"Violent knights feared posttraumatic stress" Topic

"Medieval knights are often depicted as bloodthirsty men who enjoyed killing. But that is a completely wrong picture, new research shows.

The knights did not kill just because they wanted to, but because it was their job – precisely like soldiers today. Nor were the Middle Ages as violent as we think, despite their different perception of violence compared to ours.

"Modern military psychology enables us to read medieval texts in a new way – giving us insight into the perception of violence in the Middle Ages in the general population and the use of lethal violence by knights," says Thomas Heebřll-Holm of the SAXO Institute at the University of Copenhagen, who researches the perception of violence in the late Middle Ages…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"Violent knights feared post-traumatic stress."

There were non-violent knights? And how much did THEY get paid?

Violent Knight….Hoooollly Knight….

"Modern military psychology enables us to read medieval texts in a new way"

ie. probably incorrectly.
How could a modern psychologist hope to understand the mindset of people long gone, especially without inflicting his own modern bias into his 'conclusions'?

Good point!.

Amicalement
Armand

I'm sure the accounts of Fulcher of Chartres describing how the knights exulted in wading through streets of blood when they took Jérusalem was describing men with PTSD. The article also makes an assumption that medieval men were as horrified by violence as modern men, that to my mind is an unevidenced assumption. Mdieval people were used to slaughtering their own animals, early childhood death, horrible diseases and no medical cover. These were people used to death and supported by their religious beliefs were quite inured to it. PTSD my arse.

Stryderg, how can you possibly say "probably incorrectly?" It can't be incorrect if it's unknowable. It's simply speculation.

Thanks Armand, an interesting read. Something I probably would have missed.

Cheers
Ian

A votre service mon ami!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Stryderg, how can you possibly say "probably incorrectly?" It can't be incorrect if it's unknowable. It's simply speculation.

If the speculation is based on an "unknowable" (I'd prefer the phrase "poorly understood" instead) medieval mindset, then the quoted phrase, "Modern military psychology enables us to read medieval texts in a new way", is probably incorrect.

It's one thing to read ancient/medieval writings and speculate on forensic pathology based on the descriptions given. (Oh look, St Anselm suffered from Cushing's Syndrome). Doing the same for psychological or psychiatric disorders is just that much harder.

I'm with Stryderg.

Having said that, it is not impossible, as we are not biologically different from ancient and medieval people. Notwithstanding Sidney's well made points. In fact, Herodotus gives an example of a warrior that went blind and mute after the Battle of Marathon due to stress.

link

I have to agree with sidley. I suspect that a person living in the middle ages knew more about life and death by the age of ten than many modern westerns experience in their entire life. This doesn't mean they weren't subject to stress, but more likely the stress was more real, tangible, and immediate. In addition, unlike modern warfare most pre-gunpowder wars were short and sporadic. A soldier in a modern war has the fear of being killed at any moment. In some respects, just normal living in the middle ages was dangerous. Wars and battles were usually so short, the danger was minor compared to real everyday life.

We are in danger of judging people from our past on the assumption they have our values and psychology on the simple premise that because they were our ancestors and lived in the same geographical area they had our values. Yet we would not dream of placing our values on say persons from the Amazon basin or Sumatran headhunters. A person 500 years removed has as alien a cultural remove as a person from 5000 miles away.