[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.