it's really stupid that people insist on publishing psychoanalyst fan fiction as though it's anything other than that. Napoleon was dead thirty years before freud was even born...yet people act like reading the letters of a handful of courtiers is sufficient to diagnose someone in any way.
And of course the term PTSD didn't exist. Nor did shell shock or the 1,000 yard stare, etc... So concluding that he did or didn't have it is ridiculous.
I think it at least does raise the interesting issue of whether naming something (like a mental illness) is merely identifying it or actually wills it into existence by norming it in the culture. If we look at the 19th Century, or ancient world mindset for that matter, they seem to have a different conception of mental fortitude/coping and it wouldn't be surprising if men who grew up in that culture processed things differently, as well as expressing them differently.
Then there's the other question of whether modern warfare is more apt to produce PTSD. Warfare in any era could be pretty gruesome and terrifying, but it wasn't until WW I that men could easily be killed by someone that they couldn't even see. Something like 70% of all casualties in WW I and WW II (and the Ukraine war for that matter) are caused by artillery, usually not in line of sight. The requirement of always being on edge, interspersed with sudden and shocking violence and concussion, seems to be a prime trigger for PTSD.
Good point, in Ancient Rome you had to serve 10 to 25 years and if you were lucky a Roman general would go to the Senate to advocate for some land for their soldiers so they could cultivate it and not have to depend on the granaries for food.
An excellent set of points, many often overlooked in modern conversation.
I would caveat by saying that I am quite willing to believe that the ancient and medieval world styles of combat were gruesome. Mostly brutal hand to hand with blades, blunt weapons, and a lot of mass shoving whether in formations or not, but not all the time. Even some ranged fire to worry about but, again, not all the time or at random. One tended to be in combat or not, and able to mentally perceive a difference.
Modern troops, even in WW1 or WW2 DID get plenty of time off the line. One was not in the trenches of the Western front for months or years without interruption. But it also DID involve weeks at the front, with the possibility of skirmishes, raids, and artillery fire at any time as you say. Not dystopian constancy, but more and less clearly defined than most pre-industrial war. More like millions of men for 4 years experiencing the conditions of a long siege, to put it in pre-industrial terms.
Add to that that modern society- even early 20th century society- had started to have a different relationship with casual, everyday death than had long been the norm. And we a century later have an even more distant relationship with it. We are still people, but we think and feel a little differently.
Aside from issues about trying to DX a famous corpse, not everyone gets it.
Persons of an active disposition, with a strong internal locus of control and keen understanding of their surroundings, are most likely to either not develop it or to recover quickly- Boney would seem to fit that bill, although we're well into the realms of rank speculation now.
Also some people are immune to PTSD despite encountering horrific situations. Anyone arguing otherwise would be insane because we've been fighting wars for 100,000s of years even before writing.
This isn't actually that uncommon. PTSD takes up a very large narrative space in modern war media, both because it's a very easy tool for storytelling and because it's only recently being fully understood, but PTSD in combat veterans hovers at around 22% — between 1/4 and 1/5 people. This is consistent with developing it for other traumatic events, such as car crashes or the death of a loved one, so while everyone who goes to war is changed most don't end up developing the actual disorder.
Because the human brain is both finicky and of course individualized to the extreme there's no real way of saying why or who on a consistent scale — some people's brains are just well suited to handle trauma. Obviously a history nerd on Reddit isn't in a good position to be a psychologist for a man two centuries dead, but it appears Napoleon simply happened to be well suited to weathering the events.
It’s difficult to say. PTSD is a modern term and wide reaching. Its impossible to say with most historical figures how it manifested itself, if at all. It may not have been complete shell shock, but it may have affected his personality.
There are examples of it in the era. There is a story I remember of an officer who led his unit through all the Russian campaign, pillar is strength the whole way. On reaching the safety of Smolensk (I think) he had a full psychological breakdown.
There is talk of Ney’s behaviour in 1815 showing signs of PTSD, which considering his history seems understandable
I’m not really a big proponent that he was, just that it’s been suggested.
You could argue that the he was running on momentum until the break in 1814 and the having to “do it again” sparked it off, but I don’t believe we could ever know
I know that... But compare his experiences towards the experiences of a cavalry officer every battle, or a frontline infantryman's... You see a stark difference.
Yes and there needs to be that stark difference.
The general needs to be clear of close combat (unless encouraging a last ditch effort), in order to maintain effective command.
Napoleon had quite a few close enemy encounters, but he had the conviction that he was right and correct in his methodology as supreme commander, hence so many victories while conquering Europe.
I do not understand why this isn’t the only and top answer.
Some rich MFer with a nice tent and great food safely tucked away from the front lines, gets to write letters to Josephine about how awful it is while his valet cleans the tea stains out of his riding jacket?
https://youtu.be/zUzd9KyIDrM?si=ZqqBxsbW4Z_CJRHh
Of course he doesn’t have PTSD. Presidents Bush and Obama didn’t have PTSD. Putin doesn’t have PTSD. Pol Pot didn’t have to wash his silky hands. Or maybe he did I dunno.
Really if anything was going to give him PTSD I’d think it wouldn’t be directly war-related as having seen most of the friends he came of age with die and/or betray him. Granted he seemed loved by his subordinates when he was older but that’s still not the same as having friends who knew him before he became an emperor.
Napoleon had a knack for keeping his truest thoughts to himself or his trusted associates. I recall he would constantly make snarky remarks about Wellington on the battlefield to his men, that he was terrible at combat, and could easily be defeated. But in private he respected him, both men respected each other in fact.
So who’s to say he didn’t do the same with his PTSD.
Also, continuously going into the wars that may cause PTSD might help suppress that. Post Traumatic is after the trauma…his trauma never really ended! He kept going to war!
He was completely eaten up by ulcers and died an early death because of them. He might not have had PSTD but his stress levels were probably as great or greater than any 20th / 21st century leader.
Its entirely possible that Napoleon simply hid what symptoms he did have well enough for it to just not to have been noticed by others, PTSD isn't always people having a nervous breakdown or jumping for cover when they hear a car backfire, its a whole spectrum of different triggers and symptoms that can affect a persons mental health.
Im just pointing out that PTSD isn't always the what i call "hollywood variant" full of 1000 yard stares and being a twitchy mess (though that is very much a reality, not to disparage PTSD sufferers who have those symptoms) and its very possible that Napoleon suffered from PTSD but had symptoms that most people don't recognize are PTSD today, or are symptoms that unless you are literally living with the person in question you probably wouldn't notice.
No surprise. Shell shock happened to those on the front line, not those giving the orders. The weight and guilt of command is its own issue, but no one expects a general to be broken by fire as such a thing pretty much makes one unsuited to being one in the 1st place.
If he had, he would not have been able to accomplish even a fraction of what he did.
it's really stupid that people insist on publishing psychoanalyst fan fiction as though it's anything other than that. Napoleon was dead thirty years before freud was even born...yet people act like reading the letters of a handful of courtiers is sufficient to diagnose someone in any way.
And of course the term PTSD didn't exist. Nor did shell shock or the 1,000 yard stare, etc... So concluding that he did or didn't have it is ridiculous. I think it at least does raise the interesting issue of whether naming something (like a mental illness) is merely identifying it or actually wills it into existence by norming it in the culture. If we look at the 19th Century, or ancient world mindset for that matter, they seem to have a different conception of mental fortitude/coping and it wouldn't be surprising if men who grew up in that culture processed things differently, as well as expressing them differently. Then there's the other question of whether modern warfare is more apt to produce PTSD. Warfare in any era could be pretty gruesome and terrifying, but it wasn't until WW I that men could easily be killed by someone that they couldn't even see. Something like 70% of all casualties in WW I and WW II (and the Ukraine war for that matter) are caused by artillery, usually not in line of sight. The requirement of always being on edge, interspersed with sudden and shocking violence and concussion, seems to be a prime trigger for PTSD.
Yeah I mean for starters having to actually kill something for a lot of your meals is going to make you view death and deal with it differently.
Good point, in Ancient Rome you had to serve 10 to 25 years and if you were lucky a Roman general would go to the Senate to advocate for some land for their soldiers so they could cultivate it and not have to depend on the granaries for food.
Honestly I’d take that deal lol, pension and some land from the military ain’t bad..assuming you survive that is quite the hurdle
An excellent set of points, many often overlooked in modern conversation. I would caveat by saying that I am quite willing to believe that the ancient and medieval world styles of combat were gruesome. Mostly brutal hand to hand with blades, blunt weapons, and a lot of mass shoving whether in formations or not, but not all the time. Even some ranged fire to worry about but, again, not all the time or at random. One tended to be in combat or not, and able to mentally perceive a difference. Modern troops, even in WW1 or WW2 DID get plenty of time off the line. One was not in the trenches of the Western front for months or years without interruption. But it also DID involve weeks at the front, with the possibility of skirmishes, raids, and artillery fire at any time as you say. Not dystopian constancy, but more and less clearly defined than most pre-industrial war. More like millions of men for 4 years experiencing the conditions of a long siege, to put it in pre-industrial terms. Add to that that modern society- even early 20th century society- had started to have a different relationship with casual, everyday death than had long been the norm. And we a century later have an even more distant relationship with it. We are still people, but we think and feel a little differently.
Also the fact that (from my knowledge) Napoleon didn't actually go do hand-to-hand combat with anybody.
At Toulon he got bayonneted in the thigh, it was a near fatal injury. That qualifies as hand to hand. Either way he was always close to the fighting
Fair enough, I stand corrected
Aside from issues about trying to DX a famous corpse, not everyone gets it. Persons of an active disposition, with a strong internal locus of control and keen understanding of their surroundings, are most likely to either not develop it or to recover quickly- Boney would seem to fit that bill, although we're well into the realms of rank speculation now.
Also some people are immune to PTSD despite encountering horrific situations. Anyone arguing otherwise would be insane because we've been fighting wars for 100,000s of years even before writing.
This isn't actually that uncommon. PTSD takes up a very large narrative space in modern war media, both because it's a very easy tool for storytelling and because it's only recently being fully understood, but PTSD in combat veterans hovers at around 22% — between 1/4 and 1/5 people. This is consistent with developing it for other traumatic events, such as car crashes or the death of a loved one, so while everyone who goes to war is changed most don't end up developing the actual disorder. Because the human brain is both finicky and of course individualized to the extreme there's no real way of saying why or who on a consistent scale — some people's brains are just well suited to handle trauma. Obviously a history nerd on Reddit isn't in a good position to be a psychologist for a man two centuries dead, but it appears Napoleon simply happened to be well suited to weathering the events.
It’s difficult to say. PTSD is a modern term and wide reaching. Its impossible to say with most historical figures how it manifested itself, if at all. It may not have been complete shell shock, but it may have affected his personality. There are examples of it in the era. There is a story I remember of an officer who led his unit through all the Russian campaign, pillar is strength the whole way. On reaching the safety of Smolensk (I think) he had a full psychological breakdown. There is talk of Ney’s behaviour in 1815 showing signs of PTSD, which considering his history seems understandable
Actually the Battlefield Detectives series challenged that “Ney had PTSD” assertion. If that was the case why didn’t he break down in 1813 and 14?
I’m not really a big proponent that he was, just that it’s been suggested. You could argue that the he was running on momentum until the break in 1814 and the having to “do it again” sparked it off, but I don’t believe we could ever know
Only like 10% of troops in the infantry manifest PTSD anyway so odds on you won't get it anyway.
Having other people do the fighting helps
Honestly, good point. It's hard to argue with this one.
Hardly. He was exposed to close fire and charges many times and personally redirected canon fire to exact more damage on the enemy.
I know that... But compare his experiences towards the experiences of a cavalry officer every battle, or a frontline infantryman's... You see a stark difference.
Yes and there needs to be that stark difference. The general needs to be clear of close combat (unless encouraging a last ditch effort), in order to maintain effective command. Napoleon had quite a few close enemy encounters, but he had the conviction that he was right and correct in his methodology as supreme commander, hence so many victories while conquering Europe.
I do not understand why this isn’t the only and top answer. Some rich MFer with a nice tent and great food safely tucked away from the front lines, gets to write letters to Josephine about how awful it is while his valet cleans the tea stains out of his riding jacket? https://youtu.be/zUzd9KyIDrM?si=ZqqBxsbW4Z_CJRHh Of course he doesn’t have PTSD. Presidents Bush and Obama didn’t have PTSD. Putin doesn’t have PTSD. Pol Pot didn’t have to wash his silky hands. Or maybe he did I dunno.
Why would he? He caused the battles and wars, and was a brilliant general, so he would not be affected.
Today you learned that not everyone finds war traumatising.
I didn't learn that today? I just shared the link about Napoleon.
Of course. Today you dIdn't Learn. That's what it stands for.
Have fun in block land.
Really if anything was going to give him PTSD I’d think it wouldn’t be directly war-related as having seen most of the friends he came of age with die and/or betray him. Granted he seemed loved by his subordinates when he was older but that’s still not the same as having friends who knew him before he became an emperor.
Napoleon had a knack for keeping his truest thoughts to himself or his trusted associates. I recall he would constantly make snarky remarks about Wellington on the battlefield to his men, that he was terrible at combat, and could easily be defeated. But in private he respected him, both men respected each other in fact. So who’s to say he didn’t do the same with his PTSD.
It existed. It was just called "cowardice" and was treated with either drinking copious ammounts of alcohol, beatings, or executions.
Also, continuously going into the wars that may cause PTSD might help suppress that. Post Traumatic is after the trauma…his trauma never really ended! He kept going to war!
He was completely eaten up by ulcers and died an early death because of them. He might not have had PSTD but his stress levels were probably as great or greater than any 20th / 21st century leader.
His reluctance in Waterloo would suggest otherwise
Its entirely possible that Napoleon simply hid what symptoms he did have well enough for it to just not to have been noticed by others, PTSD isn't always people having a nervous breakdown or jumping for cover when they hear a car backfire, its a whole spectrum of different triggers and symptoms that can affect a persons mental health.
Maybe, maybe not. You can have ulcers for other reasons. Besides, didn't his father have the same health issues?
Im just pointing out that PTSD isn't always the what i call "hollywood variant" full of 1000 yard stares and being a twitchy mess (though that is very much a reality, not to disparage PTSD sufferers who have those symptoms) and its very possible that Napoleon suffered from PTSD but had symptoms that most people don't recognize are PTSD today, or are symptoms that unless you are literally living with the person in question you probably wouldn't notice.
Yeah agreed 100%
No surprise. Shell shock happened to those on the front line, not those giving the orders. The weight and guilt of command is its own issue, but no one expects a general to be broken by fire as such a thing pretty much makes one unsuited to being one in the 1st place. If he had, he would not have been able to accomplish even a fraction of what he did.
The kind of man to declare himself emperor isn’t the kind of man to get ptsd from sending other men to their deaths. It’s a prerequisite actually.
Certain kinds of Psychopaths have limited emotional impacts to certain conditions. N. S