In "Very Perilous: A sword wounds compendium by the surgeon Ravaton," the author of the Hema Misfits blog presents some translations and summaries of portions of "Hugues Ravaton’s Chirurgie d’armée, a seminal work in the history of European surgery and one which is also of great interest to the subject of this blog." He explains that "[a]t the time of publishing his book in 1768, Ravaton had worked as a military surgeon for 36 years, and was then Surgeon Major of the Landau hospital."
What makes his work especially interesting for people studying historical fencing is that, according to Edmond Delorme, Ravaton presents the first and most extensive work on cold steel wounds, with 217 pages and 35 observations.[1] And contrary to previous authors, Ravaton does not focus his work on curious and rare cases, but rather on relatively common ones so that surgeons may learn from his experience. He gives us a sobering look at what swords can do to the human body, a reality that we often forget in the abstract practice that is HEMA.
Of note:
... Thrusts to the cranium very rarely penetrate, even with a bayonet, but can cause severe brain trauma if done with force. The brain is fairly well protected against thrusts which can only enter by a few passages of the skull. Thrusts to the body are, by far, the deadliest, even more so to the heart. Thrusts to that organ are, according to the author, simply never brought to the attention of the surgeon. Ravaton follows the prevailing opinion of the time that thrusts are deadlier than cuts; at least to those that are brought before him.
Hank Reinhardt IIRC pointed out from his medieval battle studies that hamstring cuts were the most prevalent battlefield wound. It would certainly remove one from the battle.
ReplyDeleteYup. Makes sense. I tore a hamstring once and down I went.
DeleteI'm curious to see if he makes any comparison to other types of wounds. A lot of later officers argued on whether fewer bayonet wounds showed up among the wounded at field hospitals because such wounds were rarer or because those wounded by bayonet were less likely to survive long enough to arrive at said field hospitals.
ReplyDeleteThat was the prevailing belief after WWI when studies were done to try and determine the effectiveness of different weapons. There was a debate on the effectiveness of the bayonet because there were so few soldiers with bayonet wounds finding their way to hospitals with one side saying it was because bayonet wounds were so fatal, and the other arguing it was because the bayonet was only infrequently used.
Delete