09-02-2007, 01:04 AM
15 000 soldiers required per year in peace time, it's about 5% of army strenght.
It doesn't sounds a small number to me, even if guess the Empire was able to provide these 15 000 men without any problems. (not talking about the end of the roman empire)
But in peace time, his evalution seems to be not so bad:
"If correct, this estimate suggests that even in peacetime, the imperial legions lost approximately one-and-a-third times as many soldiers as predicted by mortality models alone (say, 50-55% instead of 40% over twenty-five years)"
He is also writing about Nathan Rosenstein’s work which would give 2.6% casualties/year for the all army.
But the author refutes this number wich is too high and unrealistic for him.
From what i know about casualties during napoleonic war and US civil war, casualties out of the battlefield were 100 to 200% of the battlefied casualties (most of the time, between 150 and 200%).
I will play with numbers.
He is talking about 0,8% casualties per year, so 2400 for 300 000 soldiers.
Let's say 2500.
Army of 300 000 soldiers
1/low estimation for soldiers casualties, per year:
combat casualties + other casualties (=100% of combat casualties)
2500 + 2500
=5000
2/high estimation for soldiers casualties, per year:
combat casualties + combat casualties (=200% of combat casualties)
2500 + 5000
=7500
Does that sounds better to you?
It doesn't sounds a small number to me, even if guess the Empire was able to provide these 15 000 men without any problems. (not talking about the end of the roman empire)
Quote: If that quote is accurate, it seems he doesn't realize that non-combat casualties will multiply on campaign. Troops at war will be living in temporary camps, passing through regions with different disease pools, working harder on less regular rations, making more lethal blunders because they are stressed and in a hurry, etc. These are some of the reasons non-combat casualties during a war always greatly exceed combat casualties before modern medicine. But I should read his article.I agree with you. The authour seems to forget the non-combattant casualties during campaigns even if he wrote about health in camp (p12/13).
But in peace time, his evalution seems to be not so bad:
"If correct, this estimate suggests that even in peacetime, the imperial legions lost approximately one-and-a-third times as many soldiers as predicted by mortality models alone (say, 50-55% instead of 40% over twenty-five years)"
He is also writing about Nathan Rosenstein’s work which would give 2.6% casualties/year for the all army.
But the author refutes this number wich is too high and unrealistic for him.
From what i know about casualties during napoleonic war and US civil war, casualties out of the battlefield were 100 to 200% of the battlefied casualties (most of the time, between 150 and 200%).
I will play with numbers.
He is talking about 0,8% casualties per year, so 2400 for 300 000 soldiers.
Let's say 2500.
Army of 300 000 soldiers
1/low estimation for soldiers casualties, per year:
combat casualties + other casualties (=100% of combat casualties)
2500 + 2500
=5000
2/high estimation for soldiers casualties, per year:
combat casualties + combat casualties (=200% of combat casualties)
2500 + 5000
=7500
Does that sounds better to you?
ERWAN
