<< b > "Warfare, as Lee points out, has been killing off the brave and strong in disproportionate numbers for a while. I would stipulate that this observation has only been valid on a broad scale since about the middle of the 19th century, though. This was when modern warfare, and modern artillery, made random mass killing on the battlefield more efficient. Until then, the cleverest and the strongest had, in fact, a more than even chance at survival. Earlier warfare may even have acted as a kind of evolutionary mechanism the same way battles among other male animals cull the weak from the gene pool." < b >

Survival in early warfare, i.e. hand to hand fighting, was mostly a matter of luck. The longbow was a devastating weapon regardless of how cleaver or strong you were. It could split a man's skull at 150 yards. Now imagine several hundred archers, each raining down an average of a dozen arrows a minute upon a battle field. Once the two forces came into contact with each other, all hell would break loose. Telling friend from foe was next to impossible in the crushing mass of swinging, hacking arms. Many a strong man was slain by a blade to the back without ever having a chance to out smart their opponent.

The movie "Braveheart" gives a pretty good view of warfare before the gun. It wasn't pretty.

Maybe having a military for the purpose of breeding wouldn't be such a bad idea. Setting up a "bootcamp" with very high physical and mental demands for both men and women. Those not able to make it through wouldn't be allowed to continue in the program. Mock combat, that is nonlethal, between individuals would be helpful in determining courage, strength and cleverness. At the end of the program, then the "survivors" would be able to choose mates from those that were left. This would be a totally voluntary program much the way that the all volunteer fighting army of today is. Sort of like an olympics of love. This is however, just an idea.