PTSD in ancient/pre-modern warfare.

[Roma_Victrix]

They then used their double wage to buy as much plate armor as possible and the largest floppiest hat available. By God, if you're going to die from a sucking chest wound you may as well cut a fine figure.

Amen to that.

I suppose PTSD today is far more a problem than it was for the ancients or those of the middle ages. That being said, I would imagine even a three-month-long siege while holed up in a castle to be incredibly demoralizing.

[Kitsunegari]

I think PTSD is overstated in modern times, not sure about the ancients. I imagine seeing dozens of men around you get impaled on pikes would be a potentially shattering experience, but then again those were violent times in general and your average person would probably be more desensitivized.

[Glaive]

That being said, I would imagine even a three-month-long siege while holed up in a castle to be incredibly demoralizing.

Good point. Sieges could be as bad for the attackers as for the defenders. I imagine that climbing up a ladder while arrows, rocks and boiling oil rain down on you could be traumatizing.

[Condottiere 40K]

So is dying of dysentery or disease, being cooped up either inside or outside.

[Glaive]

Plus starvation. Possible massacre/enslavement if the city falls. Perhaps crammed in tunnels dug to undermine defenses, worrying that they might collapse or run into an enemy tunnel dug to counters yours.

Sieges. What fun.

[Paragon]

I think Doctors diagnosed 'soldier's heart' in the American Civil War, and Ulyses Grant suffered from what in restropective we can all PTSD. Not sure about anything before that, besides the obvious 'it happened'.

[conon394]

Good point. Sieges could be as bad for the attackers as for the defenders. I imagine that climbing up a ladder while arrows, rocks and boiling oil rain down on you could be traumatizing.

And that is missing the fun part (for the defenders) where you run out of rats, shoe leather and grass and than have to start eating the dead...

[Glaive]

I think Doctors diagnosed 'soldier's heart' in the American Civil War, and Ulyses Grant suffered from what in restropective we can all PTSD. Not sure about anything before that, besides the obvious 'it happened'.

Following various wiki links from Googling 'soldiers heart' led me to a claim by Jonathan Shay (a psychiatrist) that there is an early (1597) description of PTSD in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I:

Lady Percy. O, my good lord, why are you thus alone? For what offence have I this fortnight been
A banish'd woman from my Harry's bed?
Tell me, sweet lord, what is't that takes from thee
Thy stomach, pleasure and thy golden sleep? 900
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? 905
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, 910
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 915
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 920
On some great sudden hest. O, what portents are these?
Some heavy business hath my lord in hand,
And I must know it, else he loves me not.

http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org...=3&Scope=scene

Certainly interesting.

[Maklodes]

Possibly relevant links:

http://sciencenordic.com/violent-kni...aumatic-stress

http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2010/11/r...antiquity.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8389213

[Glaive]

Possibly relevant links:

http://sciencenordic.com/violent-kni...aumatic-stress

http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2010/11/r...antiquity.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8389213

This is great stuff, thank you.

I haven't read it yet, but it seems to be relevant to this thread.

An open access paper entitled Nothing New Under the Sun: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders in the Ancient World, co-written by Anglia Ruskin University’s Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes and Dr Walid Abdul-Hamid, Consultant Psychiatrist at the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, shows that the Mesopotamians believed that the symptoms were caused by the spirits of those enemies whom the patient had killed in battle.

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index....yrian-soldiers

[Caligula's_Horse]

Its hard to say whether PTSD would have been more or less significant in ancient times then in modern ones.

On the one hand, no artillery or airstrikes, and no explosive traps would have likely alleviated the stress a great deal, at least when not actively fighting (which is the vast majority of the time). Hell, no explosives in general probably helped.
On the other hand, training back then used to be a lot poorer, there was no professional help to turn to when symptoms started (we usually try to at the very least cycle PTSD affected fighters away from combat nowadays; they didn't use to do that), and I'd imagine butchering people with a sword is a great deal more psychologically damaging then pulling a trigger. The prevalence of siege warfare in ancient times would have also been a factor; I can imagine being slowly starved out of a disease infested hole over the course of months isn't good for one's psychology.

Ultimately, its not just the shifts in technology, but also the nature of the conflict. Compare say, the European Western front in WWI to the fighting in the Levant between the British and the Ottomans in the very same war; the first is obviously much higher stress then the second (though to a lesser degree for the Ottomans, I suppose), and would result in much greater trouble with PTSD.

As for the berserkers specifically having trouble re-adjusting to civilian life, that's hardly exclusive to them. An over-abundance of veterans after a major conflict is a problem familiar the world over (to a point they'd often start a new war just so that they wouldn't be stuck with the veterans at home), though it used to be a lot worse in pre-modern times when brutalizing civilians for fun and profit was the norm. Veterans, lacking in a marketable skill or property to live off, would often resort to banditry if mercenary work wasn't available.

[Enros]

I don't think that works... Athens was hardly full of warriors and its wars could drag on for years and decades. Get on ship row of to Egypt and fight for years. In fact the force that finally got trapped and destroyed in Egypt in 454 BC had been fighting at the far end of Med for 6+ years without mail or rotation or leave. The ones who got back either fought through to what is now Libya or a few other may have survived captivity and each case that was another year.

That sounds like very low casualties over 6 years. In the 11 months from D-day to the German surrender many Allied divisions took over 250% casualties, with only a few hundred of their original ~15,000 escaping unharmed.

Needless to say, they still escaped lightly compared to many German and Soviet units.

[conon394]

That sounds like very low casualties over 6 years. In the 11 months from D-day to the German surrender many Allied divisions took over 250% casualties, with only a few hundred of their original ~15,000 escaping unharmed.

Needless to say, they still escaped lightly compared to many German and Soviet units.

Well its hard to compare. Since we don't have the potential very useful Athenian Casualty lists and only spotty narratives of war vs Persia after the Famous victories in Greece. THat being said two to think about. In the Peloponnesian war there is good evidence that men (and ships) were often rotated in so its not unreasonable that they were taking casualties to their expeditionary force. Perhaps more intresting is a line or two from Aeschylus' Agamemnon

"Ares barters the bodies of men for gold; he holds his balance in the contest of the spear; and [440] back from Ilium to their loved ones he sends a heavy dust passed through his burning, a dust cried over with plenteous tears, in place of men sending well made urns with ashes. [445] So they lament, praising now this one: “How skilled in battle!” now that one: “Fallen nobly in the carnage,”—“for another's wife—” some mutter in secret, and [450] grief charged with resentment spreads stealthily against the sons of Atreus, champions in the strife. But there far from home, around the city's walls, those in their beauty's bloom have graves in Ilium— [455] the enemy's soil has covered its conquerors."

That was 458 - its hard not see a comment on the war Athens was fighting one where men dribbled out to wide ranging fronts on ships that just brought back urns of the dead.

[Aikanár]

Possibly relevant links:

http://sciencenordic.com/violent-kni...aumatic-stress

http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2010/11/r...antiquity.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8389213

This is great stuff, thank you.

Here's the "Caesar In Vietnam: Did Roman Soldiers Suffer From Post-traumatic Stress Disorder?" (3rd of Maklodes' links leads to the abstract) article in full.

[neep]

The reality was that in old days, despite all the men on battlefield, only the first few ranks, most time only the first two ranks, saw the actual close combat and settle the outcome of battle. Understandably, it was also the first two ranks of combatants that suffered most (Bernard S. Bachrach actually mentions about 90% of first rank would not survive after a campaign that saw pitched battles), and even fewer would live on and develop PTSD. However despite raw there were some indirect sources regarding this issue, for example Bachrach used two Latin poems of 9th Century to explain combat stress of Carolingian period, and I remember reading several sources suggesting part of reasons why Roman set up military colonies was because the veterans had problem to return civil life.

Would that also imply that the potential candidates for PTSD would also be the most likely folks to end up dead - either from direct battle or wounds/disease afterwards ?
So the potential number of candidates in the army would be relatively low ?

In more modern times, huge numbers of men were exposed to incessant artillery barrage, sniper fire, etc. so the number of candidates is larger..and most of them actually survived.

For th individual, it's not clear who had it worse. But perhaps we are now better at keeping broken men alive ?

[hellheaven1987]

Here's the "Caesar In Vietnam: Did Roman Soldiers Suffer From Post-traumatic Stress Disorder?" (3rd of Maklodes' links leads to the abstract) article in full.

That paper defines shell shock rather wrong; WWI medical personals defined shell shock more as today's combat fatigue and most did recover from it up to certain time (depended on individual). What WWI medical personals noticed was that some shell shock patients seemed could not recover from that condition/required far longer time than most people, hence there was an interest to understand what was wrong about those small group of combatants, leaded to the study of PTSD (John Keegan mentioned perhaps about 10% of casualty during WWI could be "mental" issue).

So the potential number of candidates in the army would be relatively low ?

That seems true, although it also depends on various other factors (like type of operation). Regardless, it seems part of reasons why Charlemagne actively trying to promote army-accompanied clergy was to control and lower combat stress (through religious means).

In more modern times, huge numbers of men were exposed to incessant artillery barrage, sniper fire, etc. so the number of candidates is larger..and most of them actually survived.

That in fact is not true as combatants are still smaller than supportive personals.

[Aikanár]

That paper defines shell shock rather wrong; WWI medical personals defined shell shock more as today's combat fatigue and most did recover from it up to certain time (depended on individual). What WWI medical personals noticed was that some shell shock patients seemed could not recover from that condition/required far longer time than most people, hence there was an interest to understand what was wrong about those small group of combatants, leaded to the study of PTSD (John Keegan mentioned perhaps about 10% of casualty during WWI could be "mental" issue).

You did find a definition of shell shock in the paper, interesting, I didn't. Mind to share the quote of the paper where shell shock is defined? Or are you referring to

There is perhaps no better way
to show how prevalent this view has become than to quote from the
e-medicine site: ‘Wars throughout the ages often triggered what some
people called “shell shock” in which returning soldiers were unable to
adapt to life after war’.

which sadly does not qualify for a definition argued for in the paper, but a quote used in order to demonstrate a point of view.

[TASS07]

Overall a very interesting topic. Glad I stumbled into this thread!

It would be an extremely difficult area to study. Presumably the only way to know for sure would be from the writings of contemporary authors, people who knew the solders, their commanders maybe, who (if they were any good) had to be aware of the mental states of their troops. I am hoping that those posters better-read than I will be aware of some such writings. Even Homer didn't whitewash combat, perhaps some other writers thought to put down their observations of the emotional effects of combat on soldiers.

Ultimately we'll likely not be abl to rely much on sources in order to answer the question you ask. Much like was still the case in the World Wars, and presumably before that, the accounts and opinions we would get aren't unlikey to be coloured by social stigma (the unwillingness or inability to carry on the fight as desertation and loss of honour) and a lack of medical understanding of the human psyche that led to modern understanding of trauma. Thus I'd find reconstruction/imaginary simulation, as happens a lot in this thread already, to be the more promising course to find answers.

That modern warfare and all its different shapes could further PTBS through acustic and visiual stimula and the neverending stress sounds sound enough to me. We shouldn't forget that often enough at the core of the trauma sits a very emotional moment that is only aplyified by the effects of the before mentioned: A deep emotional cut, such as the loss of an emotionally important comrade, just to give an example. It is this notion that would make me think that focusing to much on the beforementioned could be too limited in scope: Classical warfare would likely entail a much "closer", in a way brutal emotional experience. That it comes without a cost I find unlikely.