Medieval Knights Feared Posttraumatic Stress

[pocoloco]

Knights in the Middle Ages were not the brutal and merciless killing machines depicted on film.

New research draws a different picture of the medieval military elite.Medieval knights are often depicted as bloodthirsty men who enjoyed killing. But that is a completely wrong picture, new research shows.The knights did not kill just because they wanted to, but because it was their job – precisely like soldiers today. Nor were the Middle Ages as violent as we think, despite their different perception of violence compared to ours.

“Modern military psychology enables us to read medieval texts in a new way – giving us insight into the perception of violence in the Middle Ages in the general population and the use of lethal violence by knights,” says Thomas Heebøll-Holm of the SAXO Institute at the University of Copenhagen, who researches the perception of violence in the late Middle Ages.

rest of it here (http://sciencenordic.com/violent-knights-feared-posttraumatic-stress).

[Tropical_ulcer]

interesting,I also wondered if soldiers of those age also suffered from ptsd,considering how they are portrayed in history whit big "greatness" like "this warrios who marched and killed so much arabs blabla honor blabla" and not showing things like if they have nightmares from it or something like that

also I thought that maybe medieval warfare wasnt as traumatic like today warfare due to be a meele combat face to face,considering modern comabt where you can die by a artillery shell you didnt saw coming and such,but anyway I am not a expert in that matter but is interesing to analize this stuff whit modern eyes

also obviously religion was the principal motivator for medieval soldiers,making sense of all the templars and other groups like that

[Silent Reader]

I would not say that religion was the prime motivator... as always the motivation was power and money - or simply because it was their job as stated - religion was more of an excuse.. even for the church. Knights afterall were mostly quite rich noblemen - as they could afford the horse and armor which they had to provide themselves in most cases. And the footsoldiers pretty much did not have a choice...

[Tropical_ulcer]

I would not say that religion was the prime motivator... as always the motivation was power and money - or simply because it was their job as stated - religion was more of an excuse.. even for the church. Knights afterall were mostly quite rich noblemen - as they could afford the horse and armor which they had to provide themselves in most cases. And the footsoldiers pretty much did not have a choice...

well I mean motivator as to not going crazy,the whole "figthing for god" thing that was mentioned,not much diferent from the tipical taliban figthing to get his 72 virgins

[BLUE THOR]

Even today people justify it to themselves to make it easier. "good vs evil" "gods will"... in the end its about creating a logical excuse for killing. Its not crazy at all.
You can go into it for money or a cause or whatever floats your boat, but in the end you have to justify to yourself that you did the right thing by killing another human.

[Redox]

also I thought that maybe medieval warfare wasnt as traumatic like today warfare due to be a meele combat face to face,considering modern comabt where you can die by a artillery shell you didnt saw coming and such,but anyway I am not a expert in that matter but is interesing to analize this stuff whit modern eyes

I would say that kind of combat was much, much more traumatic than combat today.

[BLUE THOR]

but the intensity of the campaign was often lessened by the fact you had to march to the next town for the next battle and had some time to process things. it also meant you had alot of time to square yourself away before returning home, for most combat soldiers today it can be a matter of 1-2 days before you get home, or maybe a week or two at the most.
The advantage of the longer return time is you have time to open up to people who have experienced what you have and can offer advise or an ear and be supportive because they do actually know what you are going through. bit hard for a young man to tell mum all about the trauma and expect understanding, and this kinda stuff grips you after you have had some down time, so it´d be a few days or so before the modern returned soldier starts to process these thoughts and issues. For the medieval soldier he could turn to his mates on the march home and knows he wont be judged poorly for it.

different worlds. Good to know that our ancestors were human though.

[KoTeMoRe]

but the intensity of the campaign was often lessened by the fact you had to march to the next town for the next battle and had some time to process things. it also meant you had alot of time to square yourself away before returning home, for most combat soldiers today it can be a matter of 1-2 days before you get home, or maybe a week or two at the most.
The advantage of the longer return time is you have time to open up to people who have experienced what you have and can offer advise or an ear and be supportive because they do actually know what you are going through. bit hard for a young man to tell mum all about the trauma and expect understanding, and this kinda stuff grips you after you have had some down time, so it´d be a few days or so before the modern returned soldier starts to process these thoughts and issues. For the medieval soldier he could turn to his mates on the march home and knows he wont be judged poorly for it.

different worlds. Good to know that our ancestors were human though.


Err you think people would open up easily like that? If anything if you were chatting with your esquire and some deep**** bigot came close you were into the poo poo with the crossmen. What people often forget, is that these men were not "commons". They were either noblemen or in the circles of nobility. The issues were more than often picked up by competing peers or by rivals. War at the time was not some "occupation". It was their only occupation. Taunting, ridiculing and backstabbing was the norm.

Now intensity? Man let's see, you eat rotten meat, suffer from poor hygene, see ****, hump a freaking armour set up. Have to put up with you suzerain, your king or prince, have all chances of getting crabs the size of kittens and when you're hurt even a little you pray it can't get worse. And...you mount a damn horse. We all know that's so benefic to your spine and bassin.

I'm telling you this without mentionning the Clergy. Because then it gets really really complicated.

So come again with "intensity"?

The number of taboos in the MA was such that most of you would suicide.

[a.godumov]

also I thought that maybe medieval warfare wasnt as traumatic like today warfare due to be a meele combat face to face,considering modern comabt where you can die by a artillery shell you didnt saw coming and such,but anyway I am not a expert in that matter but is interesing to analize this stuff whit modern eyes

I think that the medieval melee comabt would be more traumatic. You get to see the people around you being cut to pieces, slashed, stabbed, beheaded, bludgeoned to death, you see blood and guts all around you and you now that if you die it will most likely be a pretty ugly and painful death. I saw some pictures of medieval combat and it was pretty gore.

[Mordoror]

also I thought that maybe medieval warfare wasnt as traumatic like today warfare due to be a meele combat face to face,considering modern comabt where you can die by a artillery shell you didnt saw coming and such,but anyway I am not a expert in that matter but is interesing to analize this stuff whit modern eyes

Herrr Wut ??
Depends a lot of the opponent, historical period and your level in the army
Noblemen, Knight were often (but not always) spared as having them as hostages meant money

For the grunts it was walk here and there, get dysentery 99% of the time, fight with crapped pants from inside and outside, use rusted equipemnt, get stomped by your own knights eager to have their dîck contest with the opposing side knights, eat flour with maggots, get struck by an arrow, crossbow shot, spear or catapult rock coming from nowhere, go in the middle of a brawl with swords, axes, flails and maces with hundred of mens turning around you, shouting, cursing or crying and so much covered with mud, blood and guts parts that you can't recognize friend from foes and that for hours (not the 10-15 minutes of nowaday firefights) and hope *that you won't get scratched because it is either amputation for the best or gangrena and painful death for the worst
* that you are on the winning side because you skin is worthy nil, nada, zero, nothing and that if prisoner you'll be either throatsliced on the spot or tortured for the fun

Yeah sure not as "traumatic" as today:roll:

[BLUE THOR]

Err you think people would open up easily like that? If anything if you were chatting with your esquire and some deep**** bigot came close you were into the poo poo with the crossmen. What people often forget, is that these men were not "commons". They were either noblemen or in the circles of nobility. The issues were more than often picked up by competing peers or by rivals. War at the time was not some "occupation". It was their only occupation. Taunting, ridiculing and backstabbing was the norm.

Now intensity? Man let's see, you eat rotten meat, suffer from poor hygene, see ****, hump a freaking armour set up. Have to put up with you suzerain, your king or prince, have all chances of getting crabs the size of kittens and when you're hurt even a little you pray it can't get worse. And...you mount a damn horse. We all know that's so benefic to your spine and bassin.

I'm telling you this without mentionning the Clergy. Because then it gets really really complicated.

So come again with "intensity"?

The number of taboos in the MA was such that most of you would suicide.

and you know all of this how? read a couple of books on it?
fück off mate.

[Tropical_ulcer]

well I meant compared to modern technology where you can be killed whitout knowing where your enemy was and so on,not saying that medieval warfare wasnt traumatic,is just that in modern war there is less predictability or something like that since its fought at distances and using camouflages and the like compared to before when it was mostly face to face and trusting in faith and the like

after all everyone fear the unknow

[KoTeMoRe]

A couple of books? Oh well how will you preserve food with no cold chain? How do you prevent septicemy with no medecine? How do you operate without transfusion? How the fvck do you go from A to B?

Even without lectures any tit bit thinker can see how deep the **** was in the MA. Oh yeah and indeed I've read a couple of books. They're called gestas and cartae and what not. And most of the time they're big time propaganda. But you get the gist of any medieval fight.

Thank you for telling me to FO, now please go tell that to a certain monsieur Duby.

[Mordoror]

well I meant compared to modern technology where you can be killed whitout knowing where your enemy was and so on,not saying that medieval warfare wasnt traumatic,is just that in modern war there is less predictability or something like that since its fought at distances and using camouflages and the like compared to before when it was mostly face to face and trusting in faith and the like

after all everyone fear the unknow

That could be read through a double way lens
In modern warfare a lot of weapon system don't even allow you to see your ennemy : they are just vague shapes in a rifle mounted optic or just spots on an arty/mortar radar or some bright spots on a FLIR chopper or aircraft camera
So they lose their human aspect and as they are deshumanized they are easier to kill
And not everybody would go for the battle damage assesment where you have to count burned tank crew bodies or humans parts scattered around by a 155 HE shell
On the other hand, hand to hand battle in a confusing situation (i writte it again but hundred of guys around you, noise, blood everywhere, confusion limbs severed, a spear or sword coming from any direction) shouldn't have be easy to sustain
But also medieval people were more strong morally (faith was helping) and more used to pain (physical work and crude living conditions) and death (childhood mortality > 10-20%)

[Silent Reader]

as mentioned you also could be hit by an arrow or cannon ball or rock etc out of nowhere back then and then later on just think of line infantry marching towards the enemy.. knowing that the first line probably might not even make it to the first shot etc..

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

My medieval history professor in college talked about some knights that came back from the First Crusade and hid in secluded rooms in their castles for months on end, etc. These guys had been in combat for 3 years straight without break and something like 2/3 of them died.

Compare this to WW2 armies who calculated that infantrymen were effective for 180 days before they had to be relieved due to fatigue.

[KoTeMoRe]

“In the Middle Ages, the authorities were too weak to ensure law and order,” says Heebøll-Holm

Oh God...what was law and order in the MA. There were specific people to carry out justice in the middle ages. And depriving the King, Prince, Count, Podestat from exercing this exclusive right was a crime of lese-majesty. IE as poaching and raping...it sent the culprits to death.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Oh God...what was law and order in the MA. There were specific people to carry out justice in the middle ages. And depriving the King, Prince, Count, Podestat from exercing this exclusive right was a crime of lese-majesty. IE as poaching and raping...it sent the culprits to death.

Indeed. Europeans really seem to have, shall we say, problems in coming to terms with the Middle Ages that I don't see amongst Americans. Problems that manifest themselves in exaggerated claims about how much life sucked.

Same professor always asked students what 3 things they thought of when they heard the term "Middle Ages":

UK students: "wenches, pigs running in mud, people with no teeth."
American students: "Castles, knights, princesses."

[KoTeMoRe]

Megaraptor;5911481']Indeed. Europeans really seem to have, shall we say, problems in coming to terms with the Middle Ages that I don't see amongst Americans. Problems that manifest themselves in exaggerated claims about how much life sucked.

Same professor always asked students what 3 things they thought of when they heard the term "Middle Ages":

UK students: "wenches, pigs running in mud, people with no teeth."
American students: "Castles, knights, princesses."


That's because the USA is less than 300 years old. And the American colonization barely half a millenium ( bar Norse raids on Green Land and beyond).


Europe has an issue with the MA because it still defines it.

[Silent Reader]

Megaraptor;5911481']
American students: "Castles, knights, princesses."

Thats what I would call the Disney-version of history ;)

[muck]

Err you think people would open up easily like that? If anything if you were chatting with your esquire and some deep**** bigot came close you were into the poo poo with the crossmen. What people often forget, is that these men were not "commons". They were either noblemen or in the circles of nobility. The issues were more than often picked up by competing peers or by rivals. War at the time was not some "occupation". It was their only occupation. Taunting, ridiculing and backstabbing was the norm.

Now intensity? Man let's see, you eat rotten meat, suffer from poor hygene, see ****, hump a freaking armour set up. Have to put up with you suzerain, your king or prince, have all chances of getting crabs the size of kittens and when you're hurt even a little you pray it can't get worse. And...you mount a damn horse. We all know that's so benefic to your spine and bassin.

I'm telling you this without mentionning the Clergy. Because then it gets really really complicated.

So come again with "intensity"?So what? You must put yourself in a contemporary position and not judge in hindsight. I think the wars of the Middle Ages weren't more stressful for the Medieval knights than they are today for the soldiers of our times.
As for the intensity, this isn't too far-fetched. The Hundred Year's War shows perfectly how changes in tactics and weapons - away from the combat man-to-man to warfare involving common employment of indirect fire and whatnot - also affected the mentality of the involved warriors as well as the general public's view on war. It is of great importance to know your enemy and to realize he has the same chance of killing you as you have of killing him, no matter the violence involved.

The number of taboos in the MA was such that most of you would suicide.Yes, because a man's desire to respect taboos is stronger than everything else...
Megaraptor;5911454']Compare this to WW2 armies who calculated that infantrymen were effective for 180 days before they had to be relieved due to fatigue.This goes for the Allies maybe.

[Rattfink]

Megaraptor;5911454']My medieval history professor in college talked about some knights that came back from the First Crusade and hid in secluded rooms in their castles for months on end, etc. These guys had been in combat for 3 years straight without break and something like 2/3 of them died.

Compare this to WW2 armies who calculated that infantrymen were effective for 180 days before they had to be relieved due to fatigue.

Calculated 180 days and actually relieved are two different things. Think Guadalcanal. Plenty of men came back form that and others like it and sought seclusion etc.

[Rattfink]

Megaraptor;5911481']
Same professor always asked students what 3 things they thought of when they heard the term "Middle Ages":

UK students: "wenches, pigs running in mud, people with no teeth."
American students: "Castles, knights, princesses."

I thought of plague, feudal servitude and inquisition.

[khalifah]

Suprised there was no mention of Dave Grossmans work,"On Killing".

I agree with you muck, while ancient warfare can hardly be compared to modernday combat (generally speaking). The effect is still the same, after longexposure. I think also though we need to consider things such as the training,endocrination, status, and armament of Knights in comparison to the footmen.
AFAIK, footmen were pressed into combat units, Knights were trained andendoctrinated for their position as knights. Knights also had more money forgetting better armor, so being better armored may have weighed in their mindswhether to get into the next fight.

Moreover, if today, modern times, its easy to dehumanize the enemy(Taliban/AlQaeda), how much easier was it during the crusades? I imagine it was easy tosay the enemy(on each side) were not human, but heathen devils worthy of nomercy and peace. Its still done today to some extent.

However, one cannot say attitudes at the time were so 2 dimentional. Im sureopinions changed about the enemy, especially after they had been in combat withthem a long enough time. Possibly a bit more humbler, veteran like.

my 2 cents.

(thank god i saved this post on word, this is the 3rd time this thread has crashed on me!) *rage

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

That's because the USA is less than 300 years old. And the American colonization barely half a millenium ( bar Norse raids on Green Land and beyond).
Europe has an issue with the MA because it still defines it.

Most Americans' ancestors were living in Europe during the Middle Ages.


Thats what I would call the Disney-version of history http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

A valid point, but it seems to support the point I'm getting at, which is that Europeans seem to hate themselves and their past more than Americans do.

[danielc]

I doubt it that knights suffered from some kind of PTS. Those men were trained from the time they were children to be warriors, and for the most part they lived in an era that warfare was an ever constant presence, either against a foreign power, or against other barons and counts, and dukes, etc. If they were not at war they were jousting, or hunting, which of course are activities that involve the shedding of blood and guts, and dealing with the reality of killing. Life was harsh and there was no room for weakness of spirit.

[Piirka]

As Blue Thor said, they were human too. I am sure they suffered and eventually got used to violence, maybe becoming callous. The kind of litterature, that went into those details, wasn't yet invented and nobody would have wanted anybody, except the enemy, depicted having weaknesses.

They surely talked about their deeds and drank, but maybe with the closest brothers in arms, they might have shared the shakes and shed tears for the fallen.

Maybe in the Usa, more emphasis is put to the history after Kolumbus, while in europe, you have to memorize all those damn kings and their deeds...?

[Silent Reader]

Megaraptor;5911664']A valid point, but it seems to support the point I'm getting at, which is that Europeans seem to hate themselves and their past more than Americans do.

Its a bit like talking about the US civil war and first thinking about the nice uniforms, horses and Indians.. :=)


In regard to Europe - I don't think it has anything to do with hate. There certainly is a big fascination for the Middle Ages here but based on a realistic view.
In the US one might only know Neuschwanstein Castle because its where Cinderella lived - here we know that the Bavarian King who built it was a rather troubled person, under pressure for wasting money on such a luxury.. and then the king ended up dead in a lake under mysterious circumstances - nobody knows if he was murdered or commited suicide ^^

[Mordoror]

There certainly is a big fascination for the Middle Ages here but based on a realistic view.

Indeed
Because the roots of our states as nations are in this troubled period of Middle Ages. Think about it, this is the period of history when the modern european states see birth (in pain, through wars, social disorders, religion extremism and struggles and deadly epidemies). That 's why there is a fascination as well as a kind of repulsion for this period of history.
We all belong to Middle Ages but it was also a barbaric/violent/less than enlightened period (less than the Antiquity that precedes them and less that the Enlightement that follows them).....that may explain our deep interest and deep criticism of this period as European

In USA you never (and i insist) never experienced such kind of social collapse period. So it is understandable you have a hard time to understand our position

[Tropical_ulcer]

I doubt it that knights suffered from some kind of PTS. Those men were trained from the time they were children to be warriors, and for the most part they lived in an era that warfare was an ever constant presence, either against a foreign power, or against other barons and counts, and dukes, etc. If they were not at war they were jousting, or hunting, which of course are activities that involve the shedding of blood and guts, and dealing with the reality of killing. Life was harsh and there was no room for weakness of spirit.

probably they would have ended like modern serial killers,but since theyr profession is to kill ,them probably it was easy for them to get used to it

anyway the fact is that surely when they experienced some sympton of ptsd be a flashback or whatever since I dont know how that feels,they may has regard it as some divine stuff since probably thats how they explained the unexplainable in those times,so if they got a flashback maybe they thought t was god telling them something or whatever

[BloodyTalon]

I doubt it that knights suffered from some kind of PTS. Those men were trained from the time they were children to be warriors, and for the most part they lived in an era that warfare was an ever constant presence, either against a foreign power, or against other barons and counts, and dukes, etc. If they were not at war they were jousting, or hunting, which of course are activities that involve the shedding of blood and guts, and dealing with the reality of killing. Life was harsh and there was no room for weakness of spirit.
By that logic child soldiers and refugees are the perfect picture of mental health.

Today we have enough medical and mental health knowledge to know that there's only so much combat a person can take before it starts negatively effecting them mentally and emotionally. This knowledge didn't exist at all in the Medieval Ages but that doesn't mean that knights and peasants were stoic, resilient hardasses 24/7. There were people in this time that likely did suffer from PTSD but it was never called that directly. Instead literature and accounts at the time would would go into details about a knight/lord returning from war preferring solitude over the court or his own family, or being more religiously fervent then we was before the war, or drinking a lot, etc. While we might see this as a sign that there's something troubling the veteran now, back then it was brushed away as quirks or even endearing traits that should be followed.

I remember back in high school hearing about how Tancred of Galilee was incredibly violent until he had a divine epiphany and joined the First Crusade...where he became even more violent to the point of complete sociopathy. I even read accounts that after raids Viking Berserkers would suffer breakdowns from drug withdrawal and possibly guilt. Again, PTSD wasn't nonexistent in the past; it just was never talked until recently.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

We all belong to Middle Ages but it was also a barbaric/violent/less than enlightened period (less than the Antiquity that precedes them and less that the Enlightement that follows them).

Which is a false view that medieval historians have been fighting against for centuries. That's the part I don't get. Why are you Europeans so quick to trash your own history while Americans can at least see the good parts along with the bad?

[KoTeMoRe]

Most american ancestors? lemme see. How many American ancestors could remember what a crusade looked like? The bulk of US immigration came at the very end of the 19th century early 20th. Human memory, especially in modest classes wich made the core of the US immigration, is slim. Hell My own son will not remember much of his native Albania in 20 years time and I bet his offspring wouldn't be nearly as interested, bar a huge turn in Albanian history.


Muck: hindsight? Well if anything, people did not choose that occupation, because it was deemed inherent to their statute. That might have been the most problematic and traumatic experience. Being brought up to fight. And as a getaway a "career in the robe". So maybe you should take some of your own advice. How am I supposed to view the past in contemporary vision is beyond me. I am a contemporary fellow, if anything I need to look at it from their POV (because I actually went down the anachronistic route by telling the MP.net people that they would suicide if transplanted in the MA).

So once again read, these guys, they were not simply machines and they suffered, as many today, from their experiences (someone please recall Gilles de Rais), but that in NO case their suffering would amount as in many of our issues, with a sudden change from a secure life to a more dangerous environement. The problem, is that today, the enemy, for western nations is to be killed without mercy. In those days, you would meet your enemy in a wargame in Milan and the next day, it would be a battle ground in Pavia. Bar "OPEX" like the crusades or some invasion, they would knew their opponents. Maybe even close enough to consider them friends, if not for their respective allegiances. How's that for trauma.

Khalifah: these knights were facing their own enemies (bar invasions and crusades) in wars and out of wars. There were massive wargames that kept them "active" in wich they could socialize. And then you had companies wich were also professional soldiers and who also had chosen their way of life. I've never understood this fantasy about knights while not fully understanding their universe. These people had obligations as well, they were pressed to fight for their protector in each and every little crappy argument he would get. And most of the time against their own will and interests, leaving women and next of kin defenceless and without a fixed income.

They had more money? Where did that money come from, they didn't work, they didn't owned anything until their father died or were granted a piece of land and manses from their protector. FFS

[JGXL836]

I have a strong feeling that the research had a political purpose.

[Mordoror]

Which is a false view that medieval historians have been fighting against for centuries.

Hum
Not false
It was exagerated until recently and with new generation of historians (focusing more on the culture/art) we know that the Middle Ages was not only simply a period ofmayhem/bloodspill and bookburning
However it is certain that the cultural, political and social loses were tremendous at the fall of the Western Roman Empire
And that cannot be denied

In fact the achievements during the Middle Ages were only or mainly re-discoveries of something that pre-existed during Egyptian/Greek and Roman periods
That's why the Middle Ages is a period frowned upon, moreover when you pile up the amount of social disorders occuring through the whole period

To take an analogy it is like if your granpa has built up a mansion you liked a lot when a kid. Imagine now that somebody comes and burns it and everything what is within when you are a teen; And now as a adult you have to built it/decorate and furnish anew from scratches. Sure you will built it with your means and at our rythm
But the nostalgia of the Grandpa mansion image would still haunt you.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

However it is certain that the cultural, political and social loses were tremendous at the fall of the Western Roman Empire
And that cannot be denied

That is true, however this was regained and then some by the 1100s, which is something that many people seem to forget.

[kevlar308]

I think some here are confused due to bad terminology. Middle Ages does not equal Dark Ages. Most of Europe had some problems after the fall of the Roman Empire but you can't easily compare the year 501 to the year 1320.

Furthermore, while the combat was certainly as bad or much worse than modern warfare, it was not usually as long or constant. battles usually decided mini-wars and were over in a day. Very little fighting at night, in winter, or in (very) crappy weather, compared to today.



Neuschwanstein Castle because its where Cinderella lived - here we know that the Bavarian King who built it was a rather troubled person, under pressure for wasting money on such a luxury.. and then the king ended up dead in a lake under mysterious circumstances - nobody knows if he was murdered or commited suicide
I may be from Georgia, but even I know that the middle ages had been over for at least 200 years when it was built.
Also, it is one of the biggest tourist sites in Europe. Makes more money than any other single site in Germany- i.e. wonderful idea and investment. and old crazy gay Ludwig II paid for it out of his own cash.

[Silent Reader]

I may be from Georgia, but even I know that the middle ages had been over for at least 200 years when it was built.
Also, it is one of the biggest tourist sites in Europe. Makes more money than any other single site in Germany- i.e. wonderful idea and investment. and old crazy gay Ludwig II paid for it out of his own cash.

Yes okay it was a bit later :) But as the King.. his money more or less was the states money.
Besides most castles which are not in use as homes anymore are tourist attractions today... though in case of Neuschwanstein it gained its popularaity through Disney.

[Mordoror]

but you can't easily compare the year 501 to the year 1320.

Sure
As you can't compare Early Antic period and Late one
However, sorry to insist, but the Middle Ages was comparatively to the Late Antic period, really poor in new achievements


That is true, however this was regained and then some by the 1100s, which is something that many people seem to forget.
Yep, WD
But it took 500-600 years to come back on the previous level (and not in every fields) and to begin to advance again

Look, just some examples

Roman empire : Sewages------------------------------European Nations during th middle ages : No sewage
Roman Empire : aqueducts-----------------------------European nations during the middle ages : no aqueducts (except those left by the romans)
Look at the medecine and the Eber papyrus, the Greek sheepskins or the romans collections and compare with the all leech and clyster of medieval medecine
hell Romans were able to perform cesarians while 17 to 20% of the mothers died in birthhood during the Middle Age
as we are on a military forum look at what was lost between the greek and roman time and the Middle ages :
sanitization knowledge, manoeuver knowledge, logistic knowledge

As i said we declined too much during the middle ages in comparison to the previous era to look this period with a positive eye even if there was some great achievments (Cathedral architecture, windmills, glasses, etc etc)

[Gordon]

I thought of plague, feudal servitude and inquisition.

Hot serving wenches, mead and big feasts.

[Rosbach]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk


http://www.ted.com (http://www.ted.com/) Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.

[randir14]

probably they would have ended like modern serial killers

Some did...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

[Piirka]

Here they are hinting on some ptsd-like behaviour on greek heroes:

http://www.ptsdsupport.net/PTSD_and_tragic_heroes_of_today.html


It has been suggested that ancient Greek drama was a form of storytelling, communal therapy, and ritual reintegration for combat veterans by combat veterans. Sophocles himself was a general. At the time Aeschylus wrote and produced his famous Oresteia, Athens was at war on six fronts. The audiences for whom these plays were performed were undoubtedly comprised of citizen-soldiers. Also, the performers themselves were most likely veterans or cadets. Seen through this lens, ancient Greek drama appears to have been an elaborate ritual aimed at helping combat veterans return to civilian life after deployments during a century that saw 80 years of war.
Plays like Sophocles’ Ajax and Philoctetes read like textbook descriptions of wounded warriors, struggling under the weight of psychological and physical injuries to maintain their dignity, identity, and honor. Given this context, it seemed natural that military audiences today might have something to teach us about the impulses behind these ancient stories. It also seemed like these ancient stories would have something important and relevant to say to military audiences today.

[muck]

I doubt it that knights suffered from some kind of PTS. Those men were trained from the time they were children to be warriors, and for the most part they lived in an era that warfare was an ever constant presence, either against a foreign power, or against other barons and counts, and dukes, etc. If they were not at war they were jousting, or hunting, which of course are activities that involve the shedding of blood and guts, and dealing with the reality of killing. Life was harsh and there was no room for weakness of spirit.

There do exist many reports of knights and crusaders who became "traumatised" by what they saw, some of them even autobiographical. There were even infirmaries for traumatised veterans, for example one in Cologne which housed dozens of former crusaders.
Indeed the knights had been hardened by fierce training and a different mentality but I imagine the difference between normal soldiers - no matter the era - and knights to be somewhat like the difference between today's regular troos and special forces, who have far less cases of PTSD in their rows too. That doesn't mean they're totally imune to PTSD though. Every conscious being can suffer from a mental trauma.

[Tropical_ulcer]

Here they are hinting on some ptsd-like behaviour on greek heroes:

http://www.ptsdsupport.net/PTSD_and_tragic_heroes_of_today.html

that proves that perception was diferent,you also have to point that maybe in those times traumatized people may not wanted to show weakness,since as being warriors they needed to show strength and such

also why so many negativity at the dark ages? is not like it was the only time in europe whit war and the like:roll:

[James]

I think that the medieval melee comabt would be more traumatic. You get to see the people around you being cut to pieces, slashed, stabbed, beheaded, bludgeoned to death, you see blood and guts all around you and you now that if you die it will most likely be a pretty ugly and painful death. I saw some pictures of medieval combat and it was pretty gore.

You should see what an IED or artillery fire does to people.

[Piirka]

also why so many negativity at the dark ages? is not like it was the only time in europe whit war and the like:roll:

The fall of the glorious Rome and then the rule of the formerly known as "barbaric" tribes. Maybe it is because those times were written down mostly by christian monks, clergy and papacy and they must have thought the end of christian west Rome as the coming of dark, pagan times.

[James]

Most american ancestors? lemme see. How many American ancestors could remember what a crusade looked like? The bulk of US immigration came at the very end of the 19th century early 20th. Human memory, especially in modest classes wich made the core of the US immigration, is slim. Hell My own son will not remember much of his native Albania in 20 years time and I bet his offspring wouldn't be nearly as interested, bar a huge turn in Albanian history.

Surely you aren't making the claim that there are Europeans alive today who can remember the Crusades.

[California Joe]

You should see what an IED or artillery fire does to people.

Yeah, and that whole "using Napoleonic tactics of marching slowly, in long rows towards an entrenched enemy that now has rifles firing miniballs with a 300 yard accurate range, rifled cannons, cannister, Henry and Spencer rifles" thing...probably didn't seem horrific at all to the men in Pickett's command...

[Corrupt]

Yeah, and that whole "using Napoleonic tactics of marching slowly, in long rows towards an entrenched enemy that now has rifles firing miniballs with a 300 yard accurate range, rifled cannons, cannister, Henry and Spencer rifles" thing...probably didn't seem horrific at all to the men in Pickett's command...

Back then men were men, not hipster metro******s ;)

[kimujnr]

I would imagine warriors from all eras would find commonality in the horrors of war, be it finding yourself one of the few Athenian Hoplites still alive amongst a grave yard of mutilated bodies or a modern day infantry soldier who was the only one to survive an IED attack. The effects on the mind are going to be similar, folks tend to forget that they too were human and subject to the same emotional traumas as today's soldiers.

[Piirka]

Surely you aren't making the claim that there are Europeans alive today who can remember the Crusades.

So, vampires are not real? I suppose I suspected so. I hope Santa Claus is not a myth too. :(

[KoTeMoRe]

Surely you aren't making the claim that there are Europeans alive today who can remember the Crusades.

Mhh as a family heritage? I know at least 3 such europeans. All Belgian noblility. Always have their family crusade related stuff along with allocation of goods in Levantine. Recently they donated the lot to the AGR in Brussels.

[wwjs]

I think that people at that time could handle PTSD much better because they were used to death and violence much more better than most of today's people (and I mean eyewitness not through the internet). In conclusion, balls are shrinking

[custodes]

I've heard how in the years after the fall of Rome but, before the Crusades, Knights were brutal warlords until the Church brought them in line. The Dark Ages or Early Medieval Period had them raiding villages and terrorizing the poor and the peasants who were unprotected. After city populations fell and plague caused major killoffs, 5th and 6th centuries or there abouts?

These peasants knew nothing past their villages except dark forests. The Church, to stop these Knights, and reign them in would call in all the Holy Relics and Martyrs' Bones in the area and pile them up before ritual bonfires.
They would preach about the Knights causing pain and suffering and make them swear before the Relics to follow the words of Jesus. 9th Century or so? It seems this worked and the new religious fervor spread and the feudal system started.

If these Knights were so cowed by defenseless Priests and Monks and bones, couldn't the fear of killing and causing pain and not following the 10 Commandments also, bring upon a form of early ages PTSD?

Gore is horrible. Their religious guilt must have been much worse than ours though.

[KoTeMoRe]

Nothing to do with balls. At that time there was no PTSD. Death and violence were not absolutes. Diseases, harsh times, lack of offspring were as destructive to a man in those times.

Just ask yourself, what would be the said violence? Chores imposed by the landlord? Theft with violence? In manses that held less than a handful of homeware, what would you steal? Livestock? Grain? Misery, injustice and taxation would have been described as the most violent acts committed. IE class warfare. Communities being small, violence was severly reprimanded, by the landlord and by the community members.

Custodes: Wat? Chivalry as opposed to the OST ( was a social class directly tied to Landlords (Equestri-Bucellari). Landlords who usually would have a brother at the local clergy head. A Knight is a specific member of the court. He is a servant in Arms. Nothing to do with the "Companies". Usually disgruntled Knights would go on and for a Company, but what reigned them in was the loot and organized armies. You're referring to 9th century? Well in the ninth century most of the fiefdoms were loosely feudal and the correlation with a king, was far more direct. Think of Carolus Magnus.

[Piirka]

Well, the reign of Charlemagne was a period for the better and the clergy later tried to achieve a Pax Dei and Treuga Dei to pacify the nobles.

[custodes]

Nothing to do with balls. At that time there was no PTSD. Death and violence were not absolutes. Diseases, harsh times, lack of offspring were as destructive to a man in those times.

Just ask yourself, what would be the said violence? Chores imposed by the landlord? Theft with violence? In manses that held less than a handful of homeware, what would you steal? Livestock? Grain? Misery, injustice and taxation would have been described as the most violent acts committed. IE class warfare. Communities being small, violence was severly reprimanded, by the landlord and by the community members.

Custodes: Wat? Chivalry as opposed to the OST ( was a social class directly tied to Landlords (Equestri-Bucellari). Landlords who usually would have a brother at the local clergy head. A Knight is a specific member of the court. He is a servant in Arms. Nothing to do with the "Companies". Usually disgruntled Knights would go on and for a Company, but what reigned them in was the loot and organized armies. You're referring to 9th century? Well in the ninth century most of the fiefdoms were loosely feudal and the correlation with a king, was far more direct. Think of Carolus Magnus.

But, between the fall of Rome and the rise of feudalism ( 500 to 900 or so)it was different. It ended around the 9th.Charlemagne only ruled for a few years and back to the madness. A Knight then was a Warlord with allegiences to nobody. I am talking of pre-feudal. You seem to think it went from Rome to Chretien De Troyes. It did not.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

It appears the Middle Ages had a much more informed approach and common sense about Mental Illness.

It also appears that they knew all about how trauma can cause mental problems. IE blows to the head, witnessing certain events ect ect.







[QUOTE]Madness consequent to trauma, fever, and the like was widely understood for what it was in 14th century England and subsequently, and there is little reason to believe that a demonological aetiology was ever routinely sought for most conditions other than epilepsy.

http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7021/1708.full

[KoTeMoRe]

But, between the fall of Rome and the rise of feudalism ( 500 to 900 or so)it was different. It ended around the 9th.Charlemagne only ruled for a few years and back to the madness. A Knight then was a Warlord with allegiences to nobody. I am talking of pre-feudal. You seem to think it went from Rome to Chretien De Troyes. It did not.

Between the fall of Rome and Rise of Feudalism (actually after the XIth century) three different categories are to be looked upon. The OST would be formed by enrolled free villagers, Bucellari-Miles (mostly mounted professional soldiers, usually former highwaymen without rank or title), Comitati (the bigshots).

[Piirka]

But, between the fall of Rome and the rise of feudalism ( 500 to 900 or so)it was different. It ended around the 9th.Charlemagne only ruled for a few years and back to the madness. A Knight then was a Warlord with allegiences to nobody. I am talking of pre-feudal. You seem to think it went from Rome to Chretien De Troyes. It did not.

But there isn't necessarily a continuum of knighthood from rome to feudal kingdoms and really, what people think about knights are those mounted warriors on stirrups and that was a later invention. Horse mobile huskarls not a knight make... Anyway, the dark in dark ages is rather that we don't have much information on it, not that they were evil ages as such. A tribe's valued possession is the people and even their thralls. The clergy reporting the events was not so enthusiastic about the pagan tribes replacing Rome and their writing (the little that is left) reflects this.

[custodes]

But there isn't necessarily a continuum of knighthood from rome to feudal kingdoms
Never said there was. Three different philosophies here.



Anyway, the dark in dark ages is rather that we don't have much information on it, not that they were evil ages as such. A tribe's valued possession is the people and even their thralls. The clergy reporting the events was not so enthusiastic about the pagan tribes replacing Rome and their writing (the little that is left) reflects this.

We know much more than we used to. These were blasted times at first. Disease (several plagues) and no central govt. Really bad weather in the 8th century. People could not feed themselves in large numbers. Aquaducts were in disrepair. No fresh water for large groups. The population of Europe went way down (until the Medieval Warming Period (or Little Climate Optimum.) Small villages were the norm with very little or no communications. Folks lived in terror of these Knights. Might made right. No chivalry at all. It was an unknown concept. Then in the 9th through 13th centuries it got warm and feudalism ( and I guess Chivalry) were born. Not that the 10th century Monks were so perfect but, after they reorganized.

[Piirka]

We know much more than we used to. These were blasted times at first. Disease (several plagues) and no central govt. Really bad weather in the 8th century. People could not feed themselves in large numbers. Aquaducts were in disrepair. No fresh water for large groups. The population of Europe went way down (until the Medieval Warming Period (or Little Climate Optimum.) Small villages were the norm with very little or no communications. Folks lived in terror of these Knights. Might made right. No chivalry at all. It was an unknown concept. Then in the 9th through 13th centuries it got warm and feudalism ( and I guess Chivalry) were born. Not that the 10th century Monks were so perfect but, after they reorganized.

Well, it is argued, that these people would not live in big cities anyway, so that also explains why populations in cities dropped. Trade went on, people adopted some culture from the previous romans (the local provincial elite), that mixed in. And really, these people the romans didn't succeed to conquer, just stopped having communication between their dwellings? There were no doubt smaller chiefdoms with their own diplomatic relationships between themselves, protecting their own people. And when more advanced govermental structures were adopted, bigger areas in governance and bigger spheres of influence... leading to feudal kingdoms.

[James]

I would imagine warriors from all eras would find commonality in the horrors of war, be it finding yourself one of the few Athenian Hoplites still alive amongst a grave yard of mutilated bodies or a modern day infantry soldier who was the only one to survive an IED attack. The effects on the mind are going to be similar, folks tend to forget that they too were human and subject to the same emotional traumas as today's soldiers.

If you haven't actually experienced these things or worked as a mental health professional maybe you can keep your thoughts to yourself.

[James]

At that time there was no PTSD.

When did people start getting PTSD?

[custodes]

I may have missed the point of many earlier posts but, I thought religion was being dismissed. I just think it is a major factor in Medieval PTSD. More true believers.

[Piirka]

I thought religion was being dismissed.

Religions you mean, in plural?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I may have missed the point of many earlier posts but, I thought religion was being dismissed. I just think it is a major factor in Medieval PTSD. More true believers.

Did you read the link I provided? Religion generally had nothing to do with how society diagnosed and dealt with Mental illness. Hell it clearly showed the Middle Ages was more advanced in diagnosing problems and dealing with people who suffered mental illness then today's society

[timetraveller]

The term Post traumatic stress never existed then .. like it did up to a point during WW1 ...


How did the people come to this conclusion is beyond me .. it's more the case of people looking to make a name for themselves by writing a paper to get there name noticed and hopefully gain some accolade from it ..

[custodes]

Did you read the link I provided? Religion generally had nothing to do with how society diagnosed and dealt with Mental illness. Hell it clearly showed the Middle Ages was more advanced in diagnosing problems and dealing with people who suffered mental illness then today's society

I wasn't speaking of diagnosing mental illnesses Min. Nor of treating them. I was speaking of the root causes. As in going against the teachings of Jesus even though the Church says it is good at this time, and you will go to heaven. The Knights could read latin, I think. They would see discepancies.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Again the article, and I quoted specifically the part where it mentioned it was widely understood.


Madness consequent to trauma, fever, and the like was widely understood for what it was in 14th century England and subsequently, and there is little reason to believe that a demonological aetiology was ever routinely sought for most conditions other than epilepsy.

You must remeber that back then whether it was depression, anxiety attacks, retarded, insane. It was all lumped in with a person being classed as insane. Just because the term is not there in writings doesn't mean the specific illness is not there. Remember Old/Middle English is a lot different to the English we are typing now.

[KoTeMoRe]

When did people start getting PTSD?

When Babinski started working on induced hysteria by traumatic stimulation. After that WW1 happened. And people were speaking about soldiers being shellshocked etc. Mental and physical affections are better not made retroactive, by any stretch.

[custodes]

Again the article, and I quoted specifically the part where it mentioned it was widely understood.



You must remeber that back then whether it was depression, anxiety attacks, retarded, insane. It was all lumped in with a person being classed as insane. Just because the term is not there in writings doesn't mean the specific illness is not there. Remember Old/Middle English is a lot different to the English we are typing now.


14th Century? Rennaisance good. :-) I guess they learned a lot in the earlier crusades.

It was the 15th and 16th that had the (1st) burning of the werewolves and sorcerers and then the burning of the witches. But, I do not think it is relevent (although interesting.) Damn inquisition.

We had Chaucer in school. And learned of the great vowel shift.

[KoTeMoRe]

14th Century? Rennaisance good. :-) I guess they learned a lot in the earlier crusades.

It was the 15th and 16th that had the (1st) burning of the werewolves and sorcerers and then the burning of the witches. But, I do not think it is relevent (although interesting.) Damn inquisition.

We had Chaucer in school. And learned of the great vowel shift.

Err actually Heretics, Apostates and others would be burnt way before that (the Cathar and Albigeois crusades). Plus Witches didn't need to be burnt. They had a witchproof test back in the day. chaining the alleged witch and dumping her in water. If she was a witch no problemo, she would swim back to shore.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Again READ THE ****ING ARTICLE!


The responsibility of insane people in criminal and civil suits is occasionally addressed in early English law codes and treatises, but guardianship is first discussed in a semi-official tract known as the Praerogativa regis dating from the reign of Edward I (1272-1307).13 (http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7021/1708.full#ref-13) This distinguished for the first time between the natural born idiot and the lunatic

They obviously knew the difference between a person born with mental illness and to those who suffered it later on.


The crown's intervention in this area was probably a recent innovation. Fleta, writing somewhat later, circa 1295, states that wardship of congenital idiots was formerly the right of the (feudal) lord, but such idiots had suffered so many disherisons that it had been provided that the king should assume their protection

I'm wondering if Edward I who was an absolute **** having and was involved in wars in Scotland, Wales, France and Crusade introduced these laws because he was seeing so many of his comrades in arms turn mad or suffer the effects of what we now know as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

[custodes]

Religions you mean, in plural?
Well, I was speaking of the Christians. Wasn't thinking of "the enemies" PTSD.


Err actually Heretics, Apostates and others would be burnt way before that (the Cathar and Albigeois crusades). Plus Witches didn't need to be burnt. They had a witchproof test back in the day. chaining the alleged witch and dumping her in water. If she was a witch no problemo, she would swim back to shore.

Oh yeah forgot them.

Witch test might be later though. I hear of it a lot in the 16th century.


Again READ THE ****ING ARTICLE!



They obviously knew the difference between a person born with mental illness and to those who suffered it later on.



I'm wondering if Edward I who was an absolute **** having and was involved in wars in Scotland, Wales, France and Crusade introduced these laws because he was seeing so many of his comrades in arms turn mad or suffer the effects of what we now know as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Jesus Min. I read half of it. It's long. I was just saying Religious beliefs could be part of what caused PTSD in the Crusades. Not belief in demons and sorcery but, guilt at the horrors. We know what trauma and stress is. And we know some of the effects of seeing it and feeling you are the cause of it. They did too. I get that. I don't see how what I was saying and what you are is different.

And knowing the difference between someone born sick and someone who got sick later doesn't mean they knew the causes any more than we do. Except if they realized she might have been "driven mad." I'm glad they didn't always try to use voodoo to cure them. There must always be some smart folks in every era.

As for Edward the First, he seems such a harda*s*s he probably thought anyone with a bit of battle fatigue was a pussy. Like Patton. Although, if he approved a little holiday for the battle weary maybe he was only half hard *a*s*s. He certainly was an expert on war.

[custodes]

Edward may have said these mentally deficient folks were wards of the crown to be protected and then the estates given back to the heir with no funds taken out but, they also say, it is not a written law but, more talk and custom of his reign.

In reality he was always grubbing for money and needed funds for war and castle building so, I bet he grabbed some. That is how I read between the lines. Edward Longshanks. The Hammer of The Scotts. Conqueror of Wales so completely that they never had a major revolution against England since?

He died almost broke.

Or maybe it is just that damn William Wallace movie that has biased me. ;-)

[James]

When Babinski started working on induced hysteria by traumatic stimulation. After that WW1 happened. And people were speaking about soldiers being shellshocked etc. Mental and physical affections are better not made retroactive, by any stretch.

PTSD is just the modern term. Before that there was shell shock, battle fatigue, the black dog, etc. I bet if we could talk to soldiers from the American Civil War or Waterloo and tell them "No, you guys didn't have PTSD/Shell Shock/Battle Fatigue" they might take issue with that.

As an aside, you don't have to be in a battle or a war to have PTSD. It can happen from things like being in a car accident. Regardless, it's a psychological thing, and human psychology has been a pretty constant thing.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Edward may have said these mentally deficient folks were wards of the crown to be protected and then the estates given back to the heir with no funds taken out but, they also say, it is not a written law but, more talk and custom of his reign.

In reality he was always grubbing for money and needed funds for war and castle building so, I bet he grabbed some. That is how I read between the lines. Edward Longshanks. The Hammer of The Scotts. Conqueror of Wales so completely that they never had a major revolution against England since?

He died almost broke.

Or maybe it is just that damn William Wallace movie that has biased me. ;-)

Hever confiscated any estates. For those that were born insane, the person was properly cared for using the profits of the estate, if there was still money left over then he would profit. More often then not as the article I quoted mentioned he didn't get a dime and was forced to pay for upkeep. For those that became unwell all profits could only be used by the guardian for the welfare of the insane. No lands, monies were confiscated.



Jesus Min. I read half of it. It's long. I was just saying Religious beliefs could be part of what caused PTSD in the Crusades. Not belief in demons and sorcery but, guilt at the horrors. We know what trauma and stress is. And we know some of the effects of seeing it and feeling you are the cause of it. They did too. I get that. I don't see how what I was saying and what you are is different.

And knowing the difference between someone born sick and someone who got sick later doesn't mean they knew the causes any more than we do. Except if they realized she might have been "driven mad." I'm glad they didn't always try to use voodoo to cure them. There must always be some smart folks in every era.

As for Edward the First, he seems such a harda*s*s he probably thought anyone with a bit of battle fatigue was a pussy. Like Patton. Although, if he approved a little holiday for the battle weary maybe he was only half hard *a*s*s. He certainly was an expert on war.

Half of it? Yeah it's long. But if provides sources, and factual evidence for the period. Just because Kingdom of Heaven makes it sound like everybody in Christianity was a relgious fanatical doesn't make it true that they lived and governed their lives according to the Church.

How many bastard offspring did the aristocracy and monarch's had at the time is evidence of that. Hell King John is considered in some contemporary sources to be a devil worshiper. Modern Scholars suggest he was an athiest. He was however extremely well educated and versed in law. Educated Monarch well versed in law embroiled in major problems with the Church. :P

You might as well say they were all stupid without intellect and did not have the ability to observe what was happening.

Again why would a Monarch for no financial or political gain to himself or his supporters introduce laws that would have no doubt pissed a lot of powerful and wealthy people off to protect those who became mentally unwell?

It also specifically protected those who held property. Which is even more interesting. After all it was the propertied classes who formed the backbone of the Armies at the time.

So it is safe to assume that either he was aware through witnessing the cause and effect of the problem first hand, or society in general had come to realise there was a link between traumatic experiences and mental illness and it was unfair on widows, veterans and heirs to lose everything when a person had a breakdown.

[pocoloco]

Wow, very nice conversation both on and off the topic. Nice to see so many different POVs, many thanks to all.

Personally I do find the article's topic bit far-fetched. Dunno if they feared PTSD back then, rather than realising that it could happen to some. Were they more resilient to it as in (over generalisation here) societies were more violent ****e back then? Human psyche is an interesting thing, too bad we don't have too many sources from those times and with those that we have one must always try to remember who wrote them down, for whom they were meant, how much time had passed between the actual happenings and writing them down etc.

[junglejim]

Wow, very nice conversation both on and off the topic. Nice to see so many different POVs, many thanks to all.

Personally I do find the article's topic bit far-fetched. Dunno if they feared PTSD back then, rather than realising that it could happen to some. Were they more resilient to it as in (over generalisation here) societies were more violent ****e back then? Human psyche is an interesting thing, too bad we don't have too many sources from those times and with those that we have one must always try to remember who wrote them down, for whom they were meant, how much time had passed between the actual happenings and writing them down etc.

Interesting points of view. I asked my friend in the Army why PTSD was not as prevalent in the Philippine Army as compared to other Armies and most answered that it is probably due to the fact that they are never really out of the "suck" like American forces. So their guards are still up and they still have the same mindset as if they were out on the field, especially among soldiers who live in isolated areas or far off towns. They do mention that occasionally it hits a few of them, the worst case was when one of their soldiers started going berserk and started firing inside their camp. When I asked how they dealt with such and individual the reply was a cold "the APC's .50 dealt with him."

Mind you this is a different Army than most and you get replies after 12 special forces soldiers got wiped out by the enemy like "Well its warfare sometimes the enemy gets the best of you, its a simple fact that in warfare people die on both sides. You learn from the mistake and move on." So it might not apply to Western Armies.

[KoTeMoRe]

PTSD is just the modern term. Before that there was shell shock, battle fatigue, the black dog, etc. I bet if we could talk to soldiers from the American Civil War or Waterloo and tell them "No, you guys didn't have PTSD/Shell Shock/Battle Fatigue" they might take issue with that.

As an aside, you don't have to be in a battle or a war to have PTSD. It can happen from things like being in a car accident. Regardless, it's a psychological thing, and human psychology has been a pretty constant thing.


It is not, the modern term. While Min shows that in ancient times people would make the difference between "madness" A (natural/inherited) and "madness" B (caused by a specific condition) without anamnese, the modern definition is made through this very form of medical inquiry. Therefore giving a specific feedback. You were less ****e to have a traffic accident in 1776, while you could have a traumatic experience like loosing your younger brother, sister on a fairly common basis. You would have some traumatic experience that would make you act in schizophrenic way, I bet you and I would not understand the difference that shrinks make when lookin it through current psychiatric procedures and we woud speak about a kind of PTSD, while it might just be a form of sociopathy.

Last but not least, seen the differences in value through times, human psychology has been all but constant. Madness in most cases would have not been tolerated in the West after the Roman collapse, while muslims had a fairly good logic of treating them, in relation with what greeks used to do.

Hence some of their most often undesirable actions like "martyrdom" and "jihad" might well have been forms of exteriorizing a psychological pressure, or even an outright psychopathology (IE a form of oppresion syndrome), that we as westerners have been trying to put aside.

Min: one might have also feared an other less complicated explanation. You have people that are accustomed to violence, have martial knowledge and are in your inner circle. They are cash strapped, they're "unstable" and frankly speaking you don't want to have to deal with them. You throw them a bone. I know it's very anachronistic and cynical, but in no case it denies your POV.

[Mordoror]

Min: one might have also feared an other less complicated explanation. You have people that are accustomed to violence, have martial knowledge and are in your inner circle. They are cash strapped, they're "unstable" and frankly speaking you don't want to have to deal with them. You throw them a bone. I know it's very anachronistic and cynical, but in no case it denies your POV.

Spot on
I deeply think (and i am not alone, some historians too) and believe that some wars where triggered because the too overly militaristic way of the feodal medieval society
Think about it : you have lords born and trained for war. This is their only raison d'être (rule by the sword, protect by the sword)
I guess that once the gentlemen tourney were done one or two times a year, those guys got bored pretty quickly in their cold and impossible to warm castles

Hence they played on local instability, turning into road thugs for some of them (one way to get money was to ransack the travelers and merchants), raided nearby domains (raid and ransoms were another usefull way ti quickly get money) leading to small scale then middle scale than large scale medieval war by the game of alliances and allegiances (like the domino effect that spred the WWI).

And knowing that they were prompt to loot anything shiny, it was a good move for the church (rich, very rich and vulnerable militarily at that time) to send those sword/crossbow/morningstar happy to eliminate their surplus of testosteron and greed fo gold at the expanse of some infidels....(being muslims or other christians)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

It is not, the modern term. While Min shows that in ancient times people would make the difference between "madness" A (natural/inherited) and "madness" B (caused by a specific condition) without anamnese, the modern definition is made through this very form of medical inquiry. Therefore giving a specific feedback. You were less ****e to have a traffic accident in 1776, while you could have a traumatic experience like loosing your younger brother, sister on a fairly common basis. You would have some traumatic experience that would make you act in schizophrenic way, I bet you and I would not understand the difference that shrinks make when lookin it through current psychiatric procedures and we woud speak about a kind of PTSD, while it might just be a form of sociopathy.

Last but not least, seen the differences in value through times, human psychology has been all but constant. Madness in most cases would have not been tolerated in the West after the Roman collapse, while muslims had a fairly good logic of treating them, in relation with what greeks used to do.

Hence some of their most often undesirable actions like "martyrdom" and "jihad" might well have been forms of exteriorizing a psychological pressure, or even an outright psychopathology (IE a form of oppresion syndrome), that we as westerners have been trying to put aside.

Min: one might have also feared an other less complicated explanation. You have people that are accustomed to violence, have martial knowledge and are in your inner circle. They are cash strapped, they're "unstable" and frankly speaking you don't want to have to deal with them. You throw them a bone. I know it's very anachronistic and cynical, but in no case it denies your POV.


See the thing is. As the journal article I posted gave an example of. The authorities included everybody who knew the patient in their questions, interviewed the patient themselves and ran tests similar to modern psychiatry Cognetive Tests so they were obviously very thorough. The fact that religion didn't play a role in this is what suprised me.

Although it did mention that they thought Epilepsy was something sinister.

It's interesting to note that the development of standing armies in the 16th Century also concurred at the same time as the development of mental institutions and the sending of mental patients from community care/guardianships to institutional care and we all know how badly institutionalised mental health care is/was.

Middle Ages could actually be a very valuable research area in the sense that they appear to have taken a common sense approach to mental illness and could be useful in today's in finding alternatives to medication and hospitalisation.

[pocoloco]

^^That's what I was also referring to by writing that societies and groups of people were, in general, more violent p r o n e.

The aristocracy upheld its status through violence mostly and it was born through violence in the first place if one takes warrior groups as forebearers to knights, barons and their household men-at-arms.

Judical system was also very different from what we got nowadays in the "west". Many crimes were settled through physical penalties or death, blood feuds were settled through violence, naturally...so people were more inclined/ready to use violence to settle things for good. One didn't have to be from the upper echelons only to use and face violence and possible stress situations stemming from those.

[KoTeMoRe]

See the thing is. As the journal article I posted gave an example of. The authorities included everybody who knew the patient in their questions, interviewed the patient themselves and ran tests similar to modern psychiatry Cognetive Tests so they were obviously very thorough. The fact that religion didn't play a role in this is what suprised me.

Although it did mention that they thought Epilepsy was something sinister.

It's interesting to note that the development of standing armies in the 16th Century also concurred at the same time as the development of mental institutions and the sending of mental patients from community care/guardianships to institutional care and we all know how badly institutionalised mental health care is/was.

Middle Ages could actually be a very valuable research area in the sense that they appear to have taken a common sense approach to mental illness and could be useful in today's in finding alternatives to medication and hospitalisation.

I don't doubt that some of the tests were similar, I do agree that you and everyone else can pretty much see when some one is out of touch. And going thourgh a family history of issues is all good. But in no case that would actually help treating or even "chilling" the patient. Living with thes said patiens is what Italian shrinks did...a great experience.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

No chivalry at all. It was an unknown concept. Then in the 9th through 13th centuries it got warm and feudalism ( and I guess Chivalry) were born. Not that the 10th century Monks were so perfect but, after they reorganized.

"Chivalry" changed in meaning over time. At first it meant one's fighting prowess and simple bad-a$$edness. In fact the word comes from "Chevalrie" which means "cavalry" or "knight." By the 13th century it had changed to mean fighting honorably, for what's right, winning the heart of a woman, etc.

[NPFF]

interesting,I also wondered if soldiers of those age also suffered from ptsd,considering how they are portrayed in history whit big "greatness" like "this warrios who marched and killed so much arabs blabla honor blabla" and not showing things like if they have nightmares from it or something like that

also I thought that maybe medieval warfare wasnt as traumatic like today warfare due to be a meele combat face to face,considering modern comabt where you can die by a artillery shell you didnt saw coming and such,but anyway I am not a expert in that matter but is interesing to analize this stuff whit modern eyes

also obviously religion was the principal motivator for medieval soldiers,making sense of all the templars and other groups like that


It's much more traumatic to bludgeon somebody to death with a mace then to shoot somebody from 100 meters. Scraping prains off your chainmail is not fun. Medieval weapons also meant gruesome injuries.

[Silent Reader]

The aristocracy upheld its status through violence mostly and it was born through violence in the first place if one takes warrior groups as forebearers to knights, barons and their household men-at-arms..

I would not say that the aristrocracy upheld their status primarily through violence - at least not directly.
Even though the living conditions for the common peasant might not have been good... the local King, Count, Duke or whatever was there protector - protecting them from the potential violence from neighboring countries.

The city of Basel in Switzerland for example had a law - that forbid anyone to carry swords etc and limited the maximum size of knifes... (Source, German: http://books.google.de/books?id=qfQIK51neBIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false, p42)
There were some exceptions like members of the upper class, but also the guards, judges and "law enforcement" but also people who needed longer knifes for their jobs.


In Muttenz near Basel for example there was a fixed list of fines for various offenses regarding weapons (1418) (p.44)

pulling a knife: 5 1/2 d.
pulling a sword or spear: 10 1/2 d.
pulling a crossbow or a stone(!): 1 lib.
trying to hit someone but missing: 9 1/2 d.
hitting someone causing an bleeding injury: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d.
throwing a stone, but hitting no one: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d.
throwing a stone and hitting someone or something: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d. in addition to compensation for damages
Kicking someone out of a house: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d.
Robbery: 9 lib. 1/2 d.
Knocking someone down: 21 lib.
Causing an open wound: 10 lib.


An additional ordinance from 1464: Breaking the bones of someone during a brawl in a tavern by using clubs, mugs or other items costs 21 libs. as compensation to the landlord


p.s. don't ask me how much a lib. or a d. would be in $ or € :-D

[Corrupt]

Medieval weapons also meant gruesome injuries.

Wheras shrapnel and gunshot wounds are quite pleasant?

[Pete031]

Of course there was PTSD back then... The only difference is that it is accepted now, and we have put a brand name to it. For as long as there has been sustained combat, there have been emotional and psychological injuries from that combat. People haven't changed all that much. Just that head space and timing issues, were most likely not discussed. Hell, you used to get executed for shell shock.

[Frenchdude]

Wow, very nice conversation both on and off the topic. Nice to see so many different POVs, many thanks to all.

I aggree with you, very interesting thread here.


Of course there was PTSD back then... The only difference is that it is accepted now, and we have put a brand name to it. For as long as there has been sustained combat, there have been emotional and psychological injuries from that combat. People haven't changed all that much. Just that head space and timing issues, were most likely not discussed. Hell, you used to get executed for shell shock.

I also aggree here, it's pretty obvious that warriors from all times must have suffered from some kind of mental traumatism after being in combat. I might add that today's western armies can provide fast and efficient treatment to casualties whereas in the middle age lots and lots of soldiers would die from diseases, badly (or stupidly) treated wounds, cold etc.., which in my opinion made war much more "dangerous" or gruesome and probably more traumatic.
Just my two cent.

[James]

It is not, the modern term. While Min shows that in ancient times people would make the difference between "madness" A (natural/inherited) and "madness" B (caused by a specific condition) without anamnese, the modern definition is made through this very form of medical inquiry. Therefore giving a specific feedback. You were less ****e to have a traffic accident in 1776, while you could have a traumatic experience like loosing your younger brother, sister on a fairly common basis. You would have some traumatic experience that would make you act in schizophrenic way, I bet you and I would not understand the difference that shrinks make when lookin it through current psychiatric procedures and we woud speak about a kind of PTSD, while it might just be a form of sociopathy.

You're mixing the terms "psychology" and "psychiatry". They're not the same.

[JCR]

I would not say that the aristrocracy upheld their status primarily through violence - at least not directly.
Even though the living conditions for the common peasant might not have been good... the local King, Count, Duke or whatever was there protector - protecting them from the potential violence from neighboring countries.

The city of Basel in Switzerland for example had a law - that forbid anyone to carry swords etc and limited the maximum size of knifes... (Source, German: http://books.google.de/books?id=qfQIK51neBIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false, p42)
There were some exceptions like members of the upper class, but also the guards, judges and "law enforcement" but also people who needed longer knifes for their jobs.


In Muttenz near Basel for example there was a fixed list of fines for various offenses regarding weapons (1418) (p.44)

pulling a knife: 5 1/2 d.
pulling a sword or spear: 10 1/2 d.
pulling a crossbow or a stone(!): 1 lib.
trying to hit someone but missing: 9 1/2 d.
hitting someone causing an bleeding injury: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d.
throwing a stone, but hitting no one: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d.
throwing a stone and hitting someone or something: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d. in addition to compensation for damages
Kicking someone out of a house: 3 lib. 1 1/2 d.
Robbery: 9 lib. 1/2 d.
Knocking someone down: 21 lib.
Causing an open wound: 10 lib.


An additional ordinance from 1464: Breaking the bones of someone during a brawl in a tavern by using clubs, mugs or other items costs 21 libs. as compensation to the landlord


p.s. don't ask me how much a lib. or a d. would be in $ or € :-D


X2
There are literally hundreds of those lists of fines for transgressions, some made by cities, others by duchies like Bavaria.
Actually the death penalty (in non war situations) was close to nonexistent in the middle ages.
You needed people, so the penalty for any transgression (even manslaughter!) was usually a fine in goods or services.
A landholder who killed his people hurt himself, even if they were criminals.
Only when cities became more populated, people started killing other people for justice.
This started in the 15th century
Putting someone to death was in fact, a luxury.
This of course only applied to these within "the system":
Serfs, free peasants, citizens and gentry.
Bandits, actors, travelling barbers and other outlaws could be hanged as pleased :D

[NPFF]

Wheras shrapnel and gunshot wounds are quite pleasant?

But you don't deliver them in person. A lot of combat today is ranged. Most of medieval combat was hand to hand butcher style.

[greendzflash]

but the intensity of the campaign was often lessened by the fact you had to march to the next town for the next battle and had some time to process things. it also meant you had alot of time to square yourself away before returning home, for most combat soldiers today it can be a matter of 1-2 days before you get home, or maybe a week or two at the most.
The advantage of the longer return time is you have time to open up to people who have experienced what you have and can offer advise or an ear and be supportive because they do actually know what you are going through. bit hard for a young man to tell mum all about the trauma and expect understanding, and this kinda stuff grips you after you have had some down time, so it´d be a few days or so before the modern returned soldier starts to process these thoughts and issues. For the medieval soldier he could turn to his mates on the march home and knows he wont be judged poorly for i


different worlds. Good to know that our ancestors were human though.

true, armies waited on the battlefield for the other side to arrive. Hastings 1066 as an example. the english army marched from stamford bridge which is not in Chelsea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cbreedon]

true, armies waited on the battlefield for the other side to arrive. Hastings 1066 as an example. the english army marched from stamford bridge which is not in Chelsea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was a hell of a feat back in the day.... too bad they lost in the end...

[Alpheus]

also I thought that maybe medieval warfare wasnt as traumatic like today warfare due to be a meele combat face to face,considering modern comabt where you can die by a artillery shell you didnt saw coming and such,but anyway I am not a expert in that matter but is interesing to analize this stuff whit modern eyes

I thought the exact opposite. What could be more traumatic then killing in hand to hand combat, and seeing your buddies hacked limb from limb?

[snowflakes]

I thought the exact opposite. What could be more traumatic then killing in hand to hand combat, and seeing your buddies hacked limb from limb?

x2

There's quite good book on this called On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society By D. Grossman. I bet that at least couple of people on this board has read it. It's also somewhat controversial, because he doesn't like modern day games that makes people more tolerant to violence, in his opinion. Humanity is other good book which somewhat touches the issue.

Anyhow, he claims (I think he had some other sources also) and agree, that distance as in physical or technological makes a killing more easy and less stressful. Ie. it's easier bomb a village from 20000 feet than take it by hand-to-hand combat. He stated that bayoneting someone, must be one of the most stressful things that infantry soldier might have to do. His evidence was pretty good IMO, he mentioned that there are no clear cut PTSD cases among the Vietnam bomber pilots etc.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

His evidence was pretty good IMO, he mentioned that there are no clear cut PTSD cases among the Vietnam bomber pilots etc.

I've heard of a few from among the B-29 crewmen that took part in the fire raids on Tokyo.

But regardless, the book is in general pretty good. However, I think the OP who argued modern war was less stressful wasn't talking about killing people, but about functioning with the constant stress that you might get blown up by artillery/bombed in an airstrike/blown up by an IED that you never see coming and you have no chance to get away or have any warning at all.

Compare this to medieval battles where if someone could kill you, they were probably close enough that you could see them beforehand, even if they were using a crossbow or longbow or catapult. Less of an element of surprise there.

So maybe, and I'm no expert here, but maybe combat stress from doing the killing was greater in the Middle Ages, but combat stress from being on the receiving side of the killing was less.

[KoTeMoRe]

You're mixing the terms "psychology" and "psychiatry". They're not the same.

In the quote you made, I didn't mention at all the term "psychology"...for good reason. PTSD is a clinically established condition. IE a it is a psychiatric issue. I am not mixing any thing at all. The "psyche/psychological" reference was made to speak about what the mindset on "madness" was during the time.

[Mordoror]

So maybe, and I'm no expert here, but maybe combat stress from doing the killing was greater in the Middle Ages, but combat stress from being on the receiving side of the killing was less.

That's an interesting POV and it makes sense by our standards. However we have also to take in account some other factors that may have made the thing worse or better to sustain psychological injuries
Lenght of the campaigns : Medieval war were not short, some were solved by one or two battles but the other ones were long and repeated campaign without the turn over we have in our modern armies (look at the burn out of some western units that stay there 6 or 9 months and now imagine a campaign of several years)

Preparation of the campaigns : in nowaday armies, the aim and method of the campaign are explained and that explanation follow the hierachy to reach (more or less successfully) the grunts. During medieval time, the grunts were explained nothing, they had to follow the order, period. We know from studies that a soldier who knows and understand why he is wetting his ass in mud and cold is less prompt to traumatic stress

Logistic : logistic is important for the moral. Warm food, clean clothes, shelters are a plus that existed seldomly if not never during prolonged medieval campaign

Medical support : Same as above. Moreover the nowadays soldiers are followed for potential PTSD, that was not the case during Med Time

Faith : Faith is in the same league that understanding the mission. It gives a meaning to the suffering you are enduring. It can be faith in your commander in chief, in your God, in your country, in an ideology. Obviously religious faith was very important in Med time and helped to lower possible stress

Humanization/des-humanization of the opponent : If you des-humanize the opponent, it is easier to kill him sometimes in atrocious way without any guilt. That was seen recently during Rwanda genocide (kill the cockroaches) that was (mixed with religion) basically very usual during Med time

Defending the mother land : Grunts, Forced levee, Drafted peasants were often fighting close to their home. That's a moral booster. It is very unusual (except under a religious inspiration) to have basic troops going in exotic and abroad countries in an environment which is not familiar. This is not the case nowadays and it is a very know stress factor (even among every day tourists, some experience each year a PTSD like syndrom when pushed in a too exotic so unfamiliar environment)

Accustomisation with violence : Our word is less violent that during medieval time. Sure there is violence, there is criminality but how much of us were confronted with violent death or wounds before their 18s. During medieval time you were a men at 13 and at that time you often have already seen somebody killed/wounded by accident (stomped by cattle, squashed by a tree trunk, during a tavern brawl, during a house fire) by war (armies were living like lices on the locals, looting and killing even their own people) or by disease.
We are not accustomed to death when it was something regualr during med time so something more easilly accepted (especially knowing that a Paradise awaits in the after life)

All that to say that it is difficult to say who was more prompt to develop a psychological syndrom between a nowaday soldier and a medieval soldier. What is sure is that a medieval soldier was more likely to be used to death even before joining the army and that the religion was something that helped a lot to relieve the conscience

[James]

PTSD is both psychological and psychiatric. My reference to human psychology not changing was exactly that - not PTSD. People have the same basic needs today as they did fifty thousand years ago. You are correct - it is obvious that someone would not likely die in or witness a sever car accident in 1776 :|. You might, however, see someone get small pox and have their skin fall off. Fifty thousand years ago if you saw one of your buddies get stomped by a mastodon or eaten by a sabre tooth tiger, that might also cause PTSD.

[Pete031]

Another point, was that Men, were treated as Men back in the day... There were a lot of outlets for stress and whatnot, that aren't available these days. For example, US troops are dry their whole tour... We, at least get beer calls every now and then. Back in the day, you could drink whenever you had down time... Now that may seem trivial, but believe me, it makes a difference. At least in the short run, during the campaigns.

[Silent Reader]

Logistic : logistic is important for the moral. Warm food, clean clothes, shelters are a plus that existed seldomly if not never during prolonged medieval campaign


on this point I would say yes and no - depending on the situation. Today you have a regular logistical support.
Don't forget that in the past armies on the move almost always were allowed to plunder the land the were passing. So that not only meant food, but also potential wealth in the form of robbed money and jewelry plus of course women that could be raped occassionally. This often was the replacement for regular payment though.. or especially when the king etc ran out of money to pay the soldiers / merceneries etc..

There is a diary of a German soldier during the 30 year war (yes thats a bit past the middle ages) where he mentiones that he raped two women after successful sieges of a town... basically as a rather normal thing to do. (his wife though at a later point in time I think was also accompanying him during these pillages after the sieges. that was kind of a family business. normally she would be following the army with other wifes, children, traders etc... which kind of is at least partly a logistical support group if you would describe it as that.

This was either written bei Hans Conrad Lang or Peter Hagendorf... I think these are the only two diaries of soldiers from the 30year war anyway... at least as far as I know..

[Mordoror]

on this point I would say yes and no - depending on the situation. Today you have a regular logistical support.
Don't forget that in the past armies on the move almost always were allowed to plunder the land the were passing. So that not only meant food, but also potential wealth in the form of robbed money and jewelry plus of course women that could be raped occassionally. This often was the replacement for regular payment though.. or especially when the king etc ran out of money to pay the soldiers / merceneries etc..

There is a diary of a German soldier during the 30 year war (yes thats a bit past the middle ages) where he mentiones that he raped two women after successful sieges of a town... basically as a rather normal thing to do. (his wife though at a later point in time I think was also accompanying him during these pillages after the sieges. that was kind of a family business. normally she would be following the army with other wifes, children, traders etc... which kind of is at least partly a logistical support group if you would describe it as that.

This was either written bei Hans Conrad Lang or Peter Hagendorf... I think these are the only two diaries of soldiers from the 30year war anyway... at least as far as I know..

Yep i know
But that means from a logistic pov : irregular food (you have what you can find) and irregular sheltering
Basically you get food and shelter if you are the first army to pass on a not yep plundered area.
Once an army leave an area it is basically like a locust swarm : there is no food anywhere anymore (the cattle, pigs, poultry everything is taken away if not slaughtered on the spot),no shelter (the houses are burnt), the women are raped and the wells are poisoned willingly or because of rotten corpses within

That is not a sustainable thing on a long term and that's why you had a huge attrition in medieval army even if you had harsher penalities than today; soldiers died more often from bad food/bad water (dysenteria), lack of sheltering (pneumonia) or lack of food/water (once the whole area was wiped from any good) than from battle induced injuries.

So OK if you are lucky enough to be the first army to pass through a rich area which are not so numerous (don't forget that population density is scarce during Medieval Ages and that ressources are barely enough to feed and dress small villages not biger than tenth or hundred of souls, so there is no way for any army of several thousands of men to find enough food in a single village, they had to ransack several every day or every other day....) you get the food/gold/*** time if the locals have not fled hiding their pigs, money and daughters. If you are the second ones or if the local have fled, what remains to eat is the small amount of maggoted flour you have with your logistical train, the animals you can hunt (reserved to the nobility) and the roots you can find. Not very appetizing pictures

There are plenty of example of armies defeated because of hunger/thirst that trigered attrition (so losses of soldiers) and exhaustion (so losses of the combat capability of the remaining soldiers)

[James]

Another point, was that Men, were treated as Men back in the day... There were a lot of outlets for stress and whatnot, that aren't available these days. For example, US troops are dry their whole tour... We, at least get beer calls every now and then. Back in the day, you could drink whenever you had down time... Now that may seem trivial, but believe me, it makes a difference. At least in the short run, during the campaigns.

Indeed, in wars past U.S. troops had opportunities to come out of the line, have some liberty, maybe tie one on and get laid... Now they come back (unless they're at a COP) and have to be Puritans getting fussed at by a Sergeant Major because they didn't blouse their boots or something... :|

[NPFF]

Indeed, in wars past U.S. troops had opportunities to come out of the line, have some liberty, maybe tie one on and get laid... Now they come back (unless they're at a COP) and have to be Puritans getting fussed at by a Sergeant Major because they didn't blouse their boots or something... :|

This is such a rubbish comment. They did that in the middle ages because most battles resembled a massive bar brawl with two sides lunging at each other. You can't do that with the sophisticated tactics and weapons of today. BTW the reason the Romans were able to carve out an empire was due to extreme discipline. Constant floggings and threat of decimation of the unit. Hence the Romans, far from the fiercest warriors or best equipped won most of the time. The generals were able to maneuover them efficiently on the battlefield.

[Pete031]

This is such a rubbish comment. They did that in the middle ages because most battles resembled a massive bar brawl with two sides lunging at each other. You can't do that with the sophisticated tactics and weapons of today. BTW the reason the Romans were able to carve out an empire was due to extreme discipline. Constant floggings and threat of decimation of the unit. Hence the Romans, far from the fiercest warriors or best equipped won most of the time. The generals were able to maneuover them efficiently on the battlefield.

You forget that you are talking to people who are currently rotating in and out of theatre. Its not a rubbush comment as you claim. Many of us who have been in the Military for 10 plus years have seen major changes in how troops can enjoy their liberty. Letting people have a beer or 3 after a few months outside the wire is quickly becoming a thing of the past. It has nothing to do with discipline. Everyone knows soldiers go a little crazy on the piss. Its about accountability. And the fact that many of the higher ups are afraid to authorize.

[NPFF]

You forget that you are talking to people who are currently rotating in and out of theatre. Its not a rubbush comment as you claim. Many of us who have been in the Military for 10 plus years have seen major changes in how troops can enjoy their liberty. Letting people have a beer or 3 after a few months outside the wire is quickly becoming a thing of the past. It has nothing to do with discipline. Everyone knows soldiers go a little crazy on the piss. Its about accountability. And the fact that many of the higher ups are afraid to authorize.

The problem is soldiers being overused in theater. Rotate them fast enough and it's not an issue. However that doesn't work with the perma-war going on in several theaters. Untill the closing months of WW2 German Army would rotate it's units so that they never saw more then a week of continuous combat (except in instances such as Stalingrad). US soldiers essentially fight for months on end.

So the solution is to fight less and shorter, more decisive wars, not let soldiers fool around.

[KoTeMoRe]

PTSD is both psychological and psychiatric. My reference to human psychology not changing was exactly that - not PTSD. People have the same basic needs today as they did fifty thousand years ago. You are correct - it is obvious that someone would not likely die in or witness a sever car accident in 1776 :|. You might, however, see someone get small pox and have their skin fall off. Fifty thousand years ago if you saw one of your buddies get stomped by a mastodon or eaten by a sabre tooth tiger, that might also cause PTSD.

The human psychology changed as we categorized, understood the issues better. 200 years a soldier having-bearing similitude to the PTSD would have been mocked by his superiors.

50 000 years ago seeing as a normal thing getting your buddy stomped because there were no walmarts to buy a masto shank. The value of ones life would have been lesser or different as systems build ground morality. As a proof seeing your wife in a bed with another man when coming home after a campaign must be as traumatizing as the whole campaign. 50 000 years before, we don't know if marriage did even existed.

So again, NEW concepts, with a precise and *modern* lecture grid shall not be retroactive. Because it is the past and the lines of thinking and human psyche were not the same. Could you believe today that the Earth is flat? No well that psychological limitation then caused that most sailors back then would hug the coastlines for fear of falling off somewhere. There is that PTSD? Or simply a psychological issue that HAS NOTHING TO DO with what PTSD is TODAY.

One should stop thinking yesterday in terms of today.

[Pete031]

The problem is soldiers being overused in theater. Rotate them fast enough and it's not an issue. However that doesn't work with the perma-war going on in several theaters. Untill the closing months of WW2 German Army would rotate it's units so that they never saw more then a week of continuous combat (except in instances such as Stalingrad). US soldiers essentially fight for months on end.

So the solution is to fight less and shorter, more decisive wars, not let soldiers fool around.


Thats a load of crap. You need Soldiers on the ground for extended periods of time, especially in COIN operations. They need to know the populace, they need to know their AO, and have to be able to pick up the small differences when they opccur within their AO. Let Soldiers fight, but let them relax and treat them as men when they are not fighting... thats how you keep up morale, and thats how the Troops deal with their demons.

[KoTeMoRe]

Thats a load of crap. You need Soldiers on the ground for extended periods of time, especially in COIN operations. They need to know the populace, they need to know their AO, and have to be able to pick up the small differences when they opccur within their AO. Let Soldiers fight, but let them relax and treat them as men when they are not fighting... thats how you keep up morale, and thats how the Troops deal with their demons.

What would be that? Treating them as men I mean? This is a honest question, no flame.

[Connaught Ranger]

Medieval Knights Feared Post-traumatic Amputation of Extremities Stress.



Fixed it for you at no extra costs.

Connaught Ranger.

[Mordoror]

What would be that? Treating them as men I mean? This is a honest question, no flame.

Access to beer or some man drinks (reasonably, afterall we used to have a miniwine bottle in our french MRE up to 1950 IIRC), manly sports (less restrictions because of some regulations or because the boss is afraid that if somebody gets bruises, he would have a 15 page file to writte to explain why one of his men is out of duty because of a fun moment), acess to s e x

Beer-Sport-S e x
What would be more manly than that ??
I ll let Pete031 correct me if i am wrong;)

[Pete031]

What would be that? Treating them as men I mean? This is a honest question, no flame.

Its hard to explain.. I don't know if you have ever served, so what I mean is that, there is a certain amount of micro managing that occurs in regards to conduct when you are inside the wire. For example, many problems can be solved, be it inter personal problems, post traumatic feelings, mission justification, etc... By letting the troops have a few piss ups and sorting out their problems. Soldiers are type A personalities for the most part and only open up to each other under most of the time in a "social" enviroment. Obviously the Soldiers can't be drunk on patrol or ambush or whenever they are outside the wire. But the Army has turned into a machine that is more worried about accountability and public appearence then war fighting.
90% of civilian people after a bad day at the office come home, or stop at a bar and have a drink to sort themselves out and or feel sorry about themselves for a bit.... Multiply the problems 10 fold and then take away any means of letting people vent them.

Ask the Vets from WW1 how important the rum rations were....
It goes further then drinking obviously, and I realise that I sound like I am using just 1 example, but imagine coming back to KAF after 2 months of patrolling without having a shower, living in remote combat outposts, under fire or threat from IED and then getting jacked up on the way from the run way by some Pogue because you are wearing an OTW shirt, or your side burns are too long. When you just dry shaved your beard from the last 2 months prior to getting on the bird because you knew some asshole was going to be waiting for you.
Back in the day, fighting was the game, not looking good for the pogues and public... Thats what I mean, and I am sure most members these days will agree with me.... US pers can't even have p o r n.... I don't know how they can operate for a year in the bush without p o r n...

[The Dane]

PTSD is a bitch.. then and now.
I don't think many know, how many kill themself because it.

[NPFF]

Thats a load of crap. You need Soldiers on the ground for extended periods of time, especially in COIN operations. They need to know the populace, they need to know their AO, and have to be able to pick up the small differences when they opccur within their AO. Let Soldiers fight, but let them relax and treat them as men when they are not fighting... thats how you keep up morale, and thats how the Troops deal with their demons.

What about Restreppo? That's not being in theater, that's non-stop combat. It saps moral and leads to PTSD.

[Pete031]

It is being in theatre. I saw it too. Lots of units are in isolated COP's and yeah it does lead some people to PTSD, but you would have a lot more casualties if you had new troops in there every month. And just because you watch a documentory on 1 company during the entire war doesn't mean you can understand the needs in a counter insurgency, or on combat troops being effected by battle.

[DaveDash]

I want to put to rest the argument that PTSD wouldn't be common in the Middle Ages because they're "used to violence". It's quite the opposite.

Something like 36% of Ugandas population suffers from PTSD. The more trauma you are exposed to the more likely you will suffer from it, especially as a child. There are also genetic predispositions to it which can happen to you from the death of a family member etc.

Knights would have suffered PTSD for sure, and people from those times would have suffered worse due to lack of effective methods to deal with PTSD.

There are even records of Greek warriors suffering PTSD.

[Piirka]

Do the french legion still operate their own field bordellos and bars? Wondering if that has any documented effect on morale...

[Pete031]

No, but the last time I worked with them, they kind of had an open door policy with them.... Wasn't part of their echelon or anything though.