Average casualties in Classical age war?

[Elta]

Quite a few mods have been made for Rome Total war claiming the the casualty rate for a roman era war was 5 to 15% rather than the 50 to 75% you encounter in the game.

As such people have been lowering the moral rating for all troops causing them to route earlier.

I know that a vast majority of people routed in Phalanx on Phalanx battles, but all types?

 

[Verbose]

Quite a few mods have been made for Rome Total war claiming the the casualty rate for a roman era war was 5 to 15% rather than the 50 to 75% you encounter in the game.

As such people have been lowering the moral rating for all troops causing them to route earlier.

I know that a vast majority of people routed in Phalanx on Phalanx battles, but all types?

As far as I understand this, casualties in Classical age warfare wasn't actually too high during the actual fighting of the battles.
Casualties in great numbers rather occurred when one side broke and fled, to be cut down in great numbers by the pursuing victors. That's where the hugely disproportionate casualty figures between winners and loosers occurred, not in the organised battle itself.

 

[shortguy]

As far as I understand this, casualties in Classical age warfare wasn't actually too high during the actual fighting of the battles.
Casualties in great numbers rather occurred when one side broke and fled, to be cut down in great numbers by the pursuing victors. That's where the hugely disproportionate casualty figures between winners and loosers occurred, not in the organised battle itself.

I think you're generally right, though I believe in the heavy ritualized hoplite battles of the 6th and 5th centuries not many people tended to die overall. A city was more interested in the glory of victory than in crippling its enemy, so their troops--weary from the battle and still carrying their heavy panoply--rarely gave enthusiastic chase. In those battles, even the losers likely didn't lose more than about 10 or 15% of their troops.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The main problem is that, in RTW and such games, a routed army does not break up and need time to reorganize, it simply retreats with the men it had at the end of the battle. Reorganizing armies after being driven from the field has always been a major problem, right up to the 19th Century. I mean, one of the great miracles of Waterloo was Blucher's ability to re-enter the battle on Napoleon's flank in only 48 hours. Had that battle taken place in Rome Total War, for instance, it would have been perfectly commonplace, because armies don't scatter in there.

 

[Dachs]

Quite a few mods have been made for Rome Total war claiming the the casualty rate for a roman era war was 5 to 15% rather than the 50 to 75% you encounter in the game.

Casualty rates have never been 50 to 75 percent at any point in history save a few isolated instances (Stalingrad being the most famous and obvious, and even then only for some of the better quality units in the battle) because it is a generally accepted fact that the most casualties a given unit will take before it loses combat effectiveness is in the 25% range, while elite units can continue fighting for longer (hence the Stalingrad example).

And if you're not getting the enemy to suffer in the neighborhood of 90 to 100 percent casualties in RTW, you need more cavalry in your armies, or you need to continue pursuing once the battle has been won. No sense in leaving the enemy with free men, and they can't revert from routing after it tells you that you win the battle.

 

[Elta]

@ Everyone else: Thank you for your input

The main problem is that, in RTW and such games, a routed army does not break up and need time to reorganize, it simply retreats with the men it had at the end of the battle. Reorganizing armies after being driven from the field has always been a major problem, right up to the 19th Century. I mean, one of the great miracles of Waterloo was Blucher's ability to re-enter the battle on Napoleon's flank in only 48 hours. Had that battle taken place in Rome Total War, for instance, it would have been perfectly commonplace, because armies don't scatter in there.

Well I decided to mod Rome - I gave every unit more or less 3 times less morale.

Spartans have a moral of 5 now - Peasants have a moral of 0 - Common Archers a 1.

.... and let me tell you it felt realistic! One side lost about 15% and another lost 25% - That is without having units to chase down the enemy's routers.

It wasn't perfect but it feels more correct

Though with some Generals in Game giving their units an 10+ point moral boost I may need to edit files their as well, I would like a general's boost to be maxed out at 5+ moral

 

[zjl56]

You got to take into account the sheer amount of people that always died of disease on the campaign. There has ussually been a much greater disease rate then actual combat casulties.

 

[Elta]

You got to take into account the sheer amount of people that always died of disease on the campaign. There has ussually been a much greater disease rate then actual combat casulties.

Yeah people have done that in the supply line mods for M 2 ...... but porting that over to Rome would be pretty brutal

 

[Shekwan]

Didn't Cannae have a massive casualty rate? SOmething like the most deaths per minute in any battle?

 

[BCLG100]

Salsu was worse i think but Cannae is right up there.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Holy crap. I had to wiki the Battle of Salsu. That's one badass battle.

I also found this wonderful page!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_death_toll

 

[BCLG100]

Yeah i've seen that before, looks like the author got bored halfway through though. No mention of modern battles at all.

 

[Shekwan]

That Salsu battle is crazy! Those crafty Koreans...

I think the impressive thing about Cannae though was that the killing was done withe swords, spears etc. they just literally hacked through the Romans with such speed it was unmatched.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah i've seen that before, looks like the author got bored halfway through though. No mention of modern battles at all.

Yeah, and no mention of the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields either, which has just about as much probability of having high casualties (Hydatius says 300,000 dead in that one battle; Salsu has a similarly disputed figure). The talk page on the Wiki article for Salsu is instructive.

I think the impressive thing about Cannae though was that the killing was done withe swords, spears etc. they just literally hacked through the Romans with such speed it was unmatched.

Cannae wasn't quick by any estimate. And a lot of the Romans who died were prisoners who surrendered that Hannibal didn't feel like trying to guard or parole, so he had the prisoners hamstrung while his troops cleared the area of Roman resistance, then butchered them after the Punic army was safe...

 

[Domen]

Rather than the moral rating they should lower the lethality of weapons / the speed of killing.

The battles in the RTW game last much shorter (+/- 15 minutes) than real battles.

they just literally hacked through the Romans with such speed it was unmatched.

The battle of Cannae lasted for almost one day - since late morning until early evening / late afternoon. Not such a high speed.

Unmatched was Kircholm 1605 - enemy army smashed in 1 hour, but chasing the routing enemy lasted for rest of the day and on the next day too.

Then for example Klushino 1610 lasted for 4 hours (also not including the time of chasing the enemy after the battle).

These are, however, not examples from the Classical age.

the casualty rate for a roman era war was 5 to 15% rather than the 50 to 75% you encounter in the game.

5 to 15% might be OK but for the victor. The defeated one usually (not always) suffered much more.

Regarding the 50 to 75% in the game - remember that in this game there is no such thing like "wounded".

Everyone is counted as killed. In M2TW they at least count captured separately.

At Canne - according to Livy - Hannibal's army suffered 8,000 dead (6,000 according to Polybius). But what about wounded? Sources don't say.

8,000 dead means that there was at least the same number (or likely even more) of wounded.

So in case of Cannae the "5 to 15% rule" applies to Hannibal's army only if we count just dead.

That Salsu battle is crazy!

Or the guy who invented these casualty figures was crazy.

BTW - even if the strength / casualty figures are true, this was rather a long-lasting campaign than just one battle.

 

[Lord Baal]

Do you have to necro a thread once a week to fulfil some sort of quota with your landlord? I mean, WTH, you need to stop this crap.

 

[Domen]

What's bad about necroing threads?

 

[Crezth]

What's bad about necroing threads?

What's bad about responding to year-old emails?

 

[Domen]

There is a difference between an email which is adressed to 1 person and a forum thread / post which has no specific addressees but broad audience.

 

[Lord Baal]

If the discussion has been dead for FOUR YEARS then who exactly is your audience? The Bush Presidency?