An analysis that I was just looking at this morning, of documents reporting battlewounds, for example, shows that between 15, out of some 620 casualties described, 368 were arrow wounds, 124 were spear wounds, 96 were injuries from rocks (thrown by slings or by hand), 18 were sword wounds, 7 were combined arrow and spear wounds, 3 were combined arrow and sword wounds, 2 were combined rock and spear wounds, and 2 were combined rock and arrow wounds. Although for many individuals on the ground it was their primary weapon and *verrrry* important to them for their personal well-being. I think it is probably best to say the sword wasn't the primary battlefield weapon in the larger scheme of things (in the sense of what "won" the battle"). And I really doubt many would want to go wading into a battlefield even after a strong assault without a sword in hand. But the sword was still critical and used. So yeah, the majority of deaths probably weren't sword related.
But once the boots on the ground go in *from then on* the majority of engagements are going to involve their hand carried weapons.
the majority of deaths "up front" aren't from arms fire. Just like today in the military where the first strikes are most likely air strikes, bombs, etc. So if you look at records/studies of injuries/deaths on the old battlefields of Japan you'll find that most injuries/deaths were due to things other that sword wounds. So did "firearms" depending on the period.
But that doesn't mean that battles were comprised *solely* of guys with swords clashing in wave after Hollywood wave of action. Of course swords are "battlefield" weapons since many carried them.
0 kommentar(er)
