Without what was it easier to survive in the medieval world: without a hand or without an eye?

It is interesting that, speaking about the Middle Ages, almost everyone immediately imagines himself a "knight". Not even a normal nobleman, whose main occupation (by the way) was - to mend the trial of the men (simply - to maintain order and timely payment, which is due), who are in his "management". Namely, a "knight" from a movie or a book - eternal tournaments, etc.

While most people in the Middle Ages did not belong to such. And they belonged to those who - mostly - can live without an eye, but without a hand ... Well, also a monk or a rich (namely rich) merchant - back and forth. But how can a one-armed craftsman or a peasant live ...

It's easier without an eye. I don't know, maybe other people got information about the Middle Ages from history books and so on, but personally I got them from thematic books, films and TV shows. Judging by this knowledge, it is much easier to live without an eye.

For example, Jaime Lannister. (Before and after)

Just from the pictures you can see that a happy and joyful person suddenly turns into a broken one. No hand = no fencing = no tournaments = no battles = no women = no respect. What did they do there in the Middle Ages?

Now, let's imagine, for example, an average pirate (the one who has no eyes, a bandage and a small wooden crutch). In my opinion, no one bothers him to live, rob, kill. And fencing is not that difficult either. There are characters who are good at fencing despite the loss of one eye, although it is more likely among the same pirates.

And in the end - Philip Eilhart. Before and after. No problem. Lives and enjoys life.

Without an eye, of course. An example is the Czech king Jan the Blind, who was such a crazy and fanatical knight that, being completely blind, he managed to take part in the Battle of Crecy (albeit with a completely predictable outcome).

Are you interested in fencing or in general? For fencing, of course, the loss of an eye is essential, but a person usually adapts to look with one eye in a couple of days, and in a year he completely forgets what it is like to look with two eyes. History knows many one-eyed fighters and generals.

But what is essential for the Middle Ages is the physiology of the wound. After the traumatic loss of the eye, suppuration and infection occur much less often than with the loss of a limb. If the eye socket is well cleaned and rinsed with water with vinegar, or even with alkali, then there is virtually nothing more to fester, dry skin and bone. You can even insert gems or artificial ivory eyes there, like pirates. Not so with the limbs, where tissues are constantly suppurating, infections get there, sepsis, tissue necrosis, poor and slow healing of stumps occur - disinfection techniques were discovered by chance, gradually, rarely, and they were considered signs and rituals. People didn’t care - to spit on the stump three times or to wash it with freshly opened distilled alcohol, and both were considered female nonsense. But rubbing the stump on the tomb with the relics of a saint is the most scientific method of treatment. Therefore, the number of disabled people without limbs in the Middle Ages was not as great as it might seem in modern films. They simply more often died within six months after traumatic amputation, from infection.

In short, without an eye it was easier to survive and lead a more or less normal life.

It's easier without an eye. Because, the further back in time, the more hands were required, and both. And not only in the possession of the sword. A less technologically advanced society always does everything by hand. Well, the eye, he sees everything alone.