My old man (dad) joined the Tank Corps in 1938. He was in France, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He used to wake us children at night with panicked shouting in nightmares. I learned later that his dream was probably escaping from a burning tank and running for his life. At 77 years old he had a car accident and the car ended up on it side. The police wondered how this old man had managed to climb out and he said "I smelt petrol and thought I was in my tank".
My relative saw front lines action in the Korean War for nearly 13 months straight. When my family was visiting about 15 years ago, he suddenly went stiff, looked at his wife, and told her to call the police and tell them someone just got shot AND killed. About an hour later, police informed us that a neighbor living a few houses down had committed suicide and shot himself. My relative was the first emergency call, and the only one to mention someone had died. No one else in the house heard the gunshot.
Yep, all politicians can be viewed as psycho's. They don't consider what is right or wrong. The nice ones just consider what is best for their district. The bad ones only do what is best for their donators to the campaign fund.
@@alexandermiles2890 eh more like allegiance to surviving so you can have sex and get drunk etc I think the patriotic nutcases were always a minority among the people actually doing the fighting
I think that this phenomenon is directly linked to modern weapons and urban guerilla warfare. If you were a Roman soldier you knew you were going to fight, you saw your enemy and you engaged him. If you're a soldier in Iraq. Where is your enemy? Your death could come any time, from a sniper, mine, I.E.D., suicide bomber and so on. Uncertainty induces fear and stress.
While this is true to a (possibly large) extent, don't forget that pre-modern warfare also involved lots of small scale, unpredictable skirmishes between scouts, foraging parties and what have you.
Roman soldiers did a lot of conquest, remember, often of warrior peoples who were prone to revolt. Mind you, I suppose they also executed those peoples' children when they did revolt, so I suppose that made them less willing to cause trouble.
French knight Geoffroi de Charny wrote several treatises on chivalry in the 1300s, which included references to needing to maintain good sleep and that lack of comfort could break a knight down over time. He also emphasised that a knight should choose to fight for a higher cause that was in harmony with his conscience. Maybe not a straight up reference to battle stress or PTSD, but there might be something there.
Must say I think it's a bit iffy to consistently refer to people with battle fatigue/shellshock/ptsd (whatever its name at the time) as "loonies", "madmen", "crazy" etc. The vast majority of observed sufferers are no more violent than anyone else, and are usually only a danger to themselves. Other than that, a very informative and interesting video. I agree on most points made here. :)
i'm sure he doesn't think people that suffer from ptsd and the like are "loonies" he was just referring to how people used to view these mental disorders.
Mental disorder doesnt have to mean absolute madman or such, but I get your point. It's easy to get it all mixed up considering how people view mental disorders today. But I do believe the idea around Chivlary and all that might have had a good idea about the battle fatigue, afterall the idea was that everyone would have a go and then stop. Nothing more. Society has changed of course, maybe the modern era is just made to be like this, we cant adjust things to be 'humane' enough and we will just have to live with the fact that people can break because of it. Some people say we were made for the stoneage and not the modern age, afterall.
Sounds fair. Unlike what this video says, medieval combat, sieges, etc could stretch on for days, weeks, months.. on your feet, constantly at risk of some counter charge etc. it wasn't this line formation done in 10-20 minutes shit people seem to assume it was. It was long and gruelling.
@@L.C.Sweeney well, maybe, somehow ;-) ... badly tolerated "superpower" , imho mainly because inpredictibility and unable to understand, lets make other people be like "xenophobic"? But its okay, psychopath CAN be dangerous, if they want :) - well, very well suited characteristic for leaders, doesnt it?
Psychopaths, sociopaths snd narsicists are not mentally ill. Those terms describe a spectrum of behavior disorders. They lack empathy whereas most people have empathy. That has nothing to do with mental illness. They are different. They are quite sane. Very very much so.
@@Nathan-yk5km well, there is no real way to know the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, until they actually hurt other people. They both lack empathy and the way they deal with it, is waht makes the difference, but from a medical point of view, their brains are pretty the same, at least to my knowledge. In war, of course, this criteria is kinda rubbish, so..
I wonder how many men have been felled in the mind by the trauma of the enemy throwing their pommels at them. Having had a brush with being ended rightly is amongst the most stressful things imaginable
I spent a year in Iraq, and it isn't often told that war is physically grueling and tiring. It isn't talked as much about of how mentally tiring it is. People watch movies or play games and then they can walk away to use the bathroom or just be done, but in war, you don't get that luxury. Even being back on base is still dangerous. I remember waking up to mortars, and just being so tired and annoyed that I just rolled over, covered by ears, and went back to sleep. I had a 12 hour patrol in the morning, I need sleep. Always being alert, always having to be mindful of your surroundings (even on base, you needed to keep in mind where cover was in case of incoming indirect fire). It just wears on you. I always tell people about to deploy that they have to always worry about not becoming complacent. 9-10 months in, when you know you are just 2-3 months away from going home, it seemed to be peak of people being tired and complacent. I have respect for the soldiers of WW1 and WW2 who didn't get to come home after 1 year. I couldn't imagine being there for more than a year, it becomes your life, and that life you had state side must be like some distant memory like of being a child, long and almost forgotten. The book I felt described what I am talking about the best was 'All Quiet on the Western Front.'
This is also why modern armies are trying to make their soldiers live in as much luxury as possible. It's just unfortunate that the majority of combat seeing soldiers will never be able to enjoy them because modern doctrine fucks infantry so much.
Um yeah... The Air Force in me just sees 1 year long deployments just as inconceivable as you're looking at WWI/WWII mobilizations. 6 Months in Afghanistan was MORE than enough for my not-so-sane ass. Rock on man, thanks for what you did.
I remember hearing that Zurich in medieval times had problems with the returning mercenaries qhich were not onlh wretched in body but also in mind, so I can imagine that war-trauma always existed. Our society probably just started to research and realise it.
Actually I was talking about the mercenaries returning home after years of service and many battles. But they probably had problems reintagrating themselfs in a civilised and peacefull society just because of the habits they adopted. By the way: great Video
Lindybeige: Thank you for an interesting video. Perhaps just being a mercenary (especially if you did not want to be a mercenary) could be fundamentally more stressful than fighting to defend your own country? The vignette I will now relate is not directly related to battle fatigue, but of course it is interesting to me: My sixth great-grandfather was a turncoat. When he was 17 years old, his parents were compensated with some money (who knows if his parents had any choice in the matter) when he was forced into the Hessian Army. The ruler of Hesse then rented these mercenaries to George III of England. Gx6 Grandfather Hootman was wounded in the Battle of Trenton, and taken prisoner by the Continental Army. His broken leg was set by the Continental Army surgeons, who then nursed him to health. He became a 'trustee' prisoner, cared for other wounded men, then changed sides and enlisted in the Continental Army. He eventually got a land grant in Pennsylvania. As far as I know he was sane; he raised quite a few children from two successive marriages, and according to www.geni.com, he has many thousands of descendants. I wonder if he would have done as well if he had been repatriated to Hesse and therefore not become a land owner?
+Andrew Escocia Also signs of borderline psychopathy (considering these are people who have chosen to kill for money, that's not insignificant) Also don't forget that a lot of the pay for medieval soldiers was from spoils, ransom, and looting, so there's some added difficulties of that lifestyle in terms of reintegration.
My great granddad went off to fight in WW1 shortly after my grandma was born. He was with the 1/5th battalion Manchester Regiment, so after basic training in Wigan he was shipped off to Gallipoli. There, after initial successes he ended up pinned down by enemy sniper fire & shelling, from May to December 1915 - that's 8 months of combat where the overall thing is going to be learned helplessness, because no matter how good a soldier you are you can't defend against a sniper or an incoming shell. So then they're taken to Egypt, to pursue retreating Ottoman forces into the desert. They lost 800 of their own men in a day due to heat & lack of water, so the takeaway from that is "Our bosses can't plan, they don't have adequate supplies - we're all fucked." - but you don't say anything because you could be shot for sedition. They're in Egypt all of 1916 & then in March 1917 they're shipped off to Marseilles, to march up to Flanders. My great granddad, by this time, has pretty much had it with the first world war, but he does his best to get through the 3rd battle of Ypres, whereupon he's taken home. He hasn't a scratch on him, but his record says he's invalided out, medical discharge. He Never. Speaks. About. The. War. Not a word to anyone, though he's got a row of campaign medals, been all round the world. He settles down & becomes a great family man & a pillar of his local community. He *loathed* Churchill, who he said cared more about his horses than his men. We have photos of him, with his thousand yard stare.
my own grandpa fought in ww2. European theater, he was an infantry paratrooper. In 18 years I never heard him tell a single story, or say a word about his service other than that he served... He had 2 silver star's, 1 with valor. I served in infantry in the 9/11 wars. I understand why he never spoke of it now...
My grandfather fought in WWII for the US but never spoke about it until the end of his life. I was a shitty 9 year old and didn’t listen. I wish I would have listened to his story. There are a lot of questions now. I’ve inherited two Japanese officer katanas. How did he get them? Only he could say.
***** I know, it's a fucking joke. The picture is of a dude rock climbing, I thought that would be obvious. We are just circlejerking. Fire arrows cause battle fatigue? What? Of course I don't believe that.
Bonus fact (since you mentioned it): "Thou shalt not kill" is an erroneous artifact of the King Jame translation. The original text is, "Thou shalt not murder." There's a pretty important difference.
James Blunt atheist will never see the Bible in a positive light, it would challenge their narcissism that they alone are a moral authority. Religion for all its faults dragged mankind out of a life little better than animals, and is the foundation of every civilized nation on earth whether they choose to believe it or not.
Speaking as a Christian and veteran, I have come to believe that it is easy in our American culture to justify all war and nearly all actions in war to be not only right but Biblically sanctioned. I believe the feeling is... after all we are the good guys, we only want what is best for everyone (speaking as an American). I however, do not believe the Bible implicitly sanctions or justifies all war nor the killing / murder therein. I think it is very easy to say carte blanche I am a solider, just doing my duty, therefore, any killing I do is just that. I believe we are held to a much higher standard. I also think it is interesting that many Christians will readily condemn very legal actions (alcohol, abortion, divorce, etc), but when it comes to “killing” in a “
.. war, we fall right in line. There is article that I think highlights these points better. “Does the Bible Justify War” by Michael Anthony. It is worth a read.
I always thought the behavior of Alexander the Great (who lead cavalry charges as young as 16 years old) mirrored so closely someone struggling with ptsd... The extreme drinking, the irrational behavior, the bouts of extreme rage (such as when he killed his very dear friend Cleitus in a drunken spat)... there’s no way to know, but his behavior just reminds me so much of someone who has untreated and unacknowledged ptsd.
maybe slaves that got attacked by bear or lion but survived with out a scratch meant they can run really fast and is a potential escape risk that lowered value.
Or maybe, it increased their worth. A chance for some warhead Roman dude to bag a lion or a bear because the slave is apparently tasty to bears and lions.
Hey Lloyd, wondered what you'd think of doing a video comparing modern battle casualty numbers to ancient ones. Most movies make every ancient infantry and cavalry battle look like one side pretty much always slaughters the other to a man. I suspect it rarely went that way, but you're the expert and I'd love to hear you talk about it. Thanks for all the great videos!
While I don't recall him specifically comparing casualties in them, you should check out his videos titled "Routs in battles" and "Pursuit in battles" (if you haven't already).
I did watch both of those excellent videos, and it seemed like most times a strategic withdrawal was acceptable to the obvious winner of the battle unless a golden opportunity to utterly annihilate the enemy army presented itself, in which case cue the slaughter. I honestly am not sure about the numbers comparative between let's say 14th century wars and mid 20th century wars. I'm almost positive that modern warfare is far more deadly in numbers and percentages but I could be wrong. Either way I know Lloyd will do it justice.
Who is going to be blowing that trumpet, for all the time the siege is going on for. I can understand if you have a team of trumpets but would that not irritate the people encamped outside castle as well.
It worth pointing out that use the loud music blasted through loudspeakers has been weaponized in modern sieges - the intent to cause sleep deprivation. The most headline-grabbing one was when the FEDs used Barney the Dinosaurs "I love you" song. Which when you get past the "LOL! Barney the Dinosaur!" initial reaction is really fucked up the more you think about...
There has to be SOME differences in the ancient world's favor. When all the world was mysterious, religious and full of gods and a larger degree of belief in the afterlife. Many societies was probably 100% certain there was an afterlife with quality based on what you sacrificed in this life. You fought for a tribe or country that felt closer to each other. Your beloved tribe is threatened, so of course you defend yourselves. Facing your enemy with a sword or spear has to be vastly different from being bombarded and raining bullets from an enemy you can't see. Obviously there is the shock and trauma of great injuries and the sight of suffering and decapitations
By our standards, a huge amount of the combat-aged population would have been considered fanatics. They also lived with Death in the everyday in a way that most people today don't, so on average, there would have been less fatigue than today but still some.
To be fair, don't statistics show that most of the billions of people in the world today are religious and so probably will also believe similarly in an after life anyway?
@@Melvin7727 Sure, but right now we have evolution, technology, research and countless other things which can make many skeptical about the afterlife. Poople in the ancient world couldn't even explain what sun is. The only thing that could make them think there's not afterlife was some unspecific theories of some ancient guys who propably didn't exactly believed it themselves. Not to mention there was much more death back then. Dying in a battle is not as bad if you know that you would propably die from a common flu two weeks later anywyay.
@@JakubWojciechowski933 Actually,that is a myth. If you survived birth and did not get killed in a war,you had good chances of living a pretty long life.
It does sound like the question was regarding whether they had been subjected to "damnatio ad bestias" and somehow survived. Perhaps those who didn't die were resold cheaply. Attacked by a lion or a bear would indicate a criminal slave, in that case. (I doubt lions were roaming most of the Roman empire, attacking future slaves and stressing them.)
Or perhaps being attacked by a giant animal gives people a sense of hopelessness that was mentioned. You have absolutely no control over whether the animal will rip you to shreds or think you’re too worthless to kill.
First time I heard a cannon firing, we were training on 120 mm mortars, 3 fired in the same time, and even though I was wearing ear protection, the sound was like nothing I've ever heard or imagined. Every time they fired I felt like my heart popped off
The noise made by M115 203 mm howitzer when fired was described to me by my father as a feeling of some force tearing you apart and the first time he was near the cannon when it fired it rendered him completely shocked for a few minutes, he described it as feeling lost and very confused
I just read a first hand account of the siege of Sevastopol by Gottlob Bidermann. They were shelled by massive 30.5 cm guns from the maxim Gorky fortress along with an unimaginable number of smaller guns. This went on for weeks along with endless attacks of Russian troops. At one point one of the gun crew for the 7.5 cm PAK 40 that Bidermann was in command of went insane. They tried to hold him down during the shelling fit he fought his friends like a wild animal until he broke free. He ran out of the tank trench into the shelling where he was almost certainly going to die. Bidermann Also had a an MG 34 gunner under his command at one point that went a little mad. They were under attack from the Russians non stop as they attempted to brake threw the German lines. There was no strategy they just came in waves. The finer was screaming "I can't just keep killing!" After a long period of constant attacks over a very short time. Bidermann remarked that they could have made a wall of Rusdian bodies like the Greeks at Thermopylae. I read a lot of first hand accounts of ww2 and nearly every one of them talks about people losing their minds in extended combat. Except for the Japanese. Granted there is VERY few first hand accounts from the Japanese for many reasons. However you never hear about anyone going insane. I don't know if it's because of the suicidal mentality of the Japanese or because they just shot anyone who showed signs of it. Don't think we will ever know.
Same thing in "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer - endless descriptions of the sheer *loudness* of the near constant shelling... Oh, and a very detailed catalogue of the finer points of freezing to death :P
I think it has more to do with the high social conformity that is expected in japanese society. If no one wants to hear it you don't talk about it and the japanese people were very, very keen on erasing any memory of the war from the collective consciousness.
On the other hand, the sheer shittiness of conditions among the Japanese forces may have desensitized them a bit; basically some of them were already as insane as they could get, possibly explaining the hideous war crimes in Manchuria and other captured regions. For instance, Japanese troops trapped in island bases that had been "skipped" in the American island-hopping campaign would be under pretty much constant bombing and shelling, shortages of food and water, lack of sleep, only rice for food, you and your buddies are being treated like cannon fodder by officers sitting in their offices drinking tea all day . . . One can only imagine the sort of stresses that would put on the soldiers' minds. Like virtually all militaries even today, the Japanese military was made up largely of young men straight out of high school (even the much-feared German _Waffen-SS_ were mostly youths) who had been thoroughly drilled with the idea of victory or death (and with the misconception that _all_ militaries treated their soldiers as callously as the Japanese military). With no method of release short of suicide, the soldiers would be entirely likely to start taking out their frustrations on the locals living in the shadow of the base.
When I was deployed in Iraq i went through some of the combat stress. Never knowing when we would be rocketed again. The CHU next to mine was blown up and one of the two men who lived in it were in it when it got hit (he lived) I had a rocket land feet away from me on the other side of a Hesco barrier while I was dead asleep. The fear of not knowing when it will hit again, if ill be hit next, I can't ever sleep deeply again. The slightest movements, my boyfriend coming in the room, sounds from outside even, wake me up. The worst is waking up when the garbage truck comes by at about 5am and hearing the slamming of metal. I wake up in such shock i feel the adrenaline and get sick to my stomach. It's a part of my combat experience i don't talk with other people about because it's not the way we were meant to talk about combat, you tell them the cool stuff, the fun stuff, the stuff you are proud of. Not that you have been reduced to a pathetic hyper aware anxious lunatic that needs to watch every person you see (looks at face, looks at hands, of every.single.person) I need to sit with my back to things unless I'm with someone I consider to be reliable enough to watch my back for me. I did go outside the wire and I did have other experiences that were very negative that also contributed to ptsd, but the mentioned above were on base. So even those who deployed that didn't "go outside the wire" can still be deeply impacted by the enemy, the fear of death, and reasonably develop ptsd or other combat related stress.
You nailed it. I spent 3 years in the Infantry (US Army) and by my 2nd year I had had enough. Once I got past that "become a man" phase I sort of woke up to the reality of it all and got out. I finally took a step back and realized that I wasn't willing to make my living risking my life for a cause I didn't believe in. Recuiters target kids right out of high school really hard because they know that's when you're at your peak both physically and mentally.
Adam Corbin A kid out of high school is anything but the peak of mental fortitude. It's rather that they're anything but, and can be shaped into something useful, as their young minds are still developing and easily malleable.
I heard that for the Normandy invasion they tried to get as many of the *least-experienced* soldiers possible to be on those boats; I suppose more experienced soldiers would've rightly been evasive to such a bonkers mission.
Male physical peak is 25 m8. Your abstract processing power peak is about 18 but something tells me that the "math peak" of boys joining the army right out of high school isn't that precious.
"Nobody knows until that critical moment comes..." Yep, that's exactly what our Drill Sergeants taught us in Basic; that the biggest, baddest, most Alpha PT-stud best-shot honor grad in the BCT platoon can turn into a quivering mass of tears and shit pants when the first bullet cracks past his head.... And that the shittiest of shitbags in the platoon could turn into the biggest, baddest, Medal of Honor (VC for you Brits)-earning heroes in the same instance..... NOBODY knows how one will react until that time comes, so the best anyone can do is train, train, and train some more...
CK's channel. I didn't have the luxury of choice, my first encounter was a knife fight. I remember that to this day. It made me mean, meaner than I like to admit. I envy those who had time to process.
I have observed this firsthand. Pt stud expert of all that is infantry, freak out and say "bound up" through a open area with no cover. Guys with low pt scores a little fat not good shooters, turn into killing machines. Its more a matter of spirit of the man in my opinion. Training is always important. Especially training the mind.
@@liamcole1769 It raises a shock and anger at the audacity of the attacker. But youd be able to be close to the guy with a blade. A bullet can come from yards or even miles...might hear the shot...might not..and it's done. You re hurt, gravely injured...with hundreds of faces to blame it on...or maybe none. We can analyze this $!#&!! for days...utter bedlam
I dont accept "spirit of the man" as an argument. You see to many movies. Actual you can find plenty of reports showing that the german ss even from their first battle in france failed. And those guys was trained for month to have the right "spirit of the man". Yes there are some indicators and thats why hard training and very hard training are the best indicator.
The comment about the stress of not being in control- the fear of imminent and indiscriminate death that you can do nothing about, is certainly something I'd back up from my own experience. When I was serving in Afghanistan in the British Army I didn't fear being shot- because when the shooting starts you can take cover and return fire, and there is a certain equality (you might even say there's a certain fairness) to it. However, IED's terrified me. The idea that the ground beneath your feet could suddenly erupt and leave you dead or with your limbs blown off, and that it could all happen to you or the next man in the blink of an eye, was very unsettling.
Good video. One reason in WWII the British considered front line soldiers lasted longer in combat than did the US Army, was that British soldiers got more regular 'rest periods' (slightly behind the front line) while in WWII the US Army tended to leave soldiers in the line until they were killed or wounded. Good point about modern, Western, boys being harder to turn into soldiers.
There's more to being a soldier than being able to stomach killing. The army would have very little use for a man who can't understand when to fight and when to pull back. The army also has no use for someone who can't distinguish between the people he's fighting and the people he's protecting. Most certainly the army has no use for a man who can't work with his unit. Having a violent personality does not, a good soldier make. That is not to say that western culture has not affected the effectiveness of the military, but I believe it has more to do with fitness then propensity for violence. There's a lot in the western world that makes life easier to live. You are dealing with men and women who aren't accustomed to having their limits tested physically. Not to mention that the easy access of technology makes modern men and women to hungry for instant satisfaction, and they wont get that in the military. To get far in the military you need the strength of character to stick to the training, knowing in the long run you get results. Ideally, a soldier is not someone who relishes killing, but someone deep enough in his convictions that he is willing to do what's necessary even if it harms his humanity. It is a dangerous place to be in, and it's no wonder that soldiers exhibit extreme psychological stress. The difference between a soldier and a killer is the reason they use to justify taking a life. I'd rather have a soldier with a troubled conscience than a soldier without one. The army should make a point to find a way to help soldiers suffering from moral injury, such as a soldier who has to deal with taking a child's life, even knowing the child held a bomb. Or soldiers who deal with being the last survivors of their units. You can tell them to suck it up all you want, tell them to hate or to fear, but apart from the terrible consequences such encouragement could incur, the human body, and mind, has it's limits.
Battle fatigue - ptsd is like driving - I've served in multiple combat tours. basically its the same feeling you get when you drive past a horrible accident on the road - you get that feeling in your gut cause you know they're almost dead or dying - If you're the first one there you do what you can up until there's nothing you can do or a medic shows up- (in mideval times a preist or cleric or something ? did they even use healers?) but just like driving you still have stuff to do and places to go. so you say prayer for them - or if aethiest you talk to yourself about how Fd up it is. and you carry on with life. for a mideval soldier I would Imagine it to be relinking with his unit - getting gear ready and handling all the laborious "work" parts of the war hollywood always skims over. I imagine anyone who has driven past a rough accident can still see it in their mind if they let their mind wander to it. I see a girl who died in a car accident once (I tried to help but her torso was crushed) I see her just as vividly as a sgt who was struck by a mortar that I conducted first aid on. I would say without a doubt ancient soldiers felt the same feelings. we are all humans. Just like modern humans some handle it better than others depending on frequency, brutality, and mental resilience.
My Grampa said his shellshock, was from running into MG fire at the beaches of Normandy. He saw the boats front drop and he was told to RUN! He said where run where, RUN STRAIT OR DIE! He did, he said he ran with his Grand in his hands and he said it went black. He awoke with bloody hands and very little ammo. He looked around and the fight was gone.He looked at his trench knife and it was bloody. It was crazy
@Belal DarkneSS Not that it matters much, but I'm impressed with your command of English. Tell me, what does your day look like in the worlds largest concentration camp?
@Belal DarkneSS Do you find it ironic that the tribe best known for undergoing some of the most horrific treatment humans beings have ever done have become the vanguards for its modern banner? The banner in this case represents a type of neo facism, a continuation of a right to liberty for one, and the right to crumbs and starvation for the other.
@Belal DarkneSS The light of attention brings embarrassment of those ideals held by a people on an excuse of defence, and the indifferent response by the world at large seeds the field of violent response by the oppressed, and those oppressors find themselves well armed by a nation far from its horror.
It's a curious thing these days with unmanned drone pilots getting higher rates of PTSD than the pilots of manned vehicles, the reason I've heard is for that is the fact that they aren't actually physically present in the battlefield so a lot of that conditioning that goes on all throughout basic training like changing the language and attitude of soldiers to make it easier for them to kill without moral compunction isn't as effective when you go home to family every night after a bombing run. It takes a lot of conditioning to get people to become killing in the modern context, unless your a sociopath or can otherwise suppress your empathy; it's never going to be easy to kill other humans.
According to his description Nelson's iron man on wooden ships or Victorian era factory workers should have a permanent danger - poor sleep ptsd. So I think it is more complex than presented.
From what I've heard, it comes from the restictions we have on rules of engagement. Before the pilot can fire upon the target, they follow and observe for hours, maybe days in order to confirm the target is who they think. The target is completly unaware, and goes about their daily routine. Imagine how much harder it would be to pull the trigger after watching a man take a shit, shower, eat breakfast, get in a vehicle, and start driving. Worse, what if the enemy designstion is never given, up until they attack our troops. If one of them dies from the bueracracy, how aweful would the pilot feel.
"when you go home to family every night after a bombing run" Is that something that actually happens in Iran and Israel? I'd imagine american pilots can't operate from home because of the latency.
Those damn drone guys just sit in an office near las vagus drink rip-its and eat fatty cakes they are living the dream only people with weak mind and little hearts would get messed up from that for christ sake they don't even pt
When someone crits you by pouring blood out of goblet it will surely put you in serious stress. *Injury and despondent set the stage for heroism… or cowardice.*
I had always wondered if it was the super pacifist mentality of Western countries that partially contributed to soldiers going mad. Gurkhas for example are raised believing that fighting and killing your enemies is the most manly thing you can do. Watched an interview with a Gurkha years ago and he calmly told about a situation where he killed multiple enemies (some with his sword) in a skirmish and he seemed proud of his accomplishment. But in the West, soldiers come home to a public that thinks they are evil murderers. You come back from a war and are constantly told that you are evil because of what you did. That kind of homecoming would probably contribute to the "what have I done?!?!" feeling that people seem to get.
+naphackDT God, I could not tell you just how much I hate hippies from the 60's, who lambasted, and hated utterly all the Vietnam veterans. Seriously, fuck them.
That's quite true. If I remember correctly (and I may not, as this could be from a different culture but I think I have it right), the close combat weapon of the Gurkhas, their kukri looking thing has a notch near the handle. It's a little carve out right before the blade becomes a full tang in the handle. This notch has a protrusion in it and it is, by many, meant to be a phallic symbol. Used to have a reproduction of one and it took me ages and ages (this was back before the internet really had its legs like it does today) of research and digging in old books, wanting to find out what the hell that notch piece was for. Then I got my answer and I thought it was nonsense, only to find it reconfirmed in two other sources. That's telling about the culture. Not only is fighting and killing the Manliest of Manly Man things a man can do, but they train to do it with a phallic symbol to boot!
+SoulSoundMuisc The notch has nothing to do with that at all. The notch is there to prevent blood from running down the blade and slicking the handle (which would reduce your grip on the knife).
"I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time." George Carlin
I've been slowly recovering/surviving from ptsd for nearly two decades now. I've often wondered how the ancients dealt with battlefield-related mental illnesses and this video really put a lot of things into perspective for me. Thank you!
"...Killing is fundamentally wrong, which is what we tell people right up to the moment we say: 'Alright Atkins. Take this rifle and you see those people over there you've never met... umm.. go shoot them in the face.' " This series of words made me laugh way too hard! XD
I suffer from many physical injuries and PTSD from my service in Iraq and in the USMC and was in the the thick of things. I appreciate looking at this from a historical perspective and when I question my humanity and manhood from my physical and mental injury it's comforting to know that it's been this way forever.
And you are dead on about indirect fire. We took a lot of shells but mostly mortars and it's enough to drive you mad. I shudder to imagine how your countrymen and the French endured 100 years ago this week at the Somme and Verdun respectively.
Doc Holliday he explained it in another video. He met the actor at a set and made unpleasant comment about the inaccuracy of his armor. Lloyd regretted it and then asked the actor to forgive him years later at an event. Thr picture is signed by the actor with "You are forgiven" written on it.
What about landmines and IEDs? It's one thing to worry about an ambush, I imagine it would be worse to not trust the ground under your feet. You can try to avoid them or detect them, but you can't really *fight* them.
Caltrops have always existed in one form or another in wartime. I don't think that landmines would make a major psychological difference to the effects of previous wars.
My father served 3 years during the croatian independence war, it was basically a bunch of irregulars and policemen + usa/canadian officers against the 3rd most powerful army at the time(JNA- yugoslav national army). I asked him how did we win with their massive numbers and equipment and he said something like you did. "You can have all the equipment you want, but what happens when you take the first step in a foreign nation and realize its a land mine? You can no longer trust the ground beneath you. Any moment could be your last, its mentally draining." He also said that you should always aim to wound an enemy rather than kill him, that way his comrades either have to try and rescue him(then you kill them all) OR they keep hearing him crying and begging for help which destroys the morale and fosters panic.
@@TheWickedWizardOfOz1 Caltrops and landmines are completely different things, other one is a small spiky thing that is like stepping on a extreme version of a lego, and they were more commonly used against horse mounted soldier. Spotting and avoiding them isn't difficult if you mind your step, but someone galloping on a horse has little time to react to them before a horse steps on one and rears up in panic. a foot soldier stepping on a little spike that makes them go "ouch!" is far less traumatic to men around him than stepping on a toepopper mine disguised as a dead leaf, which literally blows your entire foot away in a rainbow of blood and gore. Landmines are explosive traps hidden completely out of sight and can kill you and everybody around you depending on the type of mine. Caltrops never stopped an army, whilst a minefields still do and can stop even the largest of forces, and you can ask any veteran who has seen their friend's legs suddenly blow off by a mine that they are deffinitely something that can and will psychological mess you up when you see what they can do. There's plenty of research material of the physical and mental affects of landmines online if you'd spend a moment looking into it instead of acting like you already are a professional on the subject and know better.
The effects of IEDs on soldiers minds is horrific, especially since protection against them in Afghanistan on vehicles was awful. I counseled soldiers between deployments and seeing one blow up their mates was not forgettable, largely because they were placed anywhere so fast the threat was continuous.
you also have to remember that modern warfare is brutal. like... more brutal than anything that has ever existed before. spears, swords, arrows, etc. yeah, that's pretty violent. you gotta be right up close and feel every second of it. but it's relatively natural in its violence. cuts, stabs, broken bones, etc. are all things people are used to seeing. watching someone get speared will probably not mentally break most people. most men have grown up seeing this kind of violence enacted on animals and people alike. you would surely see some awful things.. it's still war afterall. but most of the time it would not be out of the scope of imagining for the average soldier. now think of modern warfare... people regularly burn alive. heads literally explode from gunshots, and you have to pick brain matter off your clothes and face. limbs are not just cut off... they are turned to shredded meat hanging out of tattered clothes. sometimes entire bodies are simply obliterated! one second it's your friend bob... next thing you see is a pair of smoking boots and a pile of pulped limbs and organs scattered around you. that kind of violence and fear simply never existed back in the day. at least not on the same scale. seeing it would be bad enough. nevermind thinking that at any second it could happen to you... hours on end... day after day...
+don saké blades/claws/arrows/blunt force are all fairly natural ways of killing. they seem more brutal and visceral, but in reality the people of that time would be much more used to it through hunting, butchering, defending land, etc. total obliteration of a body, random exploding heads, and the constant fear of instant death out of nowhere? totally foreign concepts to us, which would wear on our sanity much quicker and more profoundly.
***** mortality rates were absolutely not higher in medieval combat. not even close. In fact most armies would break at around 10% casualties. modern warfare, and specifically the world wars, were unmatched in their casualty counts. i agree that it was more visceral, but it was nowhere near on the scope and scale of modern war. For example, the entire US civil war counted around 620 thousand casualties. The total dead during all of Napoleons campaigns reached a staggering 3.5 million. WW1 blows both of these combined out of the water, with the grand total between all sides being upwards of 10 million. then in WW2, the grand total more than doubled up to 25 million (military deaths only counted). guns absolutely do explode heads. I don't know if you have ever seen a real gunshot wound to the head, but average rifle (5.56, 7.62, .308, etc.) calibers do terrible things to a skull. especially the exit wound, or shots to the sides of the skull. the JFK assassination video is a good example of this (a 6.5×52mm Carcano basically cracked his head open like a coconut). the video explains very well exactly which factors lead to shellshock.
You will never convince me that modern warfare is more brutal than ancient. Ever. And this isn't trolling, this is just realism. I would not be afraid to join a military these days, the only reason i don't is because i won't be a political tool used to benefit people who dont care about me... Send me back in a time machine, and i'd do everything i could to avoid it. Getting hacked and stabbed at with spears and swords, having men trying to decapitate you from horseback, hailstorms of arrows flying at you, all way worse. I don't dispute that current war has a harsher effect on the mind, i just don't think that modern warfare is nearly as brutal as ancient. Funny that so much more "tame" warfare for us has so much more of a mental effect on us... It just goes to show you that wealth and "civilization" (aka men destroying the planet for their short term gain) is weakening society from a social and mental standpoint. People get PTSD so much worse now because people are fucking pussies like never before, not because war is more intense. And fuck the loud noise argument, all loud noises do is hurt your fucking ears.
decodeddiesel Many Armed Service Members are trying lobby to get the word "Disorder" out if PTSD. it's just post traumatic stress, a disorder is very belittling. Of course u have stress after experiencing war it's not a disorder
“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.” "War endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.... The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.”
My dad was in the Iran Iraq war and yes he has tremendous ptsd, we was given a medal for saving two cpl form an ambush in koramshar -lt. Shenasa Ali -55th Iranian air brigade
That must have been especially terrifying with regards to the additional threats from the widespread use of modern chemical weapons in that war - you can’t see it until your buddies start coughing and convulsing.
I think you missed two important factors in your commentary: First, the cleansing ritual. You sort of touched on this, but not specifically. Most cultures throughout history had some sort of cleansing ritual after battle, something that washed away the guilt. You see this all the way up to and including WWII, with ticker-tape parades on V-day. The Victory celebration was a cleansing ritual. It said: this is done. Your job is done. Put this horror behind you, for it is over, and now life can go on. After world war two, there haven;t been much in the way of cleansing rituals. We've had the opposite, with troops coming home from Vietnam, for example, and being not celebrated for their deeds, but demonized for them. Right or wrong, That's gonna take a mental toll. Or even recent wars, like the war in Iraq. Not even protests, just apathy. Opposite of love isn't hate, opposite of love is apathy. (I'm not making any judgement on the right or wrong factor of these wars, that's for another argument) Second, meaning. Why was the war important? They watched their friends die, and for what? Again, up until and including WWII, this was fairly obvious. It was a battle of good and evil. MASH S8E12 covers this pretty well, from Mulcahey's storyline. "There's no one singing war songs now, like people used to do/no over there, no praise the lord, no glory hallelu.../perhaps at last we've asked ourselves what we should have asked before/with the pain and death this madness brings, what were we ever singing for?"
I dont know if i'd count WW2 victory celebrations as a cleansing ritual, at worst it was ramming soldiers infront of civilians again and praising what they did rather than cleansing them of their actions and transitioning. I think the spike in murders in the UK after the end of WW2, performed by veterans, speaks for how well that worked. I agree that some sort of rite of passage to return the soldier to civilian life and let them transition back into the role is a good thing, I just think WW2 didnt achieve that at all because it just labeled the soldiers as heroes in their current identity and threw them back into civilian life.
@stephen stewart you should watch the Russian band Little Big's music video "Kind Inside, Hard Outside". Its so good! Probably watch the rest of their music videos as well if you haven't had the pleasure.
There's a thing called chain of command. A private is a private for a reason and a colonel is a colonel for a reason, everyone in within the force do their function...
poetic as that sounds, its not true. There are those that live to kill, love to watch people die. I knew several soldiers in my time in the infantry that said their most favorite thing in the world was watching the light fade from another humans eyes, that it made them all hard to watch people die.
"I'll take that one" "Oh, he was attacked by a bear once" "Oh, shit. He fought off and survived a bear attack.... Uh.... I don't want him as a slave, he may overpower everyone and kill me" "10% off?" "Ok"
Patton was supposed to be shot after Eisenhower caught him abusing a prisoner or a wounded US soldier, I can't remember which. But he was spared because he was needed for the Italian campaign.
@UCjddb7aQ9JTAptdnzpKQYJg I fucking hate JoJo. Every subreddit I go through has a vermin-like underclass of JoJo fanboys. They all just have to say “iS THat A JOJo ReFErEncE??!!!1” on every fucking post that contains a single word that may have been used in the shitty comics. Oh, a suspicious link? Probably a rickroll. NOPE!!! They’ve ruined that, too! One of the oldest goddamn internet traditions shat on and ruined by JoJo fanboys. Thunder Cross Split Attack! So fucking funny, right? I’m wheezing! NO. SHUT THE FUCK UP. Nobody cares about your shitty comic series. Dio is a stupid character from a stupid comic series. I downvote every post and comment that mentions JoJo, out of pure bloodcurdling rage. I want to detonate a MASSIVE thermonuclear warhead right on top of whatever godforsaken studio publishes that stinking-pile-of-trash comic. Frankly, I don’t even care for the civilian casualties, either. At least they died for a good reason. Unlike JoJo fans, I actually contribute to the betterment of mankind, instead of spamming shitty references on the internet. Every JoJo fan that dies a slow, painful death is a win in my book. I have claimed over a dozen of them already, too. I annihilated their skulls with my fists. Their stupid ice attack didn’t do shit for them either. They dies like they lived, pathetic excuses for humans. I hope more people hear my message and declare war on JoJo. If nobody helps me, I will do as much damage as I possibly can before I die. Thank you.
Actually sudden unexplainable blindness would have been interpreted by ancient Athenians as the mark of Athena herself, given the legends of the traveling prophet Tiresias who was stricken with blindness for having gazed upon the goddess nude form, long story short Tiresias lost his eyesight for several years, but he gained the supernatural power of farsight (literally seeing from a birds eye view from a far) as a messenger and prophet of Athena , as a result Athenians saw sudden unexplained blindness during wartime as a good omen and a sign that the individual was being conscripted into divine service for a special task.
Given what I know of initial reactions to 'battle fatigue' in WWI, and the origin of certain men's clubs in relation to that, I would say ancient incidents of battle fatigue were likely mostly written off as cowardice and treated accordingly. You'd never be able to research ancient incidents of it, likely, because the majority were recorded merely as cowards rather than mentally ill.
I agree. There were certainly many stress the ancients faced that modern soldiers don't. Starvation, no medical services, rampant illness, being totally lost months journey from home etc
That's what Gen. Patton of WWII fame thought as well, and it got him in a lot of trouble when he smacked a soldier in hospital who had 'battle fatigue.' I've read accounts written by some German soldiers who heard of that incident and laughed about it because in their army 'battle fatigue' wasn't recognized as anything other than cowardice an anyone who displayed the symptoms of it were summarily shot.
Great and very interesting video, thanks! I always wondered how soldiers in the age of Napoleon and the American Civil War were able to actually line up with their muskets and just endure being shot at, standing there.. without taking cover. To me this seems sheer madness, I have absolutely no idea how anybody could do that.
Probably you are right in your Analysis. Yes, it is likely that modern warfare conditions are more mentally draining. What I would like to coment, I'm Spanish, is about the Tercios. Maybe you know that during the 80 years war against Holland, basically the last third of the 16th century and first half of the 17th, the Spanish army created what is can be considered as the first Military Hospital at Malinas (Belgium). In this hospital many soldiers were shelter with a strange "malady of the spirit". This malady was call "Soldier's broken soul". Likely to be combat fatigue, more poetically express thou.
And then you get someone like "Fighting Jack Churchill" (no relation to Winston as far as is known) who actually seemed to enjoy war. Mind you, it's probably the case that is war doesn't make you mad, you were probably a bit (or a lot) mad to begin with.
When one has little fear of death, and you see your enemy as nothing more than just that, then war would be somewhat of a game. People like that make great soldiers, but awful citizens. Just as sociopaths make great spies, but are otherwise undesirable.
Actually, you could probably split it into sociopaths and iron-willed men, with Jack Churchill coming under the former, and Audie Murphy under the latter.
Burhan the Somali Sociopaths are incapable of feeling remorse or empathizing with others. They are manipulative and take no issue in exploiting others. I may have implied that sociopathy is necessary for espionage, but that was a mistake. I meant that sociopaths have many desirable qualities (minus the mindless rage, but you can learn to control that) that work well in espionage related tasks like manipulation, they also find it hard to maintain relationships. All in all, you have a skilled manipulative person that you've trained to carry out tasks alone if needed and are capable killing (even children or women, which most take issue with) if necessary. Not to mention the fact that they don't have much in the way of relationships, even with family. No morals, no ethics, no relationships. Combine all of this with typical espionage skills and a bit of loyalty, then you have a highly effective and loyal individual with nobody to miss them if theyre dead or captured... and otherwise expendable. Just my two-cents.
Good discussion - from what I have studied / understand that militaries move faster & faster and people are exposed to more ‘front line duty’. So this ratchets up the pressure on the Mind. SLAVA Ukraine 🇺🇦.
I would fully expect so. Look at how the Roman Republic organized the army. With the Maniple system, the Roman Armey had three lines and was set by experience. The least experienced were in the front rank, which meant they had to remain in rank and fight. They could not flee, as much of the army was behind them. Then came the middle rank, which was made up more battle-hardened individuals, tested in battle. Lastly came the final rank, which was held back unless the situation was most dire, in which case they were called in to save the day. 'it's up to the Triarii' was the phrase when the army would lose or win based on the skills of the oldest and most experienced men. That system makes more sense in the context of battle-fatigue. The troops with the least skill are placed in the spot where they don't have much choice but to fight. They still were trained, to be sure, but many options, such as running away, are simply not available to them from this spot. On the other hand, the Triarii are not called out to fight unless absolutely required. These men have served the longest and holding them in reserve, where battle fatigue is less likely to set in. It is also worth noting that many Roman generals won wars by means outside of direct fighting. 'Attrition' was used quite often by many Successful generals. Vespasian and Titius used at Jerusalem. Julius Caeser, and Augustus both used it, as seen in Gaul, and the battle of Actium respectively. Alexius Comnenus used it quite well to turn around the losses suffered by his Empire prior, and following the First Crusade in a number of battles. The best example here is with the Normal Invasions, as these were defeated both times by Attrriion. The Normans simply denied the supplies to keep fighting and suffered losses from this state of affairs. This works to fold - not only are your troop still fresh, but they never had deal psychologically with the struggles of war and the killing that goes with it. If you read the Alexiad, you'd read about the sheer number of wars, and the vast array of foes he staved off, and despite the limited manpower and funds, he had available to him. Imagine the battle fatigue his troops would have experienced had he not conserved them so. it's because Alexius Comnenus was so careful that, despite the number of battles and trails his Empire endured, that by the end of his reign his county was stronger, richer and more prepared than when he first came to power.
Didn't Galen talk about soldiers needing "dream analysis" before being integrated back into society? There were men so traumatized by dreams of their dead comrades that they needed priest/doctors to help them?
Another reason to use Battle Fatigue in this context is that PTSD obviously existed in the ancient world. If a bear eats your mother in front of you, that's going to mess with your head.
I would think that soldiers in the ancient world have a tougher time in any actual battle, as it was hand to hand combat, but soldiers under the tyranny of artillery could never quite be at ease, as a shell could come over at any time. You're never safe. The "rear" isn't safe any longer. I think that's why Vietnam was so terrible, as death could strike at any time, whereas an ancient soldier would kinda know when a battle was coming since most of the time armies had to line up and March towards each other. Oh that's pretty much what you said......
Very good points but you forgot one important thing: In the old days: the war was only on the battlefield; after the war, you went home to your family and they accepted you no matter what Today: you fight in a war that is not yours, you get PTSD, your wife leaves you, you loose your job because your not recovering fast enough and only efficient humans are worth something, you end up under a bridge and people yell at you murderer and tramp.
Plus, with ancient warfare, there was almost always a clear indication of when you'll be in danger. Sure, the enemy could ambush you on the march or in your camp, but most fighting took place on predefined battlefields. You were pretty safe when not in an actual battle. I can't speak from experience, but knowing with decent accuracy when I could be in danger seems a hell of a lot less stressful than never knowing when I could die or be attacked.
DrakeTheBadgerman Yes, there was a much lower chance at getting attacked while slepping or eating, or by enemies hiding among civilians. You shouldn't forget that honor played a much more dominant role too, despite all the atrocities.
Well, except that the old days covers a pretty huge span of time and a pretty huge range of cultures. I don't think that infidelity or marriages falling apart while the husband's away on campaign is really anything new, it's a common enough theme in medieval literature, for one. Also, there are lots of examples throughout history of disenfranchised soldiers who had no prospects to return to, who became the main recruits in the bands of mercenaries and brigands that were a constant plague during some periods. History's also full of huge economic downturns, such as the Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman empire, which would have seen a good number of disenfranchised former soldiers living on inadequate pensions with not much hope for the future. As far as wars that weren't theirs, soldiers, say, in Roman times were often fighting not for a nation/empire or an idea, but rather for the glory (ie vanity) of generals attempting to seize power for themselves, and in the frequent civil wars soldiers were fighting against soldiers who were ostensibly on the same side; it would be like the 6th Infantry Regiment squaring off against the 175th Infantry Regiment. And in the Roman army, the majority of its manpower came from paid foreign mercenaries from pretty early in its history. And that's not even counting the prisoners of war used as conscripts to fight against their own countrymen, another common practice in ancient times, especially because such men had no homes to return to. It was even worse in the Middle Ages, when the average footsoldier was usually a peasant conscripted by his lord (who was already probably gouging him on rent and taxes), to go fight in a war so he could have a new castle or two for himself -- that's a soldier with absolutely no share whatsoever in a war. And all this of course was before the concept of social services for veterans even existed, so soldiers and veterans in times past were SOL in that regard too.
Most wars actually were fought primarily by mercenaries in the old times, with the exception of the Roman Empire and those really large Feudal domains.
stereotypes. various things happen to soldiers when they come back, both in the old days and new with some variance owing to culture. Everything changes and everything remains the same.
That's actually realistic, I think. I have hope that we stop killing each other in the near future - in 300 years or so. We already agree that it is not a good idea to use nuclear weapons. They are working great as a threat, of course. And there is a realistic chance that they may be used because of some misunderstanding. Chemical weapons mostly do not get used also. They are easy to produce, there is no need to keep them in stock to use them. Landmines also are somewhat outlawed already. Outlaw killing soldiers also like we agree already to not kill civilians. Take hostages instead. Then wear oxygen masks and airdrop huge amounts of sand, or quickly hardening foam. You absolutely can immobilize a tank with sand.
@stephen stewart yep. The U.S. Congress should step up and enforce their own policies here in the states instead of sending soilders and police to do their dirty work for them. They all need to understand how the other half lives. You want a war for nonsense? Go fight it your damn self. You want to take something that doesn't belong to you? Get off your arse and go get it. It won't take long for them to figure out.
My grandpa's uncle and great grandpa were in Finnish continuation war. Grandpa's uncle had horrible nightmares after war and was driven to drink to stand that. But in the 70s he ended up exploding himself with dynamite while sitting on well cover. That's what dad tells me. War is horrible.
It's also a cultural thing, when you have been raised in a society of violence where you witness death often and killing someone isn't seen so "bad ", much like Vikings or Mongols for exemple. They where damn tough because that's the universe they have been raised in. That if you die in battle you'd end up in Valhalla, that whiping up an entire ennemy tribe execution style after a battle is a cultural thing. Today someone dies killed in front of you and of course you are shocked, you're not used to it, not raised in this kind of universe.
Witnessing death would be an important factor. We have to remember that life expectancy was far FAR lower in the ancient world. Famine, accidents, murder, and the big one - disease - would all have been quite common. And in certain areas even war or raiders wouldn't have been an uncommon occurrence. I expect most people were rather more inured to some of the more common types of death.
@@javicoca It does. Remember that when the greatest battles are fought, 99% of the world doesn't have a clue that anytzhing is going on. True we are taught that we have been at war for most of our history, but that is still, statistically speaking, a very small percentage. Example: the Spanish Armada was the biggest, baddest, and most feared army in Europe in 1600. It consisted of 30000 professional soldiers, a couple thousand gunners, and consripts(for what they're worth). In contrast, the population of the Iberian peninsula, plus Spanish and Portugals overseas teritory was just shy of 30.000.000, so I'm guessing about 15-20 million for the Spanish alone. Now those 40 odd thousand soldiers that actually fought don't seem that much right. Also, given the chance, most any randomly chosen human WOULD NOT willingly kill another human, unless having a "valid" reason or being forced into it, by having his/her family taken hostage for example. We are good at killing eachother, but in smaller quantities than we think.
siukong ancient life expectancy being low is a bit of a misconception... if you remove the infant death rate, life expectancy shoots up to what you would see in the 50’s or 60’s. It would not be unusual for adults to know their grandparents even with disease and famine and war you stood a pretty good chance of making into your 60s at the very least
In the civil war, the south did great against NE city men in the east. In Tennessee and later in the war, the south faced troops from Indiana, ohio, Michigan and it became farmboy vs farmboy. Both grew up with death and a rifle. Needless to say the north did much better.
Good video only one point. the Hollands are 2 provinces of the Netherlands so please use that term if you can. It would be te same as calling the entirety of brittian walles or calling the entire USA Dakota. keep up the good work. A Dutch viewer
As another Dutchy, I can say that calling the Netherlands 'Holland' is more comparable to calling Great Brittain 'England', in that it's not strictly correct but people will still know what you mean and they have been calling it that for quite some time now too. Its also comparable in that both Holland and England were once independent countries, and eventually came to be the most... prodigious group after they became part of a larger union.
+asd asd I am sympathetic and try to be accurate when I speak as well. However, it is difficult when your country often uses "Holland" itself as a general name for the whole kabootle. The U.K. Is often referred to as "England" here in the US, and as an American (there is another usage quirk) from the South Eastern US, I get a bit tired of being referred to as a "Yank".
+Lindybeige Even today, the official tourist bureau website of the Netherlands is Holland.com . So, I think the criticism of your usage is a bit misdirected.
I have recently read a book, "The Afghan Campaign" by Steven Pressfield. The story is told from the viewpoint of an infantryman in the army of Alexander the Great. The descriptions of many of the actions of warriors are - to me as a Vietnam combat veteran - very clearly signs of mental trauma from combat. It is nothing new ... it's just that the public awareness of it comes and goes. For those of us who have been in combat, the effect of combat stress is always there to some variable degree. I still have nightmares ... and my wife of 50+ years is very patient and tries to be understanding and comforting.
Watching this again after two years, I still think that your argumentation in this video is one of your best. Especially the control & stress relation and the 'Atkins shoot those people you've never met in the face'. Very proper and a mostly overlooked subject in history.
Right. And protecting your family and/country is fine. Murder is premeditated viciousness. Killing can be anything, including self defense. And God says self defense is fine.
@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 damn right. Especially when they sacrificed people. Definitely a better world without them. Gods judgment is hard for the immoral. But understandable to those who hate evil.
@@MajorMustang1117 yess, kill all people, men, women, boys, all animals. Only virgins can stay. Hooray, God's judgment is always right. It's not like you can also teach the boys the better way. Ah, no, wait. You can't turn the boys into slaves (you can only purchase them according to the law) so they're useless but you can marry the girls and make them almost slaves I love the casual sexism Or better, kill all people (even female toddlers) except for the one family that was lucky enough to have one rightful person to protect them from the wrath. There must have been something wrong with all those 5 years olds for God to hate them My favorite God's justice was when, after Kain killed his own brother, he gave the man a "curse" that would protect him from other people. Now I love the story because it's a proof that (even according to Bible) Adam and Eve weren't the first people on Earth - they were just God's creation (it means no incest at least for now). And also it shows the first evidence of his favouritism towards his chosen people. New testament was a huge deal because suddenly everyone was equal (more or less) when in whole old testament only one nation mattered Just imagine being a random Egyptian living during the time of the exodus. You lose all your crops and first born child because your pharaoh is an asshole. You don't even own a Jewish slave. You're just casualty of pissing contest between state magicians and Jewish magicians. They finally left but the whole country is weakened, food is no more, people are angry. It means either a revolution, being raided by another country or both. Again whole nation suffers for actions of minority. This kind of punishment works in Greek myths where gods are never meant to be the ultimate justice but more force of nature. If Jahwe wanted he would just kill the people who didn't want to leave Jews alone. But no, his own divine creation the angel of death can't even distinguish between the chosen nation and the pagan nation so it kills every firstborn from family that didn't do the blood magic
@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 I'm not going to even begin with the number of errors here.... it would be fruitless through TH-cam to have this conversation sooooooo..... Here's a cookie!!! 🍪😊
One thing you didn't really touch on was the difference in gore between ancient warfare and modern warfare. I think this is one of the worst aspects of modern war. When you lost a buddy back in the day, the most gruesome thing you would witness was their severed head. In modern warfare, your friend could be liquefied by an explosive and you would have pieces of them on you...chunks of skull with hair, still warm from their presence...you pick up a piece of his face, jaw bone wrapped in torn lips and shattered teeth. You recognize him in gore as you gather his remains. Piece by piece. with your bare hands...truly some fucked up hell that you would never be allowed to leave.
Well it's time we sent you north to the Packers and shipped you off east to some Patriots. Maybe they'll help fix you and you'll be soaring like an Eagle in no time.
Makes me think of that Monty Python bit where a shell-shocked soldier from WWI was on the ground in a battlefield and says something to the effect of, ¨Back home, if I killed 7 people they would hang me in the town square, do it out here and they´ll give me a fucking medal for it!¨
Really? In medieval and ancient warfare you could often talk to your victim. You always could see him at least. Friendly fire wasn't the aircraft over head it was sticking your into your comrade behind you. People didn't have control. No medics came and took away the injured to places out of sight for life saving treatments. They lay gasping, convulsing, screaming and cursing with almost nothing that could be done to alleviate their suffering. Being on the verge of starvation, heat stroke, dehydration or in the grips of an illness were all come fates of ancient soldiers. Even cannibalism of enemy and allied corpse happened. Imagine being besieged for years not know when if ever it would end. Desertion was very, very high by modern standards in almost every ancient army and mutiny not particularly uncommon. And people often acted then violently irrational in and after conflicts. All of these I believe hint to the mental anguish soldiers suffered. There is no glamour in any era it is just a misery that benefits the masters.
You sound like a hippie. You mention there not being medics, as if that was a bad thing. Medics didn't exist back then. So there's no point in mentioning it, because the people who lived back then we're oblivious to how poor their lives were. The average lifespan depending on where you went was probably 30, in antiquity. So fighting in combat and dying denied you only a couple years. You're ignoring how unpleasant life was back then and how the people felt about war. Believe it or not, many liked it. Not every man who was a soldier had a beautiful family to run home to. Many were slaves or lowly peasants and combat was their means to a quality life. They fought with a lot of vigor, and they fought for their homes. Those are ideas absent in modern combat. Also, absent in your argument. You can take a simple gaze at the difference in PTSD prevalence with vietnma era soldiers and those of ww2. The motivation for a war played a significant role in whether or not a soldier was "fatigue" or had PTSD. And that was 80 years ago. Go back several hundred or a thousand and the reality is wildly different from what you suggest
mysticonthehill lol there is always glory and fresh livers to eat. I’ve had strong emotions after nearly every fight. Just had it happen two nights ago... I spent the weekend being quite. Everyone is different. FYI, I won my recent need for self defense. Soar ear... he had a thrashed back smashed against a car with a strong backward crash but used the least amount of force n kept him off the ground where heads can break... Muay Thai neck grapple 180 body twist and full toss. Felt good. It was fun. Of coarse I had more training n he was a little drunk... should not attack moving cars with objects bro some drivers get out n step up... ASAP True Story is it was his drunk bitch who thru object n he defended her cus I talked her down when she tried to go thug n put her in her place. She was physically safe from me. He fucked up. I order him to hold her back he did it. I told her I’m not listening to you, your a crazy bitch n have no respect good people... dude lost the plot (while I was on phone to 911) then so I served him harshly. Get trained people... don’t wear sandals. Always be relaxed n ready... win n stay safe- It only takes 10 seconds n your head could get beaten in. Death now is random. It’s still life. The street has never before had so many unskilled defenseless people in it with such huge attitudes... don’t be one of them-
@@Powd3r81 You're right. Lying in some field with your guts hanging out, waiting for an enemy soldier to finish you off within the next day or so with no hope of aid or rescue, is a peace of cake. It's not even worthy of consideration. Of course you overlook the fact that a comparison was being made between contemporary and ancient soldiering, but considering this obvious fact would eliminate your chance to be a snarky ass, so that of course had to be ignored.
@@Powd3r81 Medics existed in battle, in fact, it was standard for Roman legions to have field surgeons and stretcher bearers, in addition to quick combat medicine techniques like filling a wound with spiderwebs. Additionally, the "average lifespan was thirty years" thing was including infant mortality. Once someone got past being a young child, they could expect to live to at least fifty in most cases, often past sixty. And men who were soldiers didn't always have families. In Rome, soldiers were forbidden from marrying while in the army except under certain special circumstances. Slaves and peasants were also rarely the main force, the main force typically being career soldiers. Additionally, a likely reason that PTSD rates would be different between WWII and Vietnam is how the wars were fought. In Vietnam, literally any soldier was a potential target for attack, be he infantry, artillery, armored, supply, transport. The enemy was anywhere and everywhere. WWII was much different. When you were behind the front lines, you were genuinely pretty safe. Sure, there was the worry about bomber raids, but even those weren't common enough to make any but the largest targets particularly in check. Remember, those numbers about 60 days being enough to drive 98% of people made were from WWII as were the combat effectiveness studies. THe thing about Vietnam is that practically anyone was at constant risk of combat even when they should've been sleeping. Altogether, ancient soldiering and modern soldiering had very different stressors and neither was a great time.
i was thinking about this exact topic earlier and i just randomly stumbled across your video. it answers all the questions I had and I really enjoy listening to you speak. thank you
It's the exact same in PTSD......having gone through a treatmemt program I find this remarkably similiar I was a Paramedic for 16 years and didn't know there was anything wrong.....however, in your example of the 50th Division just having enough and basically quiting....that is exactly the same There is no way that even in the ancient world this didn't occur.....over time you develope your "survival" strategy Simple things like never letting anyone behind you and losing your mind on anyone who tries to go there
I suspect it's also that humans in modern, industrialized societies usually face little to inoculate them from stress and hardship. Few of your friends and family will die of disease or injury; you're likely pretty well-protected from crime, invasions, and raids; you aren't probably going to face any wild animals, starvation, or discomfort in your home. In consequence, you don't grow up dealing with these things because you never have to when you're growing up. That is, until you do have to. Then you won't know how to deal with them, and the suffering you experience can break you for want of having been tempered by real misfortune in your past. Also, the culture we live in demands we be positive and not think about the possibility of something going wrong - we train ourselves to never even imagine living through any kind of torment, meaning we're totally unprepared for it and can't fathom that bad things aren't the end of our world since we don't bother considering perspective beforehand. Add to all that we have difficulty, for the reasons mentioned, understanding how fragile and therefore how valuable our lives are, so wallowing in depression and anxiety is what we give into instead of taking the best we can from life while we still might.
Which possibly has something to do with the greatly expanding rate of ptsd, or why it is perceived as such. I think that because it's widely known compared to other anxiety and stress based disorders that may also be an issue, with people expanding the definition. Not to mention that not only are you not prepared for stress by seeing and experiencing it, you aren't told about it or how to alleviate it at all and can experience it in ways which are unexpected and which no support is offered for. What makes me curious is long term stress issues, which are not often addressed; even here, it's shorter time frames. I've gone a lot longer than any of the time periods mentioned under high stress and with little sleep, with my circadian rhythms and hormones fucked to hell. Years of it, but no traumatic experiences; college and the latter half of high school was that. About 6 years, after a relatively stress free life up until that. That sort of long term stress didn't happen much historically
People are both happier and healthier than ever before. Systemic problems and hardship affect the postmodern you just as much it did the ancient people. They were just more stressed and more mentally scarred, and it was the norm. We don't accept it any more since we know better.
***** "People are both happier" Haven't there been studies showing that peoples happiness and expectations adjust to whatever is "normal" for them? "and healthier than ever before." Probably. "Systemic problems and hardship affect the postmodern you just as much it did the ancient people." This would seem to contradict what you've just said. I don't even think it's comparable, because of the vast gulf in essentially everything between those two groups. "They were just more stressed and more mentally scarred, and it was the norm." More scarred by modern terms maybe, but that may also depend on cultural values and concepts; they operated on very different lines of thought than we do, and it should not be taken for granted that they would react in the same way especially given the different context of the vastly different stimuli involved. It was the norm. I take issue to more stressed because of the studies I mentioned at the beginning. "We don't accept it any more since we know better." The vast majority of people certainly don't know better; that's a rather condescending point of view to take in the first place. I'd attribute it to the simple fact that the majority of people _can_ live without these issues, despite the possibility of modern culture creating even more issues as mentioned in the video, and couldn't then. The world was quite different, after all.
Alexander the Great's Army would be another Example of Battle Fatigue. I wanna say after 20 Years, his Army had enough, so a Munity broke out but was Crushed, so they went to India after this
Jeff Kennedy actually, an interesting point about when that army rebelled. Alexander was pushing into India at the time, and contrary to some advice he’d been given, wanted to go further into what we know now as north India. But the time of year he tried it was during the monsoons. After dealing with day after day after day of torrential deluge, soaked to the skin, trying to move military equipment through practical swamp or worse, his army said screw this. No farther through this piss, we are going home. The weather was a seriously important point, not just the distance from home that they had travelled, or other more conventional arguments. Nobody in India went to war in the monsoon season.
While I do agree with your point about the monsoons and terrible conditions. I think you are downplaying the affects of being on campaign for a major part of your life. Some of the men in his army had children back home that they had never even met and eventually all of the fight is taken out of you.
Steven Ritter you are also right. On account of nothing having a neat single cause for why great historical events take place. I merely bring it up as a typically unknown point of consideration. Most often things like the families and campaign length are what is brought up, and so they are generally known. I hoped to add an extra layer of reasons to the picture
Working in Psychiatric hospitals in the late 80s and early 90s, over 50% of the male patients on long stay wards had been in the armed forces in the time just preceding admission. Surprisingly most of their records had no mention of what caused there breakdown, and of those that did have notes about their type of service some had never seen combat.
My old man (dad) joined the Tank Corps in 1938. He was in France, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He used to wake us children at night with panicked shouting in nightmares. I learned later that his dream was probably escaping from a burning tank and running for his life. At 77 years old he had a car accident and the car ended up on it side. The police wondered how this old man had managed to climb out and he said "I smelt petrol and thought I was in my tank".
John McCabe damn that's crazy
My relative saw front lines action in the Korean War for nearly 13 months straight. When my family was visiting about 15 years ago, he suddenly went stiff, looked at his wife, and told her to call the police and tell them someone just got shot AND killed. About an hour later, police informed us that a neighbor living a few houses down had committed suicide and shot himself.
My relative was the first emergency call, and the only one to mention someone had died.
No one else in the house heard the gunshot.
Samuel Zuleger he killed him
@@supermoon1430 maybe. But its more likely the old codger felt it in his bones.
@@johntunney1864 Or he killed him.
"Put your friends out in a field and shell them for 60 days to see who's the psychopath." Might just have to look at yourself at that point.
Thank you. In many wars the real psychos aren't the soldiers, it's the fuckers, who started the whole thing.
Yep, all politicians can be viewed as psycho's. They don't consider what is right or wrong. The nice ones just consider what is best for their district. The bad ones only do what is best for their donators to the campaign fund.
lol
very true.
that sounds like my grand-father talkin'. Except my grandfather would say that in a serious tone.
I hate it when someone tries to sell me a suicidal slave.
I hate it when someone tries to sell me queer giraffes.
I hate it when someone tries to sell me a sword without pommels
Helium Road I know, right?
I hate it when someone tries to sell me a retarded Asian.
Helium Road yeah that's the worst
Yes. Modern Warfare is pretty loud. Especially the Voice-Chat.
I know I shouldn't be laughing, but it's too funny!! XD
Well played OP, well played.
D0es aNyBOdy haVe A MiC?
Lol
MISSION FAILED WE'LL GET EM NEXT TIME
"Put your friends in trenches and shell them for 60 days."
After that, you've identified 1 psychopath - yourself
Plenty of folks who can survive that kind of stress - a lot of it depends on cameraderie and allegiance to whatever.
@Guacamole Nigga Penis he’s just built different.
@@alexandermiles2890 this is true
@@alexandermiles2890 eh more like allegiance to surviving so you can have sex and get drunk etc I think the patriotic nutcases were always a minority among the people actually doing the fighting
@@matthewaleman4401 excellent remark!
I think that this phenomenon is directly linked to modern weapons and urban guerilla warfare. If you were a Roman soldier you knew you were going to fight, you saw your enemy and you engaged him. If you're a soldier in Iraq. Where is your enemy? Your death could come any time, from a sniper, mine, I.E.D., suicide bomber and so on. Uncertainty induces fear and stress.
I did comment before he came to the same conclusion***
While this is true to a (possibly large) extent, don't forget that pre-modern warfare also involved lots of small scale, unpredictable skirmishes between scouts, foraging parties and what have you.
Roman soldiers did a lot of conquest, remember, often of warrior peoples who were prone to revolt. Mind you, I suppose they also executed those peoples' children when they did revolt, so I suppose that made them less willing to cause trouble.
I think you are and Lloyd are right. Not that no Roman army did not experience guerrilla warfare and ambushes.
Must be pretty horrible expecting to take a sword or axe in the face though
French knight Geoffroi de Charny wrote several treatises on chivalry in the 1300s, which included references to needing to maintain good sleep and that lack of comfort could break a knight down over time. He also emphasised that a knight should choose to fight for a higher cause that was in harmony with his conscience. Maybe not a straight up reference to battle stress or PTSD, but there might be something there.
Must say I think it's a bit iffy to consistently refer to people with battle fatigue/shellshock/ptsd (whatever its name at the time) as "loonies", "madmen", "crazy" etc. The vast majority of observed sufferers are no more violent than anyone else, and are usually only a danger to themselves.
Other than that, a very informative and interesting video. I agree on most points made here. :)
i'm sure he doesn't think people that suffer from ptsd and the like are "loonies" he was just referring to how people used to view these mental disorders.
Mental disorder doesnt have to mean absolute madman or such, but I get your point.
It's easy to get it all mixed up considering how people view mental disorders today.
But I do believe the idea around Chivlary and all that might have had a good idea about the battle fatigue, afterall the idea was that everyone would have a go and then stop. Nothing more.
Society has changed of course, maybe the modern era is just made to be like this, we cant adjust things to be 'humane' enough and we will just have to live with the fact that people can break because of it.
Some people say we were made for the stoneage and not the modern age, afterall.
yah, meaning is a big influencer
Sounds fair. Unlike what this video says, medieval combat, sieges, etc could stretch on for days, weeks, months.. on your feet, constantly at risk of some counter charge etc. it wasn't this line formation done in 10-20 minutes shit people seem to assume it was. It was long and gruelling.
98% will go mad, the other 2% were mad all along.
*insert picture of Pikachu with a shocked look on its face*
Liam Sweeney you may have psycho and sociopaths mixed up
@@L.C.Sweeney well, maybe, somehow ;-) ... badly tolerated "superpower" , imho mainly because inpredictibility and unable to understand, lets make other people be like "xenophobic"? But its okay, psychopath CAN be dangerous, if they want :) - well, very well suited characteristic for leaders, doesnt it?
Psychopaths, sociopaths snd narsicists are not mentally ill. Those terms describe a spectrum of behavior disorders. They lack empathy whereas most people have empathy. That has nothing to do with mental illness. They are different. They are quite sane. Very very much so.
@@Nathan-yk5km well, there is no real way to know the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, until they actually hurt other people. They both lack empathy and the way they deal with it, is waht makes the difference, but from a medical point of view, their brains are pretty the same, at least to my knowledge.
In war, of course, this criteria is kinda rubbish, so..
I might be 3 years too late, but if you've lost your glasses, theyre hanging on the wall
He actually bought a new pair
He fell down the basement stairs looking for them.
Didn't know what you meant but then i realized you were on about the video
I'm 4 years too late then or 5 ... Lindybeige
I wonder how many men have been felled in the mind by the trauma of the enemy throwing their pommels at them. Having had a brush with being ended rightly is amongst the most stressful things imaginable
Can you imagine the sight of an katana wielding army coming at you...
STOP
+BurnedToast00 With sandals shooting flame arrows.
*spandaus
Dang autocorrect
+Jacob Furrow kek
I spent a year in Iraq, and it isn't often told that war is physically grueling and tiring. It isn't talked as much about of how mentally tiring it is. People watch movies or play games and then they can walk away to use the bathroom or just be done, but in war, you don't get that luxury. Even being back on base is still dangerous. I remember waking up to mortars, and just being so tired and annoyed that I just rolled over, covered by ears, and went back to sleep. I had a 12 hour patrol in the morning, I need sleep. Always being alert, always having to be mindful of your surroundings (even on base, you needed to keep in mind where cover was in case of incoming indirect fire). It just wears on you. I always tell people about to deploy that they have to always worry about not becoming complacent. 9-10 months in, when you know you are just 2-3 months away from going home, it seemed to be peak of people being tired and complacent. I have respect for the soldiers of WW1 and WW2 who didn't get to come home after 1 year. I couldn't imagine being there for more than a year, it becomes your life, and that life you had state side must be like some distant memory like of being a child, long and almost forgotten. The book I felt described what I am talking about the best was 'All Quiet on the Western Front.'
This is also why modern armies are trying to make their soldiers live in as much luxury as possible. It's just unfortunate that the majority of combat seeing soldiers will never be able to enjoy them because modern doctrine fucks infantry so much.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 the airforce has it lucky lmao
Um yeah... The Air Force in me just sees 1 year long deployments just as inconceivable as you're looking at WWI/WWII mobilizations. 6 Months in Afghanistan was MORE than enough for my not-so-sane ass. Rock on man, thanks for what you did.
If all politicians we forced to sit down and read all quiet, there would be a lot less war.
@@ig-8887 No, if they are forced to go and participate on the frontline of the wars they are so eager to make would have far more impact.
"I'm obliged to tell you that unfortunately this slave was attacked by a raging giraffe, gotta consider that Marius"
As long as it wasn't a lion or a bear Marius still ain't getting that discount
Marius: What the hell is a giraffe?
I remember hearing that Zurich in medieval times had problems with the returning mercenaries qhich were not onlh wretched in body but also in mind, so I can imagine that war-trauma always existed. Our society probably just started to research and realise it.
They might not have been suffering from stress-induced illnesses so much as being young, violent, drunken, frustrated, risk-taking men.
Actually I was talking about the mercenaries returning home after years of service and many battles. But they probably had problems reintagrating themselfs in a civilised and peacefull society just because of the habits they adopted.
By the way: great Video
could being " violent, drunken, frustrated, risk-taking" not all be signs to the underlying problem of BF ?
Lindybeige: Thank you for an interesting video.
Perhaps just being a mercenary (especially if you did not want to be a mercenary) could be fundamentally more stressful than fighting to defend your own country?
The vignette I will now relate is not directly related to battle fatigue, but of course it is interesting to me:
My sixth great-grandfather was a turncoat. When he was 17 years old, his parents were compensated with some money (who knows if his parents had any choice in the matter) when he was forced into the Hessian Army. The ruler of Hesse then rented these mercenaries to George III of England. Gx6 Grandfather Hootman was wounded in the Battle of Trenton, and taken prisoner by the Continental Army. His broken leg was set by the Continental Army surgeons, who then nursed him to health. He became a 'trustee' prisoner, cared for other wounded men, then changed sides and enlisted in the Continental Army. He eventually got a land grant in Pennsylvania.
As far as I know he was sane; he raised quite a few children from two successive marriages, and according to www.geni.com, he has many thousands of descendants. I wonder if he would have done as well if he had been repatriated to Hesse and therefore not become a land owner?
+Andrew Escocia Also signs of borderline psychopathy (considering these are people who have chosen to kill for money, that's not insignificant)
Also don't forget that a lot of the pay for medieval soldiers was from spoils, ransom, and looting, so there's some added difficulties of that lifestyle in terms of reintegration.
My great granddad went off to fight in WW1 shortly after my grandma was born. He was with the 1/5th battalion Manchester Regiment, so after basic training in Wigan he was shipped off to Gallipoli. There, after initial successes he ended up pinned down by enemy sniper fire & shelling, from May to December 1915 - that's 8 months of combat where the overall thing is going to be learned helplessness, because no matter how good a soldier you are you can't defend against a sniper or an incoming shell. So then they're taken to Egypt, to pursue retreating Ottoman forces into the desert. They lost 800 of their own men in a day due to heat & lack of water, so the takeaway from that is "Our bosses can't plan, they don't have adequate supplies - we're all fucked." - but you don't say anything because you could be shot for sedition. They're in Egypt all of 1916 & then in March 1917 they're shipped off to Marseilles, to march up to Flanders. My great granddad, by this time, has pretty much had it with the first world war, but he does his best to get through the 3rd battle of Ypres, whereupon he's taken home. He hasn't a scratch on him, but his record says he's invalided out, medical discharge. He Never. Speaks. About. The. War. Not a word to anyone, though he's got a row of campaign medals, been all round the world. He settles down & becomes a great family man & a pillar of his local community. He *loathed* Churchill, who he said cared more about his horses than his men. We have photos of him, with his thousand yard stare.
Skiamakhos - Wonderfully written. Thanks for sharing your great-grandfather’s story.
my own grandpa fought in ww2. European theater, he was an infantry paratrooper. In 18 years I never heard him tell a single story, or say a word about his service other than that he served... He had 2 silver star's, 1 with valor. I served in infantry in the 9/11 wars. I understand why he never spoke of it now...
Skiamakhos - shadow warrior?
My grandfather fought in WWII for the US but never spoke about it until the end of his life. I was a shitty 9 year old and didn’t listen. I wish I would have listened to his story. There are a lot of questions now. I’ve inherited two Japanese officer katanas. How did he get them? Only he could say.
A B - Be well, and remember your grandfather.
Little known fact, the number one cause of battle fatigue in ancient times was the infamous fire arrow.
I hear there's a 99% chance of developing battle fatigue if you somehow survived a pommel attack.
Impossible. To come to that statistic at least 67 people would have had to survive pommel attacks.
Nathan Brown That depends. A pommel strike from an inferior European sword was not too deadly, but one from a katana could split a boulder.
+A Volney Proof?
***** I know, it's a fucking joke. The picture is of a dude rock climbing, I thought that would be obvious. We are just circlejerking. Fire arrows cause battle fatigue? What? Of course I don't believe that.
Bonus fact (since you mentioned it): "Thou shalt not kill" is an erroneous artifact of the King Jame translation. The original text is, "Thou shalt not murder." There's a pretty important difference.
Oh fuck off.
@@Malvictis What? It's true. Killing just used to be part of everyday life for most of human existence.
James Blunt atheist will never see the Bible in a positive light, it would challenge their narcissism that they alone are a moral authority.
Religion for all its faults dragged mankind out of a life little better than animals, and is the foundation of every civilized nation on earth whether they choose to believe it or not.
Speaking as a Christian and veteran, I have come to believe that it is easy in our American culture to justify all war and nearly all actions in war to be not only right but Biblically sanctioned. I believe the feeling is... after all we are the good guys, we only want what is best for everyone (speaking as an American).
I however, do not believe the Bible implicitly sanctions or justifies all war nor the killing / murder therein. I think it is very easy to say carte blanche I am a solider, just doing my duty, therefore, any killing I do is just that. I believe we are held to a much higher standard.
I also think it is interesting that many Christians will readily condemn very legal actions (alcohol, abortion, divorce, etc), but when it comes to “killing” in a “
.. war, we fall right in line. There is article that I think highlights these points better. “Does the Bible Justify War” by Michael Anthony. It is worth a read.
I always thought the behavior of Alexander the Great (who lead cavalry charges as young as 16 years old) mirrored so closely someone struggling with ptsd...
The extreme drinking, the irrational behavior, the bouts of extreme rage (such as when he killed his very dear friend Cleitus in a drunken spat)... there’s no way to know, but his behavior just reminds me so much of someone who has untreated and unacknowledged ptsd.
I'm guessing his psych evaluation would also mention "thinks the God Zeus is his dad".
maybe slaves that got attacked by bear or lion but survived with out a scratch meant they can run really fast and is a potential escape risk that lowered value.
maby a combination of the two
Like they say, "you don't need to outrun the bear/lion, you simply need to outrun the slowest person."
Either that or it was for long-distance trades where the buyer can't *see* the slave until the purchase had been made? Like, amazon/ebay rules.
Maybe it was a religious thing...
Or maybe, it increased their worth. A chance for some warhead Roman dude to bag a lion or a bear because the slave is apparently tasty to bears and lions.
"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it" - Desiderius Erasmus.
"If I ramble for more than 5 hours, that will be a bad thing."
Oh, Lindy. Don't you know that's what we're here for?
I think I would enjoy a 5 hour video very much.
Which one was that? I though his longest video was Gladiators at 1:50.
Hey Lloyd, wondered what you'd think of doing a video comparing modern battle casualty numbers to ancient ones. Most movies make every ancient infantry and cavalry battle look like one side pretty much always slaughters the other to a man. I suspect it rarely went that way, but you're the expert and I'd love to hear you talk about it. Thanks for all the great videos!
Yeah
While I don't recall him specifically comparing casualties in them, you should check out his videos titled "Routs in battles" and "Pursuit in battles" (if you haven't already).
I did watch both of those excellent videos, and it seemed like most times a strategic withdrawal was acceptable to the obvious winner of the battle unless a golden opportunity to utterly annihilate the enemy army presented itself, in which case cue the slaughter. I honestly am not sure about the numbers comparative between let's say 14th century wars and mid 20th century wars. I'm almost positive that modern warfare is far more deadly in numbers and percentages but I could be wrong. Either way I know Lloyd will do it justice.
he did a video about "where does a route begin" about this
watch his video on "where does a rout start?"
Being under siege for months might do it.
Who is going to be blowing that trumpet, for all the time the siege is going on for. I can understand if you have a team of trumpets but would that not irritate the people encamped outside castle as well.
+Shaved Alpaca thats when you fill a catapult with shit and fling it at them
Shaved Alpaca lol
You have an encirclement, men man it in shifts while the army is encamped a bit away from the trumpets.
It worth pointing out that use the loud music blasted through loudspeakers has been weaponized in modern sieges - the intent to cause sleep deprivation.
The most headline-grabbing one was when the FEDs used Barney the Dinosaurs "I love you" song. Which when you get past the "LOL! Barney the Dinosaur!" initial reaction is really fucked up the more you think about...
There has to be SOME differences in the ancient world's favor.
When all the world was mysterious, religious and full of gods and a larger degree of belief in the afterlife. Many societies was probably 100% certain there was an afterlife with quality based on what you sacrificed in this life. You fought for a tribe or country that felt closer to each other. Your beloved tribe is threatened, so of course you defend yourselves.
Facing your enemy with a sword or spear has to be vastly different from being bombarded and raining bullets from an enemy you can't see.
Obviously there is the shock and trauma of great injuries and the sight of suffering and decapitations
By our standards, a huge amount of the combat-aged population would have been considered fanatics. They also lived with Death in the everyday in a way that most people today don't, so on average, there would have been less fatigue than today but still some.
Not to mention back there you propably didn't expect to get old anyway. If you won't die on the battlefied, you will from Diahrrea
To be fair, don't statistics show that most of the billions of people in the world today are religious and so probably will also believe similarly in an after life anyway?
@@Melvin7727 Sure, but right now we have evolution, technology, research and countless other things which can make many skeptical about the afterlife. Poople in the ancient world couldn't even explain what sun is. The only thing that could make them think there's not afterlife was some unspecific theories of some ancient guys who propably didn't exactly believed it themselves.
Not to mention there was much more death back then. Dying in a battle is not as bad if you know that you would propably die from a common flu two weeks later anywyay.
@@JakubWojciechowski933 Actually,that is a myth. If you survived birth and did not get killed in a war,you had good chances of living a pretty long life.
If they survived an encounter with a bear or lion,unharmed, then they might be good in the arena.
Or maybe that's where they came from, and that had to be disclosed?
It does sound like the question was regarding whether they had been subjected to "damnatio ad bestias" and somehow survived. Perhaps those who didn't die were resold cheaply. Attacked by a lion or a bear would indicate a criminal slave, in that case. (I doubt lions were roaming most of the Roman empire, attacking future slaves and stressing them.)
Yeah I think that law had to do with spending time in the arena, i.e. surviving your own sport-sacrifice
Or maybe they would have no arms or legs making them useless to work but it’s ok they know to look big when a bear is around..
Or perhaps being attacked by a giant animal gives people a sense of hopelessness that was mentioned. You have absolutely no control over whether the animal will rip you to shreds or think you’re too worthless to kill.
First time I heard a cannon firing, we were training on 120 mm mortars, 3 fired in the same time, and even though I was wearing ear protection, the sound was like nothing I've ever heard or imagined. Every time they fired I felt like my heart popped off
The noise made by M115 203 mm howitzer when fired was described to me by my father as a feeling of some force tearing you apart and the first time he was near the cannon when it fired it rendered him completely shocked for a few minutes, he described it as feeling lost and very confused
And imagine being on the receiving end of those!
@Nightingale you're definitely part of the 2%
I can attest that the sound of a battery of 155 mm artillery firing a 4-round rapid burst is rather impressive too :-)
I just read a first hand account of the siege of Sevastopol by Gottlob Bidermann. They were shelled by massive 30.5 cm guns from the maxim Gorky fortress along with an unimaginable number of smaller guns. This went on for weeks along with endless attacks of Russian troops.
At one point one of the gun crew for the 7.5 cm PAK 40 that Bidermann was in command of went insane. They tried to hold him down during the shelling fit he fought his friends like a wild animal until he broke free. He ran out of the tank trench into the shelling where he was almost certainly going to die.
Bidermann Also had a an MG 34 gunner under his command at one point that went a little mad. They were under attack from the Russians non stop as they attempted to brake threw the German lines. There was no strategy they just came in waves. The finer was screaming "I can't just keep killing!" After a long period of constant attacks over a very short time. Bidermann remarked that they could have made a wall of Rusdian bodies like the Greeks at Thermopylae.
I read a lot of first hand accounts of ww2 and nearly every one of them talks about people losing their minds in extended combat.
Except for the Japanese. Granted there is VERY few first hand accounts from the Japanese for many reasons. However you never hear about anyone going insane. I don't know if it's because of the suicidal mentality of the Japanese or because they just shot anyone who showed signs of it. Don't think we will ever know.
Same thing in "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer - endless descriptions of the sheer *loudness* of the near constant shelling... Oh, and a very detailed catalogue of the finer points of freezing to death :P
I think it has more to do with the high social conformity that is expected in japanese society. If no one wants to hear it you don't talk about it and the japanese people were very, very keen on erasing any memory of the war from the collective consciousness.
On the other hand, the sheer shittiness of conditions among the Japanese forces may have desensitized them a bit; basically some of them were already as insane as they could get, possibly explaining the hideous war crimes in Manchuria and other captured regions.
For instance, Japanese troops trapped in island bases that had been "skipped" in the American island-hopping campaign would be under pretty much constant bombing and shelling, shortages of food and water, lack of sleep, only rice for food, you and your buddies are being treated like cannon fodder by officers sitting in their offices drinking tea all day . . .
One can only imagine the sort of stresses that would put on the soldiers' minds. Like virtually all militaries even today, the Japanese military was made up largely of young men straight out of high school (even the much-feared German _Waffen-SS_ were mostly youths) who had been thoroughly drilled with the idea of victory or death (and with the misconception that _all_ militaries treated their soldiers as callously as the Japanese military). With no method of release short of suicide, the soldiers would be entirely likely to start taking out their frustrations on the locals living in the shadow of the base.
Could you give me the title please?
+john smith "In deadly combat" by Gottlob Bidermann.
Please ramble for 5 hours!
There's a chat between Sargon of Akkad and Lindy Beige (On Hannibal, not politics) so there's that.
+Couch ! i didn't know that they did a stream, ill have to check that out.
+Couch ! It contains Sargon of Akkad, so it's quite painful to watch.
Ben Hunter
Depends on your taste.
-couch
Ugh why must Sargon invade all regions of TH-cam, he puts the British accent to shame
When I was deployed in Iraq i went through some of the combat stress. Never knowing when we would be rocketed again. The CHU next to mine was blown up and one of the two men who lived in it were in it when it got hit (he lived) I had a rocket land feet away from me on the other side of a Hesco barrier while I was dead asleep. The fear of not knowing when it will hit again, if ill be hit next, I can't ever sleep deeply again. The slightest movements, my boyfriend coming in the room, sounds from outside even, wake me up. The worst is waking up when the garbage truck comes by at about 5am and hearing the slamming of metal. I wake up in such shock i feel the adrenaline and get sick to my stomach.
It's a part of my combat experience i don't talk with other people about because it's not the way we were meant to talk about combat, you tell them the cool stuff, the fun stuff, the stuff you are proud of. Not that you have been reduced to a pathetic hyper aware anxious lunatic that needs to watch every person you see (looks at face, looks at hands, of every.single.person) I need to sit with my back to things unless I'm with someone I consider to be reliable enough to watch my back for me.
I did go outside the wire and I did have other experiences that were very negative that also contributed to ptsd, but the mentioned above were on base. So even those who deployed that didn't "go outside the wire" can still be deeply impacted by the enemy, the fear of death, and reasonably develop ptsd or other combat related stress.
You nailed it. I spent 3 years in the Infantry (US Army) and by my 2nd year I had had enough. Once I got past that "become a man" phase I sort of woke up to the reality of it all and got out. I finally took a step back and realized that I wasn't willing to make my living risking my life for a cause I didn't believe in. Recuiters target kids right out of high school really hard because they know that's when you're at your peak both physically and mentally.
Adam Corbin A kid out of high school is anything but the peak of mental fortitude. It's rather that they're anything but, and can be shaped into something useful, as their young minds are still developing and easily malleable.
Tingle Peak potential is what I meant, and should have said.
Glad you got out mate..
I heard that for the Normandy invasion they tried to get as many of the *least-experienced* soldiers possible to be on those boats; I suppose more experienced soldiers would've rightly been evasive to such a bonkers mission.
Male physical peak is 25 m8. Your abstract processing power peak is about 18 but something tells me that the "math peak" of boys joining the army right out of high school isn't that precious.
"Nobody knows until that critical moment comes..."
Yep, that's exactly what our Drill Sergeants taught us in Basic; that the biggest, baddest, most Alpha PT-stud best-shot honor grad in the BCT platoon can turn into a quivering mass of tears and shit pants when the first bullet cracks past his head.... And that the shittiest of shitbags in the platoon could turn into the biggest, baddest, Medal of Honor (VC for you Brits)-earning heroes in the same instance..... NOBODY knows how one will react until that time comes, so the best anyone can do is train, train, and train some more...
CK's channel. I didn't have the luxury of choice, my first encounter was a knife fight. I remember that to this day. It made me mean, meaner than I like to admit. I envy those who had time to process.
I have observed this firsthand. Pt stud expert of all that is infantry, freak out and say "bound up" through a open area with no cover. Guys with low pt scores a little fat not good shooters, turn into killing machines. Its more a matter of spirit of the man in my opinion. Training is always important. Especially training the mind.
@@liamcole1769 It raises a shock and anger at the audacity of the attacker. But youd be able to be close to the guy with a blade. A bullet can come from yards or even miles...might hear the shot...might not..and it's done. You re hurt, gravely injured...with hundreds of faces to blame it on...or maybe none. We can analyze this $!#&!! for days...utter bedlam
I stubbed my toe once... I was never the same after that
I dont accept "spirit of the man" as an argument. You see to many movies. Actual you can find plenty of reports showing that the german ss even from their first battle in france failed. And those guys was trained for month to have the right "spirit of the man". Yes there are some indicators and thats why hard training and very hard training are the best indicator.
The comment about the stress of not being in control- the fear of imminent and indiscriminate death that you can do nothing about, is certainly something I'd back up from my own experience. When I was serving in Afghanistan in the British Army I didn't fear being shot- because when the shooting starts you can take cover and return fire, and there is a certain equality (you might even say there's a certain fairness) to it. However, IED's terrified me. The idea that the ground beneath your feet could suddenly erupt and leave you dead or with your limbs blown off, and that it could all happen to you or the next man in the blink of an eye, was very unsettling.
Why do world leaders not just fight one another on live tv.
@Blue Dragon So that's what intelligence looks like, Haha.
001011
Tbh it would have been funny to see Stalin and Hitler in a boxing ring
Because at heart they're sissies.
Idi Amin was Uganda's light heavyweight boxing champion from 1951 to 1960.
Because otherwise world leaders would be elected for their boxing skills, and we'd get even less done than we do now. It'd be nice though...
Good video. One reason in WWII the British considered front line soldiers lasted longer in combat than did the US Army, was that British soldiers got more regular 'rest periods' (slightly behind the front line) while in WWII the US Army tended to leave soldiers in the line until they were killed or wounded.
Good point about modern, Western, boys being harder to turn into soldiers.
There's more to being a soldier than being able to stomach killing. The army would have very little use for a man who can't understand when to fight and when to pull back. The army also has no use for someone who can't distinguish between the people he's fighting and the people he's protecting. Most certainly the army has no use for a man who can't work with his unit.
Having a violent personality does not, a good soldier make. That is not to say that western culture has not affected the effectiveness of the military, but I believe it has more to do with fitness then propensity for violence.
There's a lot in the western world that makes life easier to live. You are dealing with men and women who aren't accustomed to having their limits tested physically. Not to mention that the easy access of technology makes modern men and women to hungry for instant satisfaction, and they wont get that in the military. To get far in the military you need the strength of character to stick to the training, knowing in the long run you get results.
Ideally, a soldier is not someone who relishes killing, but someone deep enough in his convictions that he is willing to do what's necessary even if it harms his humanity. It is a dangerous place to be in, and it's no wonder that soldiers exhibit extreme psychological stress.
The difference between a soldier and a killer is the reason they use to justify taking a life. I'd rather have a soldier with a troubled conscience than a soldier without one.
The army should make a point to find a way to help soldiers suffering from moral injury, such as a soldier who has to deal with taking a child's life, even knowing the child held a bomb. Or soldiers who deal with being the last survivors of their units. You can tell them to suck it up all you want, tell them to hate or to fear, but apart from the terrible consequences such encouragement could incur, the human body, and mind, has it's limits.
+Raven Blood couldn't have written it better myself :)
SonsOfLorgar Thank you :)
Really? American soldiers didn't get days off from the war?
According to the French chicks, the American military had too much time of their hands. VD was an actual military term...
Battle fatigue - ptsd is like driving - I've served in multiple combat tours. basically its the same feeling you get when you drive past a horrible accident on the road - you get that feeling in your gut cause you know they're almost dead or dying - If you're the first one there you do what you can up until there's nothing you can do or a medic shows up- (in mideval times a preist or cleric or something ? did they even use healers?) but just like driving you still have stuff to do and places to go. so you say prayer for them - or if aethiest you talk to yourself about how Fd up it is. and you carry on with life. for a mideval soldier I would Imagine it to be relinking with his unit - getting gear ready and handling all the laborious "work" parts of the war hollywood always skims over. I imagine anyone who has driven past a rough accident can still see it in their mind if they let their mind wander to it. I see a girl who died in a car accident once (I tried to help but her torso was crushed) I see her just as vividly as a sgt who was struck by a mortar that I conducted first aid on. I would say without a doubt ancient soldiers felt the same feelings. we are all humans. Just like modern humans some handle it better than others depending on frequency, brutality, and mental resilience.
My Grampa said his shellshock, was from running into MG fire at the beaches of Normandy. He saw the boats front drop and he was told to RUN! He said where run where, RUN STRAIT OR DIE! He did, he said he ran with his Grand in his hands and he said it went black. He awoke with bloody hands and very little ammo. He looked around and the fight was gone.He looked at his trench knife and it was bloody. It was crazy
@Belal DarkneSS Are you still alive?
@Belal DarkneSS Not that it matters much, but I'm impressed with your command of English. Tell me, what does your day look like in the worlds largest concentration camp?
@Belal DarkneSS Do you find it ironic that the tribe best known for undergoing some of the most horrific treatment humans beings have ever done have become the vanguards for its modern banner?
The banner in this case represents a type of neo facism, a continuation of a right to liberty for one, and the right to crumbs and starvation for the other.
@Belal DarkneSS The light of attention brings embarrassment of those ideals held by a people on an excuse of defence, and the indifferent response by the world at large seeds the field of violent response by the oppressed, and those oppressors find themselves well armed by a nation far from its horror.
This video was actually quite in-depth and more sensitive than usual; I appreciate how seriously you treat the subject.
As a veteran of two wars, the 'being in control' thing is spot on!
solution, bring back the swords
I think of the classic indiana jones scene where indy shot a swordman with his revolver :)
Thing is I bet the average citizen would be less likely to volunteer into an army for medieval style warfare.
yea 50% chance to die 0% chance of ptsd
Or use bayonets
Solution: stop making wars
It's a curious thing these days with unmanned drone pilots getting higher rates of PTSD than the pilots of manned vehicles, the reason I've heard is for that is the fact that they aren't actually physically present in the battlefield so a lot of that conditioning that goes on all throughout basic training like changing the language and attitude of soldiers to make it easier for them to kill without moral compunction isn't as effective when you go home to family every night after a bombing run. It takes a lot of conditioning to get people to become killing in the modern context, unless your a sociopath or can otherwise suppress your empathy; it's never going to be easy to kill other humans.
According to his description Nelson's iron man on wooden ships or Victorian era factory workers should have a permanent danger - poor sleep ptsd. So I think it is more complex than presented.
From what I've heard, it comes from the restictions we have on rules of engagement. Before the pilot can fire upon the target, they follow and observe for hours, maybe days in order to confirm the target is who they think. The target is completly unaware, and goes about their daily routine. Imagine how much harder it would be to pull the trigger after watching a man take a shit, shower, eat breakfast, get in a vehicle, and start driving. Worse, what if the enemy designstion is never given, up until they attack our troops. If one of them dies from the bueracracy, how aweful would the pilot feel.
"when you go home to family every night after a bombing run"
Is that something that actually happens in Iran and Israel? I'd imagine american pilots can't operate from home because of the latency.
A very large amount of US drone bombing runs is made from Rammstein, Germany.
Those damn drone guys just sit in an office near las vagus drink rip-its and eat fatty cakes they are living the dream only people with weak mind and little hearts would get messed up from that for christ sake they don't even pt
When someone crits you by pouring blood out of goblet it will surely put you in serious stress.
*Injury and despondent set the stage for heroism… or cowardice.*
Just started playing that game this month
i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/915/000/705.png
Imminent Troll fucking darkest dungeon kek
I... I drink blood from a goblet. What's wrong with that?
>join the army, you'll get a scholarship
Nice try, FBI.
Lord Jaraxxus ok I did
Not today, CIA
@@JoaoSilva-od1zv You are gay, NSA
@@JoaoSilva-od1zv Dirty tricks, MI6
@@JoaoSilva-od1zv - Not for me, KGB
I had always wondered if it was the super pacifist mentality of Western countries that partially contributed to soldiers going mad. Gurkhas for example are raised believing that fighting and killing your enemies is the most manly thing you can do. Watched an interview with a Gurkha years ago and he calmly told about a situation where he killed multiple enemies (some with his sword) in a skirmish and he seemed proud of his accomplishment. But in the West, soldiers come home to a public that thinks they are evil murderers. You come back from a war and are constantly told that you are evil because of what you did. That kind of homecoming would probably contribute to the "what have I done?!?!" feeling that people seem to get.
...Which was portrayed perfectly by the first Rambo movie.
+naphackDT
God, I could not tell you just how much I hate hippies from the 60's, who lambasted, and hated utterly all the Vietnam veterans. Seriously, fuck them.
That's quite true. If I remember correctly (and I may not, as this could be from a different culture but I think I have it right), the close combat weapon of the Gurkhas, their kukri looking thing has a notch near the handle. It's a little carve out right before the blade becomes a full tang in the handle. This notch has a protrusion in it and it is, by many, meant to be a phallic symbol.
Used to have a reproduction of one and it took me ages and ages (this was back before the internet really had its legs like it does today) of research and digging in old books, wanting to find out what the hell that notch piece was for. Then I got my answer and I thought it was nonsense, only to find it reconfirmed in two other sources.
That's telling about the culture. Not only is fighting and killing the Manliest of Manly Man things a man can do, but they train to do it with a phallic symbol to boot!
+SoulSoundMuisc The notch has nothing to do with that at all. The notch is there to prevent blood from running down the blade and slicking the handle (which would reduce your grip on the knife).
"I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time." George Carlin
okmann98 I remember that bit. Funny and true.
Agreed, also Vietnam is one word
mysticwizard Technically Vietnamese people say it as two words
@@ntt996 IM SORRY I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA
@Natalie 1234 it's a quote. from south park. you know, like a joke. Not everyone is some ignorant rube needing to be put in there place, k? Mmmk.
I've been slowly recovering/surviving from ptsd for nearly two decades now. I've often wondered how the ancients dealt with battlefield-related mental illnesses and this video really put a lot of things into perspective for me. Thank you!
"...Killing is fundamentally wrong, which is what we tell people right up to the moment we say: 'Alright Atkins. Take this rifle and you see those people over there you've never met... umm.. go shoot them in the face.' " This series of words made me laugh way too hard! XD
I suffer from many physical injuries and PTSD from my service in Iraq and in the USMC and was in the the thick of things. I appreciate looking at this from a historical perspective and when I question my humanity and manhood from my physical and mental injury it's comforting to know that it's been this way forever.
And you are dead on about indirect fire. We took a lot of shells but mostly mortars and it's enough to drive you mad. I shudder to imagine how your countrymen and the French endured 100 years ago this week at the Somme and Verdun respectively.
Why is lord commander mormont on the wall with all those random animals lol
Doc Holliday he explained it in another video. He met the actor at a set and made unpleasant comment about the inaccuracy of his armor. Lloyd regretted it and then asked the actor to forgive him years later at an event. Thr picture is signed by the actor with "You are forgiven" written on it.
ALSO, he -is- was nicknamed Old Bear.
^^ He's also a work of nature
Cuz he's a watcher on the wall lmao
@@lukewiseman9209 lmfao....thanks,that was a good one.
I get PTSD from twitter
Triggered
Twittered.
Laquered.
Ayyy lmao
Has this slave ever been trolled by 4chan??
What about landmines and IEDs? It's one thing to worry about an ambush, I imagine it would be worse to not trust the ground under your feet. You can try to avoid them or detect them, but you can't really *fight* them.
Caltrops have always existed in one form or another in wartime. I don't think that landmines would make a major psychological difference to the effects of previous wars.
My father served 3 years during the croatian independence war, it was basically a bunch of irregulars and policemen + usa/canadian officers against the 3rd most powerful army at the time(JNA- yugoslav national army). I asked him how did we win with their massive numbers and equipment and he said something like you did. "You can have all the equipment you want, but what happens when you take the first step in a foreign nation and realize its a land mine? You can no longer trust the ground beneath you. Any moment could be your last, its mentally draining."
He also said that you should always aim to wound an enemy rather than kill him, that way his comrades either have to try and rescue him(then you kill them all) OR they keep hearing him crying and begging for help which destroys the morale and fosters panic.
@@TheWickedWizardOfOz1
Caltrops and landmines are completely different things,
other one is a small spiky thing that is like stepping on a extreme version of a lego, and they were more commonly used against horse mounted soldier. Spotting and avoiding them isn't difficult if you mind your step, but someone galloping on a horse has little time to react to them before a horse steps on one and rears up in panic. a foot soldier stepping on a little spike that makes them go "ouch!" is far less traumatic to men around him than stepping on a toepopper mine disguised as a dead leaf, which literally blows your entire foot away in a rainbow of blood and gore.
Landmines are explosive traps hidden completely out of sight and can kill you and everybody around you depending on the type of mine. Caltrops never stopped an army, whilst a minefields still do and can stop even the largest of forces, and you can ask any veteran who has seen their friend's legs suddenly blow off by a mine that they are deffinitely something that can and will psychological mess you up when you see what they can do.
There's plenty of research material of the physical and mental affects of landmines online if you'd spend a moment looking into it instead of acting like you already are a professional on the subject and know better.
The effects of IEDs on soldiers minds is horrific, especially since protection against them in Afghanistan on vehicles was awful. I counseled soldiers between deployments and seeing one blow up their mates was not forgettable, largely because they were placed anywhere so fast the threat was continuous.
you also have to remember that modern warfare is brutal.
like... more brutal than anything that has ever existed before.
spears, swords, arrows, etc.
yeah, that's pretty violent.
you gotta be right up close and feel every second of it.
but it's relatively natural in its violence. cuts, stabs, broken bones, etc. are all things people are used to seeing. watching someone get speared will probably not mentally break most people. most men have grown up seeing this kind of violence enacted on animals and people alike.
you would surely see some awful things.. it's still war afterall. but most of the time it would not be out of the scope of imagining for the average soldier.
now think of modern warfare...
people regularly burn alive.
heads literally explode from gunshots, and you have to pick brain matter off your clothes and face.
limbs are not just cut off... they are turned to shredded meat hanging out of tattered clothes.
sometimes entire bodies are simply obliterated! one second it's your friend bob... next thing you see is a pair of smoking boots and a pile of pulped limbs and organs scattered around you.
that kind of violence and fear simply never existed back in the day. at least not on the same scale.
seeing it would be bad enough. nevermind thinking that at any second it could happen to you... hours on end... day after day...
Or first u see u friend bob standing beside you but then a tank come and now bob is just another texture on the ground
+don saké blades/claws/arrows/blunt force are all fairly natural ways of killing.
they seem more brutal and visceral, but in reality the people of that time would be much more used to it through hunting, butchering, defending land, etc.
total obliteration of a body, random exploding heads, and the constant fear of instant death out of nowhere? totally foreign concepts to us, which would wear on our sanity much quicker and more profoundly.
***** mortality rates were absolutely not higher in medieval combat. not even close.
In fact most armies would break at around 10% casualties.
modern warfare, and specifically the world wars, were unmatched in their casualty counts.
i agree that it was more visceral, but it was nowhere near on the scope and scale of modern war.
For example, the entire US civil war counted around 620 thousand casualties.
The total dead during all of Napoleons campaigns reached a staggering 3.5 million.
WW1 blows both of these combined out of the water, with the grand total between all sides being upwards of 10 million.
then in WW2, the grand total more than doubled up to 25 million (military deaths only counted).
guns absolutely do explode heads.
I don't know if you have ever seen a real gunshot wound to the head, but average rifle (5.56, 7.62, .308, etc.) calibers do terrible things to a skull. especially the exit wound, or shots to the sides of the skull.
the JFK assassination video is a good example of this (a 6.5×52mm Carcano basically cracked his head open like a coconut).
the video explains very well exactly which factors lead to shellshock.
***** they don't account for civilian. i made sure I was only using battle casualties
You will never convince me that modern warfare is more brutal than ancient. Ever. And this isn't trolling, this is just realism. I would not be afraid to join a military these days, the only reason i don't is because i won't be a political tool used to benefit people who dont care about me... Send me back in a time machine, and i'd do everything i could to avoid it. Getting hacked and stabbed at with spears and swords, having men trying to decapitate you from horseback, hailstorms of arrows flying at you, all way worse.
I don't dispute that current war has a harsher effect on the mind, i just don't think that modern warfare is nearly as brutal as ancient.
Funny that so much more "tame" warfare for us has so much more of a mental effect on us... It just goes to show you that wealth and "civilization" (aka men destroying the planet for their short term gain) is weakening society from a social and mental standpoint. People get PTSD so much worse now because people are fucking pussies like never before, not because war is more intense.
And fuck the loud noise argument, all loud noises do is hurt your fucking ears.
So long as good men have been asked to do terrible things these men have suffered from what we now know as PTSD.
Well the ones that have actually done those things, most just pretend unless they are trained to kill.
decodeddiesel Many Armed Service Members are trying lobby to get the word "Disorder" out if PTSD. it's just post traumatic stress, a disorder is very belittling. Of course u have stress after experiencing war it's not a disorder
but if it isn't a disorder it can't be treated.
Ok, who says it is something needing treatment, maybe it should be adorated instead??
kadmow. Nah just tell them to suck it up and get down to the disco! Do the hustle
“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.”
"War endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not....
The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.”
If you shell your friends for 60 days to find out who is the psycho among them, there is a high chance the psycho is you.
oh shit
Still gotta find the other one
@@maxwellschmidt235 because 2 psychos make good friends
My dad was in the Iran Iraq war and yes he has tremendous ptsd, we was given a medal for saving two cpl form an ambush in koramshar
-lt. Shenasa Ali
-55th Iranian air brigade
That must have been especially terrifying with regards to the additional threats from the widespread use of modern chemical weapons in that war - you can’t see it until your buddies start coughing and convulsing.
I think you missed two important factors in your commentary:
First, the cleansing ritual. You sort of touched on this, but not specifically. Most cultures throughout history had some sort of cleansing ritual after battle, something that washed away the guilt. You see this all the way up to and including WWII, with ticker-tape parades on V-day. The Victory celebration was a cleansing ritual. It said: this is done. Your job is done. Put this horror behind you, for it is over, and now life can go on. After world war two, there haven;t been much in the way of cleansing rituals. We've had the opposite, with troops coming home from Vietnam, for example, and being not celebrated for their deeds, but demonized for them. Right or wrong, That's gonna take a mental toll. Or even recent wars, like the war in Iraq. Not even protests, just apathy. Opposite of love isn't hate, opposite of love is apathy. (I'm not making any judgement on the right or wrong factor of these wars, that's for another argument)
Second, meaning. Why was the war important? They watched their friends die, and for what? Again, up until and including WWII, this was fairly obvious. It was a battle of good and evil. MASH S8E12 covers this pretty well, from Mulcahey's storyline. "There's no one singing war songs now, like people used to do/no over there, no praise the lord, no glory hallelu.../perhaps at last we've asked ourselves what we should have asked before/with the pain and death this madness brings, what were we ever singing for?"
I dont know if i'd count WW2 victory celebrations as a cleansing ritual, at worst it was ramming soldiers infront of civilians again and praising what they did rather than cleansing them of their actions and transitioning. I think the spike in murders in the UK after the end of WW2, performed by veterans, speaks for how well that worked. I agree that some sort of rite of passage to return the soldier to civilian life and let them transition back into the role is a good thing, I just think WW2 didnt achieve that at all because it just labeled the soldiers as heroes in their current identity and threw them back into civilian life.
I clicked this before I finished reading the title.
or started reading the title.
I accidentally clicked it.
i deliberately clicked it after seeing the username.
That's what scholars call Divine Providence.
it may very well be the case, that in the realm of reading, you are a slowpoke
I'm just replying because I'm finding the latter half of the video somewhat tedious.
It's an unusually long one.
Why does he have Lord Commander Mormont as a picture behind himself?
The true psychopaths are those who send others out to die for their interests.
True
@stephen stewart you should watch the Russian band Little Big's music video "Kind Inside, Hard Outside". Its so good! Probably watch the rest of their music videos as well if you haven't had the pleasure.
not just the politicians interests a country would gain resources.
and thats worth than a mans life
There's a thing called chain of command. A private is a private for a reason and a colonel is a colonel for a reason, everyone in within the force do their function...
poetic as that sounds, its not true. There are those that live to kill, love to watch people die. I knew several soldiers in my time in the infantry that said their most favorite thing in the world was watching the light fade from another humans eyes, that it made them all hard to watch people die.
"I'll take that one"
"Oh, he was attacked by a bear once"
"Oh, shit. He fought off and survived a bear attack.... Uh.... I don't want him as a slave, he may overpower everyone and kill me"
"10% off?"
"Ok"
I hate war. It's just not cricket.
+MrGrapesniffer even cricket isnt cricket.
What are you talking about, cricket is even worse, it’s the mockery of the biggest disaster in the know universe.
FreakyKaktus of course, we need to abolish it by teaching them why it was a disaster
Gather a couple of thousand cricket warriors from your country and we can have a cricket war! Or boules, I like boules...
Honestly your voice makes learning incredibly easy. Reminds me of fun teachers in 80s comedies combined with Gregory House.
How odd! I was just reading about Gen. Patton of the US army slapping soldiers because he didn't believe in PTSD.
He slapped the entire ww1 veteran rally once
Must have had a sore hand afterwards---
it was accepted by people who were studying it.. Patton was not studying PTSD and didn't have it so it prob didn't make sense to him
Patton was supposed to be shot after Eisenhower caught him abusing a prisoner or a wounded US soldier, I can't remember which. But he was spared because he was needed for the Italian campaign.
He was crazy in his own right, plus the fucker believed he was going to Valhalla. But goddamn was he good at waging war.
" They say you never hear the bullet that kills. And I don't hear a sound!! " (Dio - "End of the World")
ZE WARUDO.
WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
@UCjddb7aQ9JTAptdnzpKQYJg I fucking hate JoJo. Every subreddit I go through has a vermin-like underclass of JoJo fanboys. They all just have to say “iS THat A JOJo ReFErEncE??!!!1” on every fucking post that contains a single word that may have been used in the shitty comics. Oh, a suspicious link? Probably a rickroll. NOPE!!! They’ve ruined that, too! One of the oldest goddamn internet traditions shat on and ruined by JoJo fanboys. Thunder Cross Split Attack! So fucking funny, right? I’m wheezing! NO. SHUT THE FUCK UP. Nobody cares about your shitty comic series. Dio is a stupid character from a stupid comic series. I downvote every post and comment that mentions JoJo, out of pure bloodcurdling rage. I want to detonate a MASSIVE thermonuclear warhead right on top of whatever godforsaken studio publishes that stinking-pile-of-trash comic. Frankly, I don’t even care for the civilian casualties, either. At least they died for a good reason. Unlike JoJo fans, I actually contribute to the betterment of mankind, instead of spamming shitty references on the internet. Every JoJo fan that dies a slow, painful death is a win in my book. I have claimed over a dozen of them already, too. I annihilated their skulls with my fists. Their stupid ice attack didn’t do shit for them either. They dies like they lived, pathetic excuses for humans. I hope more people hear my message and declare war on JoJo. If nobody helps me, I will do as much damage as I possibly can before I die. Thank you.
Actually sudden unexplainable blindness would have been interpreted by ancient Athenians as the mark of Athena herself, given the legends of the traveling prophet Tiresias who was stricken with blindness for having gazed upon the goddess nude form, long story short Tiresias lost his eyesight for several years, but he gained the supernatural power of farsight (literally seeing from a birds eye view from a far) as a messenger and prophet of Athena , as a result Athenians saw sudden unexplained blindness during wartime as a good omen and a sign that the individual was being conscripted into divine service for a special task.
Given what I know of initial reactions to 'battle fatigue' in WWI, and the origin of certain men's clubs in relation to that, I would say ancient incidents of battle fatigue were likely mostly written off as cowardice and treated accordingly. You'd never be able to research ancient incidents of it, likely, because the majority were recorded merely as cowards rather than mentally ill.
I agree. There were certainly many stress the ancients faced that modern soldiers don't. Starvation, no medical services, rampant illness, being totally lost months journey from home etc
That's what Gen. Patton of WWII fame thought as well, and it got him in a lot of trouble when he smacked a soldier in hospital who had 'battle fatigue.' I've read accounts written by some German soldiers who heard of that incident and laughed about it because in their army 'battle fatigue' wasn't recognized as anything other than cowardice an anyone who displayed the symptoms of it were summarily shot.
Great and very interesting video, thanks! I always wondered how soldiers in the age of Napoleon and the American Civil War were able to actually line up with their muskets and just endure being shot at, standing there.. without taking cover. To me this seems sheer madness, I have absolutely no idea how anybody could do that.
This guy is brilliant and this is one of his best videos, IMHO. Respect.
Probably you are right in your Analysis. Yes, it is likely that modern warfare conditions are more mentally draining. What I would like to coment, I'm Spanish, is about the Tercios. Maybe you know that during the 80 years war against Holland, basically the last third of the 16th century and first half of the 17th, the Spanish army created what is can be considered as the first Military Hospital at Malinas (Belgium). In this hospital many soldiers were shelter with a strange "malady of the spirit". This malady was call "Soldier's broken soul". Likely to be combat fatigue, more poetically express thou.
And then you get someone like "Fighting Jack Churchill" (no relation to Winston as far as is known) who actually seemed to enjoy war. Mind you, it's probably the case that is war doesn't make you mad, you were probably a bit (or a lot) mad to begin with.
When one has little fear of death, and you see your enemy as nothing more than just that, then war would be somewhat of a game. People like that make great soldiers, but awful citizens. Just as sociopaths make great spies, but are otherwise undesirable.
Actually, you could probably split it into sociopaths and iron-willed men, with Jack Churchill coming under the former, and Audie Murphy under the latter.
"Who would notice another madman around here?" ~ Blackadder.
Burhan the Somali Sociopaths are incapable of feeling remorse or empathizing with others. They are manipulative and take no issue in exploiting others. I may have implied that sociopathy is necessary for espionage, but that was a mistake. I meant that sociopaths have many desirable qualities (minus the mindless rage, but you can learn to control that) that work well in espionage related tasks like manipulation, they also find it hard to maintain relationships. All in all, you have a skilled manipulative person that you've trained to carry out tasks alone if needed and are capable killing (even children or women, which most take issue with) if necessary. Not to mention the fact that they don't have much in the way of relationships, even with family. No morals, no ethics, no relationships. Combine all of this with typical espionage skills and a bit of loyalty, then you have a highly effective and loyal individual with nobody to miss them if theyre dead or captured... and otherwise expendable. Just my two-cents.
+Matthew Marden
Didn't Audie Murphy have PTSD?
I got PTSD from twitter
Ayy lmao
Thank u 4 ur service.
I got STDs from Tinder.
I got manic depression from tumblah.
I got nothing from no one, never.
I’m at peace after my experience.
I’ve read 'meditations' a thousand times, before and since.
Glory is a bad word.
"The paths of glory lead but to the grave"
I like how you always seem to answer questions that have past my mind before. Thank you for your insight, it's been quite enlightening.
Good discussion - from what I have studied / understand that militaries move faster & faster and people are exposed to more ‘front line duty’. So this ratchets up the pressure on the Mind.
SLAVA Ukraine 🇺🇦.
Lloyd, please review Battle of the Bastards. See if there's a wrong leaf there
There's more wrong about it than just misplaced leaves.
+Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre it was good television battle itself didnt much sense
QurttoRco Pretty much.
Scholagladiatoria did it, look it up if you haven't already.
Wetcorps
yeah his analysis is worthless
I would fully expect so. Look at how the Roman Republic organized the army. With the Maniple system, the Roman Armey had three lines and was set by experience. The least experienced were in the front rank, which meant they had to remain in rank and fight. They could not flee, as much of the army was behind them. Then came the middle rank, which was made up more battle-hardened individuals, tested in battle. Lastly came the final rank, which was held back unless the situation was most dire, in which case they were called in to save the day. 'it's up to the Triarii' was the phrase when the army would lose or win based on the skills of the oldest and most experienced men.
That system makes more sense in the context of battle-fatigue. The troops with the least skill are placed in the spot where they don't have much choice but to fight. They still were trained, to be sure, but many options, such as running away, are simply not available to them from this spot. On the other hand, the Triarii are not called out to fight unless absolutely required. These men have served the longest and holding them in reserve, where battle fatigue is less likely to set in.
It is also worth noting that many Roman generals won wars by means outside of direct fighting. 'Attrition' was used quite often by many Successful generals. Vespasian and Titius used at Jerusalem. Julius Caeser, and Augustus both used it, as seen in Gaul, and the battle of Actium respectively. Alexius Comnenus used it quite well to turn around the losses suffered by his Empire prior, and following the First Crusade in a number of battles. The best example here is with the Normal Invasions, as these were defeated both times by Attrriion. The Normans simply denied the supplies to keep fighting and suffered losses from this state of affairs. This works to fold - not only are your troop still fresh, but they never had deal psychologically with the struggles of war and the killing that goes with it. If you read the Alexiad, you'd read about the sheer number of wars, and the vast array of foes he staved off, and despite the limited manpower and funds, he had available to him. Imagine the battle fatigue his troops would have experienced had he not conserved them so. it's because Alexius Comnenus was so careful that, despite the number of battles and trails his Empire endured, that by the end of his reign his county was stronger, richer and more prepared than when he first came to power.
Didn't Galen talk about soldiers needing "dream analysis" before being integrated back into society? There were men so traumatized by dreams of their dead comrades that they needed priest/doctors to help them?
Another reason to use Battle Fatigue in this context is that PTSD obviously existed in the ancient world. If a bear eats your mother in front of you, that's going to mess with your head.
Or having giant war-beasts crushing and impaling warriors around you of equal or even greater strength then your own
Yours are one of the best history series on TH-cam. Thank you for the research and video.
I would think that soldiers in the ancient world have a tougher time in any actual battle, as it was hand to hand combat, but soldiers under the tyranny of artillery could never quite be at ease, as a shell could come over at any time. You're never safe. The "rear" isn't safe any longer. I think that's why Vietnam was so terrible, as death could strike at any time, whereas an ancient soldier would kinda know when a battle was coming since most of the time armies had to line up and March towards each other.
Oh that's pretty much what you said......
Very good points but you forgot one important thing:
In the old days: the war was only on the battlefield; after the war, you went home to your family and they accepted you no matter what
Today: you fight in a war that is not yours, you get PTSD, your wife leaves you, you loose your job because your not recovering fast enough and only efficient humans are worth something, you end up under a bridge and people yell at you murderer and tramp.
Plus, with ancient warfare, there was almost always a clear indication of when you'll be in danger. Sure, the enemy could ambush you on the march or in your camp, but most fighting took place on predefined battlefields. You were pretty safe when not in an actual battle. I can't speak from experience, but knowing with decent accuracy when I could be in danger seems a hell of a lot less stressful than never knowing when I could die or be attacked.
DrakeTheBadgerman
Yes, there was a much lower chance at getting attacked while slepping or eating, or by enemies hiding among civilians.
You shouldn't forget that honor played a much more dominant role too, despite all the atrocities.
Well, except that the old days covers a pretty huge span of time and a pretty huge range of cultures. I don't think that infidelity or marriages falling apart while the husband's away on campaign is really anything new, it's a common enough theme in medieval literature, for one. Also, there are lots of examples throughout history of disenfranchised soldiers who had no prospects to return to, who became the main recruits in the bands of mercenaries and brigands that were a constant plague during some periods. History's also full of huge economic downturns, such as the Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman empire, which would have seen a good number of disenfranchised former soldiers living on inadequate pensions with not much hope for the future. As far as wars that weren't theirs, soldiers, say, in Roman times were often fighting not for a nation/empire or an idea, but rather for the glory (ie vanity) of generals attempting to seize power for themselves, and in the frequent civil wars soldiers were fighting against soldiers who were ostensibly on the same side; it would be like the 6th Infantry Regiment squaring off against the 175th Infantry Regiment. And in the Roman army, the majority of its manpower came from paid foreign mercenaries from pretty early in its history. And that's not even counting the prisoners of war used as conscripts to fight against their own countrymen, another common practice in ancient times, especially because such men had no homes to return to. It was even worse in the Middle Ages, when the average footsoldier was usually a peasant conscripted by his lord (who was already probably gouging him on rent and taxes), to go fight in a war so he could have a new castle or two for himself -- that's a soldier with absolutely no share whatsoever in a war. And all this of course was before the concept of social services for veterans even existed, so soldiers and veterans in times past were SOL in that regard too.
Most wars actually were fought primarily by mercenaries in the old times, with the exception of the Roman Empire and those really large Feudal domains.
stereotypes. various things happen to soldiers when they come back, both in the old days and new with some variance owing to culture. Everything changes and everything remains the same.
guns are overpowered need nerf
artistguy99 Fight wars with nerf guns
That's actually realistic, I think. I have hope that we stop killing each other in the near future - in 300 years or so. We already agree that it is not a good idea to use nuclear weapons. They are working great as a threat, of course. And there is a realistic chance that they may be used because of some misunderstanding. Chemical weapons mostly do not get used also. They are easy to produce, there is no need to keep them in stock to use them. Landmines also are somewhat outlawed already. Outlaw killing soldiers also like we agree already to not kill civilians. Take hostages instead. Then wear oxygen masks and airdrop huge amounts of sand, or quickly hardening foam. You absolutely can immobilize a tank with sand.
@stephen stewart Yes, they could fight many disciplines, like most martial arts, weight lifting, crossbow - but chess and go also.
@stephen stewart Putin all day. Maybe Macron and King Felipe would stand a chance.
@stephen stewart yep. The U.S. Congress should step up and enforce their own policies here in the states instead of sending soilders and police to do their dirty work for them.
They all need to understand how the other half lives. You want a war for nonsense?
Go fight it your damn self.
You want to take something that doesn't belong to you? Get off your arse and go get it.
It won't take long for them to figure out.
I would totally back a Kickstarter project where you ramble for 5 hours, with stretch goals of just adding hours onto the rambling.
My grandpa's uncle and great grandpa were in Finnish continuation war. Grandpa's uncle had horrible nightmares after war and was driven to drink to stand that. But in the 70s he ended up exploding himself with dynamite while sitting on well cover. That's what dad tells me. War is horrible.
It's also a cultural thing, when you have been raised in a society of violence where you witness death often and killing someone isn't seen so "bad ", much like Vikings or Mongols for exemple. They where damn tough because that's the universe they have been raised in. That if you die in battle you'd end up in Valhalla, that whiping up an entire ennemy tribe execution style after a battle is a cultural thing. Today someone dies killed in front of you and of course you are shocked, you're not used to it, not raised in this kind of universe.
Witnessing death would be an important factor. We have to remember that life expectancy was far FAR lower in the ancient world. Famine, accidents, murder, and the big one - disease - would all have been quite common. And in certain areas even war or raiders wouldn't have been an uncommon occurrence. I expect most people were rather more inured to some of the more common types of death.
"Humans don't naturally kill other humans" was a sweeping statement that doesn't apply to most of human history and probably peoples
@@javicoca It does. Remember that when the greatest battles are fought, 99% of the world doesn't have a clue that anytzhing is going on. True we are taught that we have been at war for most of our history, but that is still, statistically speaking, a very small percentage. Example: the Spanish Armada was the biggest, baddest, and most feared army in Europe in 1600. It consisted of 30000 professional soldiers, a couple thousand gunners, and consripts(for what they're worth). In contrast, the population of the Iberian peninsula, plus Spanish and Portugals overseas teritory was just shy of 30.000.000, so I'm guessing about 15-20 million for the Spanish alone. Now those 40 odd thousand soldiers that actually fought don't seem that much right.
Also, given the chance, most any randomly chosen human WOULD NOT willingly kill another human, unless having a "valid" reason or being forced into it, by having his/her family taken hostage for example.
We are good at killing eachother, but in smaller quantities than we think.
siukong ancient life expectancy being low is a bit of a misconception... if you remove the infant death rate, life expectancy shoots up to what you would see in the 50’s or 60’s.
It would not be unusual for adults to know their grandparents even with disease and famine and war you stood a pretty good chance of making into your 60s at the very least
In the civil war, the south did great against NE city men in the east. In Tennessee and later in the war, the south faced troops from Indiana, ohio, Michigan and it became farmboy vs farmboy. Both grew up with death and a rifle. Needless to say the north did much better.
Good video only one point. the Hollands are 2 provinces of the Netherlands so please use that term if you can. It would be te same as calling the entirety of brittian walles or calling the entire USA Dakota. keep up the good work. A Dutch viewer
Yes. I say 'Holland' because that's what the British called it during WW2.
As another Dutchy, I can say that calling the Netherlands 'Holland' is more comparable to calling Great Brittain 'England', in that it's not strictly correct but people will still know what you mean and they have been calling it that for quite some time now too.
Its also comparable in that both Holland and England were once independent countries, and eventually came to be the most... prodigious group after they became part of a larger union.
Similarly, Lindy calls German machine guns "Spandaus" because that's what the British called them in WW2.
+asd asd I am sympathetic and try to be accurate when I speak as well. However, it is difficult when your country often uses "Holland" itself as a general name for the whole kabootle.
The U.K. Is often referred to as "England" here in the US, and as an American (there is another usage quirk) from the South Eastern US, I get a bit tired of being referred to as a "Yank".
+Lindybeige Even today, the official tourist bureau website of the Netherlands is Holland.com . So, I think the criticism of your usage is a bit misdirected.
I have recently read a book, "The Afghan Campaign" by Steven Pressfield. The story is told from the viewpoint of an infantryman in the army of Alexander the Great. The descriptions of many of the actions of warriors are - to me as a Vietnam combat veteran - very clearly signs of mental trauma from combat. It is nothing new ... it's just that the public awareness of it comes and goes. For those of us who have been in combat, the effect of combat stress is always there to some variable degree. I still have nightmares ... and my wife of 50+ years is very patient and tries to be understanding and comforting.
Watching this again after two years, I still think that your argumentation in this video is one of your best. Especially the control & stress relation and the 'Atkins shoot those people you've never met in the face'. Very proper and a mostly overlooked subject in history.
"Thou shall not kill" in the original text is more about murder than killing in general - the Israel was obviously not prohibited to engage in war.
Right. And protecting your family and/country is fine. Murder is premeditated viciousness. Killing can be anything, including self defense. And God says self defense is fine.
@@MajorMustang1117 unless you raid the people who live on your promised land
@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 damn right. Especially when they sacrificed people. Definitely a better world without them.
Gods judgment is hard for the immoral. But understandable to those who hate evil.
@@MajorMustang1117 yess, kill all people, men, women, boys, all animals. Only virgins can stay. Hooray, God's judgment is always right. It's not like you can also teach the boys the better way. Ah, no, wait. You can't turn the boys into slaves (you can only purchase them according to the law) so they're useless but you can marry the girls and make them almost slaves
I love the casual sexism
Or better, kill all people (even female toddlers) except for the one family that was lucky enough to have one rightful person to protect them from the wrath. There must have been something wrong with all those 5 years olds for God to hate them
My favorite God's justice was when, after Kain killed his own brother, he gave the man a "curse" that would protect him from other people. Now I love the story because it's a proof that (even according to Bible) Adam and Eve weren't the first people on Earth - they were just God's creation (it means no incest at least for now). And also it shows the first evidence of his favouritism towards his chosen people. New testament was a huge deal because suddenly everyone was equal (more or less) when in whole old testament only one nation mattered
Just imagine being a random Egyptian living during the time of the exodus. You lose all your crops and first born child because your pharaoh is an asshole. You don't even own a Jewish slave. You're just casualty of pissing contest between state magicians and Jewish magicians. They finally left but the whole country is weakened, food is no more, people are angry. It means either a revolution, being raided by another country or both. Again whole nation suffers for actions of minority. This kind of punishment works in Greek myths where gods are never meant to be the ultimate justice but more force of nature. If Jahwe wanted he would just kill the people who didn't want to leave Jews alone. But no, his own divine creation the angel of death can't even distinguish between the chosen nation and the pagan nation so it kills every firstborn from family that didn't do the blood magic
@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 I'm not going to even begin with the number of errors here.... it would be fruitless through TH-cam to have this conversation sooooooo.....
Here's a cookie!!! 🍪😊
One thing you didn't really touch on was the difference in gore between ancient warfare and modern warfare. I think this is one of the worst aspects of modern war. When you lost a buddy back in the day, the most gruesome thing you would witness was their severed head. In modern warfare, your friend could be liquefied by an explosive and you would have pieces of them on you...chunks of skull with hair, still warm from their presence...you pick up a piece of his face, jaw bone wrapped in torn lips and shattered teeth. You recognize him in gore as you gather his remains. Piece by piece. with your bare hands...truly some fucked up hell that you would never be allowed to leave.
I was attacked by a lion in Detroit and a bear in Chicago and I've been useless as a slave ever since.
Well it's time we sent you north to the Packers and shipped you off east to some Patriots. Maybe they'll help fix you and you'll be soaring like an Eagle in no time.
@@olliefoxx7165 XD
Damn, I've been looking for a video on contemporary history regarding combat fatigue. Good shit. You've earned a sub my friend.
Makes me think of that Monty Python bit where a shell-shocked soldier from WWI was on the ground in a battlefield and says something to the effect of, ¨Back home, if I killed 7 people they would hang me in the town square, do it out here and they´ll give me a fucking medal for it!¨
Really? In medieval and ancient warfare you could often talk to your victim. You always could see him at least. Friendly fire wasn't the aircraft over head it was sticking your into your comrade behind you. People didn't have control. No medics came and took away the injured to places out of sight for life saving treatments. They lay gasping, convulsing, screaming and cursing with almost nothing that could be done to alleviate their suffering. Being on the verge of starvation, heat stroke, dehydration or in the grips of an illness were all come fates of ancient soldiers. Even cannibalism of enemy and allied corpse happened. Imagine being besieged for years not know when if ever it would end.
Desertion was very, very high by modern standards in almost every ancient army and mutiny not particularly uncommon. And people often acted then violently irrational in and after conflicts. All of these I believe hint to the mental anguish soldiers suffered.
There is no glamour in any era it is just a misery that benefits the masters.
You sound like a hippie. You mention there not being medics, as if that was a bad thing. Medics didn't exist back then. So there's no point in mentioning it, because the people who lived back then we're oblivious to how poor their lives were. The average lifespan depending on where you went was probably 30, in antiquity. So fighting in combat and dying denied you only a couple years. You're ignoring how unpleasant life was back then and how the people felt about war. Believe it or not, many liked it. Not every man who was a soldier had a beautiful family to run home to. Many were slaves or lowly peasants and combat was their means to a quality life. They fought with a lot of vigor, and they fought for their homes. Those are ideas absent in modern combat. Also, absent in your argument.
You can take a simple gaze at the difference in PTSD prevalence with vietnma era soldiers and those of ww2. The motivation for a war played a significant role in whether or not a soldier was "fatigue" or had PTSD. And that was 80 years ago. Go back several hundred or a thousand and the reality is wildly different from what you suggest
mysticonthehill Doesn’t sound too bad
mysticonthehill lol there is always glory and fresh livers to eat.
I’ve had strong emotions after nearly every fight. Just had it happen two nights ago... I spent the weekend being quite.
Everyone is different. FYI, I won my recent need for self defense. Soar ear... he had a thrashed back smashed against a car with a strong backward crash but used the least amount of force n kept him off the ground where heads can break...
Muay Thai neck grapple 180 body twist and full toss. Felt good. It was fun. Of coarse I had more training n he was a little drunk... should not attack moving cars with objects bro some drivers get out n step up... ASAP
True Story is it was his drunk bitch who thru object n he defended her cus I talked her down when she tried to go thug n put her in her place.
She was physically safe from me. He fucked up. I order him to hold her back he did it. I told her I’m not listening to you, your a crazy bitch n have no respect good people... dude lost the plot (while I was on phone to 911) then so I served him harshly.
Get trained people... don’t wear sandals. Always be relaxed n ready... win n stay safe-
It only takes 10 seconds n your head could get beaten in. Death now is random. It’s still life. The street has never before had so many unskilled defenseless people in it with such huge attitudes... don’t be one of them-
@@Powd3r81 You're right. Lying in some field with your guts hanging out, waiting for an enemy soldier to finish you off within the next day or so with no hope of aid or rescue, is a peace of cake. It's not even worthy of consideration. Of course you overlook the fact that a comparison was being made between contemporary and ancient soldiering, but considering this obvious fact would eliminate your chance to be a snarky ass, so that of course had to be ignored.
@@Powd3r81 Medics existed in battle, in fact, it was standard for Roman legions to have field surgeons and stretcher bearers, in addition to quick combat medicine techniques like filling a wound with spiderwebs. Additionally, the "average lifespan was thirty years" thing was including infant mortality. Once someone got past being a young child, they could expect to live to at least fifty in most cases, often past sixty. And men who were soldiers didn't always have families. In Rome, soldiers were forbidden from marrying while in the army except under certain special circumstances. Slaves and peasants were also rarely the main force, the main force typically being career soldiers.
Additionally, a likely reason that PTSD rates would be different between WWII and Vietnam is how the wars were fought. In Vietnam, literally any soldier was a potential target for attack, be he infantry, artillery, armored, supply, transport. The enemy was anywhere and everywhere. WWII was much different. When you were behind the front lines, you were genuinely pretty safe. Sure, there was the worry about bomber raids, but even those weren't common enough to make any but the largest targets particularly in check. Remember, those numbers about 60 days being enough to drive 98% of people made were from WWII as were the combat effectiveness studies. THe thing about Vietnam is that practically anyone was at constant risk of combat even when they should've been sleeping.
Altogether, ancient soldiering and modern soldiering had very different stressors and neither was a great time.
You should do audiobook recordings for Audible Lindy.
Damn, that's an idea. I'd listen to novels narrated by Lindy!
i was thinking about this exact topic earlier and i just randomly stumbled across your video. it answers all the questions I had and I really enjoy listening to you speak. thank you
Battle Fatigue and PTSD hae the same amount of syllables, so one's not really longer than the other.
he's talking about the abbrevation
That's the point: if you read abbreviation it has 4 syllables "pee-tee-es-dee", same as 'battle fatigue' - 'bat-l fuh-teeg'.
But "Battle Fatigue" rolls of the tongue more naturally.
Marko Antic That's most certainly your opinion
It's the exact same in PTSD......having gone through a treatmemt program I find this remarkably similiar
I was a Paramedic for 16 years and didn't know there was anything wrong.....however, in your example of the 50th Division just having enough and basically quiting....that is exactly the same
There is no way that even in the ancient world this didn't occur.....over time you develope your "survival" strategy
Simple things like never letting anyone behind you and losing your mind on anyone who tries to go there
I suspect it's also that humans in modern, industrialized societies usually face little to inoculate them from stress and hardship. Few of your friends and family will die of disease or injury; you're likely pretty well-protected from crime, invasions, and raids; you aren't probably going to face any wild animals, starvation, or discomfort in your home. In consequence, you don't grow up dealing with these things because you never have to when you're growing up. That is, until you do have to. Then you won't know how to deal with them, and the suffering you experience can break you for want of having been tempered by real misfortune in your past. Also, the culture we live in demands we be positive and not think about the possibility of something going wrong - we train ourselves to never even imagine living through any kind of torment, meaning we're totally unprepared for it and can't fathom that bad things aren't the end of our world since we don't bother considering perspective beforehand. Add to all that we have difficulty, for the reasons mentioned, understanding how fragile and therefore how valuable our lives are, so wallowing in depression and anxiety is what we give into instead of taking the best we can from life while we still might.
Which possibly has something to do with the greatly expanding rate of ptsd, or why it is perceived as such. I think that because it's widely known compared to other anxiety and stress based disorders that may also be an issue, with people expanding the definition. Not to mention that not only are you not prepared for stress by seeing and experiencing it, you aren't told about it or how to alleviate it at all and can experience it in ways which are unexpected and which no support is offered for.
What makes me curious is long term stress issues, which are not often addressed; even here, it's shorter time frames. I've gone a lot longer than any of the time periods mentioned under high stress and with little sleep, with my circadian rhythms and hormones fucked to hell. Years of it, but no traumatic experiences; college and the latter half of high school was that. About 6 years, after a relatively stress free life up until that. That sort of long term stress didn't happen much historically
People are both happier and healthier than ever before. Systemic problems and hardship affect the postmodern you just as much it did the ancient people. They were just more stressed and more mentally scarred, and it was the norm. We don't accept it any more since we know better.
*****
"People are both happier"
Haven't there been studies showing that peoples happiness and expectations adjust to whatever is "normal" for them?
"and healthier than ever before."
Probably.
"Systemic problems and hardship affect the postmodern you just as much it did the ancient people."
This would seem to contradict what you've just said. I don't even think it's comparable, because of the vast gulf in essentially everything between those two groups.
"They were just more stressed and more mentally scarred, and it was the norm."
More scarred by modern terms maybe, but that may also depend on cultural values and concepts; they operated on very different lines of thought than we do, and it should not be taken for granted that they would react in the same way especially given the different context of the vastly different stimuli involved. It was the norm. I take issue to more stressed because of the studies I mentioned at the beginning.
"We don't accept it any more since we know better."
The vast majority of people certainly don't know better; that's a rather condescending point of view to take in the first place. I'd attribute it to the simple fact that the majority of people _can_ live without these issues, despite the possibility of modern culture creating even more issues as mentioned in the video, and couldn't then. The world was quite different, after all.
I like the quirky video end caption here. Very respectful. Thanks Lloyd!
"You would just be a super soldier defeating entire armys" Gordan Freeman:
Yes. The Odyssey is speculated to showcase the effects of a life of violence. "Life after."
Alexander the Great's Army would be another Example of Battle Fatigue. I wanna say after 20 Years, his Army had enough, so a Munity broke out but was Crushed, so they went to India after this
Jeff Kennedy actually, an interesting point about when that army rebelled. Alexander was pushing into India at the time, and contrary to some advice he’d been given, wanted to go further into what we know now as north India. But the time of year he tried it was during the monsoons. After dealing with day after day after day of torrential deluge, soaked to the skin, trying to move military equipment through practical swamp or worse, his army said screw this. No farther through this piss, we are going home. The weather was a seriously important point, not just the distance from home that they had travelled, or other more conventional arguments. Nobody in India went to war in the monsoon season.
While I do agree with your point about the monsoons and terrible conditions. I think you are downplaying the affects of being on campaign for a major part of your life. Some of the men in his army had children back home that they had never even met and eventually all of the fight is taken out of you.
Steven Ritter you are also right. On account of nothing having a neat single cause for why great historical events take place. I merely bring it up as a typically unknown point of consideration. Most often things like the families and campaign length are what is brought up, and so they are generally known. I hoped to add an extra layer of reasons to the picture
Tyler Peacock ahh. I see. Well I do appreciate it and found it interesting. As you said it’s not often discussed and myself did not know that.
Working in Psychiatric hospitals in the late 80s and early 90s, over 50% of the male patients on long stay wards had been in the armed forces in the time just preceding admission. Surprisingly most of their records had no mention of what caused there breakdown, and of those that did have notes about their type of service some had never seen combat.