Blood, Sweat and Grime question.

[DefenderofFuture]

I would imagine blood was sort of a (pardon the expression) "hit or miss" thing in battles. I mean, there was probably plenty of it, but you weren't guaranteed to decapitate an enemy. Considering how troublesome the process was when someone was sitting STILL (for executions), dismemberment couldn't have been easy to pull off in one swing. From what I can tell, it seems like most of the TRUE gory-ness of the ancient world came AFTER battle, what with the defiling of enemies, and the subsequent raping/tossing babies off ramparts...

[Cartaphilus]

About some great ancient battles, for example the battle of Chalons (Campi Catalaunici), the historians (Jordanes) wrote how the blood ran like torrents. But we really don't know if it was true or a literary motif.

But I vote for the blood and the carnage!