And the dead lay in heaps

[Jim Webster]

Just stop and think a minute at what's behind it

Even in the ancient and medieval period we're talking about people who would see human death, but it would be individuals, dying of disease, old age or accident.
Even in skirmishes and brawls you might go through a dozen of them before you saw two or three dead together.
In battles there would be dead but normally spread thin

Then in very rare occasions you got death concentrated. Think of Cannae where an extraordinary number of men died in a small area. We are looking at situations that were hardly a daily occurrence on the Western Front in the first world war.

The survivors on both sides are going to be traumatised, with 'survivor guilt' and all sorts of emotional problems.
Let's not expect them to too particular with the phrases they used and passed down to the historians

Try this mental experiment. Envisage a busy London Tube station. Let us assume that there is a bomb blast, a gas release or whatever.
You're the first responder who arrives to find bodies intermingled, some on top of others, some lying separately with space around them.
On your radio, as you try and convey the reality of the situation to the control room, would you use the word 'heaped'

[Imperial Dave]

dont forget ditches....if fighting across a ditch (man made most likely but not exclusively) up an opposite bank (of earth etc), then dead and dying will 'fill' said ditch until potentially level with the ground before the ditch or even possibly level with the top of the bank

[Patrick Waterson]

And the same can apply to, e.g. a narrow valley, such as at Dupplin Moor.

During the final stages of the battle, when the English were standing on the mound of bodies and spearing any that still moved, one is inclined to wonder how they got there.  Scrambling up a 15-foot pile of potentially hostile corpses* after a hard afternoon's fighting appears an unlikely course of action, but stepping down onto it from the upper slopes of the valley would seem quite possible.

*Or rather bodies, some of which still need help to achieve corpse status.

The survivors on both sides are going to be traumatised, with 'survivor guilt' and all sorts of emotional problems.

It is interesting to see how they cope.  The winners have something really special to tell their grandchildren about what we did to the evil barbarians from the north/south/east/west, while the losers have a burning desire for revenge and/or liberal apportionment of blame, while their 'media' wraps the whole thing into grand tragedy and generally copes with it emotionally by turning it into an acceptably told part of their heritage (especially one whereby it is 'not our fault').  Each is a way of 'positivising' what happened and hence driving out or at least minimising negative associations and aftereffects.  Hence the Scots have ballads about Dupplin Moor and the Romans have different versions of Cannae.  But we get our key information about these battles from someone other than the loser.

[Imperial Dave]

Interesting angle and certainly the poetic nature of heroic songs by bards (especially in the early Dark Ages) does spring to mind. Y Gododdin is a classic case.   

[RichT]

So as we have quite a few examples, time for a little analysis (apologies in advance for chuntering on here).

First of all the Ancient (Greece and Rome) ones. There are fewer of these than I expected so maybe there are more examples out there? But proceeding tentatively with what we've got.

For starters, bodies undoubtedly could become piled up on top of each other in the right circumstances, up to a depth of x bodies or y feet, but x and y can easily by very low numbers (x < 3) while still producing the tactical and visual effects described. None of the ancient examples give a value for x or y at any battle (except possibly Herodian, below).

I'll assume also we can disregard the crossing of ravines, rivers, lakes etc on bridges of bodies, as out of scope for this discussion if for no other reason.

Next we can discount the Diodorus examples (Leuctra, Issus) - in both cases we have better accounts which are heapless, and Diodorus is notoriously prone to generic, cliched battle accounts. Anyway it's not clear that either example speaks of real piles, as opposed to just large numbers, of dead.

The Dionysius example (Cremera) is also of little value - Dionysius gives two versions of the fighting of which he considers this just more plausible (for other reasons). No corroboration in other sources. And no values for x or y anyway.

OK, on to the actual historical examples:

Zama - the tactical effect of the corpses (and arms) is clearly attested. But again, no values for x or y. So there is no doubt there were piles and heaps of dead, but no reason to suppose the piles reached any particular height. Values of x as low as 1 or 2 would still produce a difficult obstacle to close order infantry.

Sambre - this is the most interesting one in many ways, since it's an eye witness account and provides a mechanism for 'pile building'. Front man falls, next stands on him, he falls, survivors stand on the heap. But no value for x here beyond 2 - Caesar doesn't say that this process continued until the last man standing in each rank was teetering on a pile of 6 or 7 of his colleagues, and I don't think any rational person would imagine this is what happened either.

Nisibis - this has been done to death in the camel thread. It is the only ancient example with a value for y ("they could not see each other for the high and impassable wall of bodies between them" which would give a value for y of around 5-6 feet, assuming you were disposed to envisage a complete continuous wall of bodies covering some considerable width of the armies). This is therefore a unique example in ancient warfare (among those we've found). Of course, camels are considerably deeper than men.

Then, a hiatus of 1000 years in which no heaps of dead are recorded (or at least, have been found by us yet).

Followed by - the 14th-15th C, the Golden Age of the Body Pile, in which we suddenly find not just several piles, but several with values for y.

Corcomroe: too high (or wide?) to reach one another
Dupplin Moor: 'greater in height from the earth toward the sky than one whole spear length', following a crowd crush
Roosebeke: 'long and high', also following a crowd crush
Agincourt: 'higher than a man'

Then nothing (except for normal piles of dead around defensive positions etc) on through the following centuries until the combination of close order infantry, intense firepower and extreme courage and determination produce a late Renaissance of the Body Pile, with a value for x of up to 4, at Spotsylvania.

It's not much really - body piles are, outside of the 14th C, pretty rare things. I expect there are more examples out there, though.

I'll split here. Part 2 to come - hold your breath.

[RichT]

Continuing...

In antiquity there is no reason to give a value for x of higher than 2 or 3 (which would give a value for y of very roughly 2 feet) unless you want to take the camel wall at Nisibis literally (which I don't). For the Medieval examples, if we took 'higher than a man' to be about 6 feet, and spear length to be about the same (which would make a very short spear, but we may as well try to keep our guesses within some sort of bounds of plausibility), then we have y = 6, x = some value around 8-12? Body width varies, as does angle of repose, and armour must make a big difference, so no firm figures are possible.

So for Agincourt and Dupplin Moor we would need piles of bodies about 6 feet high, about 10 deep. How could such piles form? These 14th-15th C piles all form to some extent from a crush - rear formations pushing up to the front, after the front has been halted, or else surrounded by enemies, in combination (Agincourt and Dupplin Moor at least) with archery from the flanks.

A lot of academic work has been done on crowd crushes of course - it's a big subject for architects (stadiums and other public spaces) and a lot of work has been done on the several Hajj crushes. These sorts of crushes generally occur when the configuration of solid walls blocks forward progress at the head of a crowd, while pressure from the rear from those joining the crowd or continuing to move forward continues to build. People at the front are crushed in a standing position, either up against the walls or in the densest parts of the crowd. Any that fall will likely be trampled and asphyxiated, but by definition there is little opportunity to fall (because of the crush). Some may also be able to escape upwards, climbing the blocking walls.

These circumstances don't really apply to open battles - neither an enemy line, nor an existing pile of bodies, provide the same sort of impenetrable obstacle as a wall. What would be more likely is that once the front ranks have fallen, those behind, propelled forward by those still arriving from the rear, might stumble over the bodies and fall also (rather than being crushed - if armoured they might be immobilised by the fall). I can see this producing a spreading pile, but it's hard to envisage a pile growing considerably in height, since this would require new arrivals on the pile to climb all the way to the top before falling over, which seems implausible at best.

To take another approach, I do not know the critical angle of repose (that is, the maximum angle at which a material can be piled without slumping) of human bodies, but imagine it isn't great (that is Keegan's argument, in essence). A pile would need to be at least as wide across the base as it is high (and probably a lot more so). A narrow pile, if physically possible (sides of 45 degrees say) would be impossible to climb (even if there were any desire), and easy to push over (so not a barrier). With vaguely climbable sides a 6 foot pile would likely need to be at least 12 feet across the base or much more. We would then need to provide increasingly large numbers of bodies to form such a pile - no point doing calculations since there are too many variables, but a base layer 12 feet wide would need to contain at least 12 bodies, I would think. Very, very roughly about 32 men in cross section to form a pile 6 deep.

All of this leads me to the same conclusion - 6 foot high piles of bodies are impossible and absurd. By far the better, simpler explanation is that the sources are being imprecise (after all, nobody will have measured these piles) or exaggerating. The dead may well have piled several deep (as at Spotsylvania), with the actual depth naturally varying greatly in different places (we shouldn't envision continuous, even-height walls). Four men deep, say, would still look impressive, preserve the phenomenon of ransomable living being buried in the pile, fit with some illustrations of piles of bodies (e.g. the one reproduced in Keegan), take up a plausible number of men, and provide a real battlefield obstacle. All it requires is that we accept that our sources were human, which is not too great a stretch.

[Erpingham]

Ah, we seem to be in the interpretative phase!

As stated in our earlier camel related discussion, we do need to keep a sense of perspective.  We need to think about the formation of these heaps and what might be possible.  Is Patrick's 15ft deep* heap plausible?  Would people really climb a pile of dead people the height of a double decker bus just to keep fighting?  Anywhere beyond a couple of feet deep and the pile is getting beyond weapon reach (because it isn't a wall, its a broad heap).  So both sides have to climb it and fight at the top.  This is mentioned in a couple of accounts (Agincourt and one of Caesar's battles IIRC) but not in all.  It isn't mentioned for Dupplin, for example, where the dead are largely caused by people falling on each other in the crush.

On whether these heaps are post battle, the accounts do seem to place them during the fighting.  The Agincourt heaps are pulled apart during the battle to extract living prisoners.  At Dupplin, as the Scots rout, the English concentrate on the heap, pulling out the living and murdering them (chivalry? Pah!).

* Incidentally, I haven't found the 15ft reference yet in the sources.  They mainly talk about a spear's depth.  They would be thinking cavalry spear - what we would call a lance - which grows from 10ft in the early 14th century to 14ft in the mid 15th.  Doesn't mean it is literally true of course.

[RichT]

On whether these heaps are post battle, the accounts do seem to place them during the fighting.

Sure, but allow me to spin a little story.

John Chronicler [sitting down to interview a grizzled veteran]: "So I understand you were at Dupplin Moor? What happened?"
Grizzled Veteran: "The Scots came on to our lines where we halted them. But they pushed on from behind, and our archers shot into their flanks, until they fell over each other until the dead lay in heaps"
JC: "How many fell, would you say?"
GV: "Loads. We buried them in a deep ditch after the battle."
JC: "Deep?"
GV: "Yes - the height of a spear, at least".

[Some months or years pass, then JC digs out his notes to write up his account of the battle]

JC: "Let's see, Dupplin Moor... Scots fell in heaps... Height of a spear. Wow! That's unusual"
[Writes]: "One most marvellous thing happened that day, such as was never seen or heard of in any previous battle, to wit, that the pile of dead was greater in height from the earth toward the sky than one whole spear length."

[For the benefit of the obtuse, this story is meant allegorically, not literally.]

[Dangun]

All of this leads me to the same conclusion - 6 foot high piles of bodies are impossible and absurd.

I agree, but the quotes are awesome. Very interesting, and its inspired me to keep looking.

I imagine we might be able to find some examples or siege situations, where the bodies either fill a moat/ditch, or pile up against a defensive wall which helps solve the Jenga problem. Some examples from cavalry action, might also help, given their depth?

[Imperial Dave]

On whether these heaps are post battle, the accounts do seem to place them during the fighting.

Sure, but allow me to spin a little story.

John Chronicler [sitting down to interview a grizzled veteran]: "So I understand you were at Dupplin Moor? What happened?"
Grizzled Veteran: "The Scots came on to our lines where we halted them. But they pushed on from behind, and our archers shot into their flanks, until they fell over each other until the dead lay in heaps"
JC: "How many fell, would you say?"
GV: "Loads. We buried them in a deep ditch after the battle."
JC: "Deep?"
GV: "Yes - the height of a spear, at least".

[Some months or years pass, then JC digs out his notes to write up his account of the battle]

JC: "Let's see, Dupplin Moor... Scots fell in heaps... Height of a spear. Wow! That's unusual"
[Writes]: "One most marvellous thing happened that day, such as was never seen or heard of in any previous battle, to wit, that the pile of dead was greater in height from the earth toward the sky than one whole spear length."

[For the benefit of the obtuse, this story is meant allegorically, not literally.]

nope sounds perfectly logical and fine to me either allegorically or literally!

[Patrick Waterson]

Or we have the curious monkish scholar, come to check reports of the incident.

CMS: "So you say the dead were a spear's length deep?"
Man-at-Arms: "No."
CMS: "What?"
MAA: "I mean they were at least that deep.  Measured it with my own spear: stuck the butt in the ground and held it up; it was not quite as high as the pile.  About half the army was watching when I measured.  Made bets and all."
CMS: "Just to check something, did you bury the bodies afterwards?"
MAA: "No."
CMS: "Who did?"
MAA: "Local peasants."
CMS: How deep was the trench in which they were buried?"
MAA: "How should I know?  It was done by peasants after we left.  We had a king to crown, remember?"

[Erpingham]

We would do well to recall that we don't know how details of battles reached "monkish Chroniclers". Not everyone had access to eyewitnesses.  Surviving examples suggests newsletters were a basic source.  Travellers were another source, bringing news they had heard.  And, of course, the Abbot would bring back news from meetings with senior church figures and nobles with whom he mixed more or less regularly.  The danger of exaggeration is present through out.

The biggest argument against the spear depth heap is that it would be impossible to achieve without a deliberate stacking operation.  There is no reason at all to see why anyone would stack bodies that high.  Burial parties are going to lay them by the hole they've dug one or two high and either roll them in or pass them down to other members of the party in the hole to lay them out in layers (mass graves are often stacked properly to get the most out of a hole).  And I think we can discount a burial pit a spear length in depth.  The same effort could go into making several smaller pits without the need for stepping the edges or shoring and would be much more accessible for the burial party.

The Agincourt example might bear further study because it comes from an eyewitness account.  The writer saw the remains of these heaps after the battle.  However, he will not necessarily have seen people climbing on them and they would be rather spread about by the pulling apart process also described.  His idea how high they reached might be a tall tale from the frontline or his own guesstimate.

[Jim Webster]

The problem with massed graves dug a spear depth down is that you're getting well and truly into the subsoil and digging is no longer easy. Especially for most of our period we've got peasants with wooden spades with a metal strip as a cutting edge.

I would guess that it's easier to go 'broader' than 'deeper'. With modern churchyard regulations you need 3ft of earth on top of the coffin, but can get away with less, especially if you put a concrete paving slab down just under the surface to deter animals digging. When it's just for disposal of bodies I'd guess you'd get a trench perhaps four foot deep, stack the bodies in that, then throw soil back on top, so you're left with a mound.
Remember the ones in the massed grave are those nobody particularly cares about, otherwise the body would have been taken away. So I wouldn't expect a particularly brilliant job

Jim

[Erpingham]

The problem with massed graves dug a spear depth down is that you're getting well and truly into the subsoil and digging is no longer easy. Especially for most of our period we've got peasants with wooden spades with a metal strip as a cutting edge.

In other places the watertable would be a problem after a few feet e.g. on a moor.  I'm not sure if we have figures for depth of excavated pits, though they could be more than one layer deep.  It is tempting to believe those doing the burying were more concerned with getting the corpses in the ground quickly than detailed burial rituals.  They would extract any of their own for proper burial and everyone else would get a basic service after anything of value had been removed.

[Jim Webster]

yes, water table, subsoil, running sand, rock all militate against going too far down.
Even if it's peasants doing it they're still not going to waste too much time