Did medieval soldiers suffer from PTSD? If they did are there any historical accounts of it...

And yet people get PTSD from single, horrible events. Car crashes, shootings, terror attacks etc. None are constant uncertainty, but still cause PTSD.

IIRC correctly the Greeks talked about warriors seeing ghosts and shit haunting them and trying to kill them. It maybe wasn't the same thing known as PTSD today, but unless you were a total psychopath already war always left a bad mark on people in any period of history.

>Killed instantly by artillery
Unless you are just outside the killing reach of the grenade, or if you are hit by shrapnel from it.

The film your image is taken from is mostly staged and what few scenes aren't are over exaggerated reenactments. It's not an accurate representation of shell shock/PTSD.

The speed of warfare doesn't have to impact the development of PTSD. I think seeing someone bleed to death screaming after being stabbed is as scarring as watching someone bleed out after being shot.

From Shakespeare's Henry IV, believed to have been written in 1597:

>Why dost thou bend thine eyes upon the earth, And start so often when thou sit'st alone? >Why hast thou lost the fresh blood in thy cheeks; And given my treasures and my rights of thee To thick-eyed musing and cursed melancholy?
>In thy faint slumbers I by thee have watch'd, And heard thee murmur tales of iron wars; Speak terms of manage to thy bounding steed; Cry 'Courage! to the field!' And thou hast talk'd Of sallies and retires, of trenches, tents,
>Of palisadoes, frontiers, parapets, Of basilisks, of cannon, culverin, Of prisoners' ransom and of soldiers slain, And all the currents of a heady fight. Thy spirit within thee hath been so at war
>And thus hath so bestirr'd thee in thy sleep, That beads of sweat have stood upon thy brow Like bubbles in a late-disturbed stream; And in thy face strange motions have appear'd, Such as we see when men restrain their breath

Now, PTSD is currently defined as 4 constellations of symptoms that revolve around an index trauma. That is, these symptoms are all caused by that event. The symptom clusters are broken up into: Intrusion/reexperiencing, Arousal, Negative mood/cognition and Avoidance. These clusters are believed to represent changes that occur not only in terms of our psychology and cognition, but underlying biological mechanisms as well; so, we would expect these changes to exist in humans from the past as well as present when exposed to trauma.

The quote I opened with touches on many of these clusters, and is said by Lady Percy about her husband Henry Percy, a famed soldier and knight with numerous battles in his past (suggests an index trauma)
>Why dost thou bend thine eyes upon the earth,
Suggests avoidance; specifically emotional numbing.
>And start so often when thou sit'st alone?
Suggests arousal; specifically exaggerated startle response
>And given my treasures and my rights of thee To thick-eyed musing and cursed melancholy?
Suggests negative alterations in mood and cognition; specifically persistent negative beliefs about self, others and world
>In thy faint slumbers I by thee have watch'd, And heard thee murmur tales of iron wars; Suggests Intrusion/re-experiencing; specifically nightmares

Based on this quote, it appears that Henry experiences many symptoms of PTSD. In fact, it's likely that he would meet criteria for PTSD as indicated by the DSM5 today. I would also say that the specific criteria Lady Percy has noted would probably make him a good candidate for evidence based psychotherapy to ameliorate those symptoms (I personally would recommend Prolonged Exposure).
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Cahil, S. P. & Foa, E.B. (2007). Psychological Theories of PTSD. In Friedman, M. J., Keane, T. M., & Resick, P. A. (Eds.), Handbook of PTSD, Science and Practice (55-77). New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Crowther, John, (Ed.). (2005). No Fear Henry IV Part 1. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from nfs.sparknotes.com/henry4pt1/

"A Short History of PTSD: From Thermopylae to Hue Soldiers Have Always Had A Disturbing Reaction To War" an excellent article reprinted in the VVA Veteran, describes specific events recorded in history of reactions to the brutality of war. Herodotus describes a Athenian warrior at the battle of Marathon who went blind with no apparent injuries after observing the death of a fellow combatant.

Herodotus also recorded Leonidas, the hero of Thermopylae, dismissing some of his troops after determining because of previous combat stress they would be unable to perform at the level required.

Swiss physicians in 1678 identified specific behaviors germane to acute combat reaction. The called the condition nostalgia.

Without citing the numerous examples of PSTD type issues through out history it appears the ways these issues were dealt with runs the full spectrum from acknowledging the condition as in the example of Leonidas to the siege of Gibraltar in 1727 where a soldier in his diary recounts distressed soldiers refusing to fight despite being whipped for not doing so.

While combat stress has been acknowledged through out history there is much inconsistency in any protocols to address the condition.

It's noteworthy as well that the entire Percy rebellion is caused partly by Hotspur becoming angry at the knight sent to collect the prisoners for the king didn't actually take part in the battle himself.

He question'd me; amongst the rest, demanded
My prisoners in your majesty's behalf.
I then, all smarting with my wounds being cold,
To be so pester'd with a popinjay,
Out of my grief and my impatience,
Answer'd neglectingly I know not what,
He should or he should not; for he made me mad
To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet

A medieval example of "you weren't there man!"

>at least with artillery you have a big chance to die almost instantly and not feeling anything
You have no idea what you're talking about user.

Lets consider the carnage of the era. To eat one had to butcher a chicken, or hog, or deer, or fish, and basically spill blood once a week - at least - to just feed oneself.

Today, people have no exposure to basic biological violence, and the carnage of a meal.

In this regard, blood disgusts them, where as with someone who had to kill their own food, or go to the bloody place that does, it was like butchering an animal.

Although, spartan warriors had to kill a slave, to accustom themselves to the act of killing. Any soldier who has killed is less hesitant in his actions to kill again; this is behaviorism and the formation of habitat.

So, if exposure to violence ans carnage create an habituation to it, the carnage of armed combat will surly traumatize someone, but not to the degree of foreign exposures that modern combat has when first experienced.

likewise, the human sensory system can only take so much, and certain pathways exist in neurology and the CNS that trigger traumatic memory responses when certain conditions are met (loud sounds, extreme light, very cold water). Rarely, outside of the cold, a medieval soldier would only experience violence on the sensory scale of his biological and evolutionary ancestors. Only in the 18th century did these massive combustion weapons become common place, and the exposures too with.

It's entirely different to butcher a pig and to be involved in medieval warfare. In a war, you're the pig.

The PTSD likely comes from your survival instict going haywire because of immidiate danger rather than "ew, blood".

One problem with this is that Shakespeare might be describing Henry struggling with the fact that he is planning a rebellion, which would definitely weigh heavily on him.

Two things with this though.

1. How much did the average medieval person slaughter and butcher their own animals? We know there were specialist slaughtermen and butchers just like today.

2. Pigs, chickens and deer are not men. Despite what Eric Blair might claim, killing one is not like killing the other.

True, but why would he be talking about prisoners ransoms and slaughter economic men in his sleep, rather than strategy and organisation? He doesn't seem too fazed by rebellion. This section is against the backdrop of him just returned from Homildon Hill. He's also clearly a well practiced killer to the point where Prince Hal mocks him for it.

>butchers were never a profession, every single farmer butchered his own livestock himself
>the only disturbing thing in war is blood, not the actual act of murdering and seeing people get murdered
>any soldier who has killed is less hesitant to kill again, the testimonies we have from people who killed (especially in close quarters) and never wanted to do it again don't real, and Americans investing so much energy in coming up with ways to mess with people's brains to make them kill with impunity is a coincidence

Although interesting point, as that scene opens with Hotspur reading a letter from one of his supporters advising him not to rebel and Hotspur justifying to himself why he should go ahead.

'But for mine own part, my lord, I could be well
contented to be there, in respect of the love I bear
your house.' He could be contented: why is he not,
then? In respect of the love he bears our house:
he shows in this, he loves his own barn better than
he loves our house. Let me see some more. 'The
purpose you undertake is dangerous;'--why, that's
certain: 'tis dangerous to take a cold, to sleep, to
drink; but I tell you, my lord fool, out of this
nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. 'The
purpose you undertake is dangerous; the friends you
have named uncertain; the time itself unsorted; and
your whole plot too light for the counterpoise of so
great an opposition.' Say you so, say you so? I say
unto you again, you are a shallow cowardly hind, and
you lie. What a lack-brain is this! By the Lord,
our plot is a good plot as ever was laid; our
friends true and constant: a good plot, good
friends, and full of expectation; an excellent plot,
very good friends. What a frosty-spirited rogue is
this!

Hmm, something to ponder...

most of the time it wasn't like that

Most likely there were plenty of PTSD cases but they were normality back in the days, people pushed a lot of this shit away and had to focus on survival, those who didn't? Well why would history offer a smallest note in through the times for someone who lost it after devastating war and most likely drank himself to death or killed himself. As that is how most PTSD victims tend to go over time.

WW1 and Vietnam / Second Gulf produced a whole lot more shellshock and general PTSD victims due to the nature of these conflicts. In Medieval times you were rarely under the stress and fear of death 24/7 .Yeah battles sucked but often you had time to prepare for and then it would soon be over, one way or another. It was not comparable to sitting in a trench months at a time, never maybe seeing the enemy but having daily, random and erratic artillerry bombardments that might leave you shrapnel torn lying on the fields spending next 12 hours bleeding and shitting your guts out.

Of course we pay more attention to PTSD in modern soldiers and notice it more. Coming form Finland I know both my grandfathers were affected by WW2 a great deal. But did you have any time to stop down and worry about it? Nope had a family to feed, country to rebuild etc.

Oh really? Please, tell us about a medieval battle that wasn't absolute carnage.

That's the thing, battles are only a small portion of a war IRL.

From Gregory's Chronicle, on the run up to the Second Battle of Saint Albans.

ut the day before that batayle there was a jornay at Dunstapyl; but the kyngys mayny lackyd good gydyng, for sum were but newe men of warre, for the chevyste captayne was a boucher of the same towne; and there were the kyngys mayny ovyr throughe only by the Northeryn men. And sone aftyr the bocher, for schame of hys sympylle gydynge and loste of the men, the nombyr of viij C, for very sorowe as hyt ys sayde, hynge hym selfe; and sum men sayde that hyt was for loste of hys goode, but dede he ys—God knowythe the trought.

Basically, there was a skirmish outside Dunstable, but the kings men were inexperienced soldiers, led by a butcher. They were defeated by the Northerners and the butcher hanged himself afterwards because his poor leadership got men killed.

Not necessarily PTSD, but an example of medieval warfare affecting someone's mental health.

But we're talking about battles here.

that guy's spelling is proof of medieval ptsd

low quality bait

Accepting your proposal about the randomness of modern war (I think you're at least partly correct), I wonder if part of why PTSD has become more prevalent in modern warfare is also tied into how armies can now operate relatively efficiently with far fewer human resources. The outcome of this to my mind is that it tends to atomise and isolate those men when they re-enter civilian life, and perhaps that makes it harder to cope?
Sharing the trauma of warfare by knowing the men you were working with had also shared those experiences would presumably go some way to reducing that pain (even if it meant getting pissed as fuck and beating your wife on the regular).

most of the army would be behind the action, most of the fighters were using pole arms so didn't get close to their enemies and maybe didn't even kill each other the entire battle because they just fenced with the pole arms and provided supression. If you were killed it would be relatively quick most of the time, if you were wounded you would be out of action even if it wasn't that bad because you wouldn't be able to fight

It's a joke nigger, take a break.

I'm no medieval warfare expert, but you seem to be describing one particular type of battle, at one particular moment of time.
What about archers and other projectile weapons? Sieges of forts/castles as opposed to a pitched battle on an open field?
Also, assuming that because deaths were 'quick' would somehow make the thought of dying less terrifying seems illogical, not to mention that surely having an artillery shell blow up directly over your head being a whole lot quicker than a sword through the chest?

Is it really more prevalent, or did a combination of advances in medicine increase the survival rate and improved understanding of the condition lead to better diagnosis?

Polearms are close enough.
They're fencing and suppressing in the hopes of then gaining the advantage and then gutting or driving a metal spike into their opponent.
Being gutted or dismembered is hardly quick or pleasant. Being wounded often means you the die after several days of squealing in agony instead.

I'm offering that as my speculation basicaly, sort of exagerating/trolling a bit, I dont know much at all about medieval warfare.

But you would be killed pretty quickly by things like a blow to the head or even the chest or whatever. So rather then having all the dying and wounded people lying around in agony guts spilling out and screaming and dying everywhere, you'd have a lot of people just collapsing, and I'd imagine if you were wounded with something like a broken arm or even a concussion you'd have to leave the action if you could.

I like the way vikings' depicts medieval warfare because they are behind sheild wals for most of the action and chucking blows over their sheilds, every other depiction of medieval warfare i've seen in tv film is totally different and probably a lot less realistic

>just collapsing
>after being repeatedly stabbed, smashed or ripped open

Did he died?

IIRC there are records of Scandi warriors who would go mad and live like animals after enough battles.

Some no doubt did but they probably thought it was demon possession or some voodoo shit.

If we're talking about the Medieval era proper then demonic possession wasn't thought to be a thing outside of Germany.

you could get knocked on the head and you would go down straight away

Except all three of those are constantly uncertain in that there is a probable chance that any of those things can happen throughout your day, and you are invariably uncertain as it when they will happen.

Pure chaos is chaotic, simple as that.

If you're going to guess don't bother posting. also all of your guesses sound mad ignorant.

You are wrong though.

Anyone else get an existential crisis when you think of what a violent species humanity is? Where our religious and historical texts constantly approve of soldiers committing genocide, including grabbing infants by the leg and smashing them against a wall. Whether it's Greeks, Jews, or myths on the other side of the world in Asia.

Even how we get our food is macabre. Imagine if some stronger alien race packaged and ate humans while also taking human females, keeping them constantly pregnant for milk, depriving them of their child which will become another meal, and when they're used up they become processed meat themselves.

It happens when there's a period of peace and then sudden primal war/traumatic scenario.

There would probably be ptsd in civilizations where its peaceful and then sudden war ravaged the place. They might even call the survivors of the war's emotional instability a "normal thing".

And I don't want to talk like a soccer mom, but modern kids growing up watching war movies, seeing scenes of carnage on the evening news and playing FPS every day probably gets them ready to kill another human being better than cleaning a fish does, or at any rate it seems like something that should be taken into account when discussing their vulnerability to PTSD.

What about the soldiers from WWI and WWII? Not only were many of them farm boys who had at least seen their parents slaughter a pig, but any who spent some time outside of the cities will have hunted or simply killed small animals as kids like to do.

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Medieval PTSD Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Front Line Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha

>There also weren't any weapons which could cause a spontaneous change in the senses like artillery could
tell me that after taking a mace to the gut

Imagine being the first guys to be attacked by catapults, especially if they hit your unit with any accuracy. You're just manning a wall and suddenly the section next to you caves in and two of your pals are smears under a boulder. Dang.

Fuck, my parents were scared and disturbed by me nonchalantly talking about brutal death scenes from The Bible and Greek myths or fantasy novels that I read when I was five years old. They actually confiscated all that stuff from me, forbade me from reading, and told the school library not to let me look at any of their books so I wouldn't get any ideas, I guess.

I think the big difference between medieval war and modern war is that battles were planned in medieval war, it was the norm. As a soldier, you'd know the day and the place, it would last for the day and stop at night to continue the next battlel.
Now in modern war is completely different.
For exemple in WW1, soldiers were under constant stress : be it from a surprise charge from the ennemy or gas, or artillery fire, soldiers always had to keep their guards on. Imagine being a soldier in your trench, for weeks you have absolutely no safety, you can expect dying in an unfortunate artillery fire anytime, you could be asked to attack anytime, you could be attacked anytime. Tracer ammunition are a WW1 innovation for night operation.

A

this

you can dodge a sword and block a arrow

you cant block a bullet and you cant dodge a explosion

i think its the feeling of helplesness that furthers ptsd

ofc it probably happend before modern warfare but its become alot more prevalent

That doesn't mean you'd die immediately though.

why was society so brutal back then? seriously it was disgusting and gruesome, people were also very cruel, where did this mentality come from? did they not feel guilt or empathy? these are essential human traits

They called it battle fatigue.

Also, some theories suggest berserkers were expressing a form of PTSD.

This is probably part of it. Shell shock was a much larger problem for Germans on the Western Front. I think lack of movement and helplessness in war contributes to PTSD.

A soldier on a moving front saw horrible things, but also got a sense of where the war was headed.

Soldiers in Iraq, Vietnam, Chechnya, etc. are surrounded by traps with no sense of progress. You clear a village of IEDs one day, and a sniper is back the next.

The worst rates might have been with the Western Front, where you just sat through 48 hour long artillery storms waiting to die while unable to sleep.

Well you have to remember that being in a constant state of combat was simply unheard of back then. Right up until the 19th century, assuming they weren't taking part in a siege, an army could march for hundreds of day and only see battle once for anywhere between a few hours to a couple of days at most. In modern warfare, however, soldiers are almost always in combat, direct or indirect; by virtue of both the smaller, fluid nature of contemporary war and the sheer distances of modern weaponry. This means that, even if one is not being shot at, even if one is miles behind the front line, they're always at risk of death.

For a medieval soldiers a battle was a traumatic, but largely rare event that they could deal with after the fact, assuming they survived.

Sometimes, some did.

Most deaths were slow, and didn't even occur during combat itself. Dysentery, necrosis, tetanus, etc - you'd be cramping, rotting and shitting your guts out.

>Imagine if some stronger alien race packaged and ate humans while also taking human females, keeping them constantly pregnant for milk, depriving them of their child which will become another meal, and when they're used up they become processed meat themselves.
Sounds like a Hypocrisy album.

>keeping them constantly pregnant for milk

Oh you watched that morons video?

[spoiler]she was lying[/spoiler]

Cows don't need to be constantly impregnated to lactate.

>of what a violent species humanity is
No more than most other predators, and even most prey you can think of.

Just look at you, empathizing with cows. You think that is common in nature?

kek

Did you not take a psychology class in community college? In-group vs. out-group

This is nonsense. Plenty of EMT suffer from PTSD, it has nothing to do with artillery or any other sudden onset of "change in the senses".

>"A Short History of PTSD: From Thermopylae to Hue Soldiers Have Always Had A Disturbing Reaction To War" an excellent article reprinted in the VVA Veteran, describes specific events recorded in history of reactions to the brutality of war. Herodotus describes a Athenian warrior at the battle of Marathon who went blind with no apparent injuries after observing the death of a fellow combatant.
This is one I always remember when I first got interested in PTSD in "pre-modern" times.

Tyler the Bard pls

Not him, but he's got a point on the butcher thing. Before refrigeration the best way to keep meat fresh was to keep it alive. Butchers killed things in their shops, everyday to sell or it would rot.
Death was a part of daily life before germs where known about, the Spanish flu killed more people during WW1 than died in WW1.

Not really, we're a product of a violent earth. Violence is a part of nature and therefore part of us, the best you can do is make sure your being violent for the right reasons

Nah, I've long accepted violence as a necessary part of human nature.

I was never sheltered from violence as a child, and it does not panic me, though I still feel a very deep fear when called to work it.

Didn't read the whole thread but here are my $0.02

PTSD is a complex condition. NIH lists the following symptoms required for diagnosis (or a combination thereof):

Re-experiencing symptoms (at least one):
>Flashbacks—reliving the trauma over and over, including physical symptoms like a racing heart or sweating
>Bad dreams
>Frightening thoughts

Avoidance symptoms (at least one):
>Staying away from places, events, or objects that are reminders of the traumatic experience
>Feeling emotionally numb
>Feeling strong guilt, depression, or worry
>Losing interest in activities that were enjoyable in the past
>Having trouble remembering the dangerous event

Arousal and reactivity symptoms (at least two):
>Being easily startled
>Feeling tense or “on edge”
>Having difficulty sleeping
>Having angry outbursts

Cognition and mood symptoms (at least two):
>Trouble remembering key features of the traumatic event
>Negative thoughts about oneself or the world
>Distorted feelings like guilt or blame
>Loss of interest in enjoyable activities

These are not especially unusual symptoms. They can also exhibit themselves in diverse ways.

People with PTSD can react to that stress by being constantly alert and on edge, or by regressing into childlike behavior as a defense mechanism.

How people react to stress is often a function of cultural and social influences, but the stress is still there. The suffering too.

Good point user, a lot of shakespeare's characters have it. Hell, oedipus and other greek tragedies are replete with it and Herodotus/Thucydides and other historians of that era already talk about soldiers coming back messed up from war.

Semi-unrelated but do you think it's fair to say that Iago exhibits some qualities of a sociopath? I always thought that he was a good characterization of a sociopath before that was a thing, and it's interesting that Shakespeare also portrayed a character with PTSD before that was a thing as well. Makes you wonder if he based his characters on people he knew because the traits of certain mental/personality disorders are so accurate

>Being killed instantly by artillery

Unlikely, unless it hits you directly. The number one killer on the battlefield even in the modern era is blood loss. It's why we are taught hemorrhage control a lot, being able to quickly apply a tourniquet on the battlefield is a big deal.

>"you weren't there man!"

I know what this is, but why?
I don't think I ever heard it in a movie. I saw all the big 'nam ones.

its a song

One of the reasons we don't hear about shell shock as much before WW1 is because it was literally caused by artillery shells exploding constantly.

PTSD is usually a combination of horrific shit and traumatic brain injury induced by constant explosive shockwaves. Even small shocks like grenade explosions or just firing enough bullets can induce traumatic brain injury. This fucks up your brain and manifests as PTSD. The original term shell shock was very accurate.

"Potential central nervous system sequelae of bomb blast injury include concussion, post-concussion syndrome (PCS), mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and acute stress disorder (ASD)."

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884448/

brainlinemilitary.org/content/2010/12/blast-injuries-and-the-brain.html

>“His name was Geoffroi de Charny, and he was one of the most respected knights of his age. The book, about the life of a knight, included the psychological consequences of being a knight – and they strongly resemble the symptoms of PTSD.”

>ywn be a medieval soldier

This is also why you have PTSD for survivors of terror attacks.

>because it was literally caused by artillery shells exploding constantly.

no thats not how it works

Holy shit. I just skimmed over that part. I feel like an idiot now.

A medieval soldier would not actually be in combat all that long.
A soldier in a trench in world war 1 would be in a constant state of heightened stress in a situation that is quite hard for the animal brain to process. Pointy things going into fleshy people is easy for the animal brain to understand. An explosion caused by a shell fired from beyond his line of sight is far harder to understand for the unconscious brain.

>"you weren't there man!"
Willem Defoe in Born on the 4th July. Actual quote is 'You weren't even there man!'
It's one of those lines that gets misremembered, it isn't a vet talking to a civilian, it's two vets bickering about who had the most fucked up experience

>Varus! Varus, give me back my legions!

Apparently it got so bad you didn't even have to be present to be traumatized.

>ywn be a fantasy/video game version of a medieval soldier who can also cast spells, slays dragons and wyverns, doesn't suffer trauma, and doesn't afraid of anything except not delivering the Crystal Shards of Fallen Gorgoroth to the Queen of the Elven Grotto

you're talking out of your ass m8

It's weird that there aren't a lot of reports of Romans suffering from PTSD considering that they Legionary's were career soldiers and probably experienced more violence and war than anyone else at the time.

Most of warfare up until the industrial age was short and violent. No battle in ancient or medieval times last more than a few hours. PTSD mainly comes long periods of high stress with no no way of relieving it, which didn't really exist until the modern age.

>did medieval people suffer from PTSD
If someone was to die agonizingly he wouldn't have PTSD now would he.

I have heard that PTSD is a modern concept and people in earlier times just didn't think about shit like that this way. You fought, we're traumatized, drank yourself stupid and did it again, people especially in the middle ages had bigger problems to worry about

It has been theorized that people from the ancient times (fighting men, that is) were basically traumatized by hand-to-hand combat.
Then again, all the stories about the glory of war and the proud warrior makes you doubt that.