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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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.

Read Norman Cantor's "The Civilization of the Middle Ages." He shows that the bulk of Europeans who lived outside Europe's cities clung to pagan beliefs deep into the Medieval period. It wasn't until the founding of the Benedicting Monastaries that the Church took a serious and successful effort in stamping out paganism, but Cantor says it remained strong and was finally rooted out c. 1200 A.D., IIRC.

Perhaps this had something to do with Europe sucking so long? It would argue the other side of the possibility that the Catholic Church stymied progress, as it would suggest that relatively soon after the Church stamped out paganism for good, the Renaissance came to pass.

[KrazyHorse]

Read Norman Cantor's "The Civilization of the Middle Ages." He shows that the bulk of Europeans who lived outside Europe's cities clung to pagan beliefs deep into the Medieval period. It wasn't until the founding of the Benedicting Monastaries that the Church took a serious and successful effort in stamping out paganism, but Cantor says it remained strong and was finally rooted out c. 1200 A.D., IIRC.

The thesis seems a bit extreme. I might look it over, but I will be wary of proof by anecdote, as well as equating pre-Christian cultural traditions with paganism.

[Boris Godunov]

I'd cite if I had the book handy, but I don't at work, and no poly at home

[Blaupanzer]

"The Cheese and the Worms," based on reviews of the Inquisition proceedings in Italy say much the same. Cases are by definition "anecdotal," but in the aggregate these cases which examined heresies began by teaching the accused basic Catholic Doctrine so they then could explain their beliefs in terms of that. To a modern historian, the obvious problem is hundreds of those examined, both the Accused and Witnesses, had only the most rudimentary knowledge of Christianity, e.g., not knowing where and when Christ was born or his relationship to "God." This Inquisition came in the late Medieval.

Similarly, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, a response to the Reformation in lands where Catholicism was regarded as "safe" revealed that in France, most priests were married, had children, did not understand either the Trinity or doctrine related to Mary. They did, however, universally believe in superstitions long believed by church authorities to have been stamped out, including River and Weather Gods and shape-changing in humans. If asked, these priests were all Catholics, but in practice they were more pagan than Christian.

[KrazyHorse]

Blaupanzer, I have a much more universal view of what would constitute Christianity among the lower classes in Western Europe in the early middle ages than you do, apparently.

Participation in the sacraments of the Roman church along with at least occasional attendance of mass (say once a year or so) would do it for me.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Read Norman Cantor's "The Civilization of the Middle Ages." He shows that the bulk of Europeans who lived outside Europe's cities clung to pagan beliefs deep into the Medieval period. It wasn't until the founding of the Benedicting Monastaries that the Church took a serious and successful effort in stamping out paganism, but Cantor says it remained strong and was finally rooted out c. 1200 A.D., IIRC.

Perhaps this had something to do with Europe sucking so long? It would argue the other side of the possibility that the Catholic Church stymied progress, as it would suggest that relatively soon after the Church stamped out paganism for good, the Renaissance came to pass.

Fascinating. Very interesting.

[Boris Godunov]

It's been a few years since I read the Cantor book, so my memory of it may be bad, but I seem to recall he also suggested that in the absense of centralized authority in Europe after the collapse of the Roman state, large numbers of the peasantry reverted back to the ancestor-worship they had practiced in the past. Local parish priests (and many villages didn't even have these) would often tolerate this and even incorporate it into their services just to get attendance at mass.

[Blaupanzer]

Okay, but the point Boris quoted is supported by many historians who say that what was taught in the Vatican was not what was believed or practiced outside the major cities. However, your view can also be supported as almost everyone in Western Europe would have said they were Roman Catholic and that they attended church at least twice a year (Christmas and Easter).

My own question was why the hysterias related to the plague and such if everyone was Catholic (as I understood that, being an American Irish Catholic myself). These studies show how the Albegensian heresy could spread so fast, how the witch hunts had such great appeal, and the constant stories of dopplegangers and werewolves survived. (Not that the Irish don't have a few of their own, e.g., the Banshees.)

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

We didn't. The joos did, and made us believe it.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Okay, but the point Boris quoted is supported by many historians who say that what was taught in the Vatican was not what was believed or practiced outside the major cities. However, your view can also be supported as almost everyone in Western Europe would have said they were Roman Catholic and that they attended church at least twice a year (Christmas and Easter).

My own question was why the hysterias related to the plague and such if everyone was Catholic (as I understood that, being an American Irish Catholic myself). These studies show how the Albegensian heresy could spread so fast, how the witch hunts had such great appeal, and the constant stories of dopplegangers and werewolves survived. (Not that the Irish don't have a few of their own, e.g., the Banshees.)

What is your question??

[BeBMan]

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Europe-Robert-Bartlett/dp/0691037809/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228556294&sr=8-1

[Straybow]

The population of England was 4-6M before the plague of 1350s. The plague and associated ills didn't kill more than 20%, but the population continued to decline for 2+ generations afterwards. The causes were more economic-related than disease-related. The low point was in the first decade of the 15th century, and then population began to grow again.

As KH pointed out, nominal wages increased during the period and Parliament passed laws to prevent this inflation. This was partly in response to continued debasement of the English penny. Silver content of the nominal 22.5 grain (1.46g) penny dropped from 18gr to 12gr.

[David Floyd]

As to the OP, odds are that a disease killing 50% of the world's population would be disproportionately confined to the Third World/China/India. Quite frankly, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and the US have much, much, much better public health systems and would probably end up with much lower death tolls.

For those of us who live in the First World, this could be considered a Good Thing, using the cold calculus of logic. Most of the Middle East (ie, oil) would be ripe for the taking. A major competitor - China - would be crippled for decades. A major developing nation - India - would slide far further back than they already are, leading to decreased industrialization, and, as such, less pollution. Russia's recent resurgance would be derailed.

That's just my analysis, though

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As to the OP, odds are that a disease killing 50% of the world's population would be disproportionately confined to the Third World/China/India. Quite frankly, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and the US have much, much, much better public health systems and would probably end up with much lower death tolls.

For those of us who live in the First World, this could be considered a Good Thing, using the cold calculus of logic. Most of the Middle East (ie, oil) would be ripe for the taking. A major competitor - China - would be crippled for decades. A major developing nation - India - would slide far further back than they already are, leading to decreased industrialization, and, as such, less pollution. Russia's recent resurgance would be derailed.

That's just my analysis, though

Wasn't AIDS a failed attempt to do just that?

[GePap]

Sorry Floyd. but given the crappy state of the US health care system, you will have to reconcuile yourself to a European social model after the US suffers just as badly as China.