Plague only after 'the one'

[Nikolai II]

I recently learned that there are no evidence for plague in europe during the period 1066-1347, none at all. After the 'black death' however plague was more or less constant, and plagues crossing the entire nation(any nation) would appear two or three times every generation.

I hope that both the 'black death' and the fact that plague was a 'post-black-death' phenomenon will be in.

I'm not claiming that there were no epidemics before the 'black death', just fewer with less spread and no plagues at all.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
I recently learned that there are no evidence for plague in europe during the period 1066-1347, none at all. After the 'black death' however plague was more or less constant, and plagues crossing the entire nation(any nation) would appear two or three times every generation.

I hope that both the 'black death' and the fact that plague was a 'post-black-death' phenomenon will be in.

I'm not claiming that there were no epidemics before the 'black death', just fewer with less spread and no plagues at all.

I thought there was a quite devastating one in the 12th century too. Can anybody clarify (sp?)?

 

[unmerged(12746)]

I have most of my reference material at home, I have done a lot of reading on the Mongol period in the 12-13th century. The plague always exisited due to the sanitation of the time period. It was very prevelant in extreme east Europe and Asia in the 12th century. John of Plano on his mission to the Mongols discussed it and perhaps those reference (his trip was in the 1240’s not bad for a 50 year old monk back then to cross the steppes) are what a lot of people belief to be a major outbreak. Infact it was but not a western European one. Below is a good link for the Western European event that so many of us identify with as the “Black Plague”.




http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/Plague.html

 

[Nikolai II]

The plague existed and still exists due to large populations of rodents that carry the yrsenia pestis bacteria.
It spread to humans due to closeness with infected rodents and the lice that transported the bacteria to humans, dying in the process.

But my interest is only in the game map and the game period, there were several large plagues in 7th to 9th century western med iirc.

Raymond Crawfurd (1914) thought that the 11th and 12th century had plagues, but the differences in trading pattern, rodent populations and by all means sanitation and culture between 12th and 14th century are IMHO not large enough to explain why these plagues did not spread over larger areas. (As the 'black death' and later epidemics showed that plague would do.)

 

[Doomfarer]

Some modern research actually shows that it probably wasn't yersinia pestis that caused the Black Death. It's far more likely that it was an Ebola-like virus that caused it as bacteria are just too slow to infect people at the rate the Black Death did.

It is interesting though...

Also remember that pandemics did occur during earlier in history (several times during the Roman era) so perhaps it was only luck that made Europe avoid one during the years 1066-1347.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

"In the wake of the plague" by Norman Cantor Is a great book that discusses the impact of the plague on Feudilism and social economic structures of the period. It dosent speak much to cause but Cantor believes that infact the "Black Plague" was a combination of many factors that happen to coincide with one another.

He suggests that infact the plague was more specifically a spread of cattle disease like "Mad cow" or a form of anthrax. In 1984 Zoologist Grahm Twig notes that in England the plague was as severe in populated areas as it was in the country side, and that the mortality rate was virtually the same in winter and summer, which is inconsitant with how the plague or "Bubonic" plague works.

As to the game period it has to have a role, particularly in the stability of the church. At the time there was nearly a 60 percent mortality rate among clergy that dealt with parishoners and there was a common theme of dread and utter anguinsh in the population. It must have devestated local economies, and tax collections, and investment by the church and state.

As far as game effects, in 1348 princess Joan the daughter of Edward III was scheduled to marry prince pedro of castile. The pope at the time was in Avignon and blessed the marriage to the dismay of the French. This marriage had huge political implications and was the stage setter for a union between england and Castile that would have certainly spelled trouble for an already desolate France. So Joan makes it to Bourdeau and sets up court and begins the long journey of moving from estate to estate greeting dukes earls etc, it was a real masterpiece of politcs of the age, this march through sympathetic french provinces was meant to stick it to the frogs for sure. Well to make a long story short, bordeau had about 500 bodies burning in the suburbs because they had the plague. Needless to say she got it, and the marriage never happened.

Now what if it did? any male child would have had claim to england and castile and would have had a tremendous impact on the world. The plague destroyed much of society at all levels and as a result things changed, it was a huge trama and it hit nobles, the church and peasants. How do you sim that? how do you simulate the effects of a 25-40 percent loss to your society? how do you simulate the loss of 60+percent of your clergy in the middle ages?

should be intresting, nice chat anyway.

Odin

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Doomfarer
Some modern research actually shows that it probably wasn't yersinia pestis that caused the Black Death. It's far more likely that it was an Ebola-like virus that caused it as bacteria are just too slow to infect people at the rate the Black Death did.

It is interesting though...

Also remember that pandemics did occur during earlier in history (several times during the Roman era) so perhaps it was only luck that made Europe avoid one during the years 1066-1347.

Some modern researchers claim that, just as the plague a few years ago was so downplayed that it was stated to be 'inconsequential' and 'only killed 5%'.

Plague spread fast since humans didn't infect each others, rather were infected simultaneously by starving lice. (Who could possibly infect several people, I might have been unclear above)

6th to 8 century carried several plague pandemics, but then it disappeared. Luck or loss of grain trading routes (or combination) might be possible causes.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Hmm..you´re talking about the Justinian plague?

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Odin1970
"In the wake of the plague" by Norman Cantor Is a great book that discusses the impact of the plague on Feudilism and social economic structures of the period. It dosent speak much to cause but Cantor believes that infact the "Black Plague" was a combination of many factors that happen to coincide with one another.

And that is the old school thought. (Even though the book is recent, the author is old )

On a similar note there are still claims that HIV doesn't exist, and is just malnutrition and powerty. (South African official line, now somewhat abandoned). And plague is usually seen during the summer months, but it isn't limited to this.

The 'powerty' theory doesn't really explain why the plague didn't hit earlier, why it struck equally bad on rich and poor alike and most importantly why it didn't disappear after 'doing it's deed' since the overcrowding and major powerty was now gone. Also it assumes that the entirety of europe would have the same squalid conditions while some outlying regions actually were still lightly settled and rather well off and they were also hit as bad.

But yes, the impact in the game must be major. The lowest (sensible) estimates are that 30%-50% of population died immediately and by 1400 populations were down with 60% from pre-plague levels, and would not return to previous levels during the game period.
Other effects are; the creation of larger estates (when those wealthy enough to survive economically expanded), the rise of the robber barons and knight mercenaries (when noblemen with too small lands to survive on the reduced taxes would turn to other means of sustenance); increased wealth and freedom for tenants (even if several laws were made to control rising wages and prohibit tenants to move to kinder landlords they usually didn't work since employers/new landlords ignored them since expensive workers are better than no workers.)

And yes, I'm curious how it will be simulated and I'm posting now lest it be forgotten

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Wasa
Hmm..you´re talking about the Justinian plague?

That is what it is known as, although it outlasted him by more than two centuries

I seem to have forgotten to mention that Justinians plague was a strictly mediterranean affair, in most likelyhood because the black rat (Rattus rattus) hadn't yet spread to northen europe. Or for some other reason.

 

[Doomfarer]

It could also be due to the fact that the north was too sparsely populated to really "get" it.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Doomfarer
It could also be due to the fact that the north was too sparsely populated to really "get" it.

Could be, could be. Although sparse population would not protect against the plague when it came, it could be an added level of insulation against it spreading there in the first place.

edit: J/k appreciation smiley

 

[unmerged(12746)]

As much as I would love to get into a debate with Nik on the plague its causes so on I will keep it on topic to the game implications. Nice to see though there are people whom like good debate!


Some Stats I dug up:

In Chapter 5 of A Distant Mirror, by Barbara Tuchman provides the following statistics:

·While the plague raged, Pisa and Vienna lost 500 people a day.
·Florence, Venice, Hamburg and Bremen lost a minimum of 60% of their populations.
·At the peak of the epidemic, Paris lost 800 people a day, and by the end of its long run with the disease (which lasted there until 1349), half its population of 100,000 people had died.

http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/blackdeath.htm

The Link above is a obscure corner of the web, the author doesn’t list resources for his statistics but makes a couple of decent points regarding record keeping of the time. The Clergy did most of the scribing in the middle ages and one has to wonder if the plagues effects and tolls weren’t somewhat exaggerated by said clergy for psychological and populace manipulation purposes.

http://www.hopkins-biodefense.org/pages/agents/agentplague.html

“In 1346, the second plague pandemic, also known as the Black Death or the Great Pestilence, erupted and within 5 years had ravaged the Middle East and killed more than 13 million in China and 20-30 million in Europe, one third of the European population”

The above quote and link are from the John Hopkins university website.

So in game terms the plague of 1347-???? Would have to be completely devastating to a economic and social structure of an effected region, particularly provinces with ports and high commerce. Based on historical documentation or more accurately historical interpretation based on hypothesis, it has to be a major factor in the game. Because it would happen so late in the game play most majors would already be carved out, houses/dynasties roots formed. The plague could really splinter a nation into smaller groups or estates and weaken a dynasties line. My preference would be for this to actually happen as I stated, for revolts, secession of provinces by other lords (as hinted at by Nik in his comment about estates widening). You would have 75 years roughly to tie things up before the end of the game, and then the file could be transferred to the EUII game with the dynastic claims in tact from the fallout of the plague.

Just some thoughts.


Odin

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Odin1970
So in game terms the plague of 1347-???? Would have to be completely devastating to a economic and social structure of an effected region, particularly provinces with ports and high commerce. Based on historical documentation or more accurately historical interpretation based on hypothesis, it has to be a major factor in the game. Because it would happen so late in the game play most majors would already be carved out, houses/dynasties roots formed. The plague could really splinter a nation into smaller groups or estates and weaken a dynasties line. My preference would be for this to actually happen as I stated, for revolts, secession of provinces by other lords (as hinted at by Nik in his comment about estates widening). You would have 75 years roughly to tie things up before the end of the game, and then the file could be transferred to the EUII game with the dynastic claims in tact from the fallout of the plague.

1347-1352 for the 'great plague' and then constant local reruns.

Simulation could be iffy if one is careful. E.g. Milano getting away nearly scott free from the first plague (but being struck more harshly later). Basically they should follow trade routes, starting at the near end of the 'silk road'.

Game ends 1453, giving a hundred years to 'fix' things.

As for the effects.. whoo.. I don't know what they should be
As much as the engine can handle I guess
Splintering kingdoms happened more before the plague than during/after it I think, maybe more claimants at that time

The most important point for a ruler should be drastic decrease in incomes and sharply rising expenses.
(On a related note, at the siege of Calais the english king had 32,000 men under arms, when Henry V invaded in 1415 he pulled out all stops and managed to bring 10,500 men)

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
That is what it is known as, although it outlasted him by more than two centuries

I seem to have forgotten to mention that Justinians plague was a strictly mediterranean affair, in most likelyhood because the black rat (Rattus rattus) hadn't yet spread to northen europe. Or for some other reason.

Well..as you probably already know.. ...we have very few written sources left in Scandinavia from that period in history...

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Wasa
Well..as you probably already know.. ...we have very few written sources left in Scandinavia from that period in history...

And none of them mention any plague

There are however archeological evidence that the Rattus rattus was not present in scandinavia until 11th century, 10th at the earliest. Since the black rat is pretty much mandatory for a good spread of plague this is another point against Justinians plague spreading to northern europe. (scandinavia and england, I don't know about the continent, there likely were rats there earlier than further north, but probably not in time for just.plague)

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
And none of them mention any plague

There are however archeological evidence that the Rattus rattus was not present in scandinavia until 11th century, 10th at the earliest. Since the black rat is pretty much mandatory for a good spread of plague this is another point against Justinians plague spreading to northern europe. (scandinavia and england, I don't know about the continent, there likely were rats there earlier than further north, but probably not in time for just.plague)

Too cold? ...brr..even the Rattus rattus had the intelligence to avoid that....

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Wasa
Too cold? ...brr..even the Rattus rattus had the intelligence to avoid that....

Heh, maybe

Is the Rattus norwegicus really a norwegian rat? And where did the Rattus rattus originate? I'm assuming it's late arrival to the north is due to it spreading from somewhere.

 

[unmerged(9234)]

No, the rattus norvegicus (brown rat) probably originated in China, not Norway. And is certainly not only found in Norway today

 

[unmerged(11117)]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
1347-1352 for the 'great plague' and then constant local reruns.

Simulation could be iffy if one is careful. E.g. Milano getting away nearly scott free from the first plague (but being struck more harshly later). Basically they should follow trade routes, starting at the near end of the 'silk road'.

Game ends 1453, giving a hundred years to 'fix' things.

As for the effects.. whoo.. I don't know what they should be
As much as the engine can handle I guess
Splintering kingdoms happened more before the plague than during/after it I think, maybe more claimants at that time

The most important point for a ruler should be drastic decrease in incomes and sharply rising expenses.
(On a related note, at the siege of Calais the english king had 32,000 men under arms, when Henry V invaded in 1415 he pulled out all stops and managed to bring 10,500 men)

Loss of Population is the main one, and consequential effects.