Violent knights feared posttraumatic stress

[Thorsteinn]

To put in my 2c.

IIRC War today is actually deadlier than it would have been back in history if you were to remove modern medicine. Rifled guns & modern explosives make war much more lethal. Just look at the Civil War and the exceedingly high body counts there like in Pickett's Charge where in the space of a few hours over 8'000 men were killed or wounded with more than 75% of that on the Confederates side.  I've read accounts of all day battles in the 100 Years War where two sides of 400 men each fought all day and killed some 2 dozen men only. Death tolls like found at the Battle's of Philipi or Agincourt were rare.

Historically an average unit will begin to break when 10% of them get killed yet we have many accounts in modern times where that number was exceeded quickly through the use of the machine gun and bomb. I can only guess as to what that does to the mindset of the survivors.

BTW I agree with the statement that a much higher percentage of able men would have been expected to served back in the day as compared to now (maybe Germany & Israel have something with the 'everyone serves somehow' idea). I was entry level discharged from the NVANG for having flat feet and acquired hypoglycemia. You think that would have stopped my ancestors from using me? Nope.

-Ivan

[Sir Andrew]

Yep, they would've told ya' to suck it up and you would have been fodder! 

[SirNathanQ]

I would like to bring up the point of high-velocity projectiles and explosions taking the vast majority of offensive weapons on today's battlefield.
Ian would probably have much more information than I do, as he serves, and is very well-versed on such things.
The impacts the human body is being subjected to in war are at incredible levels of force. One does not even need to be struck by a round or be in immediate proximity to an explosion for it to exert much forse upon one's body. It doesn't take that much to mess with the brain, and these forces can easily mash the thing up against the skull. (for comparison, merely touching it breifly is what gives one a concussion)

I would wonder if this would also play a factor. Remember, our ancestors were exposed to forces much more mundane compared to what we regularly subject our enemies to today.

[Thorsteinn]

Also forgot to add that Roman Legionaries could expect a reasonable chance of surviving their 20 yr stints and being given land after for their retirement. That fact caused a lot of issues after Marius opened up the Legions to non Citizens and non-land owners around the time of Julius Caesar IIRC.

-Ivan

[Jeffrey Boyd Garrison]

This is a very interesting discussion.

I believe that stress and guilt over violence inflicted on others is lessened if those individuals are dehumanized.  It's easier to remove altruistic inclinations to help rather than hurt in direct correlation to the degree one can xenophobically remove a target from his own species. The vessel of institutionalized religion has played a vital role historically in this process; I believe without it's sanction that many wars would not have been possible. Still, over time, even slaying of "demons" will take its toll, though a person pays this toll uniquely based on his own paradigm. With the lessening of religious influence in this area, modern armies have to be especially clever with programs of indoctrination which are neccessary to prepare a fighting man for combat.

Culture plays a large part. It seems Japanese samurai during the warring states period of the 16th century were indoctrinated to think of death as the final masterpiece and themselves as it's artists. Similarly, western cultures sometimes esteemed violence and death in battle as ultimate glories to be sought after. I believe such cults of warfare as this would reduce (though not eliminate) the occurance of PTSD in the same way naming one's pig "bacon" instead of "bingo" would enhance the taste of of the pork.