ptsd in Alexanders army

[Nikas]

As for one's country being behind the army, well I'm not sure if that mattered too much to the Macedonians. To the Greeks with the army, maybe, because of the way the campaign was promoted. But I suspect that for the Macedonians it was more about the "booty".

Interesting question.

Best regards,

I am not quite certain about that. While I don't dispute the Macedonian soldiers were not unmotivated by the thought of plunder and "booty", as many soldiers must have been in ancient times, I don't think we should dismiss that the Macedonians were not as patriotically motivated as the other Greeks. It appears Alexander appealed to multiple motives in his speeches to his troops, at times for patriotism, at times for plunder and booty, at times for dominion and power, and at times for sheer pride.

None of these are necessarily contradictory.

If you believe the torching of Persepolis was a generally applauded act by the Macedonians, or that the slaughter of the Branchidae really did occur, you can almost get the sense from these passages that the Macedonians took an almost rabidly enthusiastic relish in it. We can probably even go back to see Philip's campaign at Phocis and the crown-wearing Apollo-serving Macedonians to see that they could be appealed to on a level other than strictly booty. I think personal honour had a lot to do with it as well, for such a militaristic society, it must have been inconceivable, for the nobility at least, to be left behind.

In most of the literature I have read about military campaigns in my ventures as an armchair general, one theme usually stands out. The most successful armies of any era, and their leaders, usually manage to capture the morale and spirit of their troops to some ideal or cause that causes them to transcend what is a basically inherently evil and undesirable task, the killing of your fellow man and all the barbarities that war causes and getting maimed or killed yourself. It may be patriotism, it may be to avenge an injustice, it may be religious, it may even be to protect an ideal (human rights for instance). Even in campaigns against larger and more powerful armies, morale has the effect, as Napoleon famously said, of "As three is to the one" against materiel and other factors in battle. Booty and plunder, outside of short plundering expeditions, doesn't usually do it as far as going on an extended and long-standing campaign and even then, some of the campaigns are usually submerged under broader strategic objectives, to destroy or adversely affect your enemies ability to wage war; or as a subtext to the larger objective, such as the Muslim border raids agains the Byzantines in the 8th and 9th century, because they were "infidels".

I am sure the motivations were a combination of different things. Patriotism, booty and personal honour must have been the lions share though, and not necessarily in that order.

[agesilaos]

I started a thread on this , Post traumatic stress in Maracanda? ; criticising Trittle's paper, in which he discusses the little evidence for ptsd in the Greek world.

I would venture that the reason we hear so little about it is that, whilst war is just as terrifying and shocking ancient armies were the people in arms, the whole community suffered together and was thus spared the feelings of alienation that assail the military these days. Things changed with Rome and her professional army and the relationship between the Army and the state does seem to have broken down precipitating the third century crisis.

[spitamenes]

I started a thread on this , Post traumatic stress in Maracanda? ; criticising Trittle's paper, in which he discusses the little evidence for ptsd in the Greek world.

Is there any way to get ahold of this paper? Would it be online anywhere? And there's a lot of symptoms that go along with what happened towards the end of the campaign. The excessively brutal behavior in battles, Alexander not trusting even his closest companions, supposed alcoholism. Erratic and violent behavior. All can be associated with symptoms of ptsd. I'm not in any way saying that's the cause. But it could possibly have something to do with it all.

[agesilaos]

I'll see if I can dig it out and e-mail it to you. The thread is from 7-9-2009, English style.

[neneh]

Has there ever been, to anyones knowledge, any evidence brought forward of post traumatic stress disorder in the macedonian army? I can't seem to find anything that deals specifically with Alexander or his Army.

I think that if one were to look at a list of PTSD symptoms and compare it to fictional and historical accounts of soldiers in ancient armies, it would be possible to back up claims that they suffered from PTSD. I mean, I think one could potentially argue quite convincingly that what Achilleus does in the wake of Patroclus' death suggests a case of PTSD. (Okay, I just googled it and it turns out someone has already written about this: http://www.amazon.com/Achilles-Vietnam- ... 667&sr=1-1). Finding evidence of post traumatic stress disorder in the Macedonian army would then be a question of finding accounts of Macedonian soldiers and compare it to a definition of the condition.

However, I wonder (not being an expert on either PTSD or ancient armies), how anachronistic it would be make this kind of retrospective diagnosis. In my mind, it immediately links with the much-debated issue of "homosexuality" in Ancient Greece. That is, yes, on the surface of things, there are a lot of similarities between ancient and contemporary times (nightmares in the wake of war are nightmares in the wake of war, regardless of what century we're in). But I think that in both examples (PTSD and homosexuality), context is crucial. Psychological trauma can be caused by a variety of things, and what would be considered traumatic today wouldn't necessarily have been considered traumatic in Alexander's day. I'm not arguing for some sort of far-gone historical relativism, but I mention this because if it's a diagnostic criteria for PTSD that one has been exposed to a traumatic event, then we have to decide what would have qualified as a traumatic event for a soldier in Alexander's army. For me it would be traumatic enough to just be near an ancient battlefield (or so I like to think), so how do we tell a traumatic event from a regular ancient warfare one?

Furthermore, I understand that PTSD is a long-term condition, which means that in order to prove the existance of it in Alexander's army, we would have to exclude those accounts that do not mention or cover a potential sufferer's long-term condition (a good example would be the Marathon veteran Herodotos mentions, who went "permanently" blind for no apparent reason other than seeing a fellow soldier die).

Sorry to get so methodological about this. I think it's an interesting question, but for me it raises all sorts of questions about whether looking for PTSD amongst historical soldiers is the right way of going about it, or whether it would be better to map the soldiers' post-war experiences as far as that is possible without giving the experiences a collective name/category/diagnosis. I imagine, for example, that many of them returned home after years - decades - at war, to wives they didn't know and who didn't know them, to children not recognising them, to a country and a lifestyle they had forgotten. Never mind all the fear, blood and gore of war; coming home must have been pretty scary as well. I suppose I question how useful PTSD is to describe historical events (I don't question that this sort of historical link might be useful for modern day veterans, a la the book in the link above).

On a completely different and off-topic note, I have returned to pothos after a seven year break. It's nice to be back amongst you knowledgeable people.

[marcus]

On a completely different and off-topic note, I have returned to pothos after a seven year break. It's nice to be back amongst you knowledgeable people.

Hey, welcome back Neneh! I thought I recognised the name when I saw your post. Gosh, it has been a long time. I hope you'll stay with us again for a while, and no more long holidays!

ATB

[spitamenes]

This might or might not be a possible situation where ptsd comes into play with alexander himself. I'm writing from memory so please bare with me here. After Alexander took down the city of Celeanae, Athens sent representatives to Alexander asking for theyre soldiers who were taken prisoner from the granicus battle to be released. Alexander stated that he would release them when Persia was sufficiantly conquered. (Or something close to that). Meaning he didn't want to have to fight the same soldiers twice I'm sure. But later in the campaign he came to a town deep in foreign lands that was settled by the decendants of greek mercenaries I believe. The town even modeled in the greek style. Alexander ordered everyone killed and even the foundations of the buildings to be pulled up so no remenants of the town would exist. Two very different situations yes. But they both are dealing with greeks who fought against greeks, the first were told they would be going home. The second were completely slain. Any thoughts on why?

[amyntoros]

This might or might not be a possible situation where ptsd comes into play with alexander himself. I'm writing from memory so please bare with me here. After Alexander took down the city of Celeanae, Athens sent representatives to Alexander asking for theyre soldiers who were taken prisoner from the granicus battle to be released. Alexander stated that he would release them when Persia was sufficiantly conquered. (Or something close to that). Meaning he didn't want to have to fight the same soldiers twice I'm sure. But later in the campaign he came to a town deep in foreign lands that was settled by the decendants of greek mercenaries I believe. The town even modeled in the greek style. Alexander ordered everyone killed and even the foundations of the buildings to be pulled up so no remenants of the town would exist. Two very different situations yes. But they both are dealing with greeks who fought against greeks, the first were told they would be going home. The second were completely slain. Any thoughts on why?

Because the second incident was a religious issue rather than a military one, i.e. they were not descendants of mercenaries but of a townspeople who had violated a temple to Apollo, and though it's terribly difficult to understand by our modern day standards I tend to doubt that ptsd was behind Alexander's decision.

[Curtius 7.5.28] In pursuit of Bessus they had arrived at a small town inhabited by the Branchidae who, on the orders of Xerxes, when he was returning from Greece, had emigrated from Miletus and settled in this spot. This was necessary because, to please Xerxes, they had violated the temple called the Didymeon. [29] The culture of their forebears had not yet disappeared, though they were by now bilingual and the foreign tongue was gradually eroding their own. So it was with great joy that they welcomed Alexander, to whom they surrendered themselves and their city. Alexander called a meeting of the Milesians in his force, [30] for the Milesians bore a long-standing grudge against the Branchidae as a clan. Since they were the people betrayed by the Branchidae, Alexander let them decide freely on their case, asking if they preferred to remember their injury or their common origin. [31] But when there was a difference of opinion over this, he declared that he would himself consider the best course of action.
When the Branchidae met him the next day, he told them to accompany him. On reaching the city, he himself entered through the gate with a unit of light-armed troops. [32] The phalanx had been ordered to surround the city walls and, when the signal was given, to sack this city which provided refuge for traitors, killing the inhabitants to a man. [33] The Branchidae, who were unarmed, were butchered throughout the city, and neither community of language nor the olive-branches and entreaties of the suppliants could curb the savagery. Finally the Macedonians dug down to the foundations of the walls in order to demolish them and leave not a single trace of the city. [34] Woods, too, and sacred groves, they not only cut down but actually uprooted, so that nothing would remain after the removal of the roots but empty wasteland and barren soil. [35] Had this punishment been devised against the people responsible for the treachery, it might have appeared to be fair revenge rather than brutality but, as it was, the guilt of their ancestors was being atoned for by descendants who had not even seen Miletus and accordingly could not possibly have betrayed it to Xerxes.

Best regards,

[spitamenes]

Amyntoros,
Thank you, That's exactly what I needed to know. I knew there had to be something I was missing somewhere in the second situation I stated. And it makes sense now that you pointed that out. Much appreciated.
Spitamenes.

[neneh]

In addition to the religious/military aspect, I wonder about the strategic side of things. Celeanae had a very strategic location and it would have made no sense to sack it. If this small town of Branchidae had been equally important for communications and whatnot, maybe it would have sufficed to kill the inhabitants but keep the city and re-populate it. Just a shot in the dark, but whatever.

Marcus, thanks. I'll try to avoid extended absences from now on.

[spitamenes]

I believe its safe to say Alexanders bottom line was always from a military standpoint. If the Branchidae were in his direct line of communication or had some kind of importance militarily,to where he needed the city or its inhabitants intact, then it surely would have panned out differently. But as bad luck would have it, the Branchidaes position geographically was unimportant, so they were reduced to a mere propaganda tool.

[the_accursed]

Because the second incident was a religious issue rather than a military one, i.e. they were not descendants of mercenaries but of a townspeople who had violated a temple to Apollo, and though it's terribly difficult to understand by our modern day standards I tend to doubt that ptsd was behind Alexander's decision.

Judging by Curtius's comment, hard to understand in antiquity too.

[spitamenes]

Because the second incident was a religious issue rather than a military one, i.e. they were not descendants of mercenaries but of a townspeople who had violated a temple to Apollo, and though it's terribly difficult to understand by our modern day standards I tend to doubt that ptsd was behind Alexander's decision.

Judging by Curtius's comment, hard to understand in antiquity too.

I think the whole situation is a bit strange. I was looking for parallel events where Alexander or his men became increasingly violent as the campaign went. But these two events aren't very parallel. I was under the impression the Banchidae fought for Xerxes but they didn't. Thanks for the input.

[derek]

I don't know if it can be classed as PTSD, but something that definitely shows Alexander’s men reaching their breaking point was the reaction of the Hypaspists during the journey down the Indus. They were an elite, yet even they started to refuse orders to charge an entrenched enemy, on at least three occasions according to the accounts. It got so bad that Alexander was forced to bully them into action by exposing himself to unnecessary danger, and ultimately to a wound that nearly killed him.

Derek

[marcus]

Because the second incident was a religious issue rather than a military one, i.e. they were not descendants of mercenaries but of a townspeople who had violated a temple to Apollo, and though it's terribly difficult to understand by our modern day standards I tend to doubt that ptsd was behind Alexander's decision.

Judging by Curtius's comment, hard to understand in antiquity too.

I think the whole situation is a bit strange. I was looking for parallel events where Alexander or his men became increasingly violent as the campaign went. But these two events aren't very parallel. I was under the impression the Banchidae fought for Xerxes but they didn't. Thanks for the input.

In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the Branchidae episode actually happened. It's in Curtius, Strabo, a brief mention in Plutarch's Moralia, and the Suda; and no-where else (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, but doubt must still remain).

ATB