Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 7871567" data-attributes="member: 6688277">Would you have considered at least conversing without the reference to trolls if the post perhaps was phrased a little more open to discussion and respectfully...for instance:..........................Based on what I have learned, women have been treated as chattel throughout much of history as such the mentality of some men/rulers back then was such where: Due to the slow human reproductive rate, women were seen to be much too valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless it was a last stand of sorts.Women could possibly have but 1 child a year if we are optimistic on medieval standards given the harsh living standards of society back then and if we calculate that 30-50% (depending on sources) chance of them dying in childbirth, no society could afford to risk losing women in battle.Men were simply more expendable in reproductive terms - remember might was everything and a larger population usually meant a larger army.Men had the opportunity (in some cultures) to impregnate up to 20 women in a year, should the situation arise were more than 95% of men died in battle, as ridiculous as that sounds.Those were the times many women lived in. Not great at all, but too valuable to have them lost in battle unless it was anything but a final stand against an overwhelming foe. ........................Have edited for grammar corrections and clarity. Never stops!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 7871567, member: 6688277"] Would you have considered at least conversing without the reference to trolls if the post perhaps was phrased a little more open to discussion and respectfully...for instance: .......................... [B]Based on what I have learned, women have been treated as chattel throughout much of history as such the mentality of some men/rulers back then was such where: [/B] Due to the slow human reproductive rate, women were [B]seen to be[/B] much too valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless it was a last stand[B] of sorts[/B]. Women [B]could possibly[/B] have [B]but 1 [/B]child a year if we are optimistic on medieval standards [B]given the harsh living standards of society back then[/B] and if we calculate that 30-50% (depending on sources) chance of them dying in childbirth, no society [B]could[/B] afford to risk[B] losing[/B] women in battle. Men [B]were[/B] simply more expendable in reproductive terms - [B]remember might was everything and a larger population usually meant a larger army. Men had the opportunity (in some cultures) to [/B]impregnate[B] up to [/B]20 women in a year, [B]should the situation arise were[/B] more than 95% of men died in battle, [B]as ridiculous as that sounds. Those were the times many women lived in. Not great at all, but too valuable to have them lost in battle unless it was anything but a final stand against an overwhelming foe. [/B] ........................ Have edited for grammar corrections and clarity. Never stops! [/QUOTE]

Verification