What were the major causes of death and injuries during and after ancient battles?: Lacerations and dying throughout prehistoric, Egyptian and Mediterranean times taking under special consideration the psychological impact on the individual

Holger Skorupa

2009年1月 · GRIN Verlag

关于此电子书

Essay from the year 2008 in the subject World History - Early and Ancient History, grade: 75 Punkte = 1,7, The University of Liverpool (School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology), course: Ancient Warfare, language: English, abstract: (...) 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. [...]