specific parts were targeted, particularly the head and torso. This may suggest that almost similar weapons and techniques were used, and that the aim of hitting an enemy target was to finish them off towards achieving victory. Finally, it can be deduced that victory was determined by how much one side had harmed or weakened the other. Conclusion The discussion in this text highlights the major factors which contributed to the suffering (injuries) and death of soldiers taking part in ancient wars. The case study regions are Greece and Egypt. The battles fought in these regions are recorded in history as being the mothers of all ancient battles, and as such represent what could have transpired in other battles. The observable is that different cultures applied different strategies in battle, thus the varying injury natures. In a nutshell, there are two major causes of the latter; physical and psychological. The physical factors resulted from mainly weapons used while the psychological was either devised by the enemy, or resulted from encountering bizarre occurrences. Again, it is evident that death and injury occurred during, and after battles. Finally, the psychological trauma proved so intense that overwhelmed parties had their normal brain functions altered wherein some became ineffective to fight while others ended their lives to escape the torment. Bibliography Christ, M 2001, Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens, Classical Quarterly 51, 398-422. Filer, JM 1992, Head Injuries in Egypt and Nubia: a comparison of skulls from Giza and Kerma, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 78: 281-5. Greaves, MA n.d., “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Ancient Greece: A Methodological Review”, 58-69. Hammond, NG 1989, ‘Casualties and reinforcements of citizen soldiers in Greece and Macedonia’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 109: 56-68. Lazenby, J 1991, ‘The Environment of Battle: The Killing Zone’, in Hanson, V, (1991). Hoplites: the classical Greek battle experience, London and New York: Routledge. Nachmani, A 1990, International intervention in the Greek civil war: the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans, 1947-1952, New York, Praeger. Prag J, & Neave, R 1997, Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological Evidence, London: British Museum Press. Sanchez, GM 2000, ‘A neurosurgeon’s view of the battle reliefs of King Sety I: aspects of neurological importance’, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 37: 143-65. Sanchez, GM 2003, ‘Injuries in the battle of Kadesh’, KMT pp, 58-65. Scott, L 2005, Historical Commentary on Herodotus, Book 6, Leiden: Brill. Shay, J 1991, ‘Learning about combat stress from Homer’s Iliad’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 4,4: 561-79. Tritle, L 2004, ‘Xenophon’s Portrait of Clearchus: A Study in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’, in C, Tuplin (2004) Xenophon and His World: Papers from a Conference held in Liverpool in July 1999, Stuttgart: Historia Einzelschriften. Vaughn, P 1991, ‘The Identification and Retrieval of the Hoplite Battle-Dead’, in Hanson, V, (1991), Hoplites: the classical Greek battle experience, London and New York: Routledge. Wees, HV 2004, Greek Warfare: Myths And Realities, London, Duckworth. Winlock, HE 1945, The Slain Soldiers of Neb-Hepet-Re Mentu-Hotpe, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Read More