Was Europe at 12th century a safer place than 21st century Mexico?

>>3190707
Depends on the place.
Georges Minois writes at one point in his "Histoire du Moyen-Âge" :
>"One must keep in mind to understand the context in which evolves the europeans of the middle ages : They were fifteen times less populous than today, they move at the speed of 30kms a day in the best case, they must walk across vast forests and deserted countryside, the cities have the size of a town, they receive news from the other part of the land days later, they are part of the world that is proportionnally twenty times bigger than ours. Trade is so much riskier and audacious than what we think, and if quantities carried on ships might seem derisory, they are a permanent exploit."

I would say that is less dangerous for the average peasant, but it is far more complicated for the guy who has to use a ship or a caravan. Local landlords in the XIIth century could keep peace and deter then brigands who would otherwise plague the honest subjects, but a lord only cares for his local fief.
In times of war however, and Europe in the XIIth knew war, monarchs could hire large bands of mercenaries who would resort to all sorts of agressions to loot and pillage, including sacking churches.

What's the life expectancy of mexico
Is it higher than 40
then no.

>>3190791
lurk more

>>3190812
? I had like the 200th post on /his/

>>3190791
It was low, because of high infant mortality.

>>3190850
How fucking good could their census be? How many actually even knew, with certainty, what year they were born?

>>3190871
>How many actually even knew, with certainty, what year they were born?
We take this shit for granted now but accurate calendars and birth certificates weren't necessarily the norm back then.

>>3190850
Partly, add to that dysentry, slow fever, leprosity, smallpox, bad harvest(admittedly less common in the medieval warm period), little medical facilities, little means to treat infections, women often dying at childbirth, limited means of movement, really poor hygiene in cities and you get to forty
the fact that mexico city is so huge alone points towards better living conditions, as in premodern times city populations declined without constant immigration.

File: 1498496184061.png (510KB, 497x501px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 497x501px

>>3191066
>hurrrr I was posting on /his/ since 2013
>posts reddit-tier middle age myths and misconceptions

>>3191410

>Doesnt post evidence for point of contention.

Neither did he, but I mean, commonly accepted facts, not "le reddit tier middle age myths"

File: 1465154403986.png (128KB, 393x526px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 393x526px

>>3190790
Sounds like XXI century Argentina

JUST

>>3190871
Well we have the rich, who kept accurate records of their births and deaths with the help of the clergy who coordinated accurate timekeeping with Rome.

Then we have human remains. We can usually tell roughly how old someone is by examining their bones with a reasonably degree of accuracy.

>>3190707
No, Mexico is an unsafe country in relative terms. There have been aprox 300k homicides since 2006-7, compared to places like today U.S.A or Europe it's a really high number but still more people die by things like car accidents.
12th Century Europe, you could die in a war, by illness, hunger, etc.

>>3192682
Based in the numbers of this article:
http://m.historyextra.com/article/premium/how-bloody-was-medieval-life
12th Century Europe was four times more dangerous than current Mexico.
Medieval England homicide rate: 110 per 100,000
Current Mexico homicide rate: 25~ per 100,000
That's why I said Mexico is violent in relative terms, it's much better than in the past, but it's awful compared to for example present England (1 per 100,000).