In a lot of historical fiction in TV and Literature, you'll often see a protagonist or hero kill scores of enemies on the battlefield. How accurate was it that in battle these people were so superior to their enemies that they could easily kill a multitude of them?
Or was it more the case that each warrior fighting would likely kill one or two before being killed themselves and winning was more reliant on numbers in that sense?
Would a trained warrior fighting a bunch of farmers for example, out on an open battlefield, really be able to kill off that many of them? What about against soldiers?
The reason I ask is I've been catching up on Vikings and some of the battle stuff annoyed me. Now, I know it's not at all historically accurate but I did realise its a bit of a trope to have warrior heroes who seem to massively be more effective at murdering their opponents than their fellow soldiers or enemies, and it got me thinking whether this was in anyway grounded in reality or just a storytelling device
Ehh... sometimes?
First of all the thing to realize is that the idea of the warrior as a hero is... controversial in history.
Even the best and most effective of them are more like a political force. The warrior as a hero is much more common in myth and legend than in actual history.
Next, the thing to look at is specifically in the early medieval period, when a lot of Vikings purports to take place, how many folks actually died in battle as opposed to being killed by other things or dying later of wounds? The answer was, surprisingly, quite a few.
But when and why? You might ask. Or you would if you were me and were ridiculously obsessed with medieval warfare when you probably shouldn't be.
The answer is an odd one and depends heavily on the composition of forces in the battle. But let's take a look at some of the actions that would be depicted in Vikings.
Something like the Battle of Edington. The thing is, about the only thing we know about that battle is who won and what resulted. The Vikings lost. And the resulting events changed quite a bit about how things were done in what became known as the Danelaw after that.
So let's look at another battle that is at least semi-representative of the period. Though it is an anomaly in many ways, it has the distinct advantage of being one that we DO have good sources for:
The Battle of Stanford Bridge. The Vikings, or more precisely the Kingdom of Norway under the command of Harald Hardrada brought about 9000 troops, all heavy infantry as far as we know, to the battle.
The English king Harold Godwinson brought about 12500 troops, of which about 2000 were cavalry.
The English won, but lost about 5000 troops. The Vikings lost about 6000. From what reports and sources we have, most of these were lost to the cavalry charge when the shield wall broke.
This is consistent with other battles we know of from this period.
Most deaths tend to be during the retreat. People fleeing are vulnerable and cavalry can run them down and slaughter them without much hindrance.
Now, how unrealistic is it that a man on foot can slaughter many others without dying?
Well, pretty unrealistic for most. But not to the point of impossibility, at least not until the more ridiculous scenes. For instance, at the Battle of Nahāvand a force of about 30000 Arabs defeated a force of about 100000 Persians that were entrenched in a superior position, inflicting heavy losses on them.
So, yes it happens, but is almost always exaggerated for narrative effect during TV shows. Usually what happens when one man tries to fight multiples is, he dies very quickly.