What were the casualty rates wars in the pre-gunpowder era?

[Gejegret841]

What percentage of soldiers would fall in battle, in a typical battle set in the year 1500–right before guns began being used in warfare? Examples from more recent cultures may be given if the primary weapon in said culture was not a gunpowder weapon. The battle of Battle of Isandlwana, in which the unarmored, spear-wielding Zulus killed ~70% of the British force, would be a perfect example if not for the fact that they the British were greatly outnumbered.

 

[Leftyhunter]

What percentage of soldiers would fall in battle, in a typical battle set in the year 1500–right before guns began being used in warfare? Examples from more recent cultures may be given if the primary weapon in said culture was not a gunpowder weapon. The battle of Battle of Isandlwana, in which the unarmored, spear-wielding Zulus killed ~70% of the British force, would be a perfect example if not for the fact that they the British were greatly outnumbered.

I doubt that question can be answered. One would think most mortality in pre firearm era warfare would take place days later especially in warmer climates would be death by infection since modern germ theory didn't occur until well after the ACW.
Leftyhunter

 

[Gejegret841]

I doubt that question can be answered. One would think most mortality in pre firearm era warfare would take place days later especially in warmer climates would be death by infection since modern germ theory didn't occur until well after the ACW.
Leftyhunter

I understand, which is why I asked how many would fall in battle. Disease caused most deaths, but how many were caused by the weapons during battle?

 

[Leftyhunter]

I understand, which is why I asked how many would fall in battle. Disease caused most deaths, but how many were caused by the weapons during battle?

That would require that after each major battle up to say the 1500s there was accurate recording of all casualties plus accurate recordings of how many soldiers fought on both sides. Even in modern day warfare there is debate among historians on actual military casualties. So the answer to your question may very well be we will never know.
Leftyhunter

 

[johnincornwall]

What percentage of soldiers would fall in battle, in a typical battle set in the year 1500–right before guns began being used in warfare? Examples from more recent cultures may be given if the primary weapon in said culture was not a gunpowder weapon. The battle of Battle of Isandlwana, in which the unarmored, spear-wielding Zulus killed ~70% of the British force, would be a perfect example if not for the fact that they the British were greatly outnumbered.

The year isn't relevant. You can have massive casualties in Roman times and massive in 20th century. And very low casualties in either.

If you think about it

 

[Chlodio]

I wouldn't think the weapons have anything to do with the casualty rate for an entire war. Wars have always been waged until victory is attained or until the cost of war becomes prohibitive. One of the costs is the casualty rate. If a society can tolerate a 10 percent casualty rate but no higher, then it doesn't matter if those casualties are inflicted by guns or bows and arrows. An eleven percent casualty rate means that the war will soon end. A nine percent casualty rate means the war will continue until victory is attained or the casualty rate rises to intolerable levels. Different countries have different tolerances for casualty rates, but a society that has already decided upon war will not subsequently be deterred by what weapons are in use. If the enemy has superior weapons that cause your side to suffer higher casualties, it's the casualty rate, not the superior weapon, that drives the decision to quit the war.

 

[Matthew Amt]

Agreed with Chlodio. From the studies I've seen over the years, the losing side in a battle could expect to take 10 to 15 percent casualties--that's killed AND wounded. Much lower for the winners. And that's just a generality. Sure, everyone jumps in at this point with the well-known slaughters and bloodbaths, and they did happen once in a while, but they were far from common. And quite possibly exaggerated in at least some cases. Heck, most "battles" in the middle ages were piddly little sieges with a few wounds from arrows before some agreed-on time limit ran out and the attackers either left or were handed the keys.

By the way, 1500 is well into the gunpowder era! Any army worth its salt had arquebusiers and artillery, by that point. Minor nitpick!

Matthew

 

[Gejegret841]

Agreed with Chlodio. From the studies I've seen over the years, the losing side in a battle could expect to take 10 to 15 percent casualties--that's killed AND wounded.

What time period---medieval, ancient--do these studies usually focus on?

Heck, most "battles" in the middle ages were piddly little sieges with a few wounds from arrows before some agreed-on time limit ran out and the attackers either left or were handed the keys.

Battles and sieges were smaller scale in the middle ages, mostly due to loss of power to the nobility and other elites, who could only field small armies. But there were thousands and thousands of these nobles in Europe as a whole. If a significant portion of these nobles were at war with each other in a given time, the cumulative casualties could be great, no? If you combine the casualties of a hundred small armies of ~300, you get the casualties of large armies (~25,000).

By the way, 1500 is well into the gunpowder era!

It wasn't common in this era for armies to have firearms. England was still using the longbow, at least until the mid 1500s.

 

[Matthew Amt]

What time period---medieval, ancient--do these studies usually focus on?

Some on one era, some on another. But they do tend to align on the numbers.

Battles and sieges were smaller scale in the middle ages, mostly due to loss of power to the nobility and other elites, who could only field small armies. But there were thousands and thousands of these nobles in Europe as a whole. If a significant portion of these nobles were at war with each other in a given time, the cumulative casualties could be great, no? If you combine the casualties of a hundred small armies of ~300, you get the casualties of large armies (~25,000).

Agreed! I'm just saying that there were many many actions that had few or no battle casualties, regardless of the absolute numbers.

It wasn't common in this era for armies to have firearms. England was still using the longbow, at least until the mid 1500s.

From what I've seen, it was pretty common for armies to have hand-gunners and artillery, even if there were not very many of them. Yes, English armies typically lacked their own, so the commanders would hire mercenaries for those roles.

Matthew

 

[Domhnallaich]

Including injuries, you're looking at 30-50%+ casualty rates for shock combat in high and late medieval Europe. Armour meant warriors could sustain dozens of would-be lethal injuries and not even realise until adrenaline had worn off.

Overall, including just deaths, a consistent norm is 3-10% dead on both sides until a rout occurred. Then casualties among routers went stratospheric, frequently ending up over 20% and rarely as high as 80% or 90%. The key factor in fights between technological peers is how well formations hold. If your formation is penetrated and you get that Hollywood-style big swirling melee (not something anyone entered on purpose), people are going to be dropping dead left and right. If your formation stays in order and mutually supportive, the risk to individuals is minimal.

 

[Gejegret841]

Overall, including just deaths, a consistent norm is 3-10% dead on both sides until a rout occurred. Then casualties among routers went stratospheric, frequently ending up over 20% and rarely as high as 80% or 90%.

Very helpful answer. Thank you. But how did the armies count the causalities they suffered right before the rout? Is that an estimate? It seems that it would be difficult for either side of the army to be counting in the midst of fighting.

 

[Matthew Amt]

Including injuries, you're looking at 30-50%+ casualty rates for shock combat in high and late medieval Europe. Armour meant warriors could sustain dozens of would-be lethal injuries and not even realise until adrenaline had worn off.

Overall, including just deaths, a consistent norm is 3-10% dead on both sides until a rout occurred. Then casualties among routers went stratospheric, frequently ending up over 20% and rarely as high as 80% or 90%. The key factor in fights between technological peers is how well formations hold. If your formation is penetrated and you get that Hollywood-style big swirling melee (not something anyone entered on purpose), people are going to be dropping dead left and right. If your formation stays in order and mutually supportive, the risk to individuals is minimal.

Funny that those numbers are so much higher than any study I've come across. Most authorities would maintain that such rates were not sustainable for a population, let alone a military system. I doubt the Hollywood brawl ever occurred in a set-piece battle, considering everyone knew that the formation meant survival.

What's that about armor? I always thought it let you *avoid* injuries, not just write them off to adrenaline.

Matthew

 

[Larrey]

Don't think some kind of set formula can be made. Battle was never mathematics like that.

What you want to do to win easy is break the moral of the opposing force, making them run. And the, when one sides breaks and runs, if you catch them then it it possible to inflict massive casualties – in pursuit of an already broken army.

I would also raise the traditional concept of "subaltern battles" – i.e. battles fought typically commanded by inexperienced junior officers, i.e. badly, and thus ending up getting more protracted, confused and casualty heavy than they probably needed to be, had a competent commanders been on the spot directing thin.

But then, in the end, before modern warfare and command and control systems, all generals in Medieval and Early Modern warfare knew that all battles was a gamble. You never knew how it would turn out, it was always a massive risk. Which was why considerate and cautious generals tended to avoid battles as much as they could. It was even reflected in the language – in the sense that battles was "hazarded", i.e. it was known and recognized that engaging on one was a roll of the dice.

In the end mileage seems to have varied by necessity.

 

[Gejegret841]

Don't think some kind of set formula can be made. Battle was never mathematics like that.

Did you read this thread? Everyone else here is pulling out the statistics like its going out of style.

 

[Matthew Amt]

Did you read this thread? Everyone else here is pulling out the statistics like its going out of style.

Careful. The statistics are generalities, not hard figures, and there is certainly room for some debate. Part of the problem is that ancient and medieval accounts of troop numbers and casualties can rarely be trusted. Muster rolls are more helpful, though not so much for casualties (as far as I know). It's also quite possible that many soldiers in a force which is "wiped out" simply scattered and ran, being too numerous to chase down and kill individually. Obviously that's harder if an army is trapped or surrounded! The point is reliable numbers are almost unknown, so we get into some VERY subjective ideas of what went on in a battle, and what we can compare from more reliable accounts of how armies function.

Just as a cautionary tale, I've heard of university professor who was convinced that armor was worse than useless--maybe she thought the armor industry of the middle ages was some sort of conspiracy project to kill off the upper class? Historical accounts, artwork, millions of artifacts, modern tests and reenactor experiences, nothing could shake her belief. I've also crossed words with someone who firmly maintained that no man could go into combat *without* armor and hope to survive, and a couple thousand years of impressive evidence to the contrary meant nothing to him. Beware of sweeping conclusions!

Matthew

 

[Larrey]

Did you read this thread? Everyone else here is pulling out the statistics like its going out of style.

Well, you know – lies, damned lies, and statistics...

 

[Domhnallaich]

Funny that those numbers are so much higher than any study I've come across. Most authorities would maintain that such rates were not sustainable for a population, let alone a military system. I doubt the Hollywood brawl ever occurred in a set-piece battle, considering everyone knew that the formation meant survival.

That's for battles, not a proportion of population lost to war.

What's that about armor? I always thought it let you *avoid* injuries, not just write them off to adrenaline.

That's not right. Armour diminishes injuries but doesn't prevent them. In one of Bertran le Born's poems he says no-one was counted in a fight until they had given and received many wounds.

 

[Matthew Amt]

That's for battles, not a proportion of population lost to war.

I suspect that if you lose combatants at that rate, it *will* influence the general population...

That's not right. Armour diminishes injuries but doesn't prevent them. In one of Bertran le Born's poems he says no-one was counted in a fight until they had given and received many wounds.

Um, what? Armor is not perfect or invincible, I'm not saying that. But it will certainly keep any number of otherwise dangerous or fatal blows from causing the wearer any harm. Armored men *could* be wounded or killed, obviously if their whole body isn't covered in armor. And yes, sometimes you can be wounded *through* your armor. So maybe we're saying the same thing, here? I have a lot of armor, and it certainly does reduce what would be lethal hits with bladed weapons to thumps that don't even lightly bruise me. But there are certainly blows which I haven't tried, which would cause me harm even with the armor. (AND seriously damage my ARMOR, ack!)

Matthew

 

[Domhnallaich]

Very helpful answer. Thank you. But how did the armies count the causalities they suffered right before the rout? Is that an estimate? It seems that it would be difficult for either side of the army to be counting in the midst of fighting.

I'm not sure they did. Mostly it's historians comparing battles where there was a rout versus where there wasn't. Battles with routs have far higher casualty rates.

I suspect that if you lose combatants at that rate, it *will* influence the general population...

Surely that depends on the scale of the war.

Um, what? Armor is not perfect or invincible, I'm not saying that. But it will certainly keep any number of otherwise dangerous or fatal blows from causing the wearer any harm. Armored men *could* be wounded or killed, obviously if their whole body isn't covered in armor. And yes, sometimes you can be wounded *through* your armor. So maybe we're saying the same thing, here? I have a lot of armor, and it certainly does reduce what would be lethal hits with bladed weapons to thumps that don't even lightly bruise me. But there are certainly blows which I haven't tried, which would cause me harm even with the armor. (AND seriously damage my ARMOR, ack!)

Of course, armour reduces the extent of injuries. But we both acknowledge it doesn't prevent injury (unless an impact wasn't that serious in the first place). Someone in good armour can still come out of shock combat badly, perhaps even fatally injured.

 

[johnincornwall]

Very helpful answer. Thank you. But how did the armies count the causalities they suffered right before the rout? Is that an estimate? It seems that it would be difficult for either side of the army to be counting in the midst of fighting.

There's a huge amount of estimation going on about ancient and medieval battles. With Rome, it's relatively easy because it's usually well documented in that x number of legions were lost and you can work out roughly how many men were in an (understrength) legion

Outside of that, there's some wildly impossible figures thrown about by 'sources' which are often actually nowhere near the date of the battle. And you have to remember that a lot of people didn't evn count more than 10. And after major battles, unless someone was in a position to do so, it was left to the local peasants to bury/dispose. This happened as recently as Borodino. They aint gonna count

Modern historians spend a lot of time making more reasonable estimates based on several factors

So 'counting in the middle of fighting'? - no