WARNING! This post includes lots of boring archaeological stuff only of interest to historians or GMs who want realism in their games.
Raegenhere said:
Not to contradict (and I could be very wrong on this Embarassed ), but I had understood that the most common wounds would be to the legs and incapacitation of the combatant and then finished off post battle (which might coincide with the head wound pathology).
No worries!
Yes, as Lord High Munchkin pointed out the pathology of the Battle of Wisby mass burial is the often quoted example of legs being a primary target. Whilst it shows a predominance of leg wounds, the battle itself needs to be taken in context. The forensic analysis revealed that the defenders were a hastily thrown together militia of teenage boys and old men, wearing second hand armour. So it was probably less of a battle and more like a slaughter of untrained peasants by a professional army.
The Battle of Towton shows a different emphasis on wound pathology, the majority of injuries being to the head and forearms. This grave is also open to context problems though, since some theories suggest the bodies in the grave were executed prisoners, hence the number of head wounds and maybe arms (but why are the arms free during executions?) are unusually high. However, the more interesting discovery are the frequency of ante-mortum head and arm injuries on the same bodies, i.e. previous wounds which had healed, which suggests to me that these were still the primary targets.
Something which seems to slip from many archaeologist's minds is that when two lines of
battle engage, it is almost impossible to strike anywhere below the shoulders of your enemy, unless you have a short stabbing weapon. The press of both sides prevents a clear path for a swinging weapon. If you've ever wondered why imperial Roman legionaries aren't armoured from the waist down, this is the reason.
Lord High Munchkin said:
However, it is a very common observation that head hits seem to make opponents loose concentration, and thus fights.
Indeed! Striking at the legs generally only occurs in single combats, such as open skirmishes or duels, or when a close ordered enemy is refusing contact and retreating. Even so, looking at single combat specialists such as Roman gladiators for example, forensic examination still shows a very high incidence of healed ante-mortum head wounds.
Raegenhere said:
I can't recall the archaeological source, but I believe the pathology for the wounds on the Danish horde of of Harald Hardrada when surprised by Harold Godwinson's army was head and from behind as they didn't have time to armour themselves and were effectively routed and driven from the field of battle.
It is generally easier to strike targets at shoulder level, which gives you the most reach. This becomes doubly true if you are running.
I find nothing wrong with 'targeting' a location as that would also be an inherent part of a feint or disguised blow which a trained and competent warrior could deliver.
Precisely!
Of course the Choose Location CM allows you to select whatever target you desire, so you don't need to worry what really was or wasn't the primary target in a fight. Just aim the blow where it'll be the most effective, such as an unarmoured head or a previously injured location.
), but I had understood that the most common wounds would be to the legs and incapacitation of the combatant and then finished off post battle (which might coincide with the head wound pathology).
