So we're living in the least violent times of human history, aren't we? The murder rates found in Oxford was higher than even the most violent contemporary American cities, and the conditions of some of our cities are absolutely tragic.
What's made the world so much more peaceful? Improved material conditions?
Violence was much more socially acceptable as a response to slights and insults.
Also living conditions were poor and urban populations were highly concentrated and lived in close quarters.
In universities specifically you had very high concentrations of socially highly privileged young men (generally they had legal immunity and could only be prosecuted by the church courts) with a lot of time and energy on their hands.
Because it means a whole percentage of the population never reaches adulthood in medieval times, they die in duels on perceived slights or are.. Strutting around as legally sanctioned murderers snarling at the commoners.
It’s simply way too easy to get caught nowadays. I don’t think there’s much more to it, honestly. Even if an individual makes a concerted effort to avoid technology (phone, computer, etc), the sprawling surveillance infra only encompasses more each day.
People may not have any particular 'impulse' to violence in a stable, safe society, but may be all too ready to participate in violence in a violent society. Society does not solely reflect the people in it, people also reflect the society they're in.
Probably a bit of everything. In addition to what the other comments have already mentioned, much higher alcohol consumption back then, feudalism, duelling and the honour-driven culture that led to it, and widespread availability of weapons:
> A Thursday night in 1298 saw an argument between students in an Oxford High Street tavern result in a mass street brawl with swords and battle-axes
…
> "Knives were omnipresent in medieval society," said Brown. Many cases feature a knife called a thwytel, later evolved to the word "whittle."
> "A thwytel was a small knife, often valued at one penny, and used as cutlery or for everyday tasks. Axes were commonplace in homes for cutting wood, and many men carried a staff," Brown continued. Some 12% of London's homicides were committed with a sword.
> What's made the world so much more peaceful? Improved material conditions?
Steven Pinker's 2011 book "The Better Angels of our Nature" is a detailed examination how less violent societies across the world have become, and the reasons for it.
If you like videos, here's a talk he gave on it [2].
And also most people are not drunk all the time. Clean drinking water was not really a thing till modern times in towns and I believe most people primarily drank some form of alcohol
> most people primarily drank some form of alcohol
The substitute for clean drinking water was "small beer", a brewed ale with about 2% alcohol. Much safer than drinking water from the pump; or, heaven forbid, from the River Thames, which in those days was even more of a sewer than it is now. You'd have to drink a lot of it to get drunk.
TFA describes a murder that happened in "the parish of St. Aldates". St. Aldates Street runs from the centre of Oxford downhill to the Thames at St. Ebbes. St. Ebbes itself was a slum; wealthy people wouldn't live next to a disease-ridden open sewer. The side-streets off St. Aldates are all narrow, dark mediaeval alleys.
Also alcohol in beer does nothing to 'clean' the water (how would that even make any sense?) it's the boiling that kills the bacteria, parasites etc. (and people have understood that boiling makes water safer for thousands of years if not more).
Because alcohol is toxic. This is also why there's a maximum alcohol concentration above which you need distillation: the alcohol kills off the yeast that makes it.
2% may not be enough kill off everything (I'd be surprised if it was), but in the absence of better training on my part (I'm not a biologist), I would assume it would still make a difference.
> I would assume it would still make a difference.
Alcohol and low pH might significantly slow down the risk of bacteria spreading. Which is relevant if you want to store.
Obviously it's not really that relevant if were talking about making the water safe to drink in the first place because boiling is much more effective.
And again the claim that medieval people drank beer all the time because all the water they had access to is dirty is a myth..
Ensuring access to clean water was something medieval people took very seriously with very severe punishments for those who polluted or tried poisoning sources of drinkable water.
Either the most violent or the least depending on how your gerrymander your sample.
Hypothesis: violence is effectively monopolised to a degree it has never been before. So it is used far less frequently but when it is used, is far more destructive (see world wars).
in the wild West it was acceptable to end a quarrel with a duel to the death, you still can but the survivor will probably get 20 to life in prison for murder, i mean I guess they could claim self defense but that's iffy since they put themselves in harms way...
The last duel was like early 1900s maybe end of the wild West era...
I'd wager longer lifespans (a consequence of improved material conditions) have made a big difference. Back in the day, you had a decent chance of dying fairly young anyway, so there wasn't as much disincentive to do stuff that might get you killed (such as crimes, revolutions, and other violent acts). Nowadays, in a developed nation, the cost of dying young is incredibly high as measured by years of life lost.
The likelihood of doing in your 20s or 30s (due to natural causes) was still relatively low. If you survived childhood expecting to live into your 50s was pretty reasonable.
Also this would seem like a highly nihilistic attitude hardly compatible with the social values of the day. I doubt this could’ve been a significant reason on a societal level.
I wouldn't even disagree with a lot of what's you're putting down, but it's not very relevant, no? Even if you believe that we've "outsourced violence" - and honestly I agree, it's all to easy to forget that a lot of our first world material conditions are predicated on cheap third world labor - there's still a difference between global exploitation, and stabbing a man to death over public urination.
It appears to me that, as brutal as it is to stab a man for exposing himself and dispersing his bodily fluids (not obviously sterile if he frequents brothels), it is far more uncivilized what we do: enslave children and exploit them until they drop like flies so we have the minerals necessary to upgrade our phone and greenwash our souls.
I mean are we seriously comparing the stabbing of a man who sexually exploits women, to the slow and painful death of a child that mines cobalt for our phones and EVs?
The George Floyd video, if it came out today, would by itself be proof of nothing. Journalists have to do a lot more fact-checking of video than they did a few years ago.
"even the most violent contemporary American cities, and the conditions of some of our cities are absolutely tragic."
I think there a little hint there that the OP doesnt think American cities are in their golden era.
As to my peace comment, it must be put in context of the precious statement that, as violent as our cities are, we have have achieved some pacification by exporting violence.
If the Congo-US city link is too abstract, consider American jails. They are brutally violent to the point where it is suspected male-male rape might be more prominent than male-female. All of our would be urban violence that we have warehoused in our jails occurs multiple fold in our jails.
If the US invaded Mexico, because Mexico would join a hypothetical military "defensive" alliance with Russia, does that put the blame on Russia or on the US? We already have the answer to this since something similar happened in the 60s which we call the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US almost invaded Cuba, did a total naval blockade that lasted 2 weeks, until Cuba surrendered and backed out of the alliance with Russia.
If the US invades a country for joining the CSTO, that's absolutely on the US.
It might be reasonable for the US to be frustrated or disturbed if Mexico joined the CSTO, but being frustrated and disturbed wouldn't justify invading them to replace their government.
That's exactly what I meant about Western "anti-imperialism" actually being pro-Russia. Mostly because it was literally invented by the USSR.
Ukraine was explicitly rejected last time they tried to join NATO. Although they will get in now, and so will Finland and Sweden, so it was obviously counterproductive!
But Russia doesn't even care about that. They're just ideologically opposed to Ukraine existing and want its industrial resources back. They don't even say it themselves, you just make excuses for them.
That would put the blame on the US because the US would have to have done something to provoke Mexico to want to join such an alliance.
As it stands, Mexico doesn't even bother with significant defense spending because they know that the US isn't all that interested in invading and no one else is going to try to invade a country which shares a land border with the US.
On the other hand, the various Russian neighbors who have joined or have expressed interest in joining NATO have done the same calculus and determined that Russia is cannot be relied on to not threaten their borders.
2. I didn't mention batteries. Cobalt is used in many components in EVs
3. Clearly my example was illustrative, generally, of the exploitation of children for mineral resources the country didn't use. The children in Congo is child exploitation writ large.
The kids in Congo are mining something for some application and for someone and that someone is us.
> Russia vs Ukraine
I think you misread my comment. I did not pass judgement at all on the war (on this comment at least). I was just pointing out that whether you take Kiev's numbers as true (450 000 dead Russians + 50 000 dead Ukrainians) or Moscow's (450 000 dead Ukrainians + 50 000 dead Russians) the number of dead is curiously the same.
Half a million dead souls in Donbas, no matter their nationality is a tragedy being comprehension.
What's made the world so much more peaceful? Improved material conditions?