I mean war always has been a part of our life since the first civilizations was established. I’m sure “shellshock” wasn’t only caused by artilery shots.
In: Other
There are three key things to consider.
1. Pre-WWI, people simply did not die or get hurt as much. This is especially true for the victors.
2. Those who experience or witness a lot of suffering (mostly the losers) simply do not live to tell the tale. Civilians in raided/sacked settlements probably had more PTSD than soldiers because they usually don’t get killed unless there was also massacres involved (which isn’t entirely uncommon).
3. In WWI, individual soldiers feel much less like they have agency or control on their contribution to the fight due to the battlefield conditions and doctrine of the times. This, combined with the boom-boom-ness of modern armaments exacerbates fear and stress, contributing to increased likelihood of PTSD, or “shell shock”.
Now below is a more detailed explanation if you’re in for it:
In the wars of past age, you march for days/weeks/months, and duke it out with the enemy a few times, and the war is over one way or another. (An oversimplification, but this is ELI 5)
In those days, causing a rout was much more important than killing the enemy (killing comes after). Vast majority of field-battle deaths occur when either one side is completely surrounded and totally annihilated (very uncommon), or when one side routes and gets chased down by enemy cavalry (much more likely). In extreme cases of Ancient Greek phalanxes and derivatives there of, it was common for a clash between several hundreds from each side resulting in only a handful of deaths, if any, and the combination of bronze armor weighing troops down and general lack of cavalry meant that no more died even after the resolution of the battle.
This is also partly why the ‘300 Spartans’, even in real history, managed to delay the Persian army for as long as they did – people simply didn’t die as easily or dramatically as they’re often depicted in historical fictions.
As a result, those who keep heart and fight on, usually survive. And because they win with minimal casualties, there aren’t as much signs of PTSD, while those who would have gotten PTSD usually just end up dying. This dynamic really doesn’t change until muskets get involved – where people on the front lines die a lot, but still have to keep pushing without breaking because the dynamic of “first to break dies even more” stays true.
Overall, as ironic as it sounds, there was a reason to be brave, as keeping it together longer usually meant victory, which means better chance at survival. The old East Asian proverb of “Those who fight as if as though they shall die, shall live, while those who only act to survive, shall surely die” perfectly encapsules this phenomena.
This obviously is not how it works in modern warfare, which is dominated by ranged warfare. Ranged warfare is all about increasing your line of sight and fire while limiting your enemy’s. Bravery is largely considered stupid in front of sniper and machine gun fire. (This concept translates to pretty much every other concepts, such as stealth planes vs bigass bombers) Unfortunately, there wasn’t a better way to fight the stupid war until towards the very end, where technology created new variables that broke this dynamic. So people suffered.
Also, the level and type of trauma is different with WWI. It is the first major war where you could constantly, at any given moment, get killed by someone you can’t really see.
You can’t see enemy artillery or snipers. Even when you go over the top, you’d be lucky to even see the enemy trench before dying at machine gun fire. Not being able to see where you’re being attacked from, or who’s attacking you has serious impact on morale due to the fear of potentially dying at any time without having any agency to do something about it.
Latest Answers