11-23-2003, 07:09 AM
Aryaman,<br>
<br>
You got interested in this problem too, didn’t you?<br>
I myself don’t have definite opinion on this either. That’s why it is so attractive to discuss.<br>
<br>
So, bayonet vs. bullet.<br>
IMHO many commanders preferred bayonet attack because it shook the enemy’s moral and they just ran away. Bayonet did not necessarily inflect more severe or mortal wounds. The enemy just got scared to death (hopefully, I mean, for attackers). As I see it, battles are won not by those who inflicted more wounds (slight and severe) on the opposing side. That is desirable but not crucial. Those who put the enemy to rout win battles.<br>
So, there is no contradiction here.<br>
<br>
I suppose there was something like that in Alexander’s time. He had rather effective missile troops, at least for sieges. But in battles Greeks and Macedonians preferred close combat. Persian troops were not psychologically (and technically) ready for it and usually routed.<br>
<br>
It does not mean (from my point of view) that Persian way of fighting was somehow inferior.<br>
I remember the battle of Gaugamela: While Alexander was winning on the right flank, his left wing under Parmenio command was on the brink of disaster. The ‘invincible’ phalanx stuck and was absolutely helpless against missile troops of the Persians. The ‘Cannaes’ scenario was on the way. Only unbelievable controllability and manoeuvrability of Macedonian cavalry saved the day.<br>
After that battle, I am sure A LOT of Macedonian and Greek soldiers had A LOT of wounds inflicted by missiles.<br>
<br>
<br>
QUOTE: ‘…close weapons in general inflicted so severe wounds that they were almost always mortal…’<br>
<br>
Aryaman, I see your point and understand your doubt and uncertainty. As I said I am not sure myself. We don’t have rock hard data on wound and mortality statistics. We only can guess.<br>
But we have a great number of literary sources on wars between Greeks, which preferred close weapons. One thing for sure – there were a lot of wounded in these close combat fights and they survived just fine.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
You got interested in this problem too, didn’t you?<br>
I myself don’t have definite opinion on this either. That’s why it is so attractive to discuss.<br>
<br>
So, bayonet vs. bullet.<br>
IMHO many commanders preferred bayonet attack because it shook the enemy’s moral and they just ran away. Bayonet did not necessarily inflect more severe or mortal wounds. The enemy just got scared to death (hopefully, I mean, for attackers). As I see it, battles are won not by those who inflicted more wounds (slight and severe) on the opposing side. That is desirable but not crucial. Those who put the enemy to rout win battles.<br>
So, there is no contradiction here.<br>
<br>
I suppose there was something like that in Alexander’s time. He had rather effective missile troops, at least for sieges. But in battles Greeks and Macedonians preferred close combat. Persian troops were not psychologically (and technically) ready for it and usually routed.<br>
<br>
It does not mean (from my point of view) that Persian way of fighting was somehow inferior.<br>
I remember the battle of Gaugamela: While Alexander was winning on the right flank, his left wing under Parmenio command was on the brink of disaster. The ‘invincible’ phalanx stuck and was absolutely helpless against missile troops of the Persians. The ‘Cannaes’ scenario was on the way. Only unbelievable controllability and manoeuvrability of Macedonian cavalry saved the day.<br>
After that battle, I am sure A LOT of Macedonian and Greek soldiers had A LOT of wounds inflicted by missiles.<br>
<br>
<br>
QUOTE: ‘…close weapons in general inflicted so severe wounds that they were almost always mortal…’<br>
<br>
Aryaman, I see your point and understand your doubt and uncertainty. As I said I am not sure myself. We don’t have rock hard data on wound and mortality statistics. We only can guess.<br>
But we have a great number of literary sources on wars between Greeks, which preferred close weapons. One thing for sure – there were a lot of wounded in these close combat fights and they survived just fine.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
