Interesting perspective on the differences between ancient warfare and modern, discussing the existence/non-existence of PTSD.

2015-01-04T12:45:19-05:00

This short article, a summary of an academic paper, describes the differences between ancient and modern warfare by comparing the American soldier with a Greek hoplite.

The key areas of interest are quoted below:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
American infantrymen grew up in a society based on “Christianised norms and values, stressing peace, mercy and the sanctity of human life”. They largely “served in military units comprised of complete strangers” and often had to fight round the clock for extended periods. They could do little more than “seek safety in cover and concealment” on battlefields “traversed by red-hot, razor-sharp shrapnel and high-velocity gunfire”. Sleep deprivation, lack of social support, enforced passivity in the face of lethal danger and a sense of going against their underlying values all combined to make war deeply traumatic.

None of this, Dr Crowley’s paper goes on, applied to Athenian hoplites. They lived in a “profoundly pugnacious” society that “venerated war”, and where “battlefield bravery” was “considered an unqualified social good”. Soldiers “mobilised, deployed and fought alongside” those from their local communities in “a close-order formation predicated on mutual protection and tactical interdependency”.

“Largely protected against progressive exhaustion and sleep deprivation”, they faced a limited range of threats from “warriors armed with muscle-powered weapons”.

All these factors, Dr Crowley’s paper concludes, protected ancient soldiers against the dangers of PTSD.

Battle scars: Did Achilles suffer from PTSD? | Times Higher Education

A historian mulls modern and ancient soldiers’ susceptibility to PTSD

Response by SGT Justin Singleton made Jan 18 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-01-18T11:10:21-05:00

What are your thoughts on this?