Main > The Round Table

Violent knights feared posttraumatic stress

<< < (2/4) > >>

Sir William:
Sir Nathan, you make some very valid points.  Especially the bit about how men from back then were much more aware of their mortality than we are today.  It was almost unheard of that someone would live to make it to their 70s much less older- but now it is the norm...at least in countries with standardized healthcare.

Sir Patrick:
I have always wondered about this.  In For Cause and Comrades, James McPherson delves into PTSD in the American Civil War.  His research indicated that statistically the soldiers of that conflict were good for two or three major engagements and after that were simply "played out" (to use the period term).  Considering how much more up close and personal medieval combat was, not to mention how much more frequently wars were fought, what held a knight's psyche together?  Living in a more violent time, were they just more desensitized to violence?  Did living in a more stratified society mean violence against those considered inferior did not have as much of a psychological impact?  Or was the level of violence in some way fed by the effects of the collective PTSD?

SirNathanQ:
I think that a certain level of preparation might have played a role. Remember, knights had been training for this since they were a mere page.
I don't think it was so much desinsitized as simply ready and used to it.
I would also wonder if the very differing natures of warfare played a part, especially with the introduction of cannons on a very large scale. A lot more explosions going on these days. That kinda stuff has a tendacy to mess with one in very scary ways.

Ian:
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.

oh, and on a lighter note, GO NAVY BEAT ARMY!!! (tomorrow's the army navy game)

Sir Andrew:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page