3 ms·
I don't think killing is a natural act. Most people throughout history died from disease, not war. In the past, if you killed someone, like in a battle, there
by kamikazeturtles 1y ago
I don't think killing is a natural act. Most people throughout history died from disease, not war.
In the past, if you killed someone, like in a battle, there is a good chance you're going to die in the next battle of the military campaign. Few soldiers survived the military campaigns of the past. Maybe that's why we don't hear much about PTSD among past soldiers.
- sandspar 1y agoHuh? Rome had career soldiers. Don't quote me on the numbers, but a Roman soldier might see 2-5 major battles and dozens of dustups and minor skirmishes. They served for 25 years. Overall death rate was 25-40% but most of that was due to disease or accidents - due to spending 25 years walking around in the woods - not combat. And European medieval wars were fought by part-time soldiers whose main job was making money for their lord. If "few" people survived ancient military campaigns, why would medieval lords fight wars at all? Surely fighting a war isn't worthwhile if at the end of it you have merely a "few" employees left.
- tbrownaw 1y ago> natural act Most actions do or don't suit circumstances, rather than this being something inherent. I might take lots of pictures outside at a festival or go pee inside a bathroom, but probably not the reverse. (See also, the fundamental attribution error.)