Survival rates from combat: wrong concepts?

[richsc]

This rather radical rethinking of the combat injuries at the battle of Waterloo by the Univ College of London means that Roman casualty rates might have been entirely different than we might suppose. I don't know the books on the Roman military doctors & hospitals off hand, but if interpreted with a 20th/21st century bias as the UCL suggests, the numbers and return to duty rates might be entirely wrong.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4035849.stm">Multiple<br>
Trauma survival<br>
<br>
It might also make a rethink of the effects of new weapons, such as the hispaniensis, and armor's real effect. If the wounded could suffer honorably and recover reasonably intact, that puts another interpretion on getting a limb hacked off. <p>Legio XX<br>
Caput dolet, pedes fetent, Iesum non amo<br>
<br>
</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=richsc@romanarmytalk>RichSC</A> at: 11/24/04 4:30 pm<br></i>