Thought you might find this interesting:

http://militaryrevolution.s3.amazonaws.com/Primary%20sources/Longbow.pdf

In particular, I found this passage interesting:


...a defeated army very rarely suffers even 50 per cent of
its number in killed or wounded, and indeed can rarely endure losses
of over 25 per cent before acknowledging defeat. But those psychological
effects are the direct results of the physical ones, for it is primarily
the sight of comrades being wounded and killed that demoralizes
an attack and causes it to fail.

Enjoy!

T.

Great stuff! Thanks.

In particular, I found this passage interesting:


...a defeated army very rarely suffers even 50 per cent of
its number in killed or wounded, and indeed can rarely endure losses
of over 25 per cent before acknowledging defeat. But those psychological
effects are the direct results of the physical ones, for it is primarily
the sight of comrades being wounded and killed that demoralizes
an attack and causes it to fail.

I am convinced that the longbow in KAP ought to be reduced in damage or accuracy as individual archers
But I want to comment on this quote
I think that it is talking about casualties while in combat
Once an army turns its back on its attackers it suffers hideous losses
I don't have the stats here, but I think that more that 50% loss is quite possible, maybe common
Of course, this includes dead, captured, and deserted

I don't have the stats here, but I think that more that 50% loss is quite possible, maybe common
Of course, this includes dead, captured, and deserted


It really depends on the circumstances, Greg. Cavalry-heavy armies chasing down routing infantry cause horrific casualties, as long as there is light and assuming the terrain is suitable. Chokepoints like bridges, fords and so forth tend to increase casualties as well. Retreating in formation rather than routing tends to reduce casualties a lot, as the losing army doesn't disintegrate into a defensiless mob.

You are right that many ancient armies did shatter if dealt an overwhelming defeat. Persian army, for instance, with its multinational levies, pretty much broke apart after Gaugamela, but a huge number of them actually left the battlefield on their own two feet. Just that they continued home rather than rallied as an army. So then you could ascribe them close to 100% casualties since they didn't form an army afterwards, even though something like 90% of them would still be alive.

On the other end of the spectrum, the hoplite vs. hoplite warfare by Greek city states tended to have very low casualties for the winner and low casualties for the loser, too, as usually no chase happened once the opponed acknowledged the defeat by legging it.

I don't have the stats here, but I think that more that 50% loss is quite possible, maybe common
Of course, this includes dead, captured, and deserted

It really depends on the circumstances, Greg. Cavalry-heavy armies chasing down routing infantry cause horrific casualties, as long as there is light and assuming the terrain is suitable. Chokepoints like bridges, fords and so forth tend to increase casualties as well. Retreating in formation rather than routing tends to reduce casualties a lot, as the losing army doesn't disintegrate into a defensiless mob.

Yes, of course. But limiting the losses to 50% seems to ignore such circumstances


You are right that many ancient armies did shatter if dealt an overwhelming defeat. Persian army, for instance, with its multinational levies, pretty much broke apart after Gaugamela, but a huge number of them actually left the battlefield on their own two feet. Just that they continued home rather than rallied as an army. So then you could ascribe them close to 100% casualties since they didn't form an army afterwards, even though something like 90% of them would still be alive.

Yes, as I said above. They would be counted among the "deserted" category


On the other end of the spectrum, the hoplite vs. hoplite warfare by Greek city states tended to have very low casualties for the winner and low casualties for the loser, too, as usually no chase happened once the opponed acknowledged the defeat by legging it.

Yes, I agree.
"Yet hoplite fatalities were usually only ten per cent of the total force assembled (fifteen per cent dead for the defeated, five per cent for the victors)."--The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare: The Triumph of the West
Those categories included in the aforementioned statistic
I was only commenting on the fact that mroe than 50% certainly could, and did, occur

I think that it is talking about casualties while in combat
Once an army turns its back on its attackers it suffers hideous losses
I don't have the stats here, but I think that more that 50% loss is quite possible, maybe common
Of course, this includes dead, captured, and deserted


Yes, the article goes on to explicitly say that, in fact. More losses are possible when the army turns and runs. What I was most interested in was that moral breaks at about 25% and for sure at 50%. Good rules of thumbs to keep in mind.


T.

I think that it is talking about casualties while in combat
Once an army turns its back on its attackers it suffers hideous losses
I don't have the stats here, but I think that more that 50% loss is quite possible, maybe common
Of course, this includes dead, captured, and deserted

Yes, the article goes on to explicitly say that, in fact. More losses are possible when the army turns and runs. What I was most interested in was that moral breaks at about 25% and for sure at 50%. Good rules of thumbs to keep in mind.

Useful numbers for a miniatures game
As Morien would say, depends on the circumstances
Raw troops (militia, levy) would probably flee with fewer losses than that
Elites could, theoretically, stay to the last man
In general, a modern (20th century or later) military unit is considered to be destroyed when they have suffered 33% losses
Destroyed = useless for combat