Main > The Round Table
Violent knights feared posttraumatic stress
SirNathanQ:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2011-12-10, 03:15:47 ---If we're going to compare today's society to then, I'm going to jump up on a soap box here for a second if you'll indulge me. Violence affects people in very different ways. Being that my actual profession is the profession of arms, I know a lot of people directly affected by the violence associated with war. I have classmates from the Naval Academy who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many friends and colleagues who have killed others in said places. Some are disturbed by what they do, some won't talk about it, others treat it like the job it is and have no qualms about killing the enemy in war, others enjoy what they do. It really comes down to the individual. I don't think the warrior mindset is all that different today than it was back then.
I think we paint the medieval era as a hyper-violent culture, but look around the world today, and tell me that we're not as violent. How many wars of all scales are being waged right now across the globe, from the Middle East, to Africa, to places no one cares to hear about. I would argue that we're more violent now as a race.
The difference is most of western civilization is removed directly from conflict. Those who serve do it away from home, so the only taste of war to most of society is the crap they see on the news. Trust me, those who serve are very aware of their mortality. I'm an instructor pilot now, and have already lost a former student of mine which has really put perspective on things for me. The major difference is the amount of people who directly deal with conflict. I'm not sure what percentage of the population in medieval times fought or were serving within their king's respective armies, but I'm willing to bet that a very high percentage of able bodied men were expected to take up arms when needed during feudal times and then later with standing armies. This lead to a majority of the population of a nation having experienced warfare first-hand or at least being greatly affected by it.
Now let's look at some statistics for modern times. In WW2, roughly 12% of the US population served in the military, in Vietnam roughly 4.5% of the population served. From 2001 to now, we've got a whopping 0.45% of the population serving in the military and taking personal responsibility for the defense of their nation. The 'problem' of dealing with violence has just been relegated to a tiny portion of society. I don't think the individual warrior is what's different, I think it's that there's just a lot less of them now.
--- End quote ---
I'm glad we can actually have someone serving in the armed forces to contribute to this discussion. Thanks, Ian, for your post and your service.
I think the point of individuals handling it differently makes much sense, as I have read accounts of squires being found "unfit" to become a knight. I think this may represent the group of people that couldn't become reconciled with the fact that they could, or will, or have taken a life.
While Indeed, we are in fact probably more prolific with wars by actual states today, I would think more people would still be affected by violence in period. You have (especially in 12th/13th centuries) lots of small-scale fighting by noble against noble, which happened very frequently, keeping Europe in some state of conflict perpetually.
Also, even today, walking around a city or town, one has a less chance of being attacked than in period. Large cities were somewhat famous for their lawlessness. Also, everyone drank (water was often stagnant, and couldn't be trusted) and carried weapons. While not everyone was completely tanked, I don't think the Beer+weapons helped.
Ian:
--- Quote from: Sir Andrew on 2011-12-10, 12:26:06 ---Looking at it with critical thinking in mind, knights would have definitely had to deal with PTSD. When you consider how modern warfare, ie., firearms, is waged, combatants are "removed" by distance, yet they suffer from it. As Sir Brian and I were recently discussing, knights were literally toe-to-toe with an opponent. Ripping your adversaries lower jaw off with the top beard of an axe, while standing right in front of him would probably give them some nightnmares for some time afterwards.
--- End quote ---
This is a convenient and common misconception about modern war. Most lethal engagements on today's battlefield occur well within 50-100 yards of your enemy, even closer in urban combat. So while you're 'removed' from hand to hand combat, you still have immediate 'feedback' on what your weapon does to the enemy, and also what your enemy's weapon does to your friends. I don't think I need to describe the effects of close range .50 caliber weapon impacts to say it's no less violent than the most brutal medieval wound patterns. The only people 'removed' from what they do are people who who use long range munitions like jets, ships, and UAV's. Helicopter pilots see the human beings they are killing, and riflemen sure as hell do. There's no sense of detachment from the action for most of the people really fighting.
UAV's is a whole separate PTSD discussion. We have people who commute to work in the US, kill people all day via what is essentially a video game, then go home to their families. Tell me that doesn't play weird psychological games with your head, but that's a separate discussion.
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2011-12-10, 13:57:42 ---While Indeed, we are in fact probably more prolific with wars by actual states today, I would think more people would still be affected by violence in period. You have (especially in 12th/13th centuries) lots of small-scale fighting by noble against noble, which happened very frequently, keeping Europe in some state of conflict perpetually.
Also, even today, walking around a city or town, one has a less chance of being attacked than in period. Large cities were somewhat famous for their lawlessness. Also, everyone drank (water was often stagnant, and couldn't be trusted) and carried weapons. While not everyone was completely tanked, I don't think the Beer+weapons helped.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I agree that more people were affected by violence in the high middle ages, that was what I was trying to get across in the last paragraph of my previous post. Only a few are directly affected by it today since war is removed from the homefront. With the alcohol thing, I'm willing to bet it may have played a part, but not as much of a part as we'd like to think. Drinking has a different connotation today than it used to. Because it was so commonplace and often replaced drinking water for sanitary reasons, I think people's physical tolerance for alcohol and therefore behavior on alcohol was a lot more mellow than what we would expect today.
**edited to include both responses in one post**
Sir Patrick:
Ian, thank you for sharing your insight. More importantly, thank you for your service.
SirNathanQ:
Yes Ian, there's actually a very interesting thread kicking around MyArmoury about the very thing. While I agree that it probably didn't play as large a part as say the same combination today, it still would have some effect IMO.
Sir Andrew:
Those are important points to consider Ian! Well said and thank you for your service good Sir!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version