Talk:Black Death/Archive 1

message: For a discussion on why Black Death exists as a separate article from Bubonic plague, see Talk:Bubonic plague. 
Kevyn 06:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Death vs. Bubonic plague

message: I don't understand this addition to the article: "Recent studies have predicted a decline from twenty-five percent to fifty percent population decrease in Europe alone."  Is this prediction really an estimate?  Why "decline" and "decrease" in the same sentence?  The previous text, giving an estimte of about a one-third death rate, seems fine to me, but before I delete the quoted sentence I want to see if there's some information in it that I'm not understanding. JamesMLane 02:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Death rate

message: "Another possible theory as to how the plague spread so quickly is that by killing many of the cats (believed to be witchs' familiars) during the witch hunts caused the rodent population to rise, and with them rose the probability of infection."  Taken from an anon edit, 12 Apr 2005, 68.174.249.133, later reverted by User:Dmcdevit. 
I've heard this one, but don't have the materials on hand to substantiate it.  Actually it was probably a social result of the ongoing waves of plague.  People looked for scapegoats -- some reason why these horrible things were happening to them -- and often focused on older people who may have survived earlier rounds of the disease (and Jews, of course).  The number of accusations of witchcraft increased, and measures became more draconian.  These people's pets and livestock were often burned or hung along with them as "familiars."  I also remember that it was about this time that the genetic mutation that results in black domestic cats emerged.  The sudden appearance of these "black imps of Satan" was mentioned in a couple of sources.  This led some historian(s) to speculate about a massive roundup of cats.  An interesting bit of information, but perhaps not for the article.  WBardwin 20:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon who wrote the original paragraph didn't provide a source.  I agree the point is interesting, and perhaps useful in the persecutions or social consequences section.  But social points are difficult to document.  If I can find a source that includes the material I'm recalling (see above comment), I'll put in a paragraph  In the meantime, everyone feel free to look for similar references.  WBardwin 00:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In July 1348, the governor of Damascus ordered the killing of all dogs in the city for the duration of the epidemic, perhaps because they were eating abandoned human corpses in the street.  (Source:  Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East.)
I hadn't considered this as a cause for the persecution of cats, as cats usually like their meat fresh, but it might apply. WBardwin 03:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "The thought cause at the time was that cats carried the deadly disease; however, by killing cats, people were doing themselves a dis advantage, as cats' naturally prey on rodents, the real cause of the disease."  Another thought on cats by an anon.  Moved from article by WBardwin 00:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cats DO carry the deadly disease.  They can directly infect their owners and others who handle them with pneumonic plague.  I'm not sure whether they can also carry disease-causing fleas or other parasites.  See the Centers for Disease Control Health Advisory on Plague http://www.co.boulder.co.us/health/hpe/cdc/healthadviso....and the Utah State University Extension Animal Heatlh Fact Sheet: CAT PLAGUE--Veterinarians Caution (July 1997). MargaretDelacy 24.21.140.66 05:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats - particularly Black! 

message: Shouldn't we mention that one of the accepted results of the Black Death was the massive peasant revolts (i.e. Jacquerie, Great Peasants' Revolt in England, revolts across south France, Italy, and Germany) that affected mostly Western Europe, rather than Eastern Europe which was hit much less by the disease.  Other factors include the famines, wars, skyrocketting food prices, and the landlords' efforts to fix wages and generally restrict the now-scarce peasants.  This may have led to greater freedoms for the peasant class and the roots of capitalism.
Additional consequences -- the massive drop in European population led logically to to a similar reduction in workforce.  Workers were more valued and the aristocracy began to provide incentives to keep and attract workers.  This ultimately led to an upgrade in the rights of peasants, the decline of fuedalism and the establishment of guilds and merchant groups.  A teacher of mine quipped that the Black Death "birthed" the middle class.  2/05 -W (an anonymous)
:This is true but it didnt happen right away, it took 150+ years for the aristocracy to lower rents.. see Popular revolt in late medieval Europe which goes in to this in more detail (and mentions the black death as one of the causes). All of these things are inter-related, nothing "caused" somthing else they are all factors, really we need a higher-level article that ties it all together, perhaps a history of europe in the 14th and 15th century. --Stbalbach 18:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to "Consequences" section?

message: Both this article and bubonic plague have link sections at the bottom.  A quick search will pull up a number of sites, often history oriented.  In addition:  
:   -- This one is only average, but contains links to accounts from the time period.  
: -- primary source in translation.  This one's a little better. 
: eMedicine site - Good medical info.
Hope you put these to constructive use.  Welcome to Wikipedia.  WBardwin 21:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I really want to learn about an event, I like to look at the contemporary accounts (not necessarily for factual accuracies, but to get a good sense of what it was like). There are a few useful sites for this. I love reading the accounts of Petrarch and Boccaccio, some of the more famous chroniclers; see  (Petrarch, etc.)and  (Boccaccio's Decameron). Also see the accounts of more common folk, like Henry Knighton of England , and Adnolo di Tura the Fat of Siena  -- though I wish I could find the full text of these accounts, I hate the highlights, which seem to be the same quote on every website. Enjoy! (I feel kind of guilty about saying enjoy about the Black Death...) --Dmcdevit 01:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there any good website on this topic 

message: is black death communicable or non communicable?
:The Black Death - the bubonic plague - is primarily spread through an animal vector, fleas.  One flea bites an infected animal/person and then transmits the disease to all other  animals/persons it bites.  However, when human beings get the plague, it can manifest itself in several ways.  Two of these, pnumonic and septicemic, can actually become communicable person to person because of infected body fluids.  When this happens, the rate of infection increases rapidly.  Most scholars believe that the pnumonic plague, which settles in the lungs, and transmission from coughing, is the mechanism that made the Black Death so widespread in Europe.  See Bubonic plague for more detailed information on the disease itself.  WBardwin 19:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also keep in mind that not all scholars agree that it was bubonic plague. In general though, I do think most scholars will agree that the disease, whatever it was, was communicable, as the spread seemed to follow the trade routes, moving inland more slowly.--Dmcdevit 22:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is black death communicable or non communicable? 

message: In regards to this recent addition:
:Some historians credit the Black Death for helping or opening the way for the Renaissance and even the Reformation, as a direct or indirect result of peasant freedoms gained in the social upheaval left in the plague's wake. However this has been rejected as some who view the time passed between the events to have been to great for such an effect. Notably, these kinds of peasant revolts were more uncommon in more sparsely populated and less affected Easten Europe. As the social upheaval caused by Black Death has been seen by some as a factor that helped to bring about the Renaissance and even the Reformation, historians have cited this as a reason for Eastern Europe's failure to experience either of these movements on a similar scale as the West. Extrapolating from this, the Black Death may be seen as a contributing factor for Eastern Europe's considerable lag in scientific and philosophical advances as well as in the move to liberalise government by restricting the power of the monach and aristocracy. A common example is that England is seen to have effectively ended serfdom by 1550 while moving towards more representative government; meanwhile, serfdom was not abolished in Russia until the autocratic tsar decreed so in the nineteenth century.
There are some problems with this. First, I don't know any serious historian who says the Black Death caused the Renaissance, in fact the Renaissance is such a large, diffuse event taking place over hundreds of years across vast geopolitical areas there is no single cause, like turning on a faucet. It would be like saying there is a single cause of modernity. Indeed, the Renaissance is an invention of the 19th century, it was not an actual thing, no one alive at the time heard of it. Also, what we envision as a Renaissance, was well underway in Italy prior to (and during) the Black Death. Second, who are these "some historians"? That is often code-word for "in my opinion". Next, the theory that the Black Death is the reason for Eastern Europe developing more slowly.. again, this is a highly simplified approach to a very complex question. Who came up with this idea, who can I read to learn more about this theory and the supporting evidence behind it? I would suggest reading Medieval demography which discusses the question on why there was a delay between the "crisis of the 14th century" (reduced population) and the increased incomes of the lowerclass because of more available land. This is not a simple topic and cant be boiled down to a single cause of just the Black Death. Finally I would add, if you want to discuss in detail the question of social upheavels, Black Death is just one of many social upheavels, see also Great Famine of 1315-1317 and Hundred's Year War and Popular revolt in late medieval Europe .. there are more but not yet on Wikipedia. Stbalbach 02:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are on the same page. Someone without any background of other events to guide them could read this sentence "Some historians credit the Black Death for helping or opening the way for the Renaissance" and come away with a strong sense that the Black Death caused or was the primary cause of the Renaissance. In any case, this topic is large and needs a seperate article to explore in detail, perhaps Crisis of the 14th century, which ties together the other events (famine, war, revolt), and presents the various theories of how they fit together; the one presented here is one view, but it's not the best place to discuss the crisis of the 14th and 15th centuries.. not tucked away in half a paragraph of the Black Death article, without citations, and without sources. This is just the nature of an evolving Wikipedia.  Once we have a Crisis.. article, then it's possible to write a Origins of the Renaissance article, which then becomes the lead section of the Renaissance article. Stbalbach 19:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for clarification: I was not the original writer of the Some historians credit the Black Death for helping or opening the way for the Renaissance" sentence. If you'll take a look at the edit history, I took that sentence that was out of place at the end and integrated it into the first paragraph where it made logical sense, expanding the content to clarify the theory. --66.210.243.130 22:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait now... Your last edit just totally got rid of any mention of the Black Death --> Renaissance theory. I realize you may not agree, but think about Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It means giving a fair shake to all sides, whether you agree with it or not, even whether its the more popular one or not. Your new wording is much too definitive on a contentious issue, and you talked to me about simplification.  To say that it is simply "not satisfactory", is too imply that the theory's proponents have no evidence, which isn't true. The fact is that Britain, for one, passed the Statute of Labourors, which fixed wages, as the nobles' reaction to empowered peasants. I suggest you read the acconts of Agnolo di Tura and (if I remember, I'm accessing this from a computer away from home) Henry Knighton, who both complain of peasants moving off the land to find and demand better wages (sounds a little like capitalism). This kind of legislation passed across western Europe was largely unsuccessful, as it was unenforcable, there were always landlords willing to pay more for labor. Also it is simplistic to suggest serfdom disappeared spontaneously in the sixteenth century. There was no decree as in Russia, instead it had been a slow evolution, so the time frame arguent does not necessarily hold up. Not to mention the fact that the Black Death cannot be so easilt defined between a five or ten year range, it continued to return for centuries, even more reason that the time-frame argument is not the indestructable article you claim. Please NPOV the article so both sides are treated fairly.--Dmcdevit 01:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it was the nobles reaction (fixing wages, etc) that caused the 150+ year delay in benefits to the peasant class. I'm not sure your reading what I wrote correctly. Have you read the Demography article? As I said before, this is a large and complex topic that should not be in the Black Death article, it needs a seperate article, called Crisis of the 14th and 15th centuries, that goes into the causes and theories in detail, without being restricted by the context of the Black Death article.. I dont disagree BD was important, very important, but its not that simple. A single paragraph or two is going to be simplistic no matter what. Also, the renaissance theory is still there. Stbalbach 02:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *My point was, and I suppose I didn't make this clear, wage-fixing legislation was almost universally unsuccessful, as only the landlords who broke the law would be the ones to get the laborers. The wave of peasant revolts largely came after the reactionary legislation: Statute of Labourers (which I was surpried has a - poorly written - article here under the American spelling) was in 1351, and the English Peasant Revolt was in 1381. But anyway, what I'm saying is, in the interest of POV, you must say also the merits of the BD leads to Ren theory, and not merely dismiss it as is your personal opinion. --Dmcdevit 04:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh.. from the article: Because the social upheavals of the 14th and 15th centuries were caused in part by the Black Death, the Black Death is seen by some as a factor in the Renaissance and even the Reformation. Stbalbach 07:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Changes 

message: I tried to fix the :Image:BlackDeath graph.jpg, but ran into some difficulty as I neither have Excel nor am I very good at this type of stuff. Could someone else can fix it? It needs to be recreated to clear up copyright status and make it better. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 19:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it even fixable? A graph like that needs a lot of support (a book even). I also dont think its accurate as it misses the Great Famine (I made a note to that effect). It also shows a steep upward climb after the back death, which is not what happened according to most demographers. I think the graph has a lot of problems, but is visually dramatic. We need better supporting evidence, in fact the whole thing could easily be challenged on original research grounds.Stbalbach 00:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I certainly agree with you there. Indeed, I went to the site it says it comes from and the numbers don't match up (the site has no numbers specific to 1351, for example). Although, if you do go to that website, , some kind of online book, the numbers for total European population seem to be mainstream. 1345 levels aren't reached again until just after 1500. If we used just those numbers, it would show the whole crisis of the fourteenth century in one drop, which is dramatic and accurate, if oversimplified. We could work with that, but I'd like numbers before and after the plague too, so it doesn't look like it lasted until 1400, then went straight up. And stress estimates. --Dmcdevit 06:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  That graph again 

message: Does it say anywhere how the plague was spread along the silk road?
:The Silk Road was one of the most trafficked trade routes between Europe and East Asia. Presumably the Black Death could have spread along that route just as it did though Europe's trade routes. I'm not sure what the question is here... Dmcdevit·t 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague and the silk road 

message: I like the map which shows the spread of the plague, but it's a bit anachronistic. Preferably, it would show the country borders at the time, instead of the present borders. Junes 20:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map somewhat anachronistic 

message: Still, the majority of historians support the theory that the bubonic plague caused the black death, so counterarguments have been developed.
:Shouldn't it be the other way round? The fact that counterarguments exist is surely why historians still support the other theory.Furby100 21:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: historians

message: 68.82.185.66 added and another user reverted the following text:
: the children's song ring around the Rosey talks about the black death it tells you what the disease was like.
This wasn't very well written, but it is essentially true. Would someone care to take a stab at writing this better?
Atlant 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not in the article as it is an urban legend. Rmhermen 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a reference cited further up on this page.  Reference at Snopes -- WBardwin 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring Around the Rosey 

message: I have heard that there are currently animals infected with the plague running about in the United States. The map on your "Third Pandemic" page confirms this, although there is no mention of the plague in America in the text itself. I had heard that the plague was brought over from Europe or something to control the prairie dog population (wise decision).
:Re at least your first statement, a'yup. See:
::http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2006/05/21/news/regional/837a3691f3c07a0687257173005ab370.txt
:Atlant 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the prairie dog control idea -- sounds like something government would do.  But isolated populations of California rodents were infected with plague during the Third Pandemic outbreak.  It hit San Francisco when infected rats, fleas and people arrived in port from areas of China and India.  New York City faced a similar problem in their dock area.  The SF city rodents evidently spread the disease to some rural areas, and it has since staked out a place in wilderness areas.  However, plague outbreaks and human casulties have always been limited in the western US.  WBardwin 21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a small presence of black plague today in the US. But this is not for this article. Tazmaniacs 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague in America