Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically entire Europe was a warzone from the end of the Roman period to... oh, Ukraine.. well, Europe still is a warzone but much less so now than in the past centuries. The middle ages wars didn't really involve the population. They were more a matter of aristocracy. Cities were raized, since those where the way to control land, but you generally left the peasants and their lords alone. Peasants really didn't care…
> wars mostly affected the 'state' and not the people that much How do you exactly think armies are fed, armed, and paid? There are innumerable examples of revolts ignited due to the abuses of the local or occupying army. This idea of "limited" warfare where a king took a few men and fought it out with his rival with the population not caring or suffering much is utterly deluded.
The main question I wanted to answer was how could a stable culture survive in an area that went through so many wars. Not to make claims about "better way of living" or anything like that.
Another point which I wanted to stress that state powers in nations that lacked advanced bureaucracy (China, Ottomans) really did not have any way to extract wealth from the land efficiently.
Yes, if an army parked nearby they likely foraged the nearby areas. But an army is a very localized thing. There was no concept of "nation wide war economy". The extraction caused by the army was localized around the army.
So when we think about state induced horrors of the 20th century which were enabled by sophisticated bureaucracy and monoculture as anything else, those things did not really exist in medieval europe.
You really did not want a king to park his army in your backyard, that's for sure.