Hey everyone, I'm new here, so I'm sorry if I've posted this in the wrong category or if there is a similar post that I just didn't see. I'm currently writing a historical fiction piece set in early 13th century England. One of my characters has been stabbed in the shoulder with a sword, deep enough that he pretended it killed him and his attacker was convinced. There is no healer; he and the other main character (who does have extensive training in combat and survival) are currently on the run and staying out of sight while they travel. I can't find much about how long it would take for him to heal. Most sources I've found through google say 10 days, but that estimate is for a knife wound that has been treated by a medical professional. Sutures did exist and were used in England at that time, but I don't know how common that knowledge would have been, so I don't know if my other character would realistically be able to help in that way. My ultimate question is: if someone is stabbed in the shoulder with a sword, and only uses bandages and wrapping to treat the wound, approximately how long would that take to heal, and is it unrealistic that he even survives? Thanks in advance for your help!! Aly
Do you mean stabbed as in a thrust? Or was it a slice/cut? I would think that in the pre-gunpowder period it would be more likely a downward cut to the shoulder/collarbone area from a sword typical of that era, which would probably kill an unarmored opponent at the right angle. (In other words, we aren't talking about epees or even rapiers here). Can't really say without knowing the angle and amount of tissue damage caused by the wound as well as immediate blood loss. Also, and I don't have any answer, but the likelihood of infection may be high which could kill him or at least bedridden them for awhile. My take on it, if the wound was deep enough for the attacker to believe that the person died from it and he ceased attacking, it would probably be deep enough to guarantee death without medical intervention.
Thank you for your input! In my mind's eye, it was a thrust, in the middle of an unexpected attack inside a building that results in the massacre of everyone there except the two characters that I mentioned. So in the middle of the chaos, with the character being unarmed, my thought process was that the attacker wasn't paying close attention to the fact that he was actually dead. He stabbed and hit his target, who then slumped to the ground, unconscious; on to the next victim! haha His character also wasn't initially there at this point in the story; I originally had it where they met while the other character was on the run alone. When I changed that part of the story, and he was then going to be travelling with her from the start, I didn't want the journey to be too easy, so I gave him an injury that would make his dominant arm useless for a time. Basically, I can thankfully change the details of his wound and how he survived without changing the overall story.
Why does everyone always get wounded in the shoulder? That's not a trivial inconvenience; that's a serious injury, affecting a critical joint. A real shoulder-wound to the dominant arm would render you unable to fight for several weeks. Quite a lot of pain, too, and possibly loss of function for the rest of your life. Plus, a treatable wound to the shoulder wouldn't persuade any eye witness- let alone the person who inflicted it - that you were dead. How about a thrust to the upper left quadrant of the chest, missing the heart by an inch or two? Lots of lovely blood, gasping and falling to the floor, very convincing. But with good care, you can recover from a collapsed lung in a couple of weeks.
It wasn’t meant to be a trivial inconvenience. It was meant to make his arm useless for at least the length of the journey, while still being able to walk. A journey that takes them days instead of hours to complete because they are both injured and in a substantial amount of pain. I feel like a collapsed lung on top of the structural damage of a stab wound would make it impossible for him to travel at all, but I appreciate your suggestion. Since their travel will be slow because of her injury anyway, I may play around with him surviving the slaughter some other way and then getting injured by something that happens on the journey. Or he’s uninjured but they get separated, so she’s surviving on her own anyway.
We write what we know - and this looks like something where the research isn't going to give the OP a way out. One of the reasons old suits of armour have whopping great pauldrons on them is that being stabbed in the shoulder needed to be avoided. It wasn't something people shrugged off. But for the story structure all that matters is that the villain thinks he's killed the hero - but in fact he hasn't. Injuring a character so a journey won't be too easy (=dull for the reader)...There should be a law against that. A society for character protection. The story structure point could be executed in endless other ways that don't require detailed knowledge of 13th-century wound treatments - maybe the villain's given him a pretty good clonk on the head and he's fallen over, but before he can stick him a few extra times to make sure, he gets distracted by some other assailant. The injury during the journey point might not be adding interest value. It might be excusing another character having to do things for them when really they don't want to - if so it's a way out of character conflict. And character conflict is what interests readers the most - so it's better to have "can you scratch my back, please?" "No!" "oh please I've got a very poorly arm" "I said no!" etc
I think that it would depend on how deep it is, and if they can keep it clean so that it won't get infected. Infection is not going to be a death sentence, but it could keep them sidelined for a lot longer than they wanted. It could take a few weeks (provided no tendons or joints were damaged in the wound), or months if it gets infected. Survivability is fairly good, provided they keep hygiene.
The bigger problem is convincing the adversary that a shoulder wound killed somebody. Torso would be more believable, visually, and there are spaces where a sword might go past vital organs and arteries, and still leave the victim able to move, and without permanent damage. How about consulting an anatomy website like /https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/33706697184701177/ as a reference for this and future armed conflicts?
I'm truly not trying to argue with you, but you've kind of contradicted yourself about shoulder wounds. First, you chastise me because a wound to the shoulder is no "trivial inconvenience", and now you're saying that it's not a bad enough wound for an adversary to believe that it killed someone. The axillary artery runs through the shoulder. It is entirely possible to bleed out quickly from a shoulder wound, which is why my initial post was asking if it was even possible for my character to survive a deep thrust wound to the shoulder caused by a medieval sword. I wasn't sure if that type of weapon could miss the artery. And when I was asking about heal time, I wasn't meaning "how long until he's back to 100% function?". What I meant was "how long until the wound is closed up and the muscles have reformed?". Because in my own research, I haven't been able to find a consistent answer to that question. Admittedly, I should have been more precise with the wording in my initial post, so I'm sorry for that. I was never unaware that permanent damage may occur. I have a not 100% functioning shoulder joint myself because of an injury.. affecting my dominant arm. If I ultimately decide to keep him injured (which is what I'm leaning toward), I want him to injure his shoulder, not his torso. So I'll rework how he survives the slaughter, or I'll have him injure himself some other way.
I didn't chastise you; I merely pointed out that it's not trivial. It's not a question of badness, placement of arteries or healing time; it's a question of appearance. You see blood on a shoulder, and the guy is moaning, you think "superficial wound". You see blood on the chest and the guy is unconscious, you might think "dead". If you want the adversary to think "he's dead", you need to make it look more convincing. But of course, it's entirely up to you how to present this credibly.
I'm just winging this, but a serious stab from a sword through a shoulder would take at least a month to heal. The younger a person is, the faster they heal. So, if it's a teenager then a month would probably be right, for an older adult it could take months. Also, access to nutrition would play a factor.
I will take some small issue with some other responders here. In 13th century England, or 13th century anywhere, infection was a serious problem. Infections of any kind would easily become debilitating in a short period of time, possibly causing loss of the limb or death. Medicines for treating infections were few and even then, were of minimal value. I recently found a piece of information that somewhat backs this up. The reason everyone drank wine, mead, ale, etc. in those times, was because the water was horrid and carried many infectious germs. The knowledge to boil water before use was unknown at that time. Keeping a wound of that nature clean enough, for long enough, would be a major chore unto itself. And after healing, the likelihood of full use of the affected arm would be small. JMHO...
Yep. If anyone here did GCSE History with the “Medicine Through Time” module, they’ll remember that massive numbers of people died from infections prior to antiseptics. Your point about water was true up until the Victorian era when there was such a thing as beer for children. I’d say that if the wound was bad enough to make someone think the person was dead, then that arm will be forever useless, blood loss would be massive and infection would be highly likely. We’re talking about an era when even pouring boiling oil into a wound to heal it wasn’t up and running, let alone the surgery needed to reattach nerves to get even minor usage back to a limb. For the OP - I think something has got to give. Either the wound could be somewhere else (someone mentioned the upper chest) or the character would have to have massive damage to the use of the limb in the future.
Have your man fall down a waterfall for maximum effect /I kid If the MC has lost enough blood to go into shock and pass out from the hypotension/hypoxia, that's a very dangerous state he probably wouldn't come back from without immediate treatment + IV fluids and blood. That said, I wouldn't let generalizations hinder your story too much. It wasn't just shit-mucking peasants drinking weak ale all the time (though there was a fair amount of that). There are notions of honey (antibacterial) and maggot use in medieval times, and infection doesn't necessarily guarantee death. Healing time should be thought of as stages. He's going to feel that wound for a long time, possibly the rest of his life. Late term it will manifest as a dull ache, or perhaps just tightness in the area. Consider his activity a factor, too; healing takes work and the fugitive status means little rest little food, possibly stress on the sutures and his immune system. I would take an ideal condition estimate and about double or even triple it, add visible signs of him fighting infection for a while afterwards too if you want extra verisimilitude. Sure, it would take a lot of luck to survive those circumstances, but reality is full of abnormal events and extraordinary people. The tricky part is convincing Mrs. Evil that she's done the deed. I like the above suggestion that she gets distracted before she can deal the killing blow. The waterfall thing is admittedly overdone.
Monks. Monks are what you are looking for if he's to have maximum chance of survival. Have him fall into the care of some monks after the wound. They would have the knowledge to care for his wound, and adequate supplies of wine with which to disinfect it.
I find it a little hard to believe that, as a writer, you were completely unaware of the condescension in your tone, but I'm willing to chalk it up to a misunderstanding and drop it if you are. Thanks everyone for your help and replies! I'm keeping the shoulder wound, but it's not going to be deep enough to make the attacker think he killed him. I like the being hit on the head idea, so I'll probably play around with that!
People drank water in the Middle Ages, and people have known that boiling water makes it safe to drink for thousands of years. The first answer on this stack exchange question is quite good. middle ages - Why don't people without access to clean water drink beer anymore? - History Stack Exchange
I'm sure it's not superior. I don't think you were exactly wrong, either. Water did often cause illness, and beer and wine were widely consumed in its place. I just meant to counterbalance the potential implication that water was never drunk, and that it was always filthy. There must have been many clean streams and good wells to get water from.
As a writer, I know the difference between chastisement and condescension. In fact, I intended neither, but was merely attempting to help you craft a more credible scene. Absolutely! I'll never bother you again.
I seem to recall Maximus got stabbed in the shoulder in Gladiator, and it nearly killed him. Fever, unconsciousness, and him out for weeks. It took a benevolent African slave employing the latest in maggot technology to save him, but he did recover.
"Why is everyone wounded in the shoulder?" Actually I can see it sort of making sense in this situation. One way to kill or at least immobilize someone with a broadsword (not a dueling rapier, mind you, but a big chunky piece of military metal) would be to bring the weight of the blade down on their collarbone. If - as I'm inferring from the context you've given - the marauders in your story were 1) bearing military weapons and, 2) sort of in a hurry and not paying close attention, then I can imagine your man taking a "blow to the shoulder" that his attacker mistook for a lethal stroke to the collarbone while in reality it only hit flesh and muscle. That would explain a) Why your attacker hit the man in the shoulder and not somewhere more obvious like the belly, b) Why the attacker didn't find it unusual someone would collapse apparently dead from being wounded in the shoulder, c) Why it's at least plausible that your character would recover from a wound that should have killed him. As to how likely it is that he'd regain full use of his limb or that the wound itself wouldn't turn septic and kill him anyway (which was a common occurrence on medieval battlefields) I defer to all the other replies.
To give an honest answer, a clear definition of the hit including exactly where and how deep is important. Look at anatomy of the area: There is soft tissue, ligaments and more important, arteries that supply the arm in the shoulder area. Placement changing and depth being shorter could make a killing attack a minor wound. Deeper could hit an artery. 3 decades ago I read a thesis by a Maestro seeking his coaching rating in fencing. It was about wounds from various weapons and how the body reacted. I would love to have a copy of it today. It made a statement: "Cut an artery and you're unconscious in 30 seconds and dead in 2 minutes." So survivability is questionable for a number of reasons. Most wouldn't live long enough to be helped. A thrust through a bicep would hurt like hell, damage the arm in a way that it would take months to heal and over a year to regain full function. Because when a friend broke a stage blade and shoved it half way through my bicep, that's what happened to me. I would suggest simply changing targeting to a less complex area of the arm to achieve the long term effect you need.
The subclavian artery and vein both travel under the collar bone. They're huge vessels. Also, the shoulder runs the risk of puncturing the lung and causing what's called a pneumothorax, which can be life-threatening. Then there's a nerve bundle called the brachial plexus that travel from the base of the neck across the shoulder to the structures of the arm. Cutting any of those would screw up the arm bad. Cutting all of them would paralyze it for sure.
