Disease kills over half the world's population, what happens next?

[Supr49er]

Makes a huge difference which 50%.

50% = disease kills ALL females.

or

50% = disease kills ALL males.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
As proof of this consider that the plague decades were marked, at least in England, by legislation placing a ceiling on wages as landholders attempted to stop the rapid real wage increases.

Maybe that's why the Renaissance didn't start in England.

[KrazyHorse]

The legislation was not particularly successful.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't know the particulars of the theory, but I have heard it before.

The social effect of the plague is a more likely catalyst for significant changes, though. People's world-view was dramatically altered, and I can see how that would lead to spurring cultural shifts (like an increase in religiosity leading nobles to spend more money on the arts, patronage, etc.)

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think the Renaissance is a mystery. The real mystery is why Europe sucked for so long.

[Boris Godunov]

Religion.

[KrazyHorse]

That's a bit of a copout. Religion isn't exogenous.

[Boris Godunov]

Why does exogeny matter?

(I wasn't really being that serious in the response, it was just an easy target).

[OzzyKP]

As I heard it, land owners and other folks with some kind of wealth died, and passed it on to surviving family members. Those who survived then inherited the estates of those who didn't, and were richer for it.

[KrazyHorse]

As I heard it, land owners and other folks with some kind of wealth died, and passed it on to surviving family members. Those who survived then inherited the estates of those who didn't, and were richer for it.

a) Death rates among the wealthy were lower than among the poor
b) Pay attention. The land was worth less because there were fewer people to work it and fewer people to demand its products
c) Again, the number of deaths for any individual plague outbreak is in the single digits as a percent of the population

In other words, this theory is silly, if that's all there is to it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why does exogeny matter?

Because it just makes the question "why did Europe invent a religion which made them suck for so long"?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
c) Again, the number of deaths for any individual plague outbreak is in the single digits as a percent of the population

What do you mean by this? Since 1/3 of the population died, and in some cases entire town were wiped out, there had to be many outbreaks where the percentage of the population killed was well above single digits, right?

[KrazyHorse]

What do you mean by this? Since 1/3 of the population died, and in some cases entire town were wiped out

As I understand it, modern scholarship heavily disputes both of these assertions.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because it just makes the question "why did Europe invent a religion which made them suck for so long"?

Well, hypothetically speaking, if the religion is successful at securing a monopoly of power and wealth to a priveledged few while convincing the poor that their lot in life was to be that way and to just accept the ecclesiastical hierarchy's authority or else face eternal damnation, it could very well lead to a situation of long-term cultural and economic stagnation.

Then again, most non-urban Europeans weren't Christians until after 1000 A.D. anyway...

[KrazyHorse]

Then again, most non-urban Europeans weren't Christians until after 1000 A.D. anyway

???????

What "Europe" are you discussing?

What would constitute Renaissance Europe was almost uniformly Christian well before then.