Combat Wounds

[Lost_Warrior]

I think that would be very difficult, and I'm not sure that it was actually done, because you would think that the guy in front would pull the guy behind out of rank, and the guy behind would hold the guy in front back (not to mention you would not have a hand left to hold your scutum) However I'd imagine a fallen legionary might be pulled off the field by his scabbard, similar to modern eppaulets (spelling?)

Edited July 26, 2006 by Lost_Warrior

[Pertinax]

I was sceptical myself, but I posted this because it is the only "immediate " method of pulling an injured man back. Otherwise I assume to cover the injured you must advance over them and cover them with your shields. I also have to say that the scabbard strap would have to be tough as hell, for the obvious reason that in a fight you would surely exert (unintentionally) a tremendous pull on the strap.Would this stabilise a unit or hold its front line back I wonder?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

This is all amazing stuff, after Rome eroded away, almost all, if not all, this medical practice was lost. I really don't know much about this aspect of Roman warfare but reading it sure is interesting. Their methods were crude but effective.

 

 

I would like to note that medical treatment during the civil wars must have been dreadful because the gladius mades gaping, jarring wounds.

[Lost_Warrior]

I would like to note that medical treatment during the civil wars must have been dreadful because the gladius mades gaping, jarring wounds.

 

But how bad was it really, compared to other things like the battle axe? If you survived a tangle with an axe you would be pretty messed up...a falx or spear could do some serious damage too, depending on how it was employed. I'd say it'd be "six to one half dozen to the other" when comparing types of wounds.

 

I say it's a real shame most of this knowledge got lost, because IMO alot of it works better than it's modern counterpart.

[Pertinax]

Most of the medical work that I have mentioned , in various threads , is related to combat medicine as practiced after the impetus given to it by Augustus. The materia medica (blog/gallery) are more universal spanning Hellenistic and Celtiberian worlds also , over a much wider time frame.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...um&album=12

 

Most re-enactments are 1st to 3rd C AD , so any materials are most likely to be later period work.

 

What sort of wound do we have from a gladius? If you have been stabbed (as you should have been) then perhaps your chance of survival is very low ? We know the killing effectiveness of the short sword was unmatched till the machinegun arrived on the battlefield so perhaps we should theorise very heavy proportianate fatalities from body wounds. From slash wounds , I assume we have a predominance of calf and peripheral limb damage -deep, possibly like our friend here:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=898

but more likely transverse cuts.

 

Would we have to deal with anything different to a post republican battlefield? I particularly mean in relation to internicine strife.

[Gaius Octavius]

I am not sure of the time frame but all Roman soldiers were trained in first aid. There also were ambulances in the legions.

Supposedly, more 'Gauls' were killed by the gladius, than in all their wars added together since, until the Germans broke the record in WWI.

I wonder if the Romans treated the enemy (for slaves).

[Lost_Warrior]

I wonder if the Romans treated the enemy (for slaves).

 

Well it's known that prisoners of war were taken as slaves, so I believe it's safe to assume that some of them were given medical care. As for the statistics of this happening, well I don't think it would have happened in great percentages, because the Romans would be concentrating their efforts on other Romans. They'd need a *lot* of supplies just do deal with their own troops.

[Spurius]

Penetration wounds, especially deep ones, are much harder to treat than slashing cuts.

 

From early times fairly sophisticated techniques for cleaning, stiching, binding, and basic antibiotic smears/compresses were developed to give a good chance of full recovery from slash wounds. The trouble is, these techniques are not what you want to do to treat penetrating wounds, and packing open is a great route for infection.

 

So the claims that the glaudius was so deadly come from its penetration, though I would argue that spears have killed many more and hold the champion hand powered weapon title....

 

Now for retrieval, as long as the formation didn't suffer, you could pull a man back however you could grab him. Various circumstances would prohibit this, or course, and it assumes that there is someone NOT involved in an immediate fight. A big assumtion on the front line.

 

I would guess that if the legionaire could retreat with the wounds, he did. If he fell, well the second rank would have to cover and the next guy could maybe pull him back. Failing that the fighting would have to advance beyond him, or a lull to occur, before help could come. Of course roman surgeons were very skilled and often drawn from experienced personel, so hopefully it was a barbarian slashing wound. Even with a penetrating wound, the romans did fairly well from what I've read.

[Pertinax]

The dedicated surgical equipment for specific wound types was certainly in place ; arrow removal pincers for plain or barbed arrows :

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=911

 

here we see the pincers rotated to mask the barb.

 

Probes and pliers for deep ballistic wounds:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=910

 

here we see long nosed pliers probing for sling ammo.

 

deep trauma and broken bone as posted previously in the thread.

[Spurius]

I saw the limb straightener/immobilizer and the ability to heal non-fragmented broken limbs is the same as a clean slash...well known and used by the earliest cultures.

 

How up are you on peregrini sources of wound treatment? I've got some information from later times, but I was wondering if you or your extended contacts had some good recomendations on other cultures techniques.

[Pertinax]

I saw the limb straightener/immobilizer and the ability to heal non-fragmented broken limbs is the same as a clean slash...well known and used by the earliest cultures.

 

How up are you on peregrini sources of wound treatment? I've got some information from later times, but I was wondering if you or your extended contacts had some good recomendations on other cultures techniques.

 

Ironic you should ask. My main interest is Roman , but I am studying Islamic practice from later periods and have some workable knowledge regarding medieval Japan. You will also have noticed I gather what information I can on Celtiberian and Hellenistic medicine from the "ancient " periods where I suspect cultural crossover to Rome. Most of my contacts are predominantly Roman , but I have extended an invitation to Celt re-enactors asking for comment on ritual/magic/medicine , the problem here is one tends to drift into Druidic enthusiasts who are less inclined toward the study of actual medicaments.

I would be keen to discuss Assyrian medicine if any information is available and the American Civil War .

 

Please pm if you have a specific period or technique in mind.

[Lex]

Though, surely after hundreds of years of experience the Roman medics must have had excellent knowledge in dealing with all kinds of wounds and also overuse injuries? Though the problem is probably infection of the wounds, since I gather they must have often been able to do a successful surgery but then they would have to sort of "hope for the best" and just hope infection doesn't occur.

 

While reading "The Last Pagan" by Adrian Murdoch which is about Julian Apostate, there was quite a detailed section on the treatment of stomach wounds. The whole area would have been drenched in a high alcohol wine then the exposed intestines would have been pushed back into the bowel but if that didn't work, then the wound would be extended, held open by clasps, and it would be attempted again with the "patient's legs in the air and his head back". The abdominal walls would then be sewed together.The only painkiller given would apparently have been "pomegranate in wine".

 

Apparently in thrust wounds to the stomach, when the gut was damaged, then it would leak out "faecal matter". It seems that if the gut was damaged, as was the case with Julian, then the wound would not have been sewed closed but instead left open. It seems that they would clean such a wound then leave it open, but this was only the case when the gut was damaged (I don't quite know what this means though by the 'gut' being damaged).

 

It also seems that if the liver is pierced, it could also heal by itself and "seal itself off". It also seems that "blood and fluid" from the gut would flow out faster as infection occurs. Infection seems to be the biggest problem here, not a lack of surgical efficiency or knowledge.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Lex

[Pertinax]

A few themes brought up from Lex's post:

 

The medical equipment and procedure that we have looked at as a "standardised" procedure for the Augustinian (and later ) Legions cant have sprung from the Earth fully formed, and as he says it is most reasonable to interpolate a thorough working knowledge of dealing with basic wound types.Id just like to see more Republican Medicus kit!

The Romans had no germ theory , (but then many people still dont) but they knew that washing and cleansing a wound ( and the surgeons hands) was needful. As ive said elsewhere acetum is superior to carbolic acid (Lister) in germicidal properties, and strong lavender "water" will make you wince if placed on a wound ( as say raw Tea Tree (manuka) oil would do).

 

They understood that honey suffocated "bad humours" , but a peripheral wound is a more basic proposition than any intestinal damage, peritonitis is a huge risk if faecal matter is impacted .I would also mention that then as now a punctured lung is a very tricky thing m you might get away with it but you could have complete collapse of one lung. I think pain killing would not be so basic though, Henbane and Opium were known and used though skill is needed to dispense.

 

Speed of treatment is the key, and speed of casualty retreival and wound cleansing. Modern casevac is speed and plenty of plasma, the latter not available at all in days gone,( however arterial clamps were).

 

A good wet scab is still the best dressing- keep it clean and wipe pus away or gauze very lightly over a burn and get a neutral refrigerant on and its the speediest way to mend flesh.

 

Lex as an aside do you have knowledge of any "local" herbal remedies used by Native Peoples or early Settlers in SA in relation to wounds and fevers? I ask in relation to a specific discussion between myself and Spurius on wound treatments outside the Roman sphere.

[Gaius Octavius]

Not a revelation, but infection is still one of the major killers in hospitals. As to the gut wound, how was the victim fed and watered? Wouldn't it fall out before the wound healed? I wonder how 'clean hands' went out of style.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Pertinax]

Not a revelation, but infection is still one of the major killers in hospitals. As to the gut wound, how was the victim fed and watered? Wouldn't it fall out before the wound healed? I wonder how 'clean hands' went out of style.

 

I was reading only a few days ago that the biggest contemporary source of the transmission of iatrogenic infection in British hospitals is still a failure by Doctors to wash their hands ( not nurses or cleaning staff being "dirty"-Lister, in his day,was responding to the apalling practice of moving from mortuary to delivery room without ablution.

Gut wounds-as far as I know the best policy is nil by mouth , perhaps wetting the lips to ease discomfort.