Why do ancient and medieval war movies portray battles as bloody but the participants never seem to suffer shell shock...

Why do ancient and medieval war movies portray battles as bloody but the participants never seem to suffer shell shock or ptsd?

The deaths themselves seem traumatic, but nobody after the battle is a mess like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. War is bloody and dirty but always presented as a quest for honour and freedom and less so a horrible traumatic existential experience. The soldiers mourn the dead, but not their innocence or sanity.

Other urls found in this thread:

seeker.com/medieval-knights-may-have-had-ptsd-1765567422.html
youtube.com/watch?v=FDNyU1TQUXg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because these movies are about glorifying war and heroism, not deconstructing it.

Becuase men weren't faggots back then.

they're made by retards who dont knwo anything about history is why

seeker.com/medieval-knights-may-have-had-ptsd-1765567422.html

Yes but why? Why hasn't there been a single movie where the warriors are sad for more than one minute? Herodotus' Histories recounts Greek warriors who couldn't talk or function after warfare. It takes aware from their humanity a bit when they behave unlike humans do when exposed to trauma.

Life itself was much more brutal so people were better conditioned for hardship.

Didn't happen because they were fighting two different wars.

A battle pregunpowder was something that could take days and see minimal casualties. In fact most fights were built up with posturing for days at a time before any sort of blood was spilled.

The men could also see their enemy, and terror didn't play a part in battle due to things like heavy horse not existing outside of cataphracts; which belonged to a single people's in the entire world.

Otherwise it was just a lot of smashing bodies together until one line crumbled and hostages were taken. Even Caesar who faced tens of millions of men during his career only managed an estimated kill count of less than a million. A slaughter on the scale of what Hannibal pulled off repeatedly was unheard which is why they were such notable defeats.

There's literally hundreds of historical accounts of ptsd throughout the entirety of human history.

Back then war wasn't as bad, people mor eoften got injured than killed right there.

Also harsher life and men often drinked their problems away.

Ur a faggot.

>Thousands of thousands of Jon's men die horrible agonising deaths
>His brother is killed infront of him
>He's nearly crushed to death and starts experiencing shell shock
>Knows there's no after life
>Somehow wins the battle
>Has a bath and is ok that afternoon

they didn't long enough to develop ptsd

back then you fought face to face with the enemy.
as technology advanced, you no longer see an enemy.

/thread

>I've never read a history book

Relevance?

Maybe the old type of warfare didn't cause that much stress? At least you could see your opponent, as user mentioned above. Today's soldiers are walking on eggshells, you don't even know if the next moment you ll step on a mine and it's game over.
Or you get shot by a random sni

I can tell you never have.

Fucking Sup Forumstard with your dumb shitty sniper meme go back to re

It's generally believed that PTSD is usually caused by prolonged periods of anxiety/trauma without rest.

War used to be mostly just camping & hiking with no enemy in sight. Campaigns happened in spring and in the winter almost everyone just hunkered down for several months. When you did engage an enemy it was usually an affair that lasted a single day at the longest and one side would break and rout after a small but considerable portion of their forces were killed or a commander died. It was an adrenaline fueled outburst and then soldiers went back to normality of their daily routines.

Because it doesn't fit within the narrative. Essentially you have movies that show the terrible effects of war, and then you have movies that just want to show you awesome big battles and shit. Imagine Lord of the Rings where the heroes are constantly shell shocked. It just wouldn't fit.

>cant even name one from medieval times
lol

Oh, fuck off next you'll be telling me that if I say Candlejack then I'll be kidna

Fags.

ancient peoples didn't raise nu males and actually glorified battle men who cowered and shrieked were seen as huge pussies, so that's kind of a biggie

Shell shock and ptsd aren't real. People just act a bit for a free handout, a gibsmedat.

Found the newfag redditor

Educate yourself, shitlord

youtube.com/watch?v=FDNyU1TQUXg

There was no welfare state in WWI mate. The only thing that you got gibbed was a quick trip to the looney hatch. not exactly pleasant.

So were they acting then?

@75850758
yea those ww1 vets got so many free handouts

no (You) for such a lazy b8

lol

didnt think so.

>why would prolonged exposure to immense stress and actual risk of dying have any effect on the human psyche? lel

not him but only newfags and redditors call others newfags and redditors.
just fyi, friend. enjoy your stay and remember to lurk more before posting

nothing can prepare you for a medieval battlefield.

or a ww1 trench.

>only newfags and redditors call others newfags and redditors.

This is the most newfag rationalization I've ever heard

>Lindy Beige
Mien Nigger

thanks for proving my point. you should still heed my advice before posting further though ;)

>nothing can prepare you for a medieval battlefield.
Wrong.

You have to be a moron to not understand the mind at even a base level like this.

If you are exposed to extreme trauma and overstimulation repeatedly, your brain will create etremely vivid flashbulb memories that can be triggered by a similar stimuli.

If you are repeatedly exposed to giant, bright and loud explosions that almost take your life, fireworks will remind you of that and cause you to react at a base level against your will as if you were in that situation again.

This was probably bait but there are actually fucking morons who think like you.

Watch "Waterloo", it portrays war as pretty horrible,

Congrats on finding yourself

It wasn't as common, because like others mentioned, war was fought differently, and often had long periods of rest.

Also, you were more likely to die, rather than live on with PTSD.

most of the conscripted peasantry died of wounds or on the trek back home. some never even tried to get back

the ones that did come back ended up on the streets begging or went to work as brigands and mercenaries

so yes, they did go crazy and end up as non functioning members of society

there were no recorded 'long term effects' because health and mental care were essentially nonexistent and the peasants died by age 40 anyways

>medieval movies

>grey drab and empty castles
>everyones wearing drab grey or brown ratty tunics
>everyones covered in dirt
>leather armor with useless metal studs on them

They were too stupid for ptsd

jon snow during the war of the roses

to*

I doubt it. Taking a sword and thrusting it through someone, spilling their guts all over themselves and yourself seems like it would take a lot more stones and be a lot more traumatising than pulling a trigger and dropping someone. I mean, they used to stick daggers through visors, I'd rather be shot than stabbed in my fucking face

>Why do movies never deal with it
Because and , audiences watch historical war films because they want to see some badass warriors and big battles. When films deal with the realities and after-effects of conflict its easier to do that in a contemporary setting where the audience can more easily relate.

As for whether PTSD-type issues were more or less prevalent back then hard to say since only a small number of cases were recorded. I'm sure it happened but I reckon it was less common. Back then most of the killing on the battlefield was nobles/knights killing peasant levies, who they viewed as inferior/lesser kind of human. Members of the warrior castes had their own cleansing rituals, tight bonds and were rarely criticized by the population, which helped them in justifying the acts they commited and the hardship they endured. Also battles were far less frequent, even an experienced warrior would only have fought in a handle of actual battles.

>people aren't lining up to beg Melisandre to bring back their bros
>Jon doesn't even try asking if Melisandre can TRY to bring back his little brother
>nobody seems to be bothered by so much death


Thanks, D&D

dude we need more time for EPIC dragon scenes
EPIC dany speeches
and HILARIOUS Tyrion scenes where he quips and quips, fun for the whole family.

This. In Vietnam a single soldier could fight in a hundred battles because of helicopters

The new Macbeth features PTSD.

The nature of war changed, it was easier for men to tolerate in the past and likely wasn't as psychologically damaging as the type of modern warfare that emerged after WWI. However, soldiers in the past also likely got PTSD sometimes too (again, see Macbeth).

Another distinction is that the soldier in Vietnam/Afghan etc. is in danger nearly constantly due to threats from IEDs, snipers, suicide bombers etc, and those threats can originate from women, children, objects, not just enemy combatants. Even when not outside the wire there is still threat from mortar attacks, green-on-blue, etc.

dumb shit. did you miss the scene where she was exiled for murdering a child?

>t. I have no idea what PTSD is
Oh wait, this is a bait thread.

She wasn't exiled for some time after she resurrected Jon. It makes no sense that someone not ask her to at least try to resurrect someone as important as Rickon (or hell, any one of the other hundreds of people killed).

They probably thought they were haunted by spirits back then. Like seeing the ghosts of people you killed. And how many warrior kings went crazy?

Life was definitely harder back then, this isn't debatable. I'm not sure why you replied with such a stupid post.

lmao at this newfag calling other people newfa

Not even that guy, but I've been here since 2006 and never seen anyone claim that "Only newfags call people newfags" until 2016.

Makes me think that it's newfags upset at being called newfags since they didn't get here until 2013.

oh shit did you just get got by candlejac

>Random puddles everywhere because apparently filling potholes didn't exist

>unironically posting LindyBeige
End thyself. His Bren / spandau video is a perfect example that he spouts utter bullshit and/or bases his conclusions on LARP experiences.

I guess because in a medieval battle you at least have a modicum of control about wether you die or not.

In a modern battle you could just get hit by a shell and there is literally nothing you could have done about it.

This. People and war were different back then. You weren't exposed to combat conditions for weeks on end, and the value of human life was extremely low.

>Back then war wasn't as bad, people mor eoften got injured than killed right there.
What the fuck...
>Also harsher life and men often drinked their problems away.
That's PTSD.

>people drinking means they have PTSD
shit

He's fucking Azor Ahai.

>never seen anyone claim that "Only newfags call people newfags" until 2016.
lol. literally admitted that you first started coming here in 2016.
bravo user

That makes a lot of sense. The actual fighting took less time back then too and was probably much more horrific.

I don't think it's logical to think hardship is somehow relevant to this.

where's this guy from? can't place his accent

Because given the time period people wouldn't live long enough to develop PTSD

It wasn't necessarily more horrific than it is now, and as previously mentioned, now war comes from all sides, random and at any time which wasn't necessarily true in the past.

I mean, feel free to prove me wrong. Post a screencap of someone spouting your little "convention wisdom" before 2016. Post a link to the archive of someone posting that from 2008 or even 2010 or even 2012.

I'm sure you won't find any.

england

Is that why the Spartans were fucking little boys in the ass?

because that was everyday fucking life so people were use to it.

I think it is. Their entire state of mind would be very different than someone in the 20th century.

My guess is the extended time and randomness of deaths are what increased it over time.

Are people really this stupid or is it just a strange meme related to anything medieval?

More dead than injured might be a factor. Average lifespan was a lot different, same with medicine and PTSD wasn't a researched thing obviously.

nah - you can look yourself though. but lets be real, youre not going to bother blowing yourself the fuck out

This.

>I don't think it's logical to think hardship is somehow relevant to this.
Well then you're retarded.

I would think seeing someone get blown to shreds by explosives fired from an unkown source would be worse than seeing someone get decapitated by a sword wielded by person you can see in clear daylight.

>the trauma of something all depends on if you can see the aggressor or not

what about trebuchets then?

I guess so. I was thinking it'd be easier to pull a trigger than fight hand to hand and kill someone.

>filling potholes didn't exist
It doesn't exist today either.

>trebuchets in open battle

I don't think any general would be stupid enough to do that.

Although I guess long sieges could cause ptsd similar to modern artillery in that sense.

I looked on 4plebz and there were a whopping 0 results from before 2013 and only a measly 1 and a half pages of people saying "only newfags call others newfags" across all recorded boards.

It doesn't look like a strong case for you.

>in a medieval battle you at least have a modicum of control about wether you die or not.
If you're a peasant and the knights come your way you won't even control your bowels.

>educate yourself with a youtuber who spouts random bullshit
?

No they weren't.

because
1: no living survivors from those wars to talk about these kinds of things
2: historical records tend to be incredibly idealised and positive. If you're the royal scribe you're going to talk about how amazing king so-and-so's leadership and victory was, not how most of the survivors were depressed
3: relatively few literate soldiers until the modern age means most depictions were from historians like above, or knights/nobles/etc. who would lose standing talking about how they're pussies
4: battles in the ancient and medieval world were surprisingly not that dangerous. higher than a 5% casualty rate was practically unheard of, and most armies were depleted through disease, desertions, injuries, and routed armies being captured rather than enemy actions. Compare that to WWI where you have 50% of an army wiped out in a day and you have an era when most soldiers were unlikely to personally know anyone who died in a battle
5: increased stress and blurring of the lines of combat in modern warfare. Again up until WWI, if you're a soldier fighting all you have to worry about is other (clearly uniformed) enemy soldiers during a battle, and most battles were clearly delineated: both armies meet, give each other time to setup positions, commanders on each side have a chat and then agree to begin. After that you have to worry about surprise aerial attacks, constant snipers, artillery pounding at you incessantly, booby trap bombs, chemical warfare, and partisans/guerilla fighters ambushing you. You're in battle 24/7 and it takes a toll

That kinda makes sense, but I can't really see how it's a resilience factor against a mental disorder.
End yourself.

Modern life was hard and so the massive change of lifestyle between the battlefield and struggling on the land wasn't felt so hard.

As for the nobility who "fought", it was a real wake up call. No wonder most of them were deranged and mental.

youtube.com/watch?v=FDNyU1TQUXg

Something that is important to note about modern life vs ancient/medieval is that we are much more separated from death now than before.

Death from minor infections and illnesses was common in ancient/medieval times.
You often kept your sick/old at home as well, so not only is life expectancy much shorter, when your relatives/friends/neighbors pass away, they do so in very close proximity to you, acclimating you to death and hardship from an early age.

All that being said, many ancient warriors probably did suffer from some form of ptsd, but very few want to read legends about warriors who suffered immensely after hard fought victories on the battlefield.

Yes it does make sense you idiot. I can smell the "neckbeard desperately searching for plot holes, likes to spam 'bad writing'" stench on you. Dead people are at peace, why bring them back to suffer more? Also it's implied and understood that resurrection only works on certain people. Melisandre won't even attempt it on someone she doesn't think is part of the "Lord's plan." Fuck off.