Take the 2-minute tour ×



share|improve this question

9 Answers 9

up vote 8 down vote accepted

It all depends on which era you are ralking about.






share|improve this answer

In Rome at War, Nathan Rosenstein provides a very careful study of mortality rates in the Republican Army from 200-168 B.C. The overall mortality rate strictly attributable to combat is estimated to be 2.6 percent of soldiers per year (125). Overall mortality is estimated at 4.75 to 5.45 percent of soldiers per year, with non-combat mortality amounting to 1.9 to 2.6 percent of soldiers per year. However, because 1.5 percent of conscripts would have died from disease even if they had remained civilians, the "excess mortality attributable to warfare" was 3.25 to 3.95 percent of all soldiers annually (136).

However, these figures include legions that were in the field but did not engage in major battles. The average mortality rate for legions in combat was around 5.6 percent (124). And defeats were around 4 times as costly as victories: victories saw mortality rates of around 4.2 percent of participants, while defeats saw mortality rates around 16 percent (118). In general, Rosenstein finds that mortality rates due to both combat and disease were lower in the Roman legions than in 19th century mass warfare (125-126).

Incidentally, Rosenstein warns against relying on estimates taken from accounts of one or two battles. There is heavy selection bias going into chronicles. He notes that "figures fall broadly into two clusters--those that are very high and many (like the eighty who died at Pydna) that are strikingly low" (23).

share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer







share|improve this answer
@Drux: By what, or whose, evidence are the claims known to be inflated? A reference would e nice so I could follow up. –  Pieter Geerkens Mar 7 '14 at 23:03


share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer
Whether retreat path is blocked or not affects casualties after the end of real fight, when one side flees. My question focuses more on casualties before this moment. –  Pavel Feb 11 '14 at 8:57

One must come to the realization that being armored and at the same time swinging a heavy metal or bronze sword all the while slamming into other men hacking,stabbing ect.would be tiring even for a badass of his day and one more thing to truly grasp the realness ever try to neatly slash or stab U'r way into a thick leather coat much less chainmail or hard leather let me a sure U its not like in the movie's at all taking all this into account one would think it be mere minutes before duress and fatigue overcame the lines meaning that to overkill or to kill for that matter(remember there's no Hollywood blades slicing threw armor like a knife threw hot butter)would take lots of energy for either side of the lines of war to hack and stab repeatedly away just to kill one or many armored,and armed men fighting back!it don't add up so I definitely can side with there being low death rates in war at certain period's in war times of old.

share|improve this answer

Ancient world had bloody history in the East throughout. Casualties were vast and sometimes entire armies were slaughtered. First example which I cite, is the Battle of Kalinga . It is one of the bloodiest battles of history. The casualties and horrors of the war changed Ashoka's heart. That's how we see so much of Buddhism around us. The Battles of Tarain Also were large scale battles, and so were the casualities. There is the Battle of Muye in China, where all soldiers loyal to Shang were killed. Or, there is the Battle of Qadisiyyah of Sassanid Empire, and the Caliphate.

These are just some examples. History of East Asia is replete with examples of bloody wars with large casualities.

The view presented by the OP is indeed quite Eurocentric.

share|improve this answer
I took the liberty of deleting the first line. It was aggressive and really adds nothing to the answer. –  Rajib Jan 20 at 17:08
Also, the OP is not saying there were no casualties, but that most casualties were during retreat rather than in actual battle. –  Rajib Jan 20 at 17:34
@Rajib liberty is all yours friend :) –  Rohit Jan 21 at 13:51
@Rajib do you mean retreat, or rout? Because rout generally, is part of battle –  Rohit Jan 21 at 13:54
Certainly there were some battles with high casualties. The question is "[were] the casualties usually very low"? –  Jon of All Trades Jan 22 at 15:30



share|improve this answer
"This is certainly the case in the Eastern empires" I think you underestimate the Persians. –  Jeroen K Mar 8 '14 at 23:07

Your Answer


