I’m wondering what the rate of PTSD would have been in warlike cultures (Vikings, Mongols, Spartans,etc). Whould it have been lessened through constant exposure? What would have happened to individuals displaying such symptoms? Would the person have been shunned or killed?
I know it was not really even on the radar as a condition til WW1.
Well, of course, a high rate of PTSD would have made those societies more warlike. It might in fact help to explain why they were as they were. There could be a vicious cycle going on here.
It might not have been regarded as a disorder, though.
Threads like these are a gross disservice to veterans.
What do you mean by “warlike societies”? According to lists of wars compiled by various reference works (see for example Wikipedia’s List of wars by country), countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia have been in a near-constant state of war in modern times, and PTSD statistics on their populations are readily available. For instance, the National Center for PTSD estimates the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in adult Americans to be 6.8%.
I get the point you’re making, but I think the OP meant societies where a majority of the population has had direct visceral experience of war and its negative effects.
The Vikings weren’t very warlike. Mostly, they traded. Sometimes, they raided. But they never rock’n’rolled quite like the Mongols or the Spartans.
Well, then the 20th-century USSR is still in—pretty much the entire country was mobilized during the two world wars, with even the civilian population subject to multiple invasions and occupations. I found a fascinating and scholarly-looking article on PTSD in the Soviet Union, but it doesn’t appear to have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal so I have no idea how reliable it is.
You’re right, and that is a very interesting article.
The terminology changes with each war. There was a lot of awareness of combat-caused psychological damage after the US Civil War. I read about it within the last 6 months, although I can’t recall where. They called it something quaint, like “war nerves.” But the symptom list reads just like what we now call PTSD.
Why? Isn’t talking about PTSD better than not talking about it?
‘Soldier’s heart’, maybe? That’s the term I’ve heard in connection with the US Civil War.
From Wikipedia:
I see an issue correlating being in a war with being warlike. The people of Afghanistan have seen more war, violence & upheaval in the past few decades than any enemy of the Vikings did in their entire lives, but that doesn’t make the average Afghani warlike, nor does it make the people we sent over there so.
Regarding ancient times, consider that most armies had to travel for weeks or months to get to the enemy, so there would be downtime between battles. People in the sandbox today are experiencing war on a daily basis.
This documentary, starring the late great James Gandolfini, includes a rundown of different examples of (and names for) PTSD throughout American history.
I think what the OP’s getting at is that there are societies in which the traditional, and highest male calling is to be a warrior, and that those societies are “warlike” in that there’s a constant threat from without, or that society embarks on constant wars of conquest.
Something like the Spartans, early Romans and most tribal societies come to mind. Beyond that, I’d think that in that spirit, you have societal units which are warrior-oriented, or have a warrior class- the Japanese samurai, the medieval European nobility, the mesoamerican warrior classes, Pashtun tribes, etc…
So the question can be rephrased, I think, as what is the incidence of PTSD in warrior classes or warlike/warrior-oriented societies, as opposed to the more recent and more Western citizen-soldier type model? Is there some protective effect of being raised to be a warrior, as opposed to either having it thrust upon you, or choosing it as a career? Is there some protective effect from having your society oriented toward your being a warrior?
I think the effects of ptsd are still present in the south generations after the civil war.
In war like societies, fighters are not rotated out, sent home to be farmers, they just keep fighting until they die or if they are really good, until they are promoted up the chain or get hurt so bad they have to retire.
Good soldiers of the past were very often crazy as bed bugs. That is why they were good. Send them to the hard battles…
IMO, the very way were are raised make us prone to getting PTSD.
The country may be in a lot of wars but the social fabric is not geared to war.
A conscious is a very bad thing to have in combat IMO.
From what little I’ve read, yes, there would be. One factor that makes PTSD more likely is if the traumatic event was unexpected. The more prepared you are for the traumatic event, the less likely it is to give you PTSD - so someone who’s been raised to be a warrior, hearing first-hand stories about war all his life, is less likely to develop PTSD than someone who knows very little about war till all of a sudden he’s in it. Also, social support around the event makes you less likely to develop PTSD - so a warrior returning to a society that takes war for granted and sees it as a universal experience, probably one to be admired, is less likely to get PTSD than one returning to a society that’s completely removed from that war, ambivalent about it and wants to distance itself.
I don’t think that PTSD is really centered around having a conscience or not. From what I can gather, it’s more of a reaction to some sort of extremely threatening and stressful event, in or out of combat.
Ignorance asking here: does the level of PTSD correlate with:
technological advances in warfare which cause many injuries to be inflicted without warning, facelessly – bombs, drones, etc.
sense of helplessness?
continuousness of combat?
I was reflecting that in ancient times, warfare often consisted of a great deal of quite safe (at least from your enemy) slow marching or riding, and camping, or waiting (as in a siege), interspersed with occasional intense quickly-over raids or battles, with all kinds of fun raping and pillaging afterward for the winners.
The differentness of the reality of military conflicts now would, I imagine, have an effect.
In modern combat I strenuously disagree with you. A conscience and a human side is necessary to be effective in today’s battlefield.