Could the closed Greek helmet kill a warrior?

Jens Nordlunde · 27th May 2005, 04:37 PM

Hi Rick,

You wrote: ‘I do not think that any honour is taken from a man in the way he died on the field of battle, unless he was killed running away’.

I quite agree with you, but if someone died in real battle it must have been a bigger honour, so why tell the family other than ‘he died fighting’, and so he did – in a way.

Now I am at it, were any orders given during fighting, other than ‘ATTACK’? Be course with a full helmet on, or one with mail it must have been hard/impossible to hear anything in the noise of the battle. Besides, the way some helmets, with or without mail ‘curtains’ were made, it must have been very difficult to look to the sides to see if your ‘neighbours’ had left already, leaving you ‘alone’ on the battle field. As the uniforms were only invented rather late in India, it could have been difficult to judge, if you were surrounded by friends or by not so friendly enemies.

Jens Nordlunde · 28th May 2005, 03:28 PM

Yesterday, on TV, I saw the Vienna marathon, and that made me think of water and overheated people. They did not have helmets on, and the did not have very much cloth on, but they were sprayed with water, got water to drink and fruit to eat, or many of them would never have made it.

I doubt very much, that there would be time to eat and drink during the fight, so here we have an overheated soldier, the ‘fuse’ almost burned over – and he is dehydrated as well. This must have shortened the time he was able to stand up.

Rick · 28th May 2005, 03:33 PM

Jens , I have a feeling that today's homo sapiens is a wimp compared to our ancestors .

Not to mention your runners were not facing death if they didn't finish .
The amount of adrenaline released during a battle must have been tremendous .

Jens Nordlunde · 28th May 2005, 09:34 PM

Rick, you may have a point there, which is often overlooked.
To be quit honest, I don't know, I only saw the runners which finished the maraton - but I do agree that it is most likely that nothing happend to the others - other a visit to the hospital for overheating

.
When it comes to adrenaline, you may be right, only I don't know how much that matters, but I suppose it could matter. Any doctors around?

Rivkin · 28th May 2005, 10:44 PM

My reply is going to be controversial, but:

If you talk with people volunteering for war, you'll understand that a lot of them are looking for an adventure. Adventure can include a heroic death in the midst of battle, it does not include freezing to death while manning some supply post in the rear.

Therefore we are not interested in how many people died in Civil War from diceases and other non-combat related causes (majority of casualty suffered by parties were actually from diceases), we don't want to talk about the real reasons behind the union victory - we do want to invent the "heroic battle that decided everything". We could've picked Shiloh or some other engagement but for certain, sometimes quite arbitrary reasons we picked Gettysberg.

It's similar stories with heroes - we don't like an effective military machine to win the war. We don't like a new technology or superioty in numbers and supply to win the war. We like to have immortal heroes, let's say Patton, and to tell stories about some ingenious plans they devised.

Diseases where one of the main problems of mediaval warfare - but how many writers do write about it ? I remember only one author suggesting that one of the biggest problems with mamluk reqruitment was taking people from somewhat isolated areas, and deploying them 1000 miles to the south, resulting in huge numbers of them simply dying from diseases they had no immunity to.

The same with people dying from heat, exhastion, drawning in mud or in a human stampede on the battlefield - it's not "adventurous", and therefore largely left outside of the scope of debate.

28th May 2005, 03:33 PM	#3
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	We're Probably Different . Jens , I have a feeling that today's homo sapiens is a wimp compared to our ancestors . Not to mention your runners were not facing death if they didn't finish . The amount of adrenaline released during a battle must have been tremendous .

28th May 2005, 09:34 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Rick, you may have a point there, which is often overlooked. To be quit honest, I don't know, I only saw the runners which finished the maraton - but I do agree that it is most likely that nothing happend to the others - other a visit to the hospital for overheating. When it comes to adrenaline, you may be right, only I don't know how much that matters, but I suppose it could matter. Any doctors around?

27th May 2005, 04:37 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Rick, You wrote: ‘I do not think that any honour is taken from a man in the way he died on the field of battle, unless he was killed running away’. I quite agree with you, but if someone died in real battle it must have been a bigger honour, so why tell the family other than ‘he died fighting’, and so he did – in a way. Now I am at it, were any orders given during fighting, other than ‘ATTACK’? Be course with a full helmet on, or one with mail it must have been hard/impossible to hear anything in the noise of the battle. Besides, the way some helmets, with or without mail ‘curtains’ were made, it must have been very difficult to look to the sides to see if your ‘neighbours’ had left already, leaving you ‘alone’ on the battle field. As the uniforms were only invented rather late in India, it could have been difficult to judge, if you were surrounded by friends or by not so friendly enemies.

28th May 2005, 03:28 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yesterday, on TV, I saw the Vienna marathon, and that made me think of water and overheated people. They did not have helmets on, and the did not have very much cloth on, but they were sprayed with water, got water to drink and fruit to eat, or many of them would never have made it. I doubt very much, that there would be time to eat and drink during the fight, so here we have an overheated soldier, the ‘fuse’ almost burned over – and he is dehydrated as well. This must have shortened the time he was able to stand up.

28th May 2005, 10:44 PM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	My reply is going to be controversial, but: If you talk with people volunteering for war, you'll understand that a lot of them are looking for an adventure. Adventure can include a heroic death in the midst of battle, it does not include freezing to death while manning some supply post in the rear. Therefore we are not interested in how many people died in Civil War from diceases and other non-combat related causes (majority of casualty suffered by parties were actually from diceases), we don't want to talk about the real reasons behind the union victory - we do want to invent the "heroic battle that decided everything". We could've picked Shiloh or some other engagement but for certain, sometimes quite arbitrary reasons we picked Gettysberg. It's similar stories with heroes - we don't like an effective military machine to win the war. We don't like a new technology or superioty in numbers and supply to win the war. We like to have immortal heroes, let's say Patton, and to tell stories about some ingenious plans they devised. Diseases where one of the main problems of mediaval warfare - but how many writers do write about it ? I remember only one author suggesting that one of the biggest problems with mamluk reqruitment was taking people from somewhat isolated areas, and deploying them 1000 miles to the south, resulting in huge numbers of them simply dying from diseases they had no immunity to. The same with people dying from heat, exhastion, drawning in mud or in a human stampede on the battlefield - it's not "adventurous", and therefore largely left outside of the scope of debate.