Watching Downtown Abbey got me thinking about the phenomenon of Shellshock. I know that something similar happened in the Napoleonic wars, but I am having trouble finding a reference to some kind of similar totally debilitating anxiety disorder. There seems to be a lot more comfort with warfare. I might be wrong, though. Are there records and studies of anxeity disorders in people who lived in areas as conflict-stricken as Medieval or Early Modern Europe? Do we have references to post-battle anxiety dating back a long period?
I think, but I could definitely be wrong, but in a society where death was much more common PTSD would be less common. You'd have a few siblings you watched die as kids, more the likely seen live stalk slaughtered, etc. hell if your neighbor got a splinter on day there's a good chance he'd be dead by the next.
Also, most conflict were intense, but short lived. Not months and years if explosions. Even sieges were waiting punctuated with a few attacks.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 05, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
Watching Downtown Abbey got me thinking about the phenomenon of Shellshock. I know that something similar happened in the Napoleonic wars, but I am having trouble finding a reference to some kind of similar totally debilitating anxiety disorder. There seems to be a lot more comfort with warfare. I might be wrong, though. Are there records and studies of anxeity disorders in people who lived in areas as conflict-stricken as Medieval or Early Modern Europe? Do we have references to post-battle anxiety dating back a long period?
If you're interested in this topic, then read this book.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tuvy.com%2Fresource%2Fbooks%2Fa%2Fimg%2Fachielle.jpg&hash=b59d2968b0632f8943052de5cc4578d9794a7eac)
This is too heavy a read for me today.
I'll read it tomorrow.
Quote from: HVC on February 05, 2012, 12:47:00 AM
I think, but I could definitely be wrong, but in a society where death was much more common PTSD would be less common. You'd have a few siblings you watched die as kids, more the likely seen live stalk slaughtered, etc. hell if your neighbor got a splinter on day there's a good chance he'd be dead by the next.
I was wondering the same thing-if the daily exposure to the death of people and comfort with general butchery would somehow deafen the anxiety. Also worth noting is that before the massed artillery of the Napoleonic Conflict I don't think we are dealing with war as a total assault on the very limits of the human senses in the same way-the constant artillery and maintenance of something as complex, economically useless and unhygenic as the Western Front's trenches would have been impossible.
Also would be interesting to compare PTSD between WW2 vets and WW1-Vietnam vets. If somehow the "good" nature of the war changed perceptions on it.
Part of the problem is that terms like PTSD get thrown around to much. I think there is a whole category of combat related mental illnesses that get lumped together as PTSD even if they have different symptoms and different causes. For instanced the term "Shell Shocked", is sometimes taken to mean "PTSD", but probably covered a wide range of problems such as concussion, depression, extreme anxiety, and simple mental and exhaustion.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:49:46 AM
Part of the problem is that terms like PTSD get thrown around to much. I think there is a whole category of combat related mental illnesses that get lumped together as PTSD even if they have different symptoms and different causes. For instanced the term "Shell Shocked", is sometimes taken to mean "PTSD", but probably covered a wide range of problems such as concussion, depression, extreme anxiety, and simple mental and exhaustion.
Yeah.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:49:46 AM
Part of the problem is that terms like PTSD get thrown around to much. I think there is a whole category of combat related mental illnesses that get lumped together as PTSD even if they have different symptoms and different causes. For instanced the term "Shell Shocked", is sometimes taken to mean "PTSD", but probably covered a wide range of problems such as concussion, depression, extreme anxiety, and simple mental and exhaustion.
That's for non-psychiatric sources I hope. The criteria for that diagnosis are quite clear for the ICD and DSM.
ICD 10 has PTSD as as a subset of an acute stress reaction
QuoteF43.1Post-traumatic stress disorder
Arises as a delayed or protracted response to a stressful event or situation (of either brief or long duration) of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature, which is likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone. Predisposing factors, such as personality traits (e.g. compulsive, asthenic) or previous history of neurotic illness, may lower the threshold for the development of the syndrome or aggravate its course, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain its occurrence. Typical features include episodes of repeated reliving of the trauma in intrusive memories ("flashbacks"), dreams or nightmares, occurring against the persisting background of a sense of "numbness" and emotional blunting, detachment from other people, unresponsiveness to surroundings, anhedonia, and avoidance of activities and situations reminiscent of the trauma. There is usually a state of autonomic hyperarousal with hypervigilance, an enhanced startle reaction, and insomnia. Anxiety and depression are commonly associated with the above symptoms and signs, and suicidal ideation is not infrequent. The onset follows the trauma with a latency period that may range from a few weeks to months. The course is fluctuating but recovery can be expected in the majority of cases. In a small proportion of cases the condition may follow a chronic course over many years, with eventual transition to an enduring personality change (F62.0).
The DSM criteria are on wikipedia.
Ok, I just read the last two post,
Don't confuse PTSD with TBI (traumatic brain injury)
PTSD is mental, TBI is actual physical damge to your brain, as in getting blown the fuck out in an IED strike.
PTSD is more what you live through, as in the boys you lose, the firefights you survive unscathed, while others don't.
TBI is actual brain damage from explosions or bullet/frag impacts.
When you get blown the fuck out, even if you don't bleed, you might have TBI from explosion.
TBI is the unseen injury.
There is also one aspect you are ignoring that may be relevant - Napoleonic wars, as far as I am aware, were one of the first ones to use mass conscription.
The wars of antiquity, middle ages and pre-Napoleonic era used either some sort of a warrior caste or mercenaries, especially in protracted, foreign campaigns - unless you were defending your own strip of land, noone expected, say, burghers or peasants to participate in extended foreign military expeditions.
The invention of a rifle democratized the battlefield - you could get a soldier by getting a common man, giving him a gun and spending a couple of weeks teaching him how to use it - that would have been impossible with a morgenstern or a longbow. But that also meant you didn't have enough time to build the long term exposure and resistance to violence.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 05, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
There seems to be a lot more comfort with warfare.
Really?
Quote from: syk on February 05, 2012, 04:17:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:49:46 AM
Part of the problem is that terms like PTSD get thrown around to much. I think there is a whole category of combat related mental illnesses that get lumped together as PTSD even if they have different symptoms and different causes. For instanced the term "Shell Shocked", is sometimes taken to mean "PTSD", but probably covered a wide range of problems such as concussion, depression, extreme anxiety, and simple mental and exhaustion.
That's for non-psychiatric sources I hope. The criteria for that diagnosis are quite clear for the ICD and DSM.
ICD 10 has PTSD as as a subset of an acute stress reaction
QuoteF43.1Post-traumatic stress disorder
Arises as a delayed or protracted response to a stressful event or situation (of either brief or long duration) of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature, which is likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone. Predisposing factors, such as personality traits (e.g. compulsive, asthenic) or previous history of neurotic illness, may lower the threshold for the development of the syndrome or aggravate its course, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain its occurrence. Typical features include episodes of repeated reliving of the trauma in intrusive memories ("flashbacks"), dreams or nightmares, occurring against the persisting background of a sense of "numbness" and emotional blunting, detachment from other people, unresponsiveness to surroundings, anhedonia, and avoidance of activities and situations reminiscent of the trauma. There is usually a state of autonomic hyperarousal with hypervigilance, an enhanced startle reaction, and insomnia. Anxiety and depression are commonly associated with the above symptoms and signs, and suicidal ideation is not infrequent. The onset follows the trauma with a latency period that may range from a few weeks to months. The course is fluctuating but recovery can be expected in the majority of cases. In a small proportion of cases the condition may follow a chronic course over many years, with eventual transition to an enduring personality change (F62.0).
The DSM criteria are on wikipedia.
Sort of. Shell Shocked is a WWI term and treatment and knowledge of mental illness is better known now. Still PTSD is used to often in the media for other combat related illnesses such as TBI.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 10:30:24 AM
Quote from: syk on February 05, 2012, 04:17:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:49:46 AM
Part of the problem is that terms like PTSD get thrown around to much. I think there is a whole category of combat related mental illnesses that get lumped together as PTSD even if they have different symptoms and different causes. For instanced the term "Shell Shocked", is sometimes taken to mean "PTSD", but probably covered a wide range of problems such as concussion, depression, extreme anxiety, and simple mental and exhaustion.
That's for non-psychiatric sources I hope. The criteria for that diagnosis are quite clear for the ICD and DSM.
ICD 10 has PTSD as as a subset of an acute stress reaction
QuoteF43.1Post-traumatic stress disorder
Arises as a delayed or protracted response to a stressful event or situation (of either brief or long duration) of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature, which is likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone. Predisposing factors, such as personality traits (e.g. compulsive, asthenic) or previous history of neurotic illness, may lower the threshold for the development of the syndrome or aggravate its course, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain its occurrence. Typical features include episodes of repeated reliving of the trauma in intrusive memories ("flashbacks"), dreams or nightmares, occurring against the persisting background of a sense of "numbness" and emotional blunting, detachment from other people, unresponsiveness to surroundings, anhedonia, and avoidance of activities and situations reminiscent of the trauma. There is usually a state of autonomic hyperarousal with hypervigilance, an enhanced startle reaction, and insomnia. Anxiety and depression are commonly associated with the above symptoms and signs, and suicidal ideation is not infrequent. The onset follows the trauma with a latency period that may range from a few weeks to months. The course is fluctuating but recovery can be expected in the majority of cases. In a small proportion of cases the condition may follow a chronic course over many years, with eventual transition to an enduring personality change (F62.0).
The DSM criteria are on wikipedia.
Sort of. Shell Shocked is a WWI term and treatment and knowledge of mental illness is better known now. Still PTSD is used to often in the media for other combat related illnesses such as TBI.
Of course it isn't the case that a psychiatrist has ever given a misdiagnosis. :D
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Of course it isn't the case that a psychiatrist has ever given a misdiagnosis. :D
:lol: That happens a LOT. And PTSD is diagnosed inflationary too. Rape victims seem to get a PTSD diagnosis quickly. And whatever makes the health insurance pay will work.
I was aiming at the "getting thrown around" a lot Raz mentioned above. Shell shock is an outdated term, the ancestor of PTSD if you will. The existing categorizations of mental illnesses as the DSM for the US and the ICD for everyone else, should be sufficient to avoid simple mistakes like mixing up somatic and psychiatric cases.
So modern definitions tell us what old descriptions like "shell shocked" etc in the historical sources really mean?
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
So modern definitions tell us what old descriptions like "shell shocked" etc in the historical sources really mean?
They should help identifying older descriptions of symptoms and relate them to modern categories.
Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
So modern definitions tell us what old descriptions like "shell shocked" etc in the historical sources really mean?
Sometimes. Terms like "Shell Shocked" was sort of a cache all term. Someone with brain damage and someone who was simply exhausted by the extreme stress might both be called "Shell shocked". It's better now, but misdiagnosis is still rife in the field.
Quote from: besuchov on February 05, 2012, 11:35:28 AM
Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.
It seems bizarre to me that anyone confronted with Nazis or Imperial Japanese, let alone Italians, would not fire directly at their chests.
Is there significant overlap between the IJA who never aimed and the IJA who never raped Chinese women? Same question, viz. RKKA.
Anyway, this is why air war is superior. USAAF: "Killing? No, I'm engaged in precision bombing against industrial targets. With magnesium bombs." RAF version: "Killing? No, I'm engaged in a dehousing campaign. With magnesium bombs."
Quote from: besuchov on February 05, 2012, 11:35:28 AM
Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.
I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 03:53:26 PM
Quote from: besuchov on February 05, 2012, 11:35:28 AM
Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.
I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.
You're older than I thought.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 03:53:26 PM
Quote from: besuchov on February 05, 2012, 11:35:28 AM
Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.
I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.
You're older than I thought.
I don't think soldiers of today are that diferent from the soldiers that served in ww2.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 04:06:52 PM
I don't think soldiers of today are that diferent from the soldiers that served in ww2.
They're all volunteers and most of the infantry specifically signed up for it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 05, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 04:06:52 PM
I don't think soldiers of today are that diferent from the soldiers that served in ww2.
They're all volunteers and most of the infantry specifically signed up for it.
Yeah, but weren't ww2 soldiers highly dedicated and ideologically comitted to the cause?
WW2 was an existancial war, wans't it?
I always assumed WW2 was seen by americans as the arab wars were seen by israelis. The kind of war you cannot lose, as oppoussed to wars of choice like Vietnam for America and Lebanon for Israel.
The figures for World War 2, if I remember rightly, first came out with S.L.A. Marshall's work. He did post-combat interviews and found out that a significant number never fired, more never did more then fire blindly, and a very few actually fired with aim and intent.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 03:53:26 PM
Quote from: besuchov on February 05, 2012, 11:35:28 AM
Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.
I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.
I'm going to let you in on a secret, WWII and Iraq are extremely different in the way they were fought. The infantryman of WWII was woefully under-trained (at least US ones), and had poor morale. He also understood that it was the artillery that was likely to kill you, and there was not a goddamn thing you could do about it.
The reason why every soldier you have served with shoots to kill is because training was heavily modified after WWII.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 05, 2012, 01:35:25 AM
Also would be interesting to compare PTSD between WW2 vets and WW1-Vietnam vets. If somehow the "good" nature of the war changed perceptions on it.
I think that contrary to popular belief, WWII veterans who returned home with psychological problems actually had it worse than Vietnams vets who did so. Yeah, the WWII guys got hailed as heros when they first came home while the Vietnam vets got spat on and called baby-killers, but OTOH, we kind of expected Vietnam vets to be messed up mentally and did provided some (admitted often inadequate) counseling and the like for them. The WWII vets were supposed to be heros though, and we didn't think of heros as having any psychological problems that they might have needed help with.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 05, 2012, 01:35:25 AM
Also would be interesting to compare PTSD between WW2 vets and WW1-Vietnam vets. If somehow the "good" nature of the war changed perceptions on it.
I think that contrary to popular belief, WWII veterans who returned home with psychological problems actually had it worse than Vietnams vets who did so. Yeah, the WWII guys got hailed as heros when they first came home while the Vietnam vets got spat on and called baby-killers, but OTOH, we kind of expected Vietnam vets to be messed up mentally and did provided some (admitted often inadequate) counseling and the like for them. The WWII vets were supposed to be heros though, and we didn't think of heros as having any psychological problems that they might have needed help with.
One of these days I should watch The Best Years of Our Lives.
I watched it. All I can say now is that it's pretty forgettable.
But it won an Oscar! That's a seal of quality.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 05, 2012, 01:35:25 AM
Also would be interesting to compare PTSD between WW2 vets and WW1-Vietnam vets. If somehow the "good" nature of the war changed perceptions on it.
I think that contrary to popular belief, WWII veterans who returned home with psychological problems actually had it worse than Vietnams vets who did so. Yeah, the WWII guys got hailed as heros when they first came home while the Vietnam vets got spat on and called baby-killers, but OTOH, we kind of expected Vietnam vets to be messed up mentally and did provided some (admitted often inadequate) counseling and the like for them. The WWII vets were supposed to be heros though, and we didn't think of heros as having any psychological problems that they might have needed help with.
I think the spat on thing is something of a myth, but I think the "Crazy Vietnam vet" concept came more from a sort of cultural guilt. There were few battles as intense as what was seen in WWII. My relatives in WWII just didn't talk about it (one would shut himself in every fourth of July because he developed an aversion of fireworks). I think "Just not talking about it", was pretty common.
It seems that most of you are talking about the explosions, noise, and physicality of war affecting a soldier and those things causing mental stress, PTSD, etc. I've also wondered how ancient, medieval type soldiers dealt with war/battles. They were using hand weapons mostly, close up and personal, seeing the other guy face to face, seeing the light go out of his eyes as they killed him. Remembering those faces long after the fighting is over, and years later. That all will often have an affect on a soldier remembering it, and I have to think such memories, dreaming of them, can have a big affect. And of course, that has the same affect on WW2 and contemporary soldiers.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2012, 06:15:30 PM
It seems that most of you are talking about the explosions, noise, and physicality of war affecting a soldier and those things causing mental stress, PTSD, etc. I've also wondered how ancient, medieval type soldiers dealt with war/battles. They were using hand weapons mostly, close up and personal, seeing the other guy face to face, seeing the light go out of his eyes as they killed him. Remembering those faces long after the fighting is over, and years later. That all will often have an affect on a soldier remembering it, and I have to think such memories, dreaming of them, can have a big affect. And of course, that has the same affect on WW2 and contemporary soldiers.
Yeah, but these people lived in an alien moral and societal framework to what we have today. We live in a society built on a mix of two universalist moral frameworks, the Enlightenment and Christianity. In Classical antiquity there is no moral, religious or philosophical value placed
on things like the universal brotherhood of man, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, etc. It's a selfish society where extreme othering of individuals outside one's own locale and class was the norm and seen as a positive good. Killing people probably did less psychological damage to people with that kind of world view.
Dammit, I hate it when you actually make a bit of sense.
Oh! :o
I've let the masquerade slip!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
Oh! :o
I've let the masquerade slip!
I have a feeling someone is going to jump on your ass over that, but I mostly agree with what you said.
I don't know though Tim. The soldiers of ancient times still had humanity, families, could probably relate to their enemies as being somewhat similar to them and so would have some empathy. On the other hand, when we read of towns and cities being razed for resisting, everyone being killed, as for example Romans did at times during their civil wars, it does make me wonder how they could be so cold bloodedly brutal. So I'm sure your points stand as well, to some extent anyway, and maybe even the dominant views given how easily brutal the ancients could be.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2012, 09:01:28 PM
I don't know though Tim. The soldiers of ancient times still had humanity, families, could probably relate to their enemies as being somewhat similar to them and so would have some empathy. On the other hand, when we read of towns and cities being razed for resisting, everyone being killed, as for example Romans did at times during their civil wars, it does make me wonder how they could be so cold bloodedly brutal. So I'm sure your points stand as well, to some extent anyway, and maybe even the dominant views given how easily brutal the ancients could be.
Tim got it right.
The diference is in your personal perception of warfare and the enemy you are fighting.
For example, I'm pretty sure you have heard me complaining about my PTSD caused by the effect of losing my fellow soldiers in combat, but you have never heard complaining about PTSD caused by my actions in combat.
To put it bluntly, is not the people you kill, but the people you lose.
Now, not everybody is like this. Plenty of guys on my left and right have been affected by their actions in combat, but still the hardcore, ideologically motivated soldier, that somehow always gravitates towards me and befriends me, are not affected by the enemy they kill, because we don't identify with the enemy, they are NOT one of us. If we, in this time and place, can be like this, I would assume EVERYBODY back in ancient times were the same way, since the ideas of "universal brotherhood" are a fairly recent invention.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2012, 09:01:28 PM
I don't know though Tim. The soldiers of ancient times still had humanity, families, could probably relate to their enemies as being somewhat similar to them and so would have some empathy. On the other hand, when we read of towns and cities being razed for resisting, everyone being killed, as for example Romans did at times during their civil wars, it does make me wonder how they could be so cold bloodedly brutal. So I'm sure your points stand as well, to some extent anyway, and maybe even the dominant views given how easily brutal the ancients could be.
I don't know. How many hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians did we kill in WW2? We're still pretty damn brutal.
The thing about soldiers in ancient times is that they were often ruthless criminals. The line between soldier and bandit often was razor thin. They tended to fight for loot and booty, not some higher ideals. Rape, theft and murder were not only common, but some of the main motivations. Even organized armies like the Romans tended to steal whatever wasn't nailed down.
Remember the story of Alexander and the Pirate.
QuoteIt was a pertinent and true answer which was made to Alexander the Great by a pirate whom he had seized. When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied 'The same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet you are an emperor
St. Augustine ~ the City of God.
an ancient therapeutic cleansing ritual for ptsd found in Numbers 31:19
QuoteAnd encamp ye without the camp seven days; whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, ye and your captives.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2012, 06:51:01 PM
Yeah, but these people lived in an alien moral and societal framework to what we have today. We live in a society built on a mix of two universalist moral frameworks, the Enlightenment and Christianity. In Classical antiquity there is no moral, religious or philosophical value placed
on things like the universal brotherhood of man, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, etc. It's a selfish society where extreme othering of individuals outside one's own locale and class was the norm and seen as a positive good. Killing people probably did less psychological damage to people with that kind of world view.
A good point. To my mind there's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on with that. Perhaps the brutality of the age led to a what might be termed PTSD today; the coping mechanism became expressed the kind of penchant for brutality, xenophobia and so on that you're talking about.
I thought all the violence on TV and in video games was supposed to have desensitized us into murderous barbarians. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 07, 2012, 12:31:23 AM
I thought all the violence on TV and in video games was supposed to have desensitized us into murderous barbarians. :mad:
Only works in air war.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2012, 12:21:06 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2012, 06:51:01 PM
Yeah, but these people lived in an alien moral and societal framework to what we have today. We live in a society built on a mix of two universalist moral frameworks, the Enlightenment and Christianity. In Classical antiquity there is no moral, religious or philosophical value placed
on things like the universal brotherhood of man, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, etc. It's a selfish society where extreme othering of individuals outside one's own locale and class was the norm and seen as a positive good. Killing people probably did less psychological damage to people with that kind of world view.
A good point. To my mind there's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on with that. Perhaps the brutality of the age led to a what might be termed PTSD today; the coping mechanism became expressed the kind of penchant for brutality, xenophobia and so on that you're talking about.
I think a lot of it has to do with our expectation of soldiers and the rise of standing armies made up of citizens as opposed to warlords, mercenaries and special warrior classes.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2012, 09:01:28 PM
I don't know though Tim. The soldiers of ancient times still had humanity, families, could probably relate to their enemies as being somewhat similar to them and so would have some empathy. On the other hand, when we read of towns and cities being razed for resisting, everyone being killed, as for example Romans did at times during their civil wars, it does make me wonder how they could be so cold bloodedly brutal. So I'm sure your points stand as well, to some extent anyway, and maybe even the dominant views given how easily brutal the ancients could be.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2012, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2012, 06:15:30 PM
It seems that most of you are talking about the explosions, noise, and physicality of war affecting a soldier and those things causing mental stress, PTSD, etc. I've also wondered how ancient, medieval type soldiers dealt with war/battles. They were using hand weapons mostly, close up and personal, seeing the other guy face to face, seeing the light go out of his eyes as they killed him. Remembering those faces long after the fighting is over, and years later. That all will often have an affect on a soldier remembering it, and I have to think such memories, dreaming of them, can have a big affect. And of course, that has the same affect on WW2 and contemporary soldiers.
Yeah, but these people lived in an alien moral and societal framework to what we have today. We live in a society built on a mix of two universalist moral frameworks, the Enlightenment and Christianity. In Classical antiquity there is no moral, religious or philosophical value placed
on things like the universal brotherhood of man, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, etc. It's a selfish society where extreme othering of individuals outside one's own locale and class was the norm and seen as a positive good. Killing people probably did less psychological damage to people with that kind of world view.
I'm not sure that I buy that. I think it's true to an extent, but not to the extent that you imply. Lidice was only a bit over 70 years ago, and similar stuff happened in Bosnia after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
I don't think anyone thinks Yugoslavia had much of a 20th century mind set.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2012, 06:51:01 PM
In Classical antiquity there is no moral, religious or philosophical value placed
on things like the universal brotherhood of man, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, etc.
What a crock of bullshit. Ever read Seneca?
Yes, I know it's a rhetorical question. I can bet you never read Seneca.
So Seneca defines all classic cultural reactions to such things as group identity, human interaction, violence, roles of family? I would argue that the stoics while important, were not the end-all when describing the human condition in the classical world...
While overstated in the earlier post, the inherent violence, morality of retribution, willingness to endure (and cause) pain when mores were breached implies a different viewpoint from latter cultural systems. Seneca was favored by so many Christians for a reason, and that might be that his morality calls to later systems.
Quote from: PDH on February 07, 2012, 11:32:26 AM
So Seneca defines all classic cultural reactions to such things as group identity, human interaction, violence, roles of family?
Especially for the decisionmakers during the Punic, Peloponnesian, and Persian wars, by whom he was
widely fucking read, to be sure.
Also, lets not forget all the brutal public executions that people would have seen from a young age and would have clearly affected children and their developing views on the acceptability of violence.
Marty, Seneca was from the 1st Century AD, and was one of the first philosophers to posit that kind of ideology. Hardly representative of the whole classical period.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 05, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
Are there records and studies of anxeity disorders in people who lived in areas as conflict-stricken as Medieval or Early Modern Europe? Do we have references to post-battle anxiety dating back a long period?
The best I can contribute is that we Portuguese engaged in some pretty brutal warfare during our Colonial Wars of 1961-1975. Killed millions (but nobody cares because we're not Germans) of blacks, who in turn still saw the world in terms of 'tribes' and 'warriors'.
It was common to napalm whole areas, or go into villages and slaughter whomever we could, regardless of age or gender, by knife or bullet.
After the war, some of our soldiers, feeling intense guilt about having machine-gunned helpless elderly couples in cold blood, our impaling babies with their bayonettes, returned to those villages to ask for forgiveness.
The locals reacted with a big :huh:
And then just told them to forget it, those things "happen in war".
And they were the victims. So I suspect societies where human life has little value don't really grasp the concept of PTSD.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 10:00:47 PM
Also, lets not forget all the brutal public executions that people would have seen from a young age and would have clearly affected children and their developing views on the acceptability of violence.
Marty, Seneca was from the 1st Century AD, and was one of the first philosophers to posit that kind of ideology. Hardly representative of the whole classical period.
This is a good point. We should remember the Romans were a people who forced people to fight and kill one another for fun.
To be fair, that was somewhat exceptional. The Ancient Greeks considered such sports to be barbaric.
I dont know much about mental trauma associated with battle. I know a bit about mental trauma experienced by emergency response people when they witness death and dying. Even such people who are trained to expect to see such things and see them often can be adversely affected.