# War wounds



## TheokinsJ (Feb 27, 2013)

Hi guys,
Just out of curiosity I want to do some research on wounds for my upcoming project. I've heard from several sources that the whole 'hero dying with five arrows in him' thing doesn't work, and that one arrow in the chest is more than enough to kill a man.
I'm also interested in what muscles/things would be effected if say, a character was shot in the thigh with an arrow or stabbed with a sword. Would they lose all ability to move their leg? Would it ever heal?
The same goes for shoulders or arms, would a person lose all ability to move their limbs if muscles were severed? Perhaps a doctor or someone who's studied biology or something like that would be able to shed some light on the subject.


----------



## Kahle (Feb 27, 2013)

Living through any battlefield wound depends on medical technology-science or magic based-and the location. The obvious danger besides the immediate damage and blood loss was/is infection. If the wound was cleaned and wrapped, it might heal; but if it got infected and festered, it was amputation or a slow death.

Infection aside, you'll want to consider these things: length of the conflict, situation in which the wound occurs, and where the wound occurs. If a character goes down in the first rain of arrows, he could easily bleed out by the time the battle was over. Even a deeper scratch on the arm could render a sword or shield arm useless in a matter of minutes if it wasn't bound immediately. On that note, head wounds always bleed a lot, but usually if they weren't deep enough to kill or shatter the skull were livable.
Where and how deep are the immediate concerns in a battle. Over time, even scratches could render limbs pretty much useless-think limping and limp arms. This makes the individual prone to other attacks-easy target-and unable to defend himself against such. For deeper hits, such as being hamstrung-a useful tactic, the individual would almost immediately lose the use of a limb. If the muscles are severed, then there is nothing to move said limb. Cutting someone's hamstring would cause them to collapse to the ground, only able to drag themselves.
Each weapon was also designed to inflict certain wounds and combat different armor. Maces for crushing heavy armor, swords for piercing mail and slicing leather, arrows for piercing everything. A blow from a mace would not only render the muscles into bloody  pulp, but the bones would be shattered, likely beyond healing. If a sword cut or stab can be treated, the tissue can heal. A broken arm can be set, but shattered bones are almost impossible to heal.
As for people taking more than one arrow...if they werent dead from the first one, or the second, they will be. The obvious case of this is Boromir. However, look at that case. The first arrow struck his stomach-not immediate death, but you have maybe three days tops of agonizing pain and dehydration. He takes out maybe two more opponents-extremely weak and pale, barely able to stand. Two more arrows. Then he died. From blood loss. The more arrows, the more ways you can bleed out. Adrenaline might let someone keep their feet in the middle of combat for a few extra seconds, but not as a threat.

A non-lethal arrow wound would involve other complications that a cut would not-obstruction, tearing of muscles, further wounds. Most people recognize that the arrow should be snapped-otherwise it can get in the way of movement, or get caught on something and cause further damage. Snapping a shaft is harder than most people think. If you were to keep moving your leg after you took an arrow, you'd continue to catch the arrowhead on muscles and create a bigger wound. Most arrowheads used in battle were barbed or broadhead. Broadheads were for light infantry or cavalry, where they would cut wide slices on their entry, whereas barbed heads were meant to stick in the victim. A barb had to be cut out, making a larger wound just to remove the arrow safely. If someone were to just yank on a barbed arrow, they would accomplish nothing but more pain.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 28, 2013)

TheokinsJ said:


> Just out of curiosity I want to do some research on wounds for my upcoming project. I've heard from several sources that the whole 'hero dying with five arrows in him' thing doesn't work, and that one arrow in the chest is more than enough to kill a man.



Actually, it's the other way around. Arrows are nowhere near as deadly as people think, since they plug the wound and thus minimize bleeding. So unless you hit something really important like that heart, and assuming someone doesn't do something stupid like pull the arrow out, it's not going to kill you right away. Or even especially soon. This one guy in Australia took a crossbow bolt straight in the chest and then lived through a seven hour plane trip to the hospital where they could remove the bolt. Hunters who use bows often have to trail an animal for hours after hitting them with an arrow.

If anything, in a medieval scenario you are for more likely to die during the surgery required to remove the arrow, or by resulting infections, then you are from getting hit in the first place.

Fiction, and particularly movies, will usually_ gravely_ overestimate how deadly this type of injury is. The most ridiculous thing I've seen was in Snow White and the Huntsman, where a guy takes an arrow to the shoulder and _instantly dies._


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 28, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Hunters who use bows often have to trail an animal for hours after hitting them with an arrow.


As you stated before, this depends on shot placement. I've hunted with bow and arrow. A good clean kill is an arrow shot that penetrates heart and/or lung. If your shot is good (and you shouldn't be hunting if you're not well-practiced) the animal won't make it past 100 yards. I've personally never witnessed a clean kill going much beyond 50 yards.


----------



## Filk (Feb 28, 2013)

I believe people in prison get shenked dozens of times (as in many stab wounds in one incident) and live - wounding is mortal depending on where one is wounded and how deep the cut, puncture, or abrasion goes. I'd also imagine that if an arrow were to sever certain tendons it could make a limb useless.

There is some CIA manual that I took notes on and it says that puncture wounds are not reliable unless they pierce the heart (which is tough to get at), although abdominal wounds have a high mortality rate.

Adrenaline (battle rage) can keep humans alive and functional through serious wounding.

If you write scenes where characters are wounded and are unsure about how believable it is, have an objective reader look at it. As long as you're not insulting your reader's intelligence, then you should be in the clear. Otherwise, you can go to medical school hehe.


----------



## Shaun b. (Feb 28, 2013)

TheokinsJ said:


> Hi guys,
> Just out of curiosity I want to do some research on wounds for my upcoming project. I've heard from several sources that the whole 'hero dying with five arrows in him' thing doesn't work, and that one arrow in the chest is more than enough to kill a man.
> I'm also interested in what muscles/things would be effected if say, a character was shot in the thigh with an arrow or stabbed with a sword. Would they lose all ability to move their leg? Would it ever heal?
> The same goes for shoulders or arms, would a person lose all ability to move their limbs if muscles were severed? Perhaps a doctor or someone who's studied biology or something like that would be able to shed some light on the subject.



I'm not a doctor nor do I have an extensive training for stab wounds, however I have had some exposure to some pretty horrific wounds, so I can only give you my take on it. I will say however, that a certain artistic license is always good in my opinion. I personally like the gritty, realistic fantasy (grimdark?) and I do so love it when a hero takes a couple of well placed arrows and just wont go down as easily as he should. 

A few summers ago I was the lucky participant in a pretty nasty bike wreck. the bones in my hand were pretty much pulped, I lost a large chunk of my upper forearm and a nice wedge of elbow and my thighbone sheered through a good amount of muscle on my leg. now, you would think a person would be on the floor writhing in agony, not really so, the shock and adrenalin had me up as soon as I had finished decorating the road.  I picked myself up, took my helmet off, smashed it on the road in a rage, then limped (Dragged my leg, it still worked but there was next to no range of the movement, however this did not hurt until much much later). I picked up my smashed bike from the road, its a really heavy bike at about 500kg and put it on the stand. Now this took about 2 - 3 minutes after the accident and before I noticed my thumb was at a funny angle and I was leaking blood from my arm. 

There is something to be said for shock and adrenalin, I almost fell at one point because I didn't understand that my leg was damaged. When I knew and started to understand what was wrong I knew I had to sit down, not because I felt like it but because I was lucky enough to have a few roadside saviors that were yelling 'SIT DOWN'. 

At this point, there was no pain. I had limited movement from my leg because the muscle structure wasn't there to keep me upright, I still tried to use my leg as it was intended. My broken hand resembled a bag of soup, I even thought I had dislocated my thumb so tried to pop it back in myself, a terrible idea if ever you find yourself in such a position. I could only twitch my fingers, they were almost in a fist and stayed that way until I had an operation. My elbow as damaged as it was didn't seem to bother me at the time. Within fifteen minutes of the accident the paramedics were there, I tried to tell the I didnt need morphine but I had some anyway. At no point during the situation did I feel any pain, just surprise. 

last new year I had some experience with stab wounds. rib-cage and two in the hand. There was an ungodly amount of blood, two of the wounds were shallow (flesh-wounds?) and one was very deep, the deeper wound pulsed blood, a deep red almost black. If you don't know, blood stinks, not just a little stink, a big ugly retching stink. The young man that was stabbed in the hand sat down calmly when he was stabbed and thought he just needed a rest as he was out of breath, the two with the hand lacerations fought off the attacker. I'm not sure of the specifics from a medical point of view or the aftercare they received but I do know that they fought tooth and nail to get that maniac away from them. 

I think a body when damaged might not know its damaged and try and continue on as it always would unless it couldn't.


----------



## camradio (Mar 1, 2013)

Shaun b. said:


> There is something to be said for shock and adrenalin,



100% agree with this statement. When I was in high school I played rugby and during a game my hand got stomped on pretty good. It hurt, but you always hurt, so I kept playing. At the end of the game I went to shake someones hand and it looked like elephant man went through a grinder. I eventually ended up having surgery on it but during the match I was still grabbing people people with it.


----------



## The Unseemly (Mar 2, 2013)

The true pain and agony starts after the adrenaline drops, sort of when you're lying down and pondering over your wounds. When your body is in shock, it's first reaction is obviously not to sit down and cry over it, but to get up and fight, or, as it happens, run. Searing pain on impact is more of a modern thing - namely when you get hit by a bullet or something. It causes excessive bleeding, and the pain is an immediate warning that you need to get it patched up. 

Truthfully, in "medieval" warfare, you're actually much more likely to die of exhaustion or getting stabbed/shot through a vital organ rather than to crumple in pain. It's only _when_ you survive the battle, does the pain come on.


----------

