Winston Smith | 06 Apr 2015 6:03 a.m. PST |
In most cases, after a battle the armies moved on. The vanquished, the victor (sometimes ) advanced. So who buried the dead? Let's take as an example here Cannae, Waterloo and Antietam. Victor Davis Hanson discusses the aftermath of Gaugamela several months afterwards. I don't remember if this was from an ancient source or scholarly speculation. |
138SquadronRAF | 06 Apr 2015 6:06 a.m. PST |
There was an article the other day where the dead from Waterloo were dug up and the bones used as fertilizer. link Try this about half way down link |
x42brown | 06 Apr 2015 6:19 a.m. PST |
If no one else has done it, the local peasantry as they will need to clear their fields for planting (their life struggle goes on). x42 |
Who asked this joker | 06 Apr 2015 6:32 a.m. PST |
I agree with x42brown. Also, they knew the dangers of keeping the decomposing corpses around so almost certainly the locals would be quick to bury the dead if nobody else did. |
Pizzagrenadier | 06 Apr 2015 6:41 a.m. PST |
At Gettysburg the locals did it. IIRC the storm that came in the evening after the battle caused some flooding that brought some of those that had been buried back to the surface and the job had to be done again. |
Jeff Ewing | 06 Apr 2015 6:45 a.m. PST |
My favorite Turner painting shows relatives of the Waterloo dead searching for their husbands/brothers/fathers among piles of the slain as the fireworks from the celebrations arise from the distance. So, I would guess some of the bodies were carried off for individual burial. The rest, as x42brown notes would be looted and buried by the locals. |
elsyrsyn | 06 Apr 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
I suppose, in the ancient world, if things were done formally and the loser conceded the field to the victor by asking permission to gather their dead, then each side buried their own. Even in such a case, though, I imagine there would always be … well … leftovers. As noted, the local farmers would probably take care of those after the birds and dogs etc. had done the worst of the work for them. In some cases, I would guess that communal pyres would be used, and only what was left buried. Doug |
FatherOfAllLogic | 06 Apr 2015 6:49 a.m. PST |
Here is a related question: during the Napoleonic age, did parties of soldiers police the field and collect shakos, cords, bearskins and other finery to return to regimental inventory? |
Bobgnar | 06 Apr 2015 7:19 a.m. PST |
I think on many occasions in ancient time, bodies of the slain were burned rather than buried. |
B6GOBOS | 06 Apr 2015 7:25 a.m. PST |
Winston. I cannot answer your question concerning the battles you mentioned. But at Bunker Hill it was captain Walter Laurie (light company 43rd regiment). His report is in the General Thomas Gage papers. Parts of it are often quoted since he mentioned burying Dr. Warren. Laurie said something about he stuffed him in a hole and their may he and his seditious principles remain. I always wondered if he drew the assignment do his muck up at the north bridge in concord. As to the various British and American mass graves they were later dug up during the housing boom in Charlestown in the late 19th century. Samuel Adams Drake in one of his guide books mention visiting the navy yard and asking about a rather large pile of bones. He was told they were dug up around the houses being built. Workmen trucked them down to the navy yard and they were dumped with the garbage in the harbour. Sad…. |
Cleburne1863 | 06 Apr 2015 7:37 a.m. PST |
In the ACW the side holding the field after the battle did it. It was usually the soldiers, not civilians. At both Gettysburg and Antietam the famous photographs of the dead after the battle were in the process of being buried by the Union soldiers assigned to the task. |
stoneman1810 | 06 Apr 2015 8:24 a.m. PST |
T.E. Crowdy in his book "Incomparable – Napoleon's 9th Light Infantry Regiment" describes the aftermath of an action: "The dead had to be buried. A sufficiently large hole was dug, the bodies were piled in one on top of another, then the hole was filled. There was no headstone, no notice of the names of those who had died. Before burial the corpses were stripped naked and their equipment recycled.What could not be distributed immediately was placed into the baggage train. Uniforms too badly torn or bloodied could be washed and used for patches by the other troops – nothing was wasted." Regards, John |
donlowry | 06 Apr 2015 9:00 a.m. PST |
There's an entire book about cleaning up after Gettysburg: "A Strange and Blighted Land" by Gregory A. Coco |
serge joe | 06 Apr 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP 06 Apr 2015 6:19 a.m. PST If no one else has done it, the local peasantry as they will need to clear their fields for planting (their life struggle goes on).Like he said for destryoing their crops they took the most value , money boots wapens and soon greetings serge joe
|
platypus01au | 06 Apr 2015 2:40 p.m. PST |
I'll have to find the reference, but there was a battle in South America during Inca times, and the site could be recognised by the bones strewn across the site. So if differs by culture, place and time. JohnG |
enfant perdus | 06 Apr 2015 2:54 p.m. PST |
The Romans, not surprisingly, were pretty meticulous about this sort of thing. Assuming they held the field, they would attempt an accurate survey of casualties for both sides as well as a recovery of all useful arms and equipment. Proper disposal of the Roman dead was tremendously important. Cremation was dominant in Roman funerary customs during the Republic and early Empire, but there are examples of mass burials following a battle. On their own turf, or in enemy territory where they intended to maintain a camp, the Romans would have certainly disposed of enemy dead as well. In other situations I would suspect they left them to rot. |