2 ms·

One of the interesting comments from the AskHistorians FAQ on PTSD is that, in the classical world, PTSD like behaviour was more commonly associated with public

One of the interesting comments from the AskHistorians FAQ on PTSD is that, in the classical world, PTSD like behaviour was more commonly associated with public shame rather than private guilt. They might have felt much less conflicted by killing because they did not come from a cultural background where killing your enemies is usually prohibited. Our justification as a culture for warfare starts with "of course, killing is bad, but..." and then looks into when it is allowable. Many of the examples we have of things that look like PTSD are from failed rebels, people who were involved in civil wars, or people who had been disgraced. That would mean that they experienced the same sort of reaction to a stressor that they couldn't process but that the type of stressor that might trigger such a reaction was fundamentally different.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It wouldn't just be the killing. It would be the experience of watching friends and colleagues being dismembered and maimed around you. We have a very sanitised and romantic notion of war. Battles are framed as "historical events", not as personal experiences which would be considered horrific by most people today. In medical terms we're talking about gangs of (usually) thousands of armed men people trying to cause as much death and injury to each other as possible through physical trauma, stabbing, dismemberment, burning, drowning, and disemboweling - with almost certain infection and sepsis for the survivors. And relentless peer pressure to participate. Sociopaths might thrive in that environment, but anyone with any empathy would find it challenging. Even if they viewed the enemy as subhuman, they would still have to deal with the extreme personal stress and the direct personal experience of uncommon brutality. And the losers would experience all of that mingled with the usual psychological effects of failing to win.
- Garlef 6y ago
  > In medical terms we're talking about ... trying to cause as much death and injury to each other ... Are you sure about this? What do you base your statement on? I remember having read as a child an article in a science magazine claming that war in ancient times was far less deadly than war today; If I remember correctly, one of the reasons stated was that the participants were not intent on actually killing every soldier on the other side but rather on overpowering them or on making them surrender. (Also: "trying to cause as much death and injury to each other" is not a medical term.)
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Hm. The burning, raping and pillaging afterward (e.g. 'sacking') might have seemed pretty rough to the people back then.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

It wouldn't just be the killing. It would be the experience of watching friends and colleagues being dismembered and maimed around you. We have a very sanitised and romantic notion of war. Battles are framed as "historical events", not as personal experiences which would be considered horrific by most people today. In medical terms we're talking about gangs of (usually) thousands of armed men people trying to cause as much death and injury to each other as possible through physical trauma, stabbing, dismemberment, burning, drowning, and disemboweling - with almost certain infection and sepsis for the survivors. And relentless peer pressure to participate. Sociopaths might thrive in that environment, but anyone with any empathy would find it challenging. Even if they viewed the enemy as subhuman, they would still have to deal with the extreme personal stress and the direct personal experience of uncommon brutality. And the losers would experience all of that mingled with the usual psychological effects of failing to win.

Garlef 6y ago
> In medical terms we're talking about ... trying to cause as much death and injury to each other ... Are you sure about this? What do you base your statement on? I remember having read as a child an article in a science magazine claming that war in ancient times was far less deadly than war today; If I remember correctly, one of the reasons stated was that the participants were not intent on actually killing every soldier on the other side but rather on overpowering them or on making them surrender. (Also: "trying to cause as much death and injury to each other" is not a medical term.)
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Hm. The burning, raping and pillaging afterward (e.g. 'sacking') might have seemed pretty rough to the people back then.