Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 2280686" data-attributes="member: 1645">From <a href="http://www.lepg.org/warfare.htm" target="_blank">Art of Warfare</a>, which discusses 16th-century warfare: Armies of this time period often had more chaplains than doctors.  Given the state of field medicine, this may have been just as well. Contemporaries certainly felt that war had become a more bloody business in their day. The wounds dealt by the traditional edged weapons, pikes and swords, separate muscle tissue but are often stopped by bone. They tend to be relatively clean, and if the wound isn't immediately fatal (e.g. a cleft skull), the odds of recovery are fairly good. Wounds from lead shot are another story. They cause a great deal more trauma with their percussive force (one of the common field injuries was being hit by flying pieces of bone and teeth from the guy next to or in front of you), and are more likely to become infected. Maimed soldiers had no Veterans Administrations to provide for them -- they were likely to become beggars and thieves and a source of public shame and disorder.Again though, early firearms aren't accurate, especially at range, and a crossbow bolt is certainly enough to take most soldiers out of the fight.  The gun's chief advantages are that it's really freakin' intimidating (flash, BANG!, guy's head explodes) and it can blast through armor  (at close range).</blockquote>