medieval post traumatic stress disorder

Wild William · Post by **Wild William** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:18 am

Nowadays when our military men come back from wars they sometimes suffer from what has become known as â€œpost traumatic stress disorderâ€

brunoG · Post by **brunoG** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:58 am

Greast question ... but I think that faith played a mayor role into the self-healing process.

Medieval men didn't even imagne of democracy.

Nobody would question the idea of dyng for fulfilling a duty deriving from feudal duties.

farmers would follow their lord in war because that was their role.

Counts would follow princes because they had feudal obligations, princes would follow kings just for that.

It was a world where any social class had its precise and immutable role, the concept of equality before law came just with enlightenment and american (relatively quite and orderly) and french (bloody and atheist ) revolutions, even if Englad had almost quietly done it a century before.

So there couldn't be objections to fulfilling war duties, neither there could be studies on post war stress: war was a normal matter of life.

People could just pray like this: De fame peste e guera libera nos domine (mix of latin and italian, Free us Lord from hunger plague and war). Obviously lamentations from victims are recorded in literature

There were no psychologists, their role was taken by confessors and saint men in monastries.

All aspects of morality and wellnes of soul were regulated by religious mores and laws that had effect on all the populace.

Medicine was based not on the galileian proofing system (Galileo was still to come), it was based on philosophical abstract reasonings pivoting on aristoteleian greek philosophy reinterpreted into a christian perspective.

In short, any healing process would go through visits to saint men and reputed priests and confessors.

Padraig Mac Oda · Post by **Padraig Mac Oda** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:29 am

Or, earlier than what Bruno is saying. Paganism.

As mentioned, I think faith had a tremendous impact on how this was considered.

My most knowledgable example would be the Norse; or the pre-christian Vikings. They were brought up with the understanding that if they were to die in battle, they would go to Valhalla, the good place. And if not, they would go to Helheim, the bad place. The only way to die in battle is to be in battle. Gotta go out and kill folks, and take what they've got.

Seeing your mate get chopped down would mean that you just saw Odin choose your mate to serve in his grand army later on in Ragnarok. Until Ragnarok, he'd drink and fight and feast and have a great bloody time. Hopefully, you could kill enough and become a great enough warrior to be chosen as well.

From an academic point of view, that could be construed as a way to soften the impact of death in their society. In fact, to show that death was good and not bad.

Of course, there's the fact that you just saw your mate loose his arm, get stabbed, and then have his head removed. Traumatic, yes? But your faith was a comfort. If a man became upset by his actions in battle, I.E. having killed his fellow man, doing terrible things, etc., well, hopefully he would have family or trusted friends he could unload on. Or he could drink enough to forget it. Somewhat similar to what we have now.

To take a line from Kingdom of Heaven, for the later period. "To kill an infidel is not a sin. It is the path to heaven."

So basically, they're in a different mindset. If it still bothers them, they're in the same boat as the rest of us. Spiritual leaders, trusted friends, drink away the pain, suffer through it and justify in any way that works.

I have never read any research done on this, and I believe psychology of the 'medieval man' can only be pure speculation based strongly on religious beliefs and taking into account 'the times' in which they lived. There were a lot harder lives than what we had.

For example. One of your friends breaks their wrist. "I'm sorry to hear that.I hope it heals fast."
In medieval times, someone cuts their hand, it gets infected and they loose their entire arm. "I'm sorry to hear that. Hope he can still work."

Things were worse, and I figure a person would be used to more dire circumstances to everything.

Long answer, hope my input helps.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:14 am

Nobody would question the idea of dyng for fulfilling a duty deriving from feudal duties.

farmers would follow their lord in war because that was their role.

Counts would follow princes because they had feudal obligations, princes would follow kings just for that.

While I agree that faith did play a major role, there were certainly countless occasions in which individuals questioned the idea of dying to fulfill feudal duties - the particularly crafty managed to avoid some duties by claiming others.

There was hardly a blind loyalty to one's lord, as well - farmers' roles weren't so much to fight for their lords as to farm their lands. Some might have been forced into military service by local law or edict, but I don't believe it was quite the all-encompassing allegiance suggested above.

Were there individuals who fit the bill from above? Of course.

Magmaforge · Post by **Magmaforge** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:36 am

An interesting discussion very similar a discussion I had with a coworker of mine who is a military vet.

A few comments;
The lack of large scale artillery bombardment probably did reduce the incidence of shell shock, if not PTSD.

There was mention of drinking away that pain. I'd go further than that and say that for at least some of the time, drinking helped the process along. Working from memory, I believe that in Geoffrey de Villehardoin's Chronicle of the Third Crusade he mentions the wine that the noblemen would drink on campaign. Not only is wine safer than strange water, but it may have "softened the mind" for the shock of combat, so that there was less of a traumatic impression left. I would posit that pre-19th c European and American people were much more comfortable with the regular use of alcohol than today.

This combines with the training of nobles and men at arms from a young to very young age, mock combats, duels and tournaments. Even with good trusted friends, when you go at it hammer and tongs for 20 min, you come out the first few times with hands shaking. Over time, this shock of combat is less and less. SCA folks probably know this very well. I wonder what V would say about this topic.... and perhaps the Viking sagas could offer some commentary too.

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:29 pm

It would depend on where and when you were talking about.

Some places combat was a common if not expected thing, viz Swiss cantons at each other (young men).

Or the opposite in mid to late 15thc england, despite the WOTR hardly anyone saw combat as such. Not to mention the issue of how many men in a given battle actually got to grips before the retreat or flee was called.

I imagine the sight of seeing your friend's face caved in by an arrow and seeing him writhe, piss and shit himself whilst dying to be quite moving to most people.

I question this idea of a 'medieval' mind, I feel it is a modern conception based on the high general mortality that people experienced, that somehow it made them less caring. Is this actually true and is it documented to the point that somehow now we are less barbaric, given that our conflicts have not exactly become clean.

Just because there may have been 'feudal' again not really applicable generally, obligations that does not mean people were enthusiastic about it, also many armies were untrained so therefore inexperienced, so where will they get their desensitisation of seeing their mates get maimed or not to fear for their own lives?

Being afraid of death is not the same as being afraid of being killed.

Padraig Mac Oda · Post by **Padraig Mac Oda** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:03 pm

You bring some good points, Grimstone.

I think one problem with this discussion is that it's so broad. Too many cultures in too many periods.

My point using the 'medieval mind' idea is sorta... I dunno. No basis in any sort of evidence, but it is greatly based on the high mortality rate, largely based off of bad hygene.

I wouldn't say it makes them less caring - people are people. But it might have a part in desensitizing (SP?) someone. Of course, this is varies depending on where, who, when, religion, social status...

Buran · Post by **Buran** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:34 pm

Obviously, we have to expect that every psychological detail of medieval life may not have been committed to paper.

No doubt religion played a part, though, to the extent that it's probably not uncommon in history for a military man seeing that faraway look in the eyes of religious people and declaring, "they'd make great troops!"

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:43 pm

There is a Shakespeare play about PTSD. Can you figure out which one?

brunoG · Post by **brunoG** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:38 pm

hmm, I see that modern sensitivity makes many people doubt what was the reality of the feudal word.

You are all son of the American Revolution, the first revolution that severed the ties of an european populace with feudality, or what was left of it, forever, so your view of the world is exactly the inverse of that of a medieval subject.

The French Revolution came immediately after and it ws based on the same enlightenment principles, first of all egalite before the law for all men, rule of law, not the rule of a nobleman or a prince, etc.

What you fail to see is that peasants and the above classes were made of subjects of a king, or emperor, legibus solutus (not subject to law) and sole owner of power, for which he was specially anointed by God himself (kings and emperors were crowned and anointed with sacred oil at their coronation not just for the sake of a nice ceremony).

Each class had precise duties towards the ones above it (that was true also for the contary, noblemen had the duty to defend peasants), the first duty being fidelity.

Citizens are only faithful to their state and are judged all by the same law.

Subjects enjoy different level of privileges and are permanently linked by duties to the above standing, with almost no possibility of upward social mobility, or with many restraint to it.

In short, they had to obey or take a long road of kowtowing to their masters if they want to be exempted for a duty.

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:18 pm

Another thing to consider: even major battles were invariably briefer, setting aside for the moment the matter of sieges.

The great big brawls of maneuver were over in from between half an hour and twenty-four hours. The absence of artillery as an area-denial weapon has already been noted; the artillery of that time had the equivalent of a bunker-busting mission and that was about it. The kind of exhaustion we've experienced in battles from mid nineteenth century onwards wasn't seen with more primitive ways of making war: prolonged battles need a science of logistics our forebears almost completely lacked.

World War One's Western Front was a triumph of logistics: they'd gotten down how to bring up the bullets, the beans, the shells with a conveyor-belt steadiness. The stalemate was mainly because the technology to disrupt the materiel conveyor-belt didn't quite exist -- great firepower was available, but it was also comparatively immobile on land.

By World War Two, that technology did exist, in strategic bombing and close air support: machine guns can't deny an area (they did that to tremendous effect in WW1) if they run out of ammo. Troops can't march far without their food. Tanks go nowhere with no fuel. Maneuver was no longer suppressed by logistics, and firepower was made more mobile by the tank and other kinds of AFVs.

Logistics are powerful enough and damage resistant enough that sustained attacks and powerful defenses are both facilitated, and now materiel and morale exhaustion don't set in for some time -- hence, individual battles can run weeks or months without being fights of position, that is, sieges.

An individual man, trained to war, can psychologically cope with between three and four hundred days of actual combat over his lifetime; after that he's pretty nearly done. He can get nearer four hundred if he's had lots of vacations from the front lines.

Wild William · Post by **Wild William** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:18 am

First off I wish to thank everyone for their input so far and I have gained a few insights that I had not thought out before. I fully realized that the man in the Middle Ages would not have access to psychiatric help as Freud had not yet foisted his opinions on humankind and that religion would play a huge role in all aspects of daily life at the time. I had though, totally forgotten about the pagan aspect of the religious side of things and the Norse preoccupation of gaining entrance to Valhalla and the prerequisites for doing so. Thanks for the reminder Padraig.

Also the use of alcohol in its various forms as the psychotropic drug of the day was pretty much a given. I seem to recall reading somewhere that as Magmaforge mentions that alcohol was used to â€œsoften the mindâ€

audax · Post by **audax** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:39 am

Sir Vitus: Othello?

I believe there is a reference to a Spartan soldier who was nicknamed the Trembler because he feared battle so much he would shake.

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:36 am

I'd expect either Henry IV or Henry V.

brunoG · Post by **brunoG** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:23 pm

[quote="Wild William"]First off I wish to thank everyone for their input so far and I have gained a few insights that I had not thought out before. I fully realized that the man in the Middle Ages would not have access to psychiatric help as Freud had not yet foisted his opinions on humankind and that religion would play a huge role in all aspects of daily life at the time. I had though, totally forgotten about the pagan aspect of the religious side of things and the Norse preoccupation of gaining entrance to Valhalla and the prerequisites for doing so. Thanks for the reminder Padraig.

Also the use of alcohol in its various forms as the psychotropic drug of the day was pretty much a given. I seem to recall reading somewhere that as Magmaforge mentions that alcohol was used to â€œsoften the mindâ€

Igor of Maguar · Post by **Igor of Maguar** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:38 pm

This is actually touching on somÃ©thing I wrote my thesis on.

The theology on the seven capital sins is actually bordering on psychology, and especially so in the case of Acedia the sin of Sloth.

Usually this is translated into something like laziness, but a more fitting word would be demoralization.

This sin is described as a condition with symptoms close to PTSD including the person being either excessively active or in a "frozen" torpor - in both cases with a difficulty of concentrating. The descriptions often point to a period of intense emotional stress as the trigger.

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:47 pm

brunoG wrote:hmm, I see that modern sensitivity makes many people doubt what was the reality of the feudal word.
....................................
What you fail to see is that peasants and the above classes were made of subjects of a king, or emperor, legibus solutus (not subject to law) and sole owner of power, for which he was specially anointed by God himself (kings and emperors were crowned and anointed with sacred oil at their coronation not just for the sake of a nice ceremony)................

Citizens are only faithful to their state and are judged all by the same law.

Subjects enjoy different level of privileges and are permanently linked by duties to the above standing, with almost no possibility of upward social mobility, or with many restraint to it.

In short, they had to obey or take a long road of kowtowing to their masters if they want to be exempted for a duty.

I think you're being over broad in your statement.
There are several instances of English kings being sued in court by their subjects. Scandinavian kings were viwed as keepers of the law, not the origins of the law, and rebellion was common if the rights of freemen were violated
Spanish kings tended to be primu inter pares in their lands - they were first, but not higher than their noble retainers
Jacopo Attendolo founded the Sforza dynasty in Milan - not bad for a nobleman so low in the social order that he did his own plowing as a boy.
And of course Edward II being invited over for poker night by his barons.

Jehan de Pelham · Post by **Jehan de Pelham** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:00 pm

Interesting.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:15 pm

And of course Edward II being invited over for poker night by his barons.

Yeah, that decision really bit him in the ass!

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:58 am

"hmm, I see that modern sensitivity makes many people doubt what was the reality of the feudal word."

Well, this 'reality' is actually imagined, no one can say what the experience was, it can only ever be conjectured.

"You are all son of the American Revolution, the first revolution that severed the ties of an european populace with feudality, or what was left of it, forever, so your view of the world is exactly the inverse of that of a medieval subject."

1- I am British.

2 - England divested its feudalism a lot sooner than most of europe did, France was very much a feudal state in the 18thc, England was not.

The english colonists in the Americas were not serfs by any wildest imagining of the term.

"The French Revolution came immediately after and it ws based on the same enlightenment principles, first of all egalite before the law for all men, rule of law, not the rule of a nobleman or a prince, etc."

I refer to the second point above, E, F and L were indeed codified as ideals in France, yet it still took them a few hundred years after England to change, on paper at least its attitude to the 'peasantry'.

"What you fail to see is that peasants and the above classes were made of subjects of a king, or emperor, legibus solutus (not subject to law) and sole owner of power, for which he was specially anointed by God himself (kings and emperors were crowned and anointed with sacred oil at their coronation not just for the sake of a nice ceremony). "

This is a very simplistic observation.

Even in 'Feudal' england for example, landowners and 'serfs' could sue. 'Peasants' were not all bonded.

"(kings and emperors were crowned and anointed with sacred oil at their coronation not just for the sake of a nice ceremony)."

Yet plenty got deposed or murdered or 'resigned'.

In England the king had to petition parliament for money for wars, he did not have an instant access to the exchequer.

Different places have different histories, this particular topic cannot be covered generally, as the generalisations are not applicable to anyone at all.

JorvikWoman · Post by **JorvikWoman** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:19 pm

In some times/cultures, most of the fighting men were from estates - which means that blood and gore was something they saw from the time they could toddle, and were expected to deal with. Every hunt, every harvest was going to feature butchering. So the 'first layer' of trauma, that of seeing flesh cut and worse, was something that they'd already overcome. Emotionally, they'd have to deal with the fact that it was a human and likely someone they knew, but I believe that some of our horror now comes from how rare it is in our lives that we see such a thing, so our soldiers are not as prepared as medieval-era ones might be for the, ah, visuals.

It's a small point, I know.

David Blackmane · Post by **David Blackmane** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:59 pm

Also, PTSD is caused by being in a prolonged state of fear, which causes the brain to be unable to get out of a state of fear.

Shell shock (WWI), battle fatigue (WWII and Korea) and PTSD (Viet Nam) used to be classified as the same disorder, but I don't believe that is so any longer.

Shell shock and battle fatigue seem to have been recoverable from, whereas PTSD does not.

The average days spent in combat in WWII was around 45 per year.

The average for Viet Nam was like 200 per year.

I don't think that medieval warfare could produce the prolonged state of fear that would cause true PTSD that we see in vets from the Nam or the current batch from Iraq.

How many days of actual combat would the average medieval warrior expect per year?

Wild William · Post by **Wild William** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:06 pm

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:There is a Shakespeare play about PTSD. Can you figure out which one?

Alright Sir Vitus, give.

You have two votes for Henry IV, one with a quote from a relevant passage, one for Othello and while Shakespeare may have referred to the Trembler, I believe it was Herodotus' in Aristodemus who made the first reference, and a vote for Henry V. Which of these were you in reference to, or did you have yet another in mind?

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:35 pm

"How many days of actual combat would the average medieval warrior expect per year?"

guesstimate
In say england during WOTR, no days would be the average for all men, but for the raised men, then the fighting was one day out of a short campaign. A day? - not including the smaller numbers of actual veterans, but men raised by commission. Hardly any. For the Swiss, or Burgundians for ex. different ball game.

Buran · Post by **Buran** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:14 pm

Wouldn't being a citizen of a beseiged city tend to cause these effects?

Felix Wang · Post by **Felix Wang** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:48 pm

Wild William wrote:
Vitus von Atzinger wrote:There is a Shakespeare play about PTSD. Can you figure out which one?
Alright Sir Vitus, give.

You have two votes for Henry IV, one with a quote from a relevant passage, one for Othello and while Shakespeare may have referred to the Trembler, I believe it was Herodotus' in Aristodemus who made the first reference, and a vote for Henry V. Which of these were you in reference to, or did you have yet another in mind?

Maybe Hamlet. This would not be military stress, but the mental state of the Prince of Denmark is definitely disturbed by recent events.

David Blackmane's and Konstantin's comments are quite apropos: the duration of stress may be relevant, although an intense briefer experience may cause psychological problems thereafter (Hurricane Katrina, Columbine shootings, etc.). A medieval soldier could campaign for years and not see a major battle, although a fair amount of brawling and skirmishing might occur. Of course, a minor degree of violence was universal in earlier times: not just corporal punishment and fisticuffs or wrestling, but the slaughter of animals. Few people now have seen a hop slaughtered, let alone killed it themselves; but this kind of experience was common to almost everyone in medieval times. These were often animals which the killer had raised since they were born, so there was familiarity, if not an emotional bond.

Rittmeister Frye · Post by **Rittmeister Frye** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:23 am

One thing to consider is that, at least according to Dr. David Grossman in his seminal work "On Killing" submitted, it is not so much witnessing the deaths or dismemberments of others that causes the enormous stresses associated with PTSS, but rather the act of killing itself. In his thesis, it is the distance of removal that indicates the amount of stress received; i.e. a bombardier of an airplane only drops his load of explosives on a target, rather than thousands of civilians who happen to live on his target, and he gets to share whatever guilt he may have with his crew. An artilleryman likewise fires at a target, and likewise has a crew to share his guilt with. A rifleman has only himself to blame when he sees his enemy fall to the pull of his trigger, but he can still think "well, perhaps it was someone else's bullet". When you smack an axe into someone's brain, it's hard to play mind games like that though. Likewise when you stuff a dagger into someone's kidney. Close combat causes higher stresses, and therefore higher incidents of PTSS, according to Grossman.

One of the interesting things he points out is that PTSS is VERY rare among Medics and Corpsmen. They share the same dangers, witness at LEAST as much gore as their fellows in their platoon, yet (usually) have no lasting stress from it. Grossman's theory is that this is because not only are they there to save lives, but they absolutely do not TAKE lives (unless under extreme circumstances while protecting their patients).

Thus, I would be certain that since there were the same psycological stresses, and in fact perhaps more, on the "average" combatant of the day, that PTSS was definitely a factor to be dealt with. Most pre-Christian societies have their own ceremonies to clense the warriors, which do have a positive effect (witness the Navajo Nation, which has many combat vets, and few cases of PTSS). And most Christian communities had various ceremonies for their own warriors to go through to clense them of the evils of combat as well, as I recall. So although they didn't have psyco-analysts to pay, there were in fact avenues to relieve the stresses of combat. And of course there were, like in the Post-American Civil War West, still plenty of fellows who just couldn't go home after having "seen the Elephant". Mercenary bands that plagued Europe were probably made up of the misfits who just couldn't re-adapt to "life on the farm, after they'd seen Paree..."

Cheers!

Gordon

Jehan de Pelham · Post by **Jehan de Pelham** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:38 am

I heard LTC(R) Grossman speak to my OCS class back in 1995 when his "killology" studies were much less mainstream than they are now. I read "On Killing" back in 1996 and agree with his observations. I especially found his observations about "The Well of Hate" interesting.

PTSD is not really well understood. In my opinion--and this comes also from recent redeployment medical briefings-- the symptoms associated with PTSD have two sources. One source is psychological--either from the stress of having to deal with a perceived imminent threat of death against which no reasonable precaution can be made, or from the inadequate buttressing of the psyche against the taboo of killing, coupled with a close personal experience with administering death. The other source is physiological: Traumatic Brain Injury--from IED blast overpressure, having one's skull thrown into a hard object, or from bullet impact.

I agree that at least a portion of men at arms from the era we call "medieval" were inured to thinking of combat as a sport between nobles. This likely reduced PTSD incidences among the gentry and noble classes, as the lethality of combat was less for the armigers who engaged in ransoms and paroles. In my recent deployment to Iraq, during my only hostile fire engagement I shot at a firing position, but did not see anyone killed due to dust obscuration. I am--to my mind--completely unharmed by the event--even though I was struck in the helmet during the engagement. I sleep like a baby, and by all accounts am well adjusted if only in a big hurry to get on with plans I hatched while deployed. I am a highly actualized individual who chose to volunteer for active service after September 11, 2001, so my experiences are more akin to the gentry or noble classes.

As for common men engaged in acts of close personal butchery--for example the slaughter of prisoners at Towton--or hard combat with poll axes slamming home on helmets, I imagine that both the psychological and physiological strain produced what modern practicioners would call PTSD. It is highly likely that common warriors, forced into "zero range kill or be killed scenarios" came home very shaky, and were I in a (imaginary) situation where I had to interact with a veteran of hand to hand combat, I would be very wary. I would expect irritability, distrust, and hypervigilance, coupled with destructive patterns of behavior or risky behavior of all kinds: a tendency to drink, gamble, whore--you know, live it up because tomorrow we could die.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org
Proprietor, The Compaignye Store

Sir Thorfinn · Post by **Sir Thorfinn** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:55 pm

I don't have the refrence work handy, but I know the symptoms were known to the Noresmen. There is a word in Old Norse that translates to "war fetter" and relates to battle fear, or being chained by your fears.
Maybe Mord can cite the Saga...I can't find it right now....

Thorfinn

David Blackmane · Post by **David Blackmane** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:32 pm

Grossman's belief that medics aren't affected by PTSD is not bourne out by my experience. I've known my share of medics from the 'Nam, my mom's brother being one, and a platoon sarge of mine being one, and they both have had their fair share of nightmares and maladjustment due to seeing men in states of horrific injury.

My old platoon sarge as late as '94 would have nightmares about a guy who's jaw had been blown off anf he gave mouth to mouth to. He and my uncle both engaged in the devil-may-care behaviour, had periods of the shakes, nervouseness, wariness nd all the other symptoms of PTSD.

I had a medic friend who was a Gulf War 1 vet who suffered from it. He had to work on a buddy of his that had been hit and wo he pulled him from under fire and then died in his arms.

As far as physiologically speaking, it's like the fear switch in the brain gets stuck in the "on" position and brain can't shut it off.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:25 pm

I would say that PTSD is concept that is part of almost all of Shakespeare's work.

But I would say that Richard III is the most obvious *total* victim of being completely warped by PTSD. His father was killed at the battle of Wakefield, and his severed head was placed on a spear. It is rumored that his head was crowned with a paper crown by the Lancastrian Queen herself, or it was done on her direct orders. It is possible that Richard actually saw his father's head wearing the paper crown. He most certainly heard about it.
In the play we have to realize that Richard's only goal is the destruction of as many of the Lancastrians as he can snuff- the only real motive for this could be revenge for the death of his father and the public humiliation of his corpse. Richard lies to everyone, even the audience at the beginning of the play. The only time he shows his real desires and motives is when he goes off on Queen Margaret-

"The curse my noble father laid on thee,
When thou didst crown his warlike brows with paper
And with thy scorns drew'st rivers from his eyes,
And then, to dry them, gavest the duke a clout
Steep'd in the faultless blood of pretty Rutland--
His curses, then from bitterness of soul
Denounced against thee, are all fall'n upon thee;
And God, not we, hath plagued thy bloody deed."

Richard is basically a PTSD trainwreck, seeking some sort of peace through revenge. I think PTSD was everywhere, and part and parcel of medieval life.

juan · Post by **juan** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:59 pm

Jehan de Pelham wrote: It is highly likely that common warriors, forced into "zero range kill or be killed scenarios" came home very shaky, ...I would expect irritability, distrust, and hypervigilance, coupled with destructive patterns of behavior or risky behavior of all kinds: a tendency to drink, gamble, whore--you know, live it up because tomorrow we could die.

John's hit on something here. In general we have come to think of PTSD as a disabling condition and in terms of vets who never readjust to "normal life," but in actuality it comes in many hues and deegrees.

As several others have pointed out, the prolongued exposure to a constant threat can result in disabling PTSD, as we have seen in WW I and Vietnam vets. But it can also be manifested in less extreme ways, such as the oft-noted refusal of vets to discuss their war experiences, or depressive bouts around martial holidays.

I have a friend, for example, who is completely adjusted from his time in Vietnam, functions perefectly and is successful in anything he does -- but he cannot handle the 4th of July due to the constant reports and concussions, so he stays home and puts on some Classical music.

Further, in my work with troubled children I have come across many who suffered from PTSD (usually from physical or sexual abuse). In most it simply manisfested itself in an extreme fight or flight reaction when under stress or confronted. In some, it meant a tendency to "lose it" if they felt threatened -- you could tell by their eyes that they were no longer fully connected to the actual moment. In others it was a replaying of the traumatic events through unsafe behavior, sexual acting out, etc., or seeking to avoid its ever happening through bravado, or looking mean, strong, or repulsive (not bathing or changing clothes, e.g.)

These, of course, would all be symptoms noticeable to the families and friends of men-at-arms or of the conscripted peasants, but hardly of note to the lords of whom the histories are written and to whom these men were at the least anonymous and at worst disposable.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:03 am

you cannot watch people die on a regular basis and have it not effect you

you cannot kill someone and not have it haunt you

i don't care when or where you live

Jonathon More · Post by **Jonathon More** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:01 am

brunoG wrote:.

Nobody would question the idea of dyng for fulfilling a duty deriving from feudal duties.

farmers would follow their lord in war because that was their role.

Counts would follow princes because they had feudal obligations, princes would follow kings just for that.
So there couldn't be objections to fulfilling war duties,.......

what about scutage??

"hey, what's up sire? what brings you to my humble manor?"
"well, my poor knight, remember when I gave you hold of these acres and knocked you upside the head and we had that little talk about fealty? Im calling you out, bring yourself and three of your friends to my warband over in Dover. Oh, and dont be late, we leave in a month."
"uhh,,, well, things are kind of busy right now, can I just give you some of this nice coin I have stacked up for just such an emergancy?"
"that will be just fine my son, I can get twenty scots for that pile right there"
(wow, got away with that one, didn't want to go over to stupid france again, they put too much damned garlic on everything!)

Marshal · Post by **Marshal** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:44 pm

Murdock wrote:you cannot watch people die on a regular basis and have it not effect you

you cannot kill someone and not have it haunt you

i don't care when or where you live

I am not so sure. Universal statements about human nature make me uneasy.

People in earlier times were familiar to the point of the commonplace with killing and slaughtering animals. Why would the same treatment of a man be invariably and in all cases traumatic---even amongst sociopathic personalities?