What were the major causes of death and injuries during and after ancient battles? E-Book
Holger Skorupa
15,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: GRIN Verlag
- Sprache: Englisch
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. [...]
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009
Ähnliche
Page 1
(...) 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 of1YHU\OLPLWHGUDQJHDQGHIIHFW´
As Keegan suggest in hisFace 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.2However only few historical3, anthropological4or sociological/psychological5works seem to be of large interest questioning the causes of death, fatal wounds and injuries throughout a war, even thoughthis(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 unnecessaryFDVXDOWLHV LW ZLOO JLYH D VKRUW LQWURGXFWLRQ WR D ZDUULRU¶VVROGLHU¶V SDUWLFXODU EHKDYLRXU ZKLOHbattling. Additionally the paper tries to offer both various arguments, which may support.HHJDQ¶V LQWHQWLRQ UHIHUULQJ DERYH DQG ±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 possible6
1Keegan, J.:The Face of Battle.London 1976, p. 100. In the following cit. as Keegan 1976.
2See Keeley, L. H.:War Before Civilization. The myth of the peaceful savage.Oxford/New York 1996.
3See again Keegan, J.:A History of Warfare.London 1993. In the following cit. as Keegan 1993.
4See esp. Aiello; L. C.; Dunbar, R. I. M.: Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of language in the hominids.Current Anthropology34 (1993), pp. 184-193.
5See esp. Lee, A. D.:War in late Antiquity. A social History.Malden/Oxford 2007. See also Shalit, B.:The Psychology of Conflict and Combat.London/New York/Westport 1988.
6^X^/vÆ}(&]Pµv]Pu_X
Page 2
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. This lack of research was distinctively correlated with the intention of pacified huntergatherer communities.7Therefore significant investigations did not seem to be necessary inUHIOHFWLRQ RQ OHDUQLQJ PRUH DERXW $XVWUDORSHWKLQHV¶ 1HDQGHUWKDOV¶ DQG HVSHFLDOO\ +RPRerectus¶VRFLDO DQG DUFKHW\SDO YLROHQW EHKDYLRXU8However this questionable view of traditional scholarship has radically changed since the late 19thCentury. For the last decades±obviously especially since the end of the 20thCentury±archaeological9, military10, cultural11as well as evolutionary, biological12and social (anthropological)13studies have increased. Consequently, they underlined the importance of doing research on prehistoric warfare.,Q WKLV FDVH .HHOH\¶V SXEOLFDWLRQ14rapidly changed the conventional interpretation of prehistoric communities living together in peace and harmony.15Hence the most certain±and unfortunately the almost only±sources concerning the causes of death and injury during and after prehistoric battles are archaeological findings.16There
7Thorpe, I. J. N.: The ancient origins of warfare and violence. In: Parker Pearson, M.; Thorpe, I. J. N. (eds.): Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory.British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 1374 (2005), Oxford, pp.1-18, p. 1.
8Wrangham, R. W.: The evolution of coalitionary killing.Yearbook of Physical Anthropology42 (1999), pp. 1-30, pp. 2-5. Aiello; Dunbar, pp. 184-186.
9See Keeley. See also Osgood, R.: The dead of TormartontMiddle Bronze Age combat victims? In: Parker Pearson, M.; Thorpe, I. J. N. (eds.): Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory.British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 1374 (2005), Oxford, pp. 139-144.
10See Keegan 1976. See also Keegan 1993. See furthermoreK[}vvooUR. L.:Ride of the Second Horseman.Oxford 1995.
11See Dawson, D.: Evolutionary theory and group selection. The question of warfare.History and Theory38 (1999), pp. 79-100. See furthermore Dunbar, R. I. M.: The Social Brain Hypothesis.Evolutionary Anthropology6 (1998), pp. 178-190.
12See Wrangham. See also Van der Dennen, J.:The Origin of War. The evolution of a male-coalitional reproductive strategy.Groningen 1995. See furthermore Berger, T. D.; Trinkaus, E.: Patterns of trauma among the Neanderthals.Journal of Archaeological Science22 (1995), pp. 841-852.
13See Kelly, R. C.:Warless Societies and the Origin of War.Ann Arbour/Michigan 2000. See furthermore Fernández-Jalvo, Y.; Díez, J. C.; Cáceres, I.; Rosell, J.: Human cannibalism in the early Pleistocene of Europe.Journal of Human Evolution37 (1999), pp. 591-622.
14See Keeley.
15Thorpe, p. 1. Knüsel, C. J.: The physical evidence of warfaretsubtle stigmata? In: Parker Pearson, M.; Thorpe, I. J. N. (eds.): Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory.British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 1374 (2005), Oxford, pp.49-65, pp. 49-51.
16For a critical reflection on the utilization of archaeological sources see later arguments.
