The Medieval Mindset (2017)

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.

Enlightenment now by Steven pinker covers this in great detail (and is a fun read), if you’re interested in this sort of thing

1. Do you include adolscence within childhood? Because that might be where we're disagreeing. How would you define childhood?

2. I don't think a comparison between cultures where horse-riding is fundamental to one where it is primarily a leisure activity makes much sense when it comes to estimations of danger. Yes, hunts could result in injuries; I don't disagree there. However, if attrition was severe enough to impede the function of the martial culture, it wouldn't be actively propagated.

3. Yes, disfigurements and scarring would be common in the aftermath of epidemics, but in those situations, it's so common that to form cultural persecuting complexes around it is difficult to justify. Lepers, on the other hand...

4. That's really my entire point: the reason it's so hard for you to imagine is because, if you live in the United States, the entire existence of death has become divorced from culture and daily existence. It's an aberration and a taboo. In a culture where death during childhood is common, there are cultural forms that account for it. That doesn't mean that it is or isn't a loss, but that it accomodates and integrates that event within a broader chain of being. As far as judicial injunctions against infanticide go, early mortality is incidental to life, not fundamental. Actively destroying a potential person, particularly within a truly local culture, when it isn't already part of the folkways, is of course going to result in reprisal. However the very existence of cultures that practiced exposure shows that it isn't fundamental to the human condition to viscerally value the lives of infants unconditionally. As far as PTSD goes, it's largely about being unable to cope with a traumatic event. In a functional society, it seems unlikely to me that PTSD strictly as a pathology surrounding child loss would be a thing--and the sociology surrounding it as I've read it supports that assertion.

I really think our disagreement resides in our perceptions of how durable/fragile humans can be under duress. I think humans are especially resilient, particularly if given adequate cultural coping mechanisms within a culture.

>Jousting has to be at least as violent as two NFL players running full-bore at each other on a kick-off, and we know that's dangerous for CTE

I'm sure there was a lot of tournament (of which jousting was only a part) derived TMI, but its important to keep in mind that during the high and late middle ages battle and tournament armor were different. Tournament armor was less flexible and heavier, after all you don't want to get hurt in a game. There were several styles of helm that attach directly to the breast plate that make your head an torso a single unit: https://www.battlemerchant.com/images/product_images/popup_i... (you would probably never wear this on a battlefield)

>Also once you got to close-quarters on medieval battlefields, your center torso would be covered up pretty well with armor or a shield, so most of the injuries are coming underneath stabbing into the groin and legs. Or from above, bashing down on the head and shoulders with axes, maces, and hammery polearms.

This, your sword is your service pistol, your lance (mounted) or your polearm (unmounted) is your primary weapon as a man-at-arms. You will notice both Knight and Samuari developed the same 3 weapon system (poleweapon + sword + dagger). Also its worth noting that when rigid armor replaced (or was worn on top of) mail (no its not called chainmail) for most of the surface area the use of sheilds quickly declined and two-handed weapons increased. You were wearing your shield. (Also for anyone interested a suit of armor is a 'harness' to use the technical term, that is where we get the German term harnischfechten, the techniques for fighting in armor, which are distinct from blossfechten (shirt fighting), the term for the superset of techniques that work against unarmored opponents)

>I'm sure training was also a big component; thwacking each other with blunted blades would be rough when leather or wool padding is about the best you've got.

People have resurrected the old fighting manuals and its known as HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) today and encompasses armed, unarmed (strikes, grappling), unarmored and armored fighting. I do this and my cotton HEMA fencing jacket provides plenty of protection. I do no think training safety was an issue.

>Quarterstaffs were also popular - and that's not too far off from getting hit with a baseball bat.

Yes pole-weapons are much more dangerous than swords, but using the harnischfechten against anyone is dangerous, even with swords, since they are mean to kill people in armor.

>It's just concussions all around.

Its definitely a risk, but hardly a given. I have broken a finger, bruised bones, but even period head protection is quite effective.

Interesting discussion here, and I certainly don't disagree that humans are resilient. All I'll add (re: point 4) is that I literally spent 2-3 months translating letters sent by Portuguese soldiers stationed in 17th century Angola as part of my PhD research. Those guys were among the most deeply unhappy individuals I've ever encountered in an archive. They were completely unable to cope with the severity of disease and death all around them. I think they're more of the norm than many recognize, because most of us don't spend time reading through primary source letters in archives. I think that spending a lot of my mental life in the 17th century makes me fairly well placed to imagine what it's like to lose a child in that world, and I really don't see what you'r arguing here reflected in the archives.

If anyone reading this is interested, btw, the depiction of a fictional Thomas Cromwell's loss of a child in Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall struck me as incredibly well-observed and accurate. I really loved that part of the book.