Of course disease was a major factor. I also agree about making conclusions about political systems from data.
The conclusion which I really wanted to make (which I did make but could have made clearer) is simply the following :
Contrary to what many people think, you would have a much lower chance of dying in a war (by disease or otherwise) if you were born a random person in Europe in 1900 rather than in 1600. Same goes for murder, for most areas of the world and for most time periods (earlier time periods were generally deadlier).
Again, I don't want to make any conclusion about nationalism with this, simply address the misconception that the 20th century (or the post-nationalisation world, whenever that is) was particularly violent.
The conclusion which I really wanted to make (which I did make but could have made clearer) is simply the following :
Contrary to what many people think, you would have a much lower chance of dying in a war (by disease or otherwise) if you were born a random person in Europe in 1900 rather than in 1600. Same goes for murder, for most areas of the world and for most time periods (earlier time periods were generally deadlier).
Again, I don't want to make any conclusion about nationalism with this, simply address the misconception that the 20th century (or the post-nationalisation world, whenever that is) was particularly violent.
Comment