Leia Fee Sha_Ka_Ree@compuserve.com wrote:

Dana said..

...

I would say that certainly ancient and medieval, and some early modern warfare was quite limited in geographic scope and the number of people involved; the vast majority of casualties were due to disease and wound infection rather than direct interpersonal violence-- basically, you'd have a small bunch of guys on horses trying to knock each other down and a larger bunch of guys hitting each other with clubs. The longbow and crossbow improved the ability of soldiers to kill other

soldiers

...

but didn't lead to civilian deaths.

It was limited by their *ability* to cause mass deaths more than their moral's mind. Pillaging an enemy's lands to force your opponent to meet you in direct conflict was quite common.

Such tactics were used at such a famous battle as Hastings...Harold would have been far better tactically to leave William stew for a while...his supply lines were longer and his power base further away. However William was pillaging around Pevensey and Harold had to go and sort him out before his own people decided he was no use as a king and rose in favour of another.

Leia

'It is said' that 1066 was the only time two independent invasions were 'running around' England at one time (Harald of Scandinavia and Harold of England's brother Tostig were in the North of England) - and probably one of teh few such occurrances anywhere.

Jacqui

__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/