Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Modern History TV" channel.

@berilsevvalbekret772 There's a limit to that and most lords understood their position and weren't willing to abuse their power and contracts, you have to consider the amount of lords that existed compared to the amount of revolts and you'd notice how uncommon it was for your average lord to so anger his subjects that they'd be willing to revolt. Its similar to today in many cases, do most people revolt (peaceably or not) over slightly subpar work environments? Not really, only when you see exceptional cases of decrepit workplaces does that happen, usually when they have a way too much central power over too wide a swath that you start to see corruption and the allowance for more wicked actions for which people generally revolt over. Same happened in serfdom and feudal cases, a lord with a relatively small amount of serfs did not have much power and was incapable to just abuse them because they could go so far as to revolt and easily win, but a lord with a rather large amount of serfs would have a lot of power and over time would be more likely to become corrupt and abuse some serfs, which may cause revolts but wouldn't always result in a successful revolt.
29
@miguelservetus9534 "and shows a lot of people traveled even back then." "Well researched or not, it is not a foundation upon which to build a conclusion." You seem to be taking the wrong assumption about the phrasing of the statement, nothing about the context nor phrasing says that its a historical vision, its questionable to assume that perspective. Its not unreasonable to say "and shows" in phrasing because its using historical context to describe to the best of our knowledge what historically would be the case. "Note that this video’s narrator says 95% did not travel. If true, the most did not travel." But almost every character the player will tend to interact with in KC:D is not a farmer, or wasn't originally a farmer, and those who lived inside castle walls (that being a large majority of the NPCs) would almost certainly not have been a farmer. For that context it makes sense that most if not all (if not most of) your NPC interactions would be with former travelers and sojourners. Perhaps we can question the regard for ignoring the most common demographic of the time period but keep in mind that a farmer would have very little for a former blacksmith's kid turned soldier, there isn't much justification from almost any perspective for the player to interact with farmers so as a result most player interactions will tend to under-emphasize them. This is a case where the interactive medium puts you in the biased perspective of a member of the narrative instead of giving you an overarching accurate portrayal of the reality of the time in its entirety. As an aside even just 5% of 100,000 is still 5000, the more people that live in a period, the easier it is for any individual traveler to come across a traveler because by ratio they will stay the same and thus become more common alongside other demographics.
8
One manner of money transfer was found in the banking systems, you'd put money into a bank, they'd give you a manner to identify yourself with any bank that associates with that one, and then anywhere you go that has a nearby associated bank could also grant you the money so long as you were verified, obviously another is to perform some local labor for a bit of food and shelter money, bet that in some cases legitimate shelter might have even been disregarded.
5