Violent knights feared posttraumatic stress

[Sir Edward]

Violent knights feared posttraumatic stress
http://sciencenordic.com/violent-knights-feared-posttraumatic-stress

[Sir William]

Soldiers have dealt with this going back to antiquity...at least the ones who lived long enough to regret their actions.  State-sanctioned death still has to be performed by someone and one could argue that just because you were told to do so doesn't mean you should have.  We have all sorts of ways to compartmentalize and marginalize these actions making these veterans able to assimilate back into civilian life...but it isn't going to work on everyone.  And religion doesn't provide the sense of solitude and closeness to the Maker like it once did...technology and cynicism have come forward to be the new religion...God help us.

[Ian]

“De Charny describes stress factors that we also see related in modern military psychology, including reports from Vietnam War veterans,” he says. “His picture of knights shows they are very remote from the violent psychopaths that we picture them as.”

I was unaware that modern people viewed knights as violent psychopaths.  I don't think the PTSD thing is really a revelation, as I agree with Sir William that this phenomenon stretches back to the dawn of warfare itself.  Sadly, what I think this article really brings to light is that it appears many people believe PTSD is a relatively modern problem, when in fact all fighting men have had to deal with it in some shape or form throughout history.

I didn't see it listed explicitly in the article, but in case anyone is interested, the De Charny book is A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry and is available on Amazon and the like.  I own a copy but admittedly have not read it yet.

[Sir Edward]

Yeah, there's this assumption that just because a condition wasn't officially recognized as a specific named malady in recent years, that it didn't exist prior to that. Psychology wasn't a real profession until modern times. That doesn't mean there was no mental illness in prior centuries.

I didn't see it listed explicitly in the article, but in case anyone is interested, the De Charny book is A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry and is available on Amazon and the like.  I own a copy but admittedly have not read it yet.

It's worth reading. It's a bit dry, and feels repetitive. Charney will never say something concisely when a more verbose way of putting it exists. But it's an interesting insight into priorities and values of the time.

[SirNathanQ]

Whiel it is very insightful and brings up very worthy points, I feel that it is skwewed somewhat due to the modern aversion to violence. It is also only in modern times whee we start viewing war and battle as inherent evils. While I would suppose that knights did in fact feel PTSD in some cases (taking a sword to someone's brainpan is wont to leave an effect) I feel that the almost total immersion in a society that valued such things might have helped.
Also, I feel that the men of old were much more aware of thier own mortality than most folks are today. Such things would have made the impact less. It was a violent time. They were immersed in it, and that's honestly all they would have known.

[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.

[SirNathanQ]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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!