Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if?

["Allan Goodall" <agoodall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 31, 2008 11:09 AM, Adrian1 <al.ll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>     * With melee weapons, you are unlikely to stop trying to kill the
>       enemy until they are actually dead.  If they're dead, then their
>       dead.  No action needed.  I don't believe there are many wounded
>       from a H2H fight, at least on the losing side.

Oops, forgot to reply to this point.

During the Civil War, more men survived sword and bayonet attacks than
died from them. The same thing happened with men clubbed by muskets.

Soldiers in HTH fighting tend to fight the most immediate threat. A
guy lying on the ground in front of you isn't an immediate threat, the
guy charging you is. While there were cases of wounded men bayoneted
where they lay, particularly after his compatriots ran off, once the
main threat was over soldiers tended to stop and take a breather.
Adrenalin stopped pumping in the relative peace, and the desire to
kill diminished. In ancient times, this is when most of the slaughter
occurred. In wars with "civilized" men, there's a shift away from
killing a helpless man even if he was the enemy.

I'm reminded of an occurrence on Little Round Top after one of the
Texas regiments (5th Texas, I think) pulled back from the hill. One
Texan lay behind a rock taking pot shots at the men of the 44th New
York. He didn't realize he had been swarmed by Yankees until one New
York officer slapped the man across the back with the flat of his
sword and told him to behave himself. It always struck me that the
officer chose not to run the man through, even though he was still
discharging his weapon (though not very effectively).

Allan

-- 
Allan Goodall            http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
awgoodall@xxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l