4 ms·

> Ancient warriors apparently didn’t get PTSD. And many who actively served in WWI and WWII didn't either. At the heart of trauma is helplessness. That is why

> Ancient warriors apparently didn’t get PTSD. And many who actively served in WWI and WWII didn't either. At the heart of trauma is helplessness. That is why it tends to cement in childhood when you are truly helpless. You don´t have your own home to run to, or your own money to buy food etc. And, you're small and weaker than so called "adults". If a soldier didn't feel helpless while defending their country there's a good chance they haven't developed trauma. Trauma then is a form of disregulation in the nervous system, a conditioning, a form of imprint where the nervous system routinely "triggers" in sympathetic activation, fight/flight/freeze.

red_admiral 3y ago
I thought that WWI is when "shell shock", as it was then caused, started to become a big topic? You're probably right that _most_ soldiers from WWI (at least the ones who came back alive, and survived the Spanish flu) didn't develop PTSD, but in ancient times it seems like it was unheard of as opposed to unusual. I was always told in my family that my great-grandfather was "never the same again" after he came back from WWI, and I think PTSD in some form is the most likely explanation.
- chongli 3y ago
  Helplessness as an explanation checks out there as well. Hunkering down in a trench or a foxhole as shells rain down endlessly, blowing up everything around you. Sounds like one of the most powerful ways to inflict abject helplessness. Compare that to the ancient battlefield where you had a spear in hand and your friends at your side. You’d have a lot more sense of agency and if things looked really bad you could run away or surrender. Of course if your opponent was rounding up and executing all of the prisoners then you would feel pretty helpless waiting for your turn, but then you wouldn’t live to tell the tale of your trauma.
- silveraxe93 3y ago
  WWI was also arguably when soldiers became helpless. Being deployed meant huddling in a trench waiting for an artillery shell to strike you out of the blue.
  - brazzy 3y ago
    I'd argue against that. For about the previous two centuries, the typical soldier's experience was endless marching and then standing in formation with hundreds of others, shooting very imprecise guns at similar enemy formations and hoping that none of the hundreds of enemy bullets hit you despite a complete lack of cover. Sounds pretty helpless to me.
- grp 3y ago
  Yes and Homer's Odysseus can be read as an allegory of PTSD. So pretty old. Edit: The quote is followed by "Everything about this claim is still controversial(...)"
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    Yeah I'd say that a soldier in a medieval battle had even less chances to survive (AND tell his tale) if he had PTSD. So might be some form of survival bias at play.
    - guappa 3y ago
      > I'd say that a soldier in a medieval battle had even less chances to survive Why would you say that? There were a lot of minor conflicts in the middle ages. Not everything was as big as the crusades.

red_admiral 3y ago

I thought that WWI is when "shell shock", as it was then caused, started to become a big topic? You're probably right that _most_ soldiers from WWI (at least the ones who came back alive, and survived the Spanish flu) didn't develop PTSD, but in ancient times it seems like it was unheard of as opposed to unusual. I was always told in my family that my great-grandfather was "never the same again" after he came back from WWI, and I think PTSD in some form is the most likely explanation.

chongli 3y ago
Helplessness as an explanation checks out there as well. Hunkering down in a trench or a foxhole as shells rain down endlessly, blowing up everything around you. Sounds like one of the most powerful ways to inflict abject helplessness. Compare that to the ancient battlefield where you had a spear in hand and your friends at your side. You’d have a lot more sense of agency and if things looked really bad you could run away or surrender. Of course if your opponent was rounding up and executing all of the prisoners then you would feel pretty helpless waiting for your turn, but then you wouldn’t live to tell the tale of your trauma.
silveraxe93 3y ago
WWI was also arguably when soldiers became helpless. Being deployed meant huddling in a trench waiting for an artillery shell to strike you out of the blue.
- brazzy 3y ago
  I'd argue against that. For about the previous two centuries, the typical soldier's experience was endless marching and then standing in formation with hundreds of others, shooting very imprecise guns at similar enemy formations and hoping that none of the hundreds of enemy bullets hit you despite a complete lack of cover. Sounds pretty helpless to me.
grp 3y ago
Yes and Homer's Odysseus can be read as an allegory of PTSD. So pretty old. Edit: The quote is followed by "Everything about this claim is still controversial(...)"
- raverbashing 3y ago
  Yeah I'd say that a soldier in a medieval battle had even less chances to survive (AND tell his tale) if he had PTSD. So might be some form of survival bias at play.
  - guappa 3y ago
    > I'd say that a soldier in a medieval battle had even less chances to survive Why would you say that? There were a lot of minor conflicts in the middle ages. Not everything was as big as the crusades.