How did they survive?

[Ash]

I've been reading one of my Cornwell books, and as usual he has a ton of battle scenes. I often skim those, but it got me thinking - how on earth did anyone survive the kind of carnage thats described? Seems like everyone on one side was killed, at least in fiction accounts. In reality, How many men actually fought in these medival battles among the regular population (not just knights and lords)? Was there pressure on men to fight, lest they be labeled cowards? (I remember a letter during WWI to a man who did not enlist, that I saw in the Royal War Museum, telling him that since he chose not to enlist, her troop of girl guides were certainly welcome him into their fold)..Any idea of a percentage who survived?

I also wonder about the plague - did it just die itself out, or did it keep hitting enough people who were resistant to it for some reason? Or were the villiages far enough apart that the plague was kept in a small area? I know a large percentage of the European population were killed, but how was it that anyone survived?

[Amanda]

I have often thought about things like this too. When you think of things like this in a statistical way. In the case of a naval battle say, you might have x chance of being killed or serious injured from one cannon ball. But in a battle there are cannonballs going everywhere.
I have often thought about this with WW1 battles and the Holocaust as well.


I also wonder about the plague - did it just die itself out, or did it keep hitting enough people who were resistant to it for some reason? Or were the villiages far enough apart that the plague was kept in a small area? I know a large percentage of the European population were killed, but how was it that anyone survived?


There has been some research done on the link between Black Death and HIV resistance. I have seen a doco about it. There is a cell protein that is thought to play a role in the infection, and when mutated it does not take up the virus. I will google.......

ETA:

OK found this...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/blackdeath/

This was the doco I saw:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_plague/index.html

[Margaret]

Some battles of bygone centuries were indeed notable for their carnage: 70,000 Roman soldiers, almost a whole generation of Roman men, died in the Battle of Cannae after Hannibal invaded across the Alps; the campaign culminating in the Battle of Agincourt was another bad one for both sides, though the English eventually won; the American Civil War horrified Europe with the massive numbers of casualties. Novelists naturally tend to focus on the extreme cases. But actually, war was endemic in much of the world through most of history, and the death rate in battle was not as bad as you might think. Roman soldiers, in fact, had generally longer life spans, on the average, than other Roman men, because they ate a healthy and ample diet and had the best medical care available.

[Misfit]

the American Civil War horrified Europe with the massive numbers of casualties.

I had never realized how brutal this was until I read the Shaara Civil War trilogy. They just didn't teach that in school, or at least the ones I went to. My Name is Mary Sutter can gut you as well when you see how unprepared they were for going to war, at least as far as treating the wounded.

[SarahWoodbury]

In contrast, some battles in the Middle Ages had relatively few soldiers/deaths. If you compare those 70,000 Roman deaths to the Welsh wars with Edward I 1000 years later . . . The Battle of the Menai Straits was a huge defeat for the English (admittedly psychologically as well as physically). In all, the English lost 16 knights, another 16 squires, and 300 footmen.

[Margaret]

Good to have those numbers, Sarah. The development of armor was a huge leap forward that reduced casualties tremendously for knights, who had the money to buy it. The disparity between the number of knights' deaths and the footmen (without armor) shows how effective it was.

I think the battles with huge numbers of casualties usually resulted from leaps forward in weapons technology. At Agincourt, the English used large numbers of longbowmen whose arrows could penetrate armor. In the American Civil War, the technology of rifles had been greatly improved, and the battle tactics had not caught up - soldiers were still forming into battle lines and charging at each other as if they were using swords and spears. Some of the battles in Roman times against Celtic armies almost wiped out particular groups of Celts - in this case it was the highly organized Roman battle tactics in addition to their superior weapons and armor that made the difference.

[SarahWoodbury]

Though from Edward's perspective, the loss of the knights and squires was a far greater loss. There may have only been 50 knights in the first place, so to lose a third . . . when they were so expensive to outfit and train, not to mention that many were his relations.

In this case, the English lost so many because they were being shot at by the Welsh and Edward didn't adopt longbowmen until after he won this war with the Welsh (not entirely true, although Welsh fought for him, he didn't really appreciate them until later) and because the bridge over the Straits broke under the weight of men and horses who were fleeing the Welsh assault.

[annis]

Posted by Margaret
The disparity between the number of knights' deaths and the footmen (without armor) shows how effective it was.
There's also the fact that knights were valuable alive - a captive knight could bring a good ransom, while footmen had no monetary value. Of course Henry V blew the customary syatem of exchange for ransom out of the water by having his noble prisoners killed at the Battle of Agincourt.

[Margaret]

a captive knight could bring a good ransom, while footmen had no monetary value

Yet another good reason to be rich rather than poor in the Middle Ages!

[enelya]

Just wanted to add my bit. During the MA most strategists would have tried to avoid a pitched battle, precisely because they could be so devastating. Most warfare consisted of sieges of castles and walled towns, and scorched earth camaigns in which cilvilians would suffer badly.
Pitched battles were the exeption, that is why they are most remembered. To people in their time they would have been most shocking and therefore recorded in chronicles and the like.

[donroc]

From my current reading about 9th century Carolingians, their noble vassals preferred to avoid melee combat and instead negotiated, bribed, or preferred siege. Oaths of loyalty were relatively meaningless. Many revolving door alliances.

Regarding the Black Plague, one anomaly I remember reading is that Poland was not affected by it -- no surprise it soon became a major power.

[Michy]

I also wonder about the plague - did it just die itself out, or did it keep hitting enough people who were resistant to it for some reason? Or were the villiages far enough apart that the plague was kept in a small area? I know a large percentage of the European population were killed, but how was it that anyone survived?

I am fascinated by the phenomenon of the plague, although I am by no means an expert. The big pandemic in the 14th century spent itself out, as pandemics do, although the plague was by no means totally gone. It has popped up in smaller outbreaks many times over history. In fact, there was another fairly large pandemic of it in another century although I can't recall when, but I believe it was in the 1600s. I'm sure someone here will know.

As to how anyone survived, as in every pandemic not everyone contracted the plague. And some -- very few -- contracted it but managed to live through it. It is estimated, I believe (I could be wrong here, I'm working from memory which isn't always so reliable), that the plague wiped out about 1/3 of the population of Europe. No question that that is a huge, devastating hit. But that also means that 2/3 of the population didn't die from it.

There are many different theories as to the cause of the plague and even as to what it acually was. I read a NF book a couple of years ago in which the author suggests that the 14th century "Black Death" wasn't just bubonic and pneumonic plagues, but also anthrax.

As to donroc's comment about Poland, I had never heard that before. Very interesting. I wonder what combination of circumstances kept the plague from reaching Poland?

[enelya]

I know there were several kinds of the plague rearing their heads at the same and at different times. The confusing thing is, a lot of the time the symptoms aren't clearly described, so it is hard to pin down the disease precisely.
I am not an expert on Polish history by any means, but I think Poland might have been relatively isolated compared to countries like France and Italy
BTW, did you know people still do die from plague in countries like India?

[Michy]

I don't know much about Poland, only what I read in James Michener's book many years ago. But what I distinctly remember is that Poland is a flat country with no natural barriers; which is largely why it has been invaded and even absorbed into other countries so many times over its history.

I would think this would also make it as susceptible to the plague as anywhere else in Europe. But perhaps there was something peculiar to Polish culture at that time (diet? lifestyle?) that kept the plague away. If anyone has any ideas I would love to know.

[FlynnElk]

If we're listing historical instances of plague, let's not leave out the Plague of Justinian in the Western Roman/Byzantine Empire during the 6th century (541-2 AD).

It's named after the emperor at the time (by modern historians) Justinian I who, interestingly, contracted the plague himself but was one of the few to survive it.

It killed 40% of the people in Constantinople, where it was described as “a pestilence by which the whole human race came near to being annihilated.”

Gosh, with that and the extreme weather events that happened a few years earlier, it was not so fun living in the mid 6th century!

[donroc]

Perhaps the Poles were more hygenic and had many cats?:confused:

[annis]

The most common theory is that the spread of the bubonic plague was really a testament to the "globalization" of the medieval economy. In some areas of Central Asia there were pockets where climatic conditions allowed a number of rats to carry the plague without it being a major issue. It was the contact with these relatively isolated areas, firstly through first Mongol conquests linking central Asia with China, Middle East, and Europe, and then increased European trade with China and Asia Minor that gave opportunity for the spread of the plague, which mutated and flourished in new conditions in which war, weather and famine etc played a part. So the path of the plague can be traced by following its progress along the trade routes from China to Italy and from there to other parts of Europe.

It’s believed that Poland remained relatively unscathed because its lack of trade routes and interaction with other countries, both in Western Europe and the Orient, meant there were fewer chances for the contagion to enter the country

[Kveto from Prague]

i always remember the story of the tartar seige of azov(?) in Asia minor. while the tartarss were laying siege to the town they contracted the plague. the leader knew his army was dying so they decided to leave. but before they left, they used catapults to hurl the dead bodies of his own plague infected soliders over the walls of the town.

the town itself got infected and it spread to Europe through trade routes as Annis showed. but that image of hurling bodies over the wall always struck me

[Ash]

I've alway heard that as the earliest form of biological warfare; tossing any carcass over the wall, esp if it lands in the water supply.

[MLE]

This is the first I've heard about the plague missing Poland, too. But I do know that the devastation from plague in warmer climates (the City of Florence lost 2/3 of its population, by official count) was much greater than in the colder climates, like Copenhagen. The rat flea goes dormant in the cold months, which gives a little bit of a breather.

[Margaret]

i always remember the story of the tartar seige of azov(?) in Asia minor. while the tartarss were laying siege to the town they contracted the plague. the leader knew his army was dying so they decided to leave. but before they left, they used catapults to hurl the dead bodies of his own plague infected soliders over the walls of the town.

the town itself got infected and it spread to Europe through trade routes as Annis showed. but that image of hurling bodies over the wall always struck me

If you count evidence from literature, during the Trojan War one side is supposed to have set up their latrines upstream of the other side's drinking water, to similar effect.

[Michy]

Now that's fighting dirty! :D

***groan***