I believe that we put too much faith in the reasoning ability of our so called "enlightened" age. A disorder such as PTSD truly defies reason except in the context of our sad modern belief that anything that is unable to be reasoned out by the human brain can not exist. Perhaps the cures of the middle ages (soul searching, repentance, penance) were more effective in their relative simplicity then what is now used. However, we like to see our ancestors as savages in order to prove to ourselves that we have evolved and somehow become better. It amazes me how anyone can think that when there has been nearly constant war since the beginning of our enlightened age with killing and warfare on a scale and brutality never seen by our "ignorant" predecessors.
Also people did not have such a disconnect with the act of killing and dying as a natural expression of life. In a premodern age family there would have been several generations living under one roof and a child would see death and dying., presumably, at a young age. They would not balk at having to kill and clean their meat. It is truly disheartening when someone in our modern age can not show enough respect to a prey animal as to be able to perform the necessary killing of that animal. They become disgusted and upset by what is natural.
Humans killing humans is also natural when necessary. Our ability to recognize that it should be avoided is accomplished by overcoming our nature.
Society evolves. Our understanding of the world and our nature changes. It is not always a linear change for the better.

It's also worth noting that 'level of freakout' is directly related to your expectations. For example today we put our troops through everything they might go through in battle before hand, and have had excellent results with their performance in battle.

I wonder if there is a direct relation between that and the current levels of PTSD.

Check out Dave Grossman's On Killing for a good discussion of that very relationship.

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-C...mp;s=books

Grossman theorizes that the changes in training doctrine after World War II that led to big improvements in combat effectiveness also stripped soldiers of the tools to cope with the experience and return to life in peace time.

Just an educated guess of course as to the Medievel man's mindset in response to combat experience... I'd say that the toll of warfare on the individual in that age is probably not too much different than it is today. The methods and tactics were much different but a man's soul is really not changed. Individuals vary greatly in their coping abilities and this probably is the most influencial factor of all. However I'd say the symptoms shared in common with today's combat veterans are generally similar to those of earlier ages as far as emotional scaring that may follow such experiences.

The symptoms of PTSD are depression, sleeplessness/nightmares, alcoholism, womanizing (yes, its true, lol), guilt (sometimes to have just survived when comrades did not - not necessarily guilt related to the enemy dead), moodiness, fits of rage, suicidal thoughts, etc.

Not all individuals will suffer some or any of these symptoms, because so much depends on the individual and his background/culture.

An interesting discussion...

Jean,

Very true, intensity and duration of the exposure to these things is a major factor also. And yes, today's PC world is a joke and lends nothing to the healthy emotional survival of such experiences!

There's a good article in The Journal of Military History about how people viewed war back in the day: "Martial Illusions:
War and Disillusionment in Twentieth-Century and Renaissance Military Memoirs" by Yuval Noah Harari. Harari argues that the horrors of war were objectively the same in the two periods, but that different mindsets made people of the two ages react differently to it. As he puts it:

Quote:

As the case of Renaissance military memoirists clearly indicates, there can be warriors and warrior castes that are intimately familiar with war and all its horrors, yet see it as an acceptable and even a desirable vocation. It all depends on people's worldview—not on war's "true face."