[avocad]

Indeed. People tend to forget that the Middle Ages lasted for a thousand years. When all the conflicts are put together it seems there were only murderous barbarians out there trying to murder and/or rape you. But most areas were war-free most of that time. The reason that Barbara Tuchman wrote about France in the 14th century is that there happened so much.

Monty Python and The Holy Grail was not a documentary but satirised (among other things) the way the Middle Ages were depicted in movies and books.

One of the reasons we have such a bad image of that period is that the brutalities of the French Revolution needed to be justified.

[mkirklions]

>But most areas were war-free most of that time.

Can anyone verify that?

I imagine that the last 2,000 years have been filled with territorial disputes that were solved with the blood of males.

The survivors of the battle getting to keep the land and the women.

I dont think these were petty disputes either, I think these were rational decision making from leadership.

But I really dont know. Ive thought about this question, to propagate your genes, is it better to be Royal or peasant stock?

[mantas]

Depends on what you consider "filled". Most people or their living relatives saw some sort of action. But in many cases it was once-in-lifetime happening. On top of that, a big chunk of medieval wars were meet-you-in-a-field-out-of-town kind of affairs.

As for royal vs. peasant.. big chunk of "blue blood" royalty had genetic diseases thanks to intermarriage to keep pure blood.. Meanwhile peasants knew it's not good to marry exclusively inside of a village and tried to spice things up by mixing with neighbouring villages.

[sunseb]

I totally agree. Speaking of the French revolution, have a look at this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/396...