Average casualties in Classical age war?

[Plotinus]

Bumping old threads is not, in itself, against the rules. We don't have hard-and-fast rules about it. But it can be annoying if done for no very good reason. In particular, it's odd to jump into a years-old conversation as if it's ongoing.

The following is not exhaustive.

Good reasons for bumping an old thread:

It's about some project you were working on, and now you have an update for it.
It's about some more general topic which is back in the news now, or a story which has been updated.
There's some kind of deadly misinformation in the thread which you really need to correct.
There's an important link, perhaps to Civ-related downloadables, which is broken.

Bad reasons for bumping a thread:

You happen to have come across a post saying something you disagree with, and you want to post a rebuttal.
You happen to have come across something you like, and you want to post "Great unit!" or similar.

 

[classical_hero]

Don't forget that a lot of early battles there often be just a champion from each side fight and the winning champion meant that their side won and the other side had to surrender.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Early battles where? Aside from the Iliad.

 

[Yeekim]

That is actually something I'd be interested in - is the "champions" deciding the fate of a battle a complete myth, or are there any examples of it actually happening, anywhere?

 

[Domen]

Even if it's a complete myth it would be good to use this method nowadays.

Imagine one short Bush vs Saddam duel instead of over 8 years of war.

 

[Tee Kay]

If that's the case then the entire world would be ruled by Putin.

 

[sophie]

That is actually something I'd be interested in - is the "champions" deciding the fate of a battle a complete myth, or are there any examples of it actually happening, anywhere?

I doubt there were any examples of this happening. Champions fighting as a prelude to the full engagement would seem more likely. But even then...meeeeh

 

[cegman]

I doubt there were any examples of this happening. Champions fighting as a prelude to the full engagement would seem more likely. But even then...meeeeh

I would love to know the real story behind David and Goliath. I don't doubt there is an interesting history to this "Champion" engagement.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would point out that some "battles" were small enough that an informal fight between "champions" could settle it, at least before the rise of large scale polities.

 

[Louis XXIV]

But that seemed to be over certainly by the time of Sargon if not by even earlier Sumerian city conflicts.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It wasn't over by the Norman Invasion. Depends where you look.

 

[Lord Baal]

That is actually something I'd be interested in - is the "champions" deciding the fate of a battle a complete myth, or are there any examples of it actually happening, anywhere?

Yes, it's happened, even up until relatively modern times. The Zulus and Nguni used to practice the champion-vs-champion duels in battles between their villages. After Shaka came along this method died a swift and bloody death, like most things involving Shaka.

If that's the case then the entire world would be ruled by Putin.

You underestimate Gillard's epic backstabbing skills.

I would point out that some "battles" were small enough that an informal fight between "champions" could settle it, at least before the rise of large scale polities.

The Zulus and Meso-Americans also practiced this. The Meso-Americans right up until Cortez showed up, the Zulus until, you guessed it, mah bloodthirsty tyrant Shaka.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It wasn't over by the Norman Invasion. Depends where you look.

Can you give an example?

 

[Domen]

North American tribes sometimes also employed similar kinds of relatively "bloodless" war.

Especially tribes which were not very populous preferred such warfare - which is easily understandable.

Among those tribes to touch or overpower an enemy warrior in battle was a bigger achievement than to kill him.

 

[Dachs]

Can you give an example?

It's PCH. What example do you think he's going to give?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Can you give an example?

Well, for example from the Annals of Ulsters some of the battles described solely by the actions of particular persons.

Cathalan Ua Maelfhabaill, king of Carraic-Brachaidhe, was killed by O'Derain and O'Derain was killed at the same time.

The son of Brian of Breifni, son of Toirrdealbach Ua Conchubhair, was killed by Cathal Carrach, son of Conchubar Maenmhaighe.

Or other times only by a person of note who was killed, with no mention of 'great slaughter' or the usual like:

Cathal the Swarthy, son of Mac Carrthaigh, was slain.

In one of the larger battles described in the Annals...10 people died.

A hosting by John De-Courcy into Tir-Eogain throughout the churches: namely, Ard-sratha and Rath-both were destroyed by him, until he reached Daire, so that he was there two nights over a week, destroying Inis-Eogain and the country besides. And he would not have gone therefrom for a long time, had not [lit. until] Aedh Ua Neill, [with] a force of five ships, reached Cell [ruadh?] in Latharna, so that he burned a part of the town and killed twenty, wanting two, therein. Then the Foreigners of Magh-Line and Dal-Araidhe were, three hundred [strong], both in mail and without mail, in front of him and they [the Irish] noticed not, until [the Foreigners] poured against them, burning the town. Thereupon they gave battle in the centre of the town and it went against the Foreigners. And [the Irish] gave five defeats to them thenceforward, until they went into their ships and only five of the people of Ua Neill were lost. Thereafter John went away, when he heard that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But that seemed to be over certainly by the time of Sargon if not by even earlier Sumerian city conflicts.

During the first Muslim-Byzantine war of the Rashidun Caliphate, an entire battle, the name of which escapes me, was decided by one Arab warrior who, knowing the pride of the Byzantine commanders, systematically challenged each of them to a duel, because by tradition they could not refuse. He killed 19 of the 30 sent to duel him, and the Byzantine army was left in disarray and went on to get the snot kicked out of them.

 

[Dachs]

That sounds like complete horse dung. Is it from Tabari or something?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I've heard the story before, but I always wonder how much weight you can put in it. Was the source there? Was he known for making stuff up? Are there corroborating sources from the other side?

Even then, it still wasn't a formal arrangement that the battle would be decided that way, but sort of just worked out that way after all the commanders were killed. So it still isn't entirely on point.

ParkCungHee, I accept that there were battles with low casualty counts, but that's different than deciding it by agreed mutual combat.

 

[Dachs]

Was the source there?

Basically none of the sources for the seventh-century wars were actually there. Tabari is one of the best and he was centuries late. (And "one of the best" is still not very good by the standards of nearly any other era when we're talking about the seventh century.) Sebeos was decent and reasonably close, but he was only very rarely an eyewitness and barely ever ventured outside Armenia. Most of the Byzantine sources are late, or edited/mashed-up/rewritten versions of earlier sources. And a lot of the other ones, like some of the Syrian chronicles, are even more provincial than Sebeos', with even less of an interest in military affairs and even greater holes.

The biggest problem that I can see with that story - and I haven't actually read the story, so there may well be bigger ones - is that it describes behavior among Byzantine general officers that was never present in other sources. Byzantines - and Romans - did not, as a rule, engage in duels. When they did, it was considered extremely unusual and noteworthy, e.g. when Herakleios allegedly¹ slew Rhazadh at the Battle of Nineveh. Having such duels decide the outcome of an engagement without bringing in the actual army would have been nonsensical given the injunctions in, for example, Byzantine period tactical manuals (none of which even mention "fight the enemy champion in single combat to this tune" as a viable avenue to victory). Getting nineteen relevant guys to line up for slaughter at the hands of Ra's al-Ghul over there would've been unheard of.

¹ = From, IIRC, Patriarch Nikephoros I's extremely late account of the fighting, a duel that does not appear in accounts of the engagement that were temporally closer. Also, even Nikephoros says that the duel was quasi-incidental to the battle itself; the battle had long since started, the Byzantines were winning anyway, and Rhazadh's death in the fighting simply helped seal the deal.