Arrow Wounds and Treatment

[Primvs Pavlvs]

I know this is out of period but I would imagine the methods were not greatly removed from the methods used in period.

http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/05/bat ... of-a-body/

[Dan Howard]

Field medicine seems to have been pretty effective since the Roman period. Arrow wounds were rarely fatal.

[Amanda M]

If it didn't hit a vital organ I would imagine the biggest danger would come from infection. Punctures and stab wounds do a fair job of sort of sealing up to server extent with swelling.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Arrow wounds were rarely fatal.

I know that you do not make comments lightly, Dan, but what evidence do you have for making this claim?

[Dan Howard]

Arrow wounds were rarely fatal.

I know that you do not make comments lightly, Dan, but what evidence do you have for making this claim?

You've put me on the spot; I haven't reasearched this for fifteen years. I'll see what I can dig up. Most of it will be Roman in context.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

I have a feeling that arrows probably ended up killing more individuals by infection than by immediate deaths.

[Dan Howard]

Which doesn't affect the outcome of a battle in the slightest. Arrows don't have to kill; an arrow in the foot takes a soldier out of the fight just as surely as one through the heart. After the battle you can round up all of the wounded and decide what to do with them.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

No, but your statement was they were "rarely fatal". I agree that the end result did not affect the battle but a septic wound in the thorax from an arrow wound was still fatal in many instances prior to modern medicine.

[Andrew Batten]

Henry V of England was probably the most famous arrow wound survivor of the Middle Ages. He was struck in the face at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. Henry was lucky to have skilled, innovative medical help, as it took some creativity to extract the arrowhead from his head. The surgeon treated the wound with honey and wine and, while touch-and-go, the surgery was a complete success. It may be the reason, however, that Henry's only known contemporary portrait is done in profile instead of the more common 3/4 view.

[Dan Howard]

No, but your statement was they were "rarely fatal". I agree that the end result did not affect the battle but a septic wound in the thorax from an arrow wound was still fatal in many instances prior to modern medicine.

Roman and medieval knowledge about wound infection and ways to avoid it seem to have been more advanced than in 19th century Europe. For example it was widely known that honey and wine were excellent antiseptics. Fresh urine was another good antiseptic (modern studies conclude that it is the concentration of urea that acts as an anti-bacterial). I'd rather trust my wounds to a 13th century village wisewoman than to a 19th century physician. The chance of infection would be a lot lower.

[Signo]

Well, we must say that we are a bit obsessed with this infection stuff. Not all the bacteria that are in the environment will kill you if they enter your body, not every wound will develop an infection, and even in the case of infection, not all the infection will kill you. Skeletal remains from the battle of Towton for example, show us people that earlier in life received wounds, some of them developed bone infections but did not kill the wounded, at least not before their unfortunate last day.

[RandallMoffett]

I think people could treat wounds fairly efficiently. After reading Blood Red Roses I was amazed to see the wounds people were healed from.

I do wonder how often infection would do one in. Sadly I do not think we could put together enough info on it from the accounts I can think of.

As to deaths from archery. I would love to see evidence for that too. From coroner records that are 'often accidental' arrow related deaths they seem very, very lethal. In war where your purpose is to kill seems that number would go up for all sorts of reasons. I'd love to see evidence of that Dan as we have a number of chronicles that indicate the archers killed fairly significant numbers but still open to looking over whatever you might have though. Something to consider is the possibility of changes in casualties tied to archery use and traditions as well which would be interesting.

RPM

[Mac]

I think I can reconcile Dan's understanding that arrow wounds are seldom fatal with Dr. Bill's accounts.

The difference is the presence or armor , and its effect of the statistical distribution of wounds.

Everyone agrees that arrow wounds to the limbs usually heal OK, and it's clear that wounds to the abdomen, thorax, or head are likely to be trouble. The classical soldier will have had those parts covered, either by armor or a shield. Most of their arrow wounds will have been to the limbs. By contrast, Dr. Bill's 19th C. soldiers had none of that; making wounds to the vital areas more likely.

Mac

[Henrik Granlid]

In war, people did carry a bit more armour than modern hunters do I believe. But yes, effective mortality rates of arrow to body during combat would be very nice to find.

[RandallMoffett]

Mac and Henrik,

Is that true though? Not from the musters I have seen it is not. Very significant amounts of men seem to have very little or no armour. So yes more than hunters but this might be a questionable assumption to a large degree. As well even men at arms are not as heavily equipped as one would expect at times if what I am seeing is correct.

In the classical period I assume it is even higher or around the same. There has even been some noise that not all Roman legionaries had torso armour, though I am not so sure about that myself. That said their enemies are almost walways described as with no armour but shields.

Now I agree limb wounds are likely less an issue than others but as I have looked over musters and arrays I am still wary on assuming many were well enough equipped it would not be an issue, or armoured with good enough armour it would not be.

RPM

[Mac]

Mac and Henrik,

Is that true though?

I think it's true enough... statistically.

Even if (say) only half of a classical or medieval army had helmets and body armor it's a lot different than the 19th C. soldiers that Dr. bill had to try to patch up.

Mac

[Ernst]

http://wellcomelibrary.org/actual/b1968 ... ddb0c9/jp2

[Glen K]

I've got a ton of period-specific (12th-13th century) info on this sort of thing at home and will post within the next 36 hours, unless someone beats me to it.

[Signo]

Hunting arrows, and war arrows, at least in the age of metal armours are quite different, and with this difference is their wounding capacity. About the armour distribution, several sources state the minimum protection required to serve or partecipate in a conflict, at least in a planned one. Wisby show us how contingency trow through the window all the requirements, but I think that padded garments were common among the lower ranks, and those grant some protection from bodkin arrows.

[RandallMoffett]

Mac,

Fair enough but 50% with only a helmet and shield is still 50% without which would be very significant. As well that means that the 50% that is armoured I still partially exposed in the chest, one of the key areas under discussion here.''?

So it might be more than the 19th but still leaves the majority susceptible to arrow wounds.

RPM

[Dan Howard]

There were a lot of regulations on minimum equipment requirements in various places. Torso armour seems to be part of that minimum requirement in most texts I've seen but your project involving the collection of muster rolls will help a lot here.

[RandallMoffett]

Dan,

That is one of the things I am seeing. I had thought from my initial look that towns might have been better equipped numerically but that is not looking to be the case. That said it does look like they might have had better quality armour so even if they were about the same in percentage of armed to unarmed me they look like they might be in higher quality armour. That said we still seem to have about 50% unarmoured, at times many more.

The minimum requirements could therefore be unfulfilled in many cases but I do know arrayers who would make up the difference, so not always. In fact I just read an account about men being reprimanded for their rather harsh methods in doing this over a county.

I am working on a book on commoners that should be interesting and include things like what they did in defense.

RPM