I'm interested in the whole of medieval Europe. However, if that's too general, I'm interested in the specific case of how England managed to recover from the Anarchy enough to mount a Great Revolt against King Henry II.
There is a popular image of medieval warfare as a scorched earth, take-no-prisoners affair. Historical and fantasy fiction tends to depict the burning of crops and the slaughter of civilians and soldiers alike. But if soldiers raid the storehouses and burn the fields during the first war, where do soldiers rations for the second war come from? Surely some amount of agricultural surplus is required to keep the soldiers fed. How did these surpluses get replenished so quickly after such devastation? Similarly, if soldiers killed all the enemy combatants and by standing peasants then who was left to levy into later wars?
Was warfare less devastating or did medieval economies and populations just rebound quickly?
In early medieval Ireland, communities could sustain endemic (though not as destructive as the late-medieval/early-modern conflicts that you're probably thinking of) conflict because Irish society was essentially structured to support and perpetuate low-scale warfare. Towards the end of my period, large-scale and inter-regional dynastic warfare became more common as regional powers fought to assert their political hegemony, but on a local level, the low-scale conflict that I describe below continued to be fought.
Medieval Irish society was in fact less like the stereotypical picture of a 'feudal' society but was rather structurally similar to earlier Iron-Age societies found elsewhere in temperate Europe. At its most basic and localized elements, this society's fundamental purpose was to support a small population of warrior-aristocrats.The most basic political-economic unit in Ireland was the tuath, which which contained enough diversified land for agriculture and livestock, held in common by its inhabitants, to make it economically self-sufficient. The most basic social unit was the clann (lit. 'offspring') whose labour provided enough food from their tuath to support a small population of warrior-aristocrats who were often bound to the community by means of fictive kinship. These warriors would engage in frequent but low-scale conflict with neighbouring communities over cattle or to address wrongdoings that legal recourse had failed to solve. These kinds of local communities were what Nerys Thomas Patterson has called a "low-energy war-machine".
The cattle-raid was perhaps the most common form of conflict because cattle were the most basic unit of economic exchange, a form of wealth and an aristocrat's source for gaining new clients. These conflicts were not particularly destructive as their goal was to quickly steal as many cattle as possible, though a community deprived of a herd might face hardship afterwards (dairy products formed a considerable proportion of the medieval Irish diet). In that case, their own warrior-aristocrats might undertake a raid to steal back their cattle or take some from a different neighbouring community. Conflict was thus endemic and self-sustaining; the clann and tuath provided enough food and labour to support local warrior-aristocrats who were mostly engaged in back-and-forth warfare with neighbouring communities over herds of cattle. At their most fundamental level, Irish social structures had evolved precisely to sustain constant conflict.