PostTraumaticStress

[Jeremy Martin]

Maybe it just wasn't written about much? Might not have been a subject thought worthy of much study or of being documented. Not to mention having tales of a warrior in his bed, weeping into his pillow like a little girl after a battle may have been considered to be not so heroic back in the day. Granted I haven't read many stories from that time, could be wrong.

And much, if written about, could have disappeared easily in the years since. Especially if little regarding the subject existed to begin with.

I also believe religon would, and does, have a big impact on how you deal with and percieve death. Just look how doctors often encourage their patients' religous beliefs, to both deal with the possibility of death and to encourage recovery. I don't think it's a factor easily discounted.

Not to say all ancient warriors were devout, but having even a little faith in something bigger than yourself could make a difference, I believe(no pun intended).

[Gene Tausk]

Lot of really good responses to this important question.

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but we tend to forget in the 20th century, even by the time of WWII when PTSD was beginning to codify into a recognizable illness and/or disorder, that in 20th century America we live in a world which is cut off from nature. Our Mid/Renn ancestors, even the city dwellers were much more aware and cognizant of the fact that death was a presence all around them. They were involved in the "nastier" aspects of life, such as slaughtering animals, watching children and young people die of (what are today) easily preventable causes and also watching the crop fail and starvation a very real possibilty.

As stated, in 21st century America, for most of us, these are far-removed dangers (fortunately).

A Mid/Renn warrior, therefore, who is fighting on a battlefield, probably has a much more intimate view and "relationship" (for lack of a better word) with death and may have been better prepared to handle the realities of combat and the knowledge that he is taking a life.


---------->>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[s_taillebois]

"Or so it seems to thanes in their grief, in the anguish every thane endures at the loss of a ring giver,now the hand that bestowed so richly has been stilled in death" lines 1340-44 Beowulf (verse translation by Seamus Heaney)
"It was like the misery felt by an old man who lived to see his sons body swing on the gallows. He begins to keen and weep for his boy, watching the ravens gloat where he hangs, he can be of no help. the wisdom of age is useless to him. Morning after morning he awakes to remember that his child has gone" (refers to Hrethal's losing his son to a hunting accident (killed by his brother)...lines 2440-50 Seamus Heaney, verse translation of Beowulf.
At least from the Saxon perspective, the outward forms of grief seem to have been acceptable...

[JeanryChandler]

From everything I have read, it was normal for adults to weep openly in the middle ages. Their behavior back then seems erratic by modern standards, but it had it's own logic.

If you go all the way back to pre-christian societies, i think their attitude about death and dying was very, very different. In spite of the fact that a Christian should expect to be able to go to heaven, it was the pagans who seemed to really welcome death in battle. You see a lot of evidence of this this with both the Celts and the Vikings for example.

JR

[david welch]

Also, don't underestimate traditions from warrior cultures.

Celebrating sending the men off to war, and celebrating their return gave their soldiers a clear demarcation of then it was ok to kill and when it was time to stop. That sort of a cultural "on and off switch" for the fighters would make adjustment for the fighters quite a bit easier, they would have a formal declaration of that was expected from them, and when it was expected. It has to be easier than the ambiguous start and stop our soldiers have to go through.

[TimSheetz]

IN the literature of the ancient world, they didn't have a masculine concept that downplayed emotions. You had stone killers that would weep, cry, be depressed, and also get really angry... like Achilleus.

In many ways they are truer to the human condition than many contemporary portrayals of 'tough guys'.

Peace,

Tim

[JeanryChandler]

Thats a really good point. Big difference I always notice between Europe and the USA, every part of life is like that over there. The way different times of the year are demarkated by different festival traditions with totally different themes, kind of prepares you for each phase of life through the year, as the pace changes and the focus.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I agree Jeanry, I noticed that too, it made me realize or more aware of, the fact that we are "the new world" and have broken from those traditions. It's very obvious when you travel and spend any time over there, things seem much more quaint, and even possibly initmate. It could be just because we are travelers and notice it more, but I don't think so, I think people in europe are much more "connected" to ancient history maybe without even knowing it-

[Jean-Luc Ancelin]

May I suggest that the look society bears upon its warriors is of great importance ? Even more so than religion, I think. It is probably true that medieval warriors (by warriors I simply mean those who went to war) were looked upon with respect. It would be interesting to look for a link between the way society as a whole either respects/honors or despises/ignores its warriors and the spreading of PTSD among them. My thought is that if all the other people around you shun you because you went to war and killed people (even if that was sanctioned by these same people's vote), then you will have great trouble recovering from shock, pain, grief and guilt. On the other hand, if people will greet you with cheers, listen to your stories or sing them in a romanticized way, then you would have many more tools for your own 'therapy', wouldn't you ?

[jeremy pace]

Again, good posts all. Something i am sure we have all thought about, and i hope no one feels i am crossing a line here, but not said is looking at the current conflict. A jihad.... suicide bombers.... well to us this seams like complete insanity, but when you throw the mix of religion and the harsher lifestyle in the mideast (most countries not all, friends) it has obviously bred people with a different aspect for war/death/killing than us. Again, not all. I am sure there are plenty of weeping mothers there too. But where our idea of support is wearing a ribbon on our SUV theres is, "well i am not a very good shot but if i run with this grenade into a crowd of soldiers......" I think this displays just about every aspect we have discussed. Social, religious, and psych.
Dont want to step on any toes but this has been a glare in my eyes since the discussion began. But, i am a stupid american that is basing his views from popular media and not personal experience so infer what you will.

[JeanryChandler]

When you think of the reality of war, sometimes when the inevitablity of death is very high, there becomes a rather fine line between suicide attacks and just...attacks. Were the torpedo bombers at Midway suicide attacks? How about the average Sherman tank driver in WW II? The first wave at Omaha beach? The first wave in any major infantry assault in WW I? or Shiloh, or Bull Run? or some Iraqi anti-aircraft gunner in either of the last two Gulf Wars?

JR

[Todd Eriksen]

Great discussion. I agree with 2 points inparticular. Since death and violence were a more common occurance to our ancestors, like mentioned above, they had a 'therapy' outlet, where it was not taboo to talk about the battles, squirmishes and such. They could openly talk about it. Todays soldier, I fell, doesn't have that luxury. By becoming civilized we've lost touch, so to speak, with realities at times.
But I think that the biggest factor in all of the comparisons should be religion. Do to science and technology, we no longer have the same 'awe' about the world that our ancestors once did. We now can explain many things that happen that they were unable to. So since they were unable to explain bad events, such as death and destruction, whether it be natural and war caused, it was very easy to just put your faith in God or gods since things were out of your control. I don't think they analyzed like we do now, they just chalked it up to the hard knocks of life and the will of God. Here's a modern example. Recently 2 very popular high school boys died in a car crash in my area. Both families are very religious. One family is having a very hard time coping with the loss trying to explain why, but the other family is at peace because they feel with all their hearts that it was Gods will, and by doing so, don't have to go through the anylitical process of the why's. I think that in a strongly religious based society (back in the day), be it Christianity, Islam, or the old Greek gods, had the benefit of skipping the why's and being more at peace because it is out of their control and they can put that responsibility onto the shoulders of their religion instead. I, too, agree with Aaron, that it depends on the make-up of the individual, too. But in a society where showing your emotions was acceptable, unlike today, with all this respect and being a man issue, that helps the individual cope, too.
Okay, rambling over.

[Kyro_Lantsberger]

I would like to echo what was said earlier about Bill Grossman. Nobody has ever put better ink to paper on this topic.

but also......

I went to school for Criminal Justice/Political Science, had some training in psychology of critical events, and am a former correctional officer, and an army vet of Bosnia(2000), and Iraq(2003). Ive had some of my own experiences, and have witnessed many things in people around me in my circle of friends. Although Grossman is dead on with most things, I have the personal observation of the applicability of the old idea of Gravitas...that depth of character and honor in carriage of an experienced, mature individual. I went into the Army after college, with a few more years of life experience than others, and that made an enormous amount of difference. I think MA study gets you some of this.......anything that broadens you as a person. Im into art, literature, Asian and Renaissance MA, history, and just curious about the world in general. I think that larger perspective helps put critical incidents in context within a larger, well, perspective. The 18 year old kids that went from the 'burbs to the desert have serious issues. If you have nothing else going on as a person in terms of........I have to say spiritual development, mere maturity/breadth of hobbies is insufficient, whatever horrors you deal with are going to be the defining article of your life.
I think what some others have said about a social sanction of the beginning and ending of war is right on. I am more bothered by things that happened to me working in prison than anything battlefield related, just because prison is day-in-day-out-neverending, as opposed to the flow of events in a wartime deployment.
It is interesting to note that I got out of the LEO/Military circle, and now work in sales, which I find provides some of the same "brain juice" in terms of adrenaline and fight or flight in the sense of dealing with prospect rejections and objections. We do have a Neaderthal nervous system, but with developed minds. Hope this contributes.

[Stacy Clifford]

I generally agree with the idea that people back then were more intimately familiar with death and general horrors and better able to unload their emotions, and I like Todd's explanation here of deep faith allowing you to skip past some of the why's and accept the things that happen to you. I think both of these also played a factor in society having a greater general awareness of the remedies for what we call PTSD. Nowadays, very few people have to deal with that kind of trauma, and when they do, there is a bewildering array of religions and psychologists to turn to and ask "How do I deal with this?" and just as many to second-guess all of them. Back then it seems like it would have been a bit more clear cut. You're Catholic, you've sinned, so you go to your priest and he tells you what you must do to pay your penance and atone. You and everybody else accept this as the proper thing to do, you do it, accept that it's all you can do, and then you move on. Nearly everyone in society would understand this procedure from childhood and be somewhat mentally prepared to carry it out when needed. I'm sure this is oversimplified in some ways and at different times, but in some sense I think the unblinking authority and certainty of The Church in its prescriptions for How to Deal With Life and Death may have made these things easier in a way.

[Gene Tausk]

Jeanry:

You wrote:

"When you think of the reality of war, sometimes when the inevitablity of death is very high, there becomes a rather fine line between suicide attacks and just...attacks. Were the torpedo bombers at Midway suicide attacks? How about the average Sherman tank driver in WW II? The first wave at Omaha beach? The first wave in any major infantry assault in WW I? or Shiloh, or Bull Run? or some Iraqi anti-aircraft gunner in either of the last two Gulf Wars?"

I think you are somewhat confusing the definitions here. The examples you give are of individuals or groups of people who have no intention of dying, but rather are in a very high-risk situation where the probability of survival is against them.

The Midway torpedo bomber crews in the first attacks against the Japanese fleet in their obsolete planes was an example of airmen taking an enormous risk with their lives which (unfortunately) did not produce a result - they all died (with the exception of Ensign Gay) without a torpedo striking the Japanese ships. However, the crews of those planes had no intention of ramming their aircraft into the Japanese fleet.

The Sherman tank driver and first-landers at Omaha were likewise in the same situation. Their lives were at high-risk, but they did not attach suicide bomb belts to themselves with the intention of blowing themselves up.

The same is true for the other examples you mentioned - all of these people were in high-risk situations but had no intentinon of deliberately sacrificing their lives.

Now, compare this with a kamikaze pilot or a suicide bomber. These individuals go on a mission with the intent that they will not come out alive. In fact, if they are alive at the end of the day, then they have done something wrong (in their book).

Their is a big difference between the two.


--------------->>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside