Your claims lack evidence. The article was all about surveying the available evidence for indications that PTSD was or was not a thing experienced by soldiers in the past at a rate similar to today. What is more, when he decides that the evidence does not support that, he suggests that the feelings experienced by soldiers have not changed, but that in ancient societies there were different mechanisms by which they were processed such that those same feelings did not produce what we call PTSD, at least not at the rate it does today.
Not only do you have no evidence or arguments (except vague claims to authority), but your claims do not even contradict the original article.
EDIT: please do read crazygringo's thread above, people in there have much more substance that I could in my short/quick write-up above. In particular, palimpsests' view is very close to what I've heard again and again from people with relevant experience.
___
Did I make a fool of myself by failing to comprehend what I read and then arguing exactly the same?
Then, I will just shut up and read again.
___
Somehow, a bit tangential to the topic:
About evidence or argument, appeal to authority, I do think it's a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", and the author's claim is extraordinary. Mine is really just consensus from the field of historical psychology. I've never heard an expert arguing otherwise. I could probably google a few links, but randomly sticking "proof" on a non-problem seems... pointless. I shouldn't have to prove that flat geometry yields 180° triangle, it's whoever claims otherwise that bears the burden of substantiating it.
I just won't spend that particular time, since the author's claim is weird, not mine. Triangles add up to 180. Human biology and psychology did not change in recorded history. There's nothing 'new' in our heads besides what we intake from the context.
___
But I hear you and will re-read that piece later, with a colder head. Maybe I was put off by some emotional bias and got 'triggered' by the claim (no PTSD in the past... huh?), which led me to interpret, thus fail to comprehend what I read. That much is 100% possible and I've no ego problem in admitting that.
Not only do you have no evidence or arguments (except vague claims to authority), but your claims do not even contradict the original article.