Gordon Williamson Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Just acquired this one. The French records show that he died of Peritonitis. Just wondering, if this could be that he developed an infection after a gut wound and died of the infection rather than the wound itself, or would this be purely an "illness" rather than due to enemy fire ?
joe campbell Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 gordon- it is POSSIBLE that he died of a primary, or infectious peritonitis, perhaps as a result of a ruptured appendix, or similar medical misadventure... BUT! much more likely that it was an infection caused by penetration of the abdomen by a hostile metallic object..... very common in the american civil war. less than 100 years later, with simple penicillin, many who would have died didn"t. when i think of the tremendous advances which have been made in the past century, i am truly impressed. joe
Veteran Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Gordon, Joe I would rather think he died of straighforward peritonitis. That is what is recorded. Should he have died from an infection secondary to a wound, he would have been recorded as "died of wounds". The French have always felt that men (and women) who died while serving their Country in times of war were worthy of special respect, never mind in which way they met their fate. The mention "Mort pour la France" opens special priviledges and legal rights for their families who are considered to deserve the same protection and care. Men who fell in combat receive the mention "Mort pour la France". But this is sometimes replaced by or amplified by the mention "Tombé au champ d'honneur". Regards Paul
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now