Talk:Black Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Death article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Good article GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Black Death has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articles Black Death has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Black Death as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Black Death is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Natural disasters during the week starting 20 February 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Contents

[edit] Extra page

Why is there an extra page on the consequences of the Black Death with nearly the exact same wording?Leon math 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd. There was no consensus or discussion for a split. Redirected. -- Stbalbach 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positive spin?

What would have been the benifit of such an occurance? There has to be one theory of why it was benificial (even if the harms out weigh it).

-G

The vast reduction of people improved quality of life for the commoners. Their work became more valuable, fewer working-class citizens meant decreased supplies. Fewer at the table leaves more to go around. Black_Death#Socio-economic_effects --Kevin L'Huillier 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Another benefit was an improved immune system for subsequent European generations due to natural selection --phocks 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New evidence suggests a pathological affinity between the Black Plague and the current HIV/AIDS epidemic. The implication is that all people whose European ancestors contracted the plague and survived may have complete immunity from AIDS.

[edit] historians

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)

[edit] On some ships no one remained alive when they reached their port

How do you get a ship into a port without anyone alive to do it? Jackliddle 01:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thet's a really good question. I guess the wind took some to port; probably most ships infected with the black death would just sink.

Skeleton crew. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Death vs. Bubonic plague

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) I chose the black death for my senior research paper in 12th grade english. This information is leagal and pure factual, none of the information that I added was fictional. Through researching the Black Death, I used many different resources and books to obtain the information that I used in editing these Wikipedia pages. However, my work cited page is saved on my hard drive at my home, and I will long on to this web site later this evening to add that to this page. Thanks!

[edit] Facts pulled for checking

These sentences were pulled because I could not verify anywhere. The contributers have been notified and I hope they can re-add these with source material.

  1. The reduction in the population of England led to the displacement of French by English.
  2. Also because of depopulation, the surviving Europeans became the biggest consumers of meat of any civilization before industrial agriculture.
I took it from some book by Marvin Harris, probably Good to Eat, nut I don't have the book to check anymore and Google doesn't give me anything relating the book and the concept. Chapter 2 is "Meat Hunger". -- Error 01:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If anyone can back up these claims please readd them (with more explanation if possible). CaseInPoint 22:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The reduction in French language due to the shortage of french speakers is cited in British Food, Colin Spencer but its not a primary source. However the meat thing is not mentioned and seems exaggerated - many animals died too or were untended. The main effect mentioned is the fact that the peaants got more land and cottages not hovels, so they got their own ovens rather than having to use the Lord's oven and pay a tithe for it. Meat was eaten more mainly because the people left were richer, and did demand better food and working conditions but I cant verify the specific claim. Justinc 19:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out (here seems appropriate) that the description of three forms of plague is incorrect:

"The three forms of plague brought an array of signs and symptoms to those infected. Bubonic plague refers to the painful lymph node swellings called buboes. The septicaemic plague is called "Blood poisoning", and pneumonic plague is an airborne plague that forms a first attack on the lungs."

This is incorrect as there are two primary forms of plague: Bubonic and pneumonic. It's important to bear in mind that plague as caused by Y. pestis is spread through blood and naturally, for the organism to get back out of a host it must get out into the victims bloodstream in large numbers so it is sucked up by the flea. This causes widespread internalised bleeding, sepsis (blood poisoning) and eventual death. There is no 'third' form of plague called septicaemic plague, just bubonic and pneumonic which both kill by widespread septic shock. The key difference between bubonic plague and pneumonic plague is the time it takes for the organism to kill the host. In bubonic plague this can be several days, while pneumonic plague is already adapted to the human host and so infections caused by it progress more rapidly. Unusually, whoever wrote the remainder of the entry appears to have realised there isn't a "scepticaemic plague" and doesn't mention it any further. -J. O'Donnell. Addition: Actually, I've had a look at a more recent paper from the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) that suggests that bacteria delivered through a flea bite may directly cause scepticemia. I had assumed that the condition was simply a subclinical form of bubonic plague, where the bacteria still pass through the lymph nodes but do not cause direct infection. It appears that Y. pestis injected into a host through natural means, in this case a flea bite, may indeed cause a patient to proceed directly to a scepticemic form of plague.

The paper is free if anyone is curious to read it: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/14/5526 -J. O'Donnell. (added 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC) by 139.80.123.38)

Yes it's incorrect to talk about three. WHO, DCD and other authorities actually identify nine types of the disease plague (Pestis) (ICD-10 code A20), giving six of them separate ICD-10 sub-codings and grouping the other three milder versions under one joint sub-coding: bubonic plague (Pestis bubonica), cellulocutaneous plague (Pestis cellulocutanea), pneumonic or pulmonic plague (Pestis pneumonica), meningeal plague or plague meningitis (Pestis meningealis), pharyngeal plague (Pestis pharyngeus), septicemic plague (Pestis septic(h)aemica), and the three milder abortive plague, asymptomatic plague and pestis minor.
Discussions about the disease itself is, however, best kept on the talk page of the article Bubonic plague (Talk:Bubonic plague), as this article deals with the Black Death pandemic, which probably was a pestis pendemic, although some scientists question this. Thomas Blomberg 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yersinia pestis as cause

Yersinia pestis is generally thought to be guilty of the Black Death.

One extensive reference is Yersinia pestis--etiologic agent of plague RD Perry and JD Fetherston

Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Jan 1997, 35-66, Vol 10, No. 1

http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmr&resid=10/1/35

Meanwhile the thought that Y. pestis is not the cause of the Black Death floats around with few takers, but refuses to die.

Here is a recent article expressing that idea.

Lancet Infect Dis 2002 Jun;2(6):323

Comment in: Lancet Infect Dis. 2002 Aug;2(8):459.

Yersinia seeks pardon for Black Death.

Paterson R. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12144891&dopt=Abstract

Publication Types: Historical Article News

PMID: 12144891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

hth

Your statement about no takers isn't necesarily true. While I'm not well versed in the Black Death, we've been studying it in my Western European history course at Concordia University. My professor mentioned that while Y.Pestis is in majority viewed as the cause, the argument against this belief is gaining momentum.
One of the flagship papers countering this belief is The Black Death; End of a Paradigm by Samuel K. Cohn Jr.
While it is by no means definitive proof that Y. Pestis was not the culprit, it presents some very compelling arguments and should be looked into before considering the debate closed. This is my first ever contribution to wiki so I'll let someone more experienced look into it and determine whether it's worth adding to the article. Chuckuss 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Chuckuss
Extra info for people interested in reading this. Samuel K. Cohn, "The Black Death: End of a Paeadigm," The American Historical Review 107 (2002): 703-38 Chuckuss 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Around the Rosy

Isn't that Ring Around the Rosy story a legend? I thought it wasn't actually connected to the Black Death. I'll see if I can find out where I read that... Adam Bishop 05:37, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yup, it's a myth. Reference at Snopes -- Someone else 05:46, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The history textbook we used in high school specifically attributed the origin of the rhyme to the Black Death, and I'm going to trust the author of that text over the author(s) of an apocryphal website. I can attempt to rebut Snopes' arguments upon request, but let it suffice to say for now that they're by no means airtight. --Smack 17:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Umm... Snopes is hardly apocryphal. It's one of the most reputable sites on the Web, and it always has a bibliography/list of references to go along with its articles. Meanwhile, you can dredge up any number of criticisms of high school textbooks wherein they are accused of perpetuating misleading or outright false information. I would easily trust Snopes over any high school textbook. Furthermore, I see no problems with Snopes' arguments or methods. I think you and the writer of your high school textbook need to spend some time with Occam's Razor.--John 02:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well it definitely fooled my medievil history professor then, she said it originated from the black plague too. --Jelligraze 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some ships didn't have anyone alive when they reached their port" ...um, that's right! just a grinning skeleton manning the wheel. Imagine the over-all training for critical perception offered at this cultural level! Wetman 22:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know, it's very 'Pirates of the Caribbean' isn't it? xD and, I'm with Snopes.

Basically, Snopes is trustable on this topic. I think the subject is closed; Ring Around A Rosie can't be attributed to the Black Plague.

Actually, I thought that ring around the rosie referred to smallpox.

And I've always heard that Ring Around the Rosie referred to the crowds of onlookers in attendance at public hangings in England (for yet another twist on the story). Labyrinth13 21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that with the collections of folk music and writing on the origins of folk music, this particular interpretation can't be found before the 20th century, and the tune itself before the 1790's. There's a good article Ring Around the Rosie article has the detail. The story of it's origin in the Black Death was too good to check for some writers. patsw 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Death in China

Shouldn't there be something about China? I thought the plague spread there as well. M.e 10:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Probably. It's an area where future editors can expand the article. Kevyn
The plague didn't spread there, it started in western China Xiao jy 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Article currently states: "the Great Plague of London in 1665-1666 is generally recognized as one of the last major outbreaks." What about Hong Kong - a major outbreak in 1894 is believed to have come from mainland China... (There is speculation that it was this strain that was responsible for the minor outbreaks in San Francisco c.1900, the East of England c.1910, and Persian Gulf c.1913). A future editor could correct this. (submitted by anon editor)
The Black Death is a historical period in which the plague was active and socially devastating. The disease, of course, never died out but it did disappear from varying locals. The outbreaks you cite are usually considered part of the Third Pandemic and are discussed in that article. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death rate

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)

[edit] Addition to "Consequences" section?

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)

[edit] A Few Suggestions

I have a few suggestions that I think would make the article much more comprehensive:

  • I think a map of the spread of the plague (using arrows or colors) would be great, and they seem to be common in all of the books I have read.
  • I think there should be a lot more about the hygiene and diet of the medieval Europeans, as it was a major factor in the diease's spread. Isn't this the reason it doesn't happen in modern times, after all, we are not vaccinated for it.
  • I think we can also spend much more time talking about the statistics in "Depopulation". For example, I know there are in fact many varying opinions of the mortality rate, many much higher or lower than 25 million. It should also be mentioned where and how hard it hit (i.e. was the mortality uniform throughout Europe, are there areas of particular interest that were ravaged/spared and why?).
  • Also, there seems to be a "Alternate Explanations" section, but no there is no major discussion of the Yersinia pestis theory before it. It should include how it is spread, how communicable it is, the relative mortality, and others pertinent to the main theory itself.

Thats all I have for now, I will contribute more (to the actual article again) once I'm not so busy. I've noticed there have been some changes for the better recently, so this is not meant to be a criticism, but a suggestion. So carry on! --Dmcdevit 23:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"On some ships no one remained alive when they reached their port."

I see an almost scary absence of logic in that sentence. If someone can justify not removing it, please do so.

++

I think a few notes on earlier occasions of "plague" may be in order. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles record a series of "plagues" between 526 and 1087 CE (particularly in 664 CE) afflicting England, but as with the Black Death the cause or causes are disputed (anthrax, cholera, bubonic plague). There were also numerous outbreaks of pestilence in the classical world (Athens c. 400 BCE among others). The vagueness over the causes would serve to illustrate the susceptibility of historical cultures to disease and the difficulty in in establishing their origins.

Additionally, it has been suggested changes in agricultural practises, specifically longer and better ploughs, may have facilitated the bringing of bacterium, viruses and spores to the surface of the soil. This may be sufficient for a major pestilence alone, or it may have also resulted in the disruption and displacement of ground dwelling rodent populations and resulted in higher human-rodent contacts as the animals were forced to seek food in grain stores. Dobson, A. (1992), People and disease, in Jones, S., Martin, R., Pilbeam & D. (Eds), The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 12 Feb. 2007

[edit] Wikivandalism

However, in 1666, gigantic toads besieged London. "They were terribly However, in 1666, gigantic toads besieged London. "They were terribly fierce beasts, who eat our hapless soldiers with their gigantic tongues." In terror, the inhabitants fled to the town hall, and bombarded the invading hordes with cannons and mortars. Eventually, the mayor of London sallied out with a formidable force and routed the frog army. Despite heavy casualties, they were successful. But if plague, fire and frogs wasn't enough, ten years later London was struck by a succession of tornadoes, that sweeped down from the Shetland Islands. The event was blamed on the carnies, who were subsequently driven out of town. However, bands of militant snowmen allied with the exiled carnies and attacked the city in 1679. After several fierce running battles, the Londoners were driven out. But David Beckham became their saviour and just three years after the carnies' victory, he led a force of Ewoks riding spiders that invaded the city. The carnies were defeated and slaughtered to a man, though the snowmen escaped. They would continue to harass Beckham's empire late into the 19th century.
After this violent civil war, relative peace reigned in Britain. Or did it...

You gotta admit that, as Wikivandalism goes, that was at least a good attempt, deserving high marks for its effort and humour value. It was a lot more creative than the usual "@*(&^(*!".

Atlant 14:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone mistook Wikipedia for Uncyclopedia... --80.51.70.116 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Some days, it's an easy mistake. :-(
Atlant 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plague in Poland

The exaple of Poland is especially notable, because it was the king Casimir_III_of_Poland goverment who stopped the spread of plague. The 40 day quarantine of foreigners and free distribution of food prevented black death from spreading in Poland.

This addition by an anonymous was reverted by a brand new contributer - Oo64eva - but with no reason given. Anyone know anything more about the plague in Poland? WBardwin 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-With 62.87.224.216’s poor grammar and spelling aside, there is no indication that the stifled spread of the Black Death in Poland had anything to do with actions taken by Casimir III. This is merely speculation and Wikipedia is no place for speculation. If somebody could cite some well documented evidence of Casimir III's prevention of the Black Plauge, that would be sufficient. Sorry for my failure to report the reason for removal on the discussion page. It is apparent to me that this practice makes a good contributor great. oo64eva (AJ) 00:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with oo64eva (AJ). While the quarantine may have been in effect, Poland is a landlocked country. So, whereas Ireland and Iceland may have had some success, it's obvious as to why a quarantine in Poland would have been both impossible and ineffective. Some theories state that Eastern regions like Poland, Bohemia, and parts of other local kingdoms may have been spared because of the cold temperatures caused a dormancy (if you ascribe to the bacterial Yersinia theory). That Casimir is responsible is simply an untenable statement. --Dmcdevit 01:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While the quarantine may have been in effect, Poland is a landlocked country.
Ehh? That sentence is a bit ambiguously written. Does it mean "during the time of the quarantine, Poland was landlocked?" 'Cause Poland the modern country certainly isn't landlocked.
Atlant 22:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes that is what I meant. Poland has had, shall we say, somewhat transitory borders. The current borders that extend to the Baltic include historically German (Prussian) lands that were awarded to Poland after WWII from the former German holdings. Historic Poland has traditionally been borderd to the north by Prussia, east by Russia, west and south by Hungary, Austria, etc. (not to mention the other small local kingdoms).--Dmcdevit 23:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] Social Changes

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)

  • I don't quite see where you are seeing this from what is written. Nowhere does it say "the Black Death caused the Renaissance". Everywhere this suggestion is couched in terms like "helped" and "contributing factor", that it is a factor at the very least, like the rest of the crises, cannot really be denied. You seem to be denying that it was a mojor cause, but that is simply not sain in the text. I would suggest you read McKay (if memory serves) and similar historians, as well as to some extent Cantor. many suggest that it was a foctor of varying degrees. I would never suggest that it is a simple idea, but I think you are simplifying what is written. Also, I do think you are trying to reduce the importance of this plague, as it is easy to see why it would have been a contributing factor or even cause of the peasants' revolts and economic devastation (other crises). Also it is downright myopic to say that the Hundred Years' War caused much of the effects of the fourteenth century crises, as it effected only England and France, whereas the upheaval was Eurpoe-wide for the most part. As for your assertion that the Renaissance began before the Black Death, I would point out that few "serious" historians would place it that far forward, and certainly none of its defining aspects came until much later. In short, please reread the passage and notice that it is not unequivocal or POV. I would encourage you to expand on the opposing view if you believe it is neglected. --Dmcdevit 03:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
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) (Dmcdevit, not bothering to log in :) )
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

[edit] Cats - particularly Black!

"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)

-I think the paragraph should be reinstated into the article. Of course there were many different misguided solutions that were attempted, but this one is really quite remarkable because of how ironic it is. --Jleon 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

Dogs, too? While looking into plague in other areas than Europe (see below), I came across:

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)

A reported source for this cat information. "Cats." World Book Information Finder. Vers. 2.5. CD-ROM. World Book, Inc. 1994. I haven't looked at this yet. WBardwin 21:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"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)
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)

This theory, while widespread, is wrong in part because it suffers from a peoblem with cronology. Witchcraft persecution (and the recognition of the crime of witchcraft) did not begin to emerge until the mid 15th century -- roughly 150 years AFTER the plague. Malleus Maleficarum, for instance was published in 1486, and even that predated the main witchcraft hysteria of the 16th and 17th centuries.

[edit] Black Death -not just in Europe

So an epidemic kills 200,000,000 people of which only one-quarter are in Europe. So we write an article that only mentions Europe. We better hope that the Systemic bias group doesn't notice this page. It confirms their worst suspicions. I don't even know where to begin rewriting this article. Perhaps it is best moved to Black Death in Europe and a new comprehensive article begun. Rmhermen 13:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

-The term "Black Death" is simply a social-construct used to describe the most prevelant wave of the pandemic in Europe. The Chinese and Indians did not call it the "Black Death" so why is it biased to focus the article on the countries that did? The international orgins of the pandemic are clealy documented here, and the article on the bubonic plague is not at all Euro-centric. --Jleon 13:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Europeans didn't call it the Black Death either. They called it the Great Mortality -in various translations. The bubonic plague article summarizes the entire pandemic in two paragraphs and directs the reader here for more detail. Clearly that needs to be a page which discusses the entire event and there is no reason to beleive that the name Black Death is restricted to the European occurence. Rmhermen 17:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Umm... Europeans obviously did call it the Black Death, or we wouldn't be calling it that now. In any case, English historians of the time referenced it as the Black Death, so yes, people who lived during that era indeed called it the Black Death.
Next time, feel free to bring some evidence.
Rmhermen is totally right. Feel free to leave me a message if you want source. The actual term was "Great Mortality" as he said, and then "Small mortality" for resurgences of the plague. The "Black Death" is a latter term. Invoquing evidence and common sense is often synonym of doxa and ignorance, and is certainly not an encyclopedic contribution. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Black Death," over time, became the English Term - "Great Mortality", the general European term. As for references -- do a little reading in the references in the article - ie. "The Great Mortality". And "Next time" anon, before you snipe at others, identify yourself and cite your references. WBardwin 20:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not only the english name, in german it's called "der Schwarze Tod" meaning exactly "the black death". --84.142.168.157 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Der Scharwze Tod is a latter term, as is la peste noire and the Black Plague. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I restructured the article and added information on the Middle Eastern outbreak, and a little more about China. I have no information on India, although popular sources insist they were involved. Some additional information about social/political consequences in eastern areas of the world is available. I'll try and weave that in. Non-European sources are difficult to find in English. Has anyone checked other language Wikipedias? Comments welcome. WBardwin 23:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote in favor of keeping the "Black Death" title simply because our English speaking audience will reference the material by that name. "Plague in the Fourteenth Century" might do though. Naming pandemics for public consumption is an awkward thing - while historians like dates, the public does not. WBardwin 00:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Given the overwhelming number of books, academic and otherwise, that refer to it by "Black Death", there is precedent for the article to remain as is. It would be original research to rename the article, unless someone can show strong evidence to the contrary. We only report on what exists, even if what exists is not optimal. There are lots of things like this, Dark Ages for example. Stbalbach 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference in Defoe's "Diary of a Plague Year" which reads: “Therefore were we ordered to kill all the dogs and cats, but because as they were domestic animals, and are apt to run from house to house and from street to street, so they are capable of carrying the effluvia or infectious streams of bodies infected even in their furs and hair. And therefore it was that, in the beginning of the infection, an order was published by the Lord Mayor, and by the magistrates, according to the advice of the physicians, that all the dogs and cats should be immediately killed, and an officer was appointed for the execution”. It is incredible; if their account is to be depended upon, what a prodigious number of those creatures were destroyed. I think they talked of forty thousand dogs, and five times as many cats; few houses being without a cat, some having several, sometimes five or six in a house. All possible endeavours were used also to destroy the mice and rats, especially the latter, by laying ratsbane and other poisons for them, and a prodigious multitude of them were also destroyed." You should note that there is doubt about whether Defoe's account is entirely contemporary since it was published nearly fifty years after the event. Hope this helps? (Quidnunc 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

There's no actual "doubt" as to whether Defoe's work was contemporary; it most definitely was NOT. For one thing, Defoe would have been about four years old when the Black Death reached London. Most literary historians are also agreed that his Journal was a work of fiction and presented as such; modern readers, however, sometimes assume it's fact, which can be tricky when they use it as a secondary source. --Charlene 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] info

== is there any good website on this topic ==

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:

[1] -- This one is only average, but contains links to accounts from the time period.
[2] -- primary source in translation. This one's a little better.
[3] eMedicine site - Good medical info.

Hope you put these to constructive use. Welcome to Wikipedia. WBardwin 21:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 [4] (Petrarch, etc.)and [5] (Boccaccio's Decameron). Also see the accounts of more common folk, like Henry Knighton of England [6], and Adnolo di Tura the Fat of Siena [7] -- 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)

[edit] Article name change

As is typical on Wikipedia, someone made a name change on a major article without any discussion first, and we now have a rats nest of incoming links that are unresolved. I would like to hear the justification for this change, and who is going to spend the time to clean up the incoming links. If these things are not resolved, I recommend we change it back to its original name untill these issues are resolved. Stbalbach 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I recommend we change it right now, I would have already but I'm in the middle of other things. And it looks as it the mover went offline right after the move. The move is against policy to exclude articles (grammatical ones, I mean) in titles. Actually, it's kind of funny, have you looked at Mkweise's talk page (the mover). --Dmcdevit 21:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to change it back as well. Our mover is an admin., no less, but his talk page reveals a tendency to make odd and perhaps inappropriate title changes. I asked him to respond here with his reasoning. We shall see..........WBardwin 07:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, our general policy is to omit articles from titles. In this case, however, the inclusion or omission of the definite article changes the meaning of the phrase: "The Black Death" refers to the historical epidemic and the period of European history characterized by it, whereas "Black Death" is simply a synonym for bubonic plague. While we have many policies governing article naming, the prime directive remains is that the name of an article should identify its subject.
Also, note that this article had originally been started at The Black Death and then moved to Black Death by cutting-and-pasting rather than the move command, requiring a delete-move-undelete in order to reconstitute the article history. As for my talk page, LOL...the dozen or so cases where someone objected are somewhere around 1% of all the page moves I've performed over the years. No big deal, as it's just as easy for anyone to move back if called for by consensus. Mkweise 14:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The prime directive is it be clear. Almost all incoming links are Black Death, without the the. For the bubonic plague it is clearly identified as such in the disambig. No one has a problem w/ that. More significant, you made a name change on a major article w/out discussion or consensus or fixing broken links; no matter what the reasoning, it was wrong to do so. Stbalbach 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Black Death used properly always refers to this event, and not a disease. Indeed, if you read the page, you'll see that there is no agreement that the disease even was bubonic plague. And, as The Black Death is neither a title of a work, or an official name, it needs no article. From the convention: "If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." We say the Black Death. Besides, if your purpose in changing the title is to correct the meaning of the term, then you should have redirected just "Black Death" to bubonic plague, which is the meaning you assign it. But surely this would ruin most links here, so there's no point. --Dmcdevit 19:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That graph again

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)

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)
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, [8], 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)

[edit] Plague and the silk road

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)

[edit] Recurrence of the plague

Under the Recurrence section, it says that the plague disappeared after the Great Plague of London in 1665-66, and yet at the top it talks about the Great Plague of Vienna in 1679. This doesn't add up :S Can anyone help?

My sense is that the Vienna plague is both less major (or just less well known) and less certain to be bubonic plague. In any case, I think the convention, rightly or wrongly, is to credit teh Great Plague of london as the last major occurence. I've reworded the sentence to make it less strong/definitive. Does that clear it up? Dmcdevit·t 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "34 million"

I despise reverts, especially since you can't explain much reasoning in an edit summary, so let me just explain here. I don't think it's a great idea to have a specific number in the very first sentence, as the figure varies so widely among reliable estmates that prominently placing "34 million" unduly implies some kind authoritativeness where there is little. The previous just "one-third" worked well. The depopulation section exists to analyze the figure, and does it more justice. Incidentally, that section cites 25 million as the most common figure, which is what I have always thought it was (though I may have wrote that section, so, eh). i.e., Europe's population was about 75-80 million, 1/3 die, equals about 25 million, but these are just very rough guestimates, extrapolated from smaller data. I'm interested which reference 34 million comes from, especially as 34 and not a rounder figure like 35 implies some kind of exactitude. Dmcdevit·t 22:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Per the manual of style, the lead section is a summary generalized account designed to give an overview and draw readers attention, with the body of the article to detail specifics. Stbalbach 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to the 34 million because I think a number is important for a reader who has no idea of the base population of Europe at the time. Numbers project the reality of the massive death toll more than percentages. Historical numbers are always suspect, subject to debate, and estimates at best. I suspect the 34 million is a quote/reference in an early version of the article. However, it wouldn't hurt to try and come up with a list of estimates and refine our figure. We could put in a low to high range.
I will try and go through my library in the next couple of weeks and see what estimates are available. Why don't you guys do the same. I have a couple of relatively current books -- but modern estimates are always based on the primary documents. During my academic lifetime at least, opinions have swung widely --- from "they were all exaggerated" to accepting their accounts without question. Since English speakers more readily access English primary documents, many estimates are based on the English experience, which most historians agree was higher than 30 percent. Areas in Eastern Europe had so few plague accounts that their information is usually not included. Outside of Europe, Middle Eastern and Asian sources are even harder to deal with. All these things make the process a frustrating one. Please don't take my revert personally. WBardwin 03:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that fixing the entire population of Europe at "75-80 million" is not much more exact than the "34 million" in question. But, I would also agree that it's more palatable to say "1/3rd" of the population - but again, fixing approximately 1/3 implies comfort with two ideas - the total population number, and the death toll. If I pick up 5 textbooks and get more than one number for total population of Europe, then this entire argument is difficult to sustain. 25 million dead, 34 million dead... I think we can all agree there were not more than 125 million in Europe and not less than 50 million at the time. I'm curious how EXACT we can assume the record-keeping was for every village, hamlet and berg in medieval Europe...?

At the end of the day, my argument isn't whether 25 million is more orthodox or accurate than 34 million; I'd suggest that sticking with 1/3 is better than nothing.

Also, it's not altogether true that fixing a number would be more impactful than simply leaving it as a 3rd. 25 million people dying in China is, by pure numbers, not as significant as 25 million people dying in Canada. Why? 25 million out of 1 billion is 2.5%. 25 million out of 30 million is 83%. In other words, the sheer magnitude of the death toll is that it wiped out a 3rd of the population. Anyone can extrapolate that to any relevant comparison in whatever country they are reading the article and get some economies of scale to appreciate the impact. Had the plague happened with today's population in China, we'd be looking at over 334 million deaths, equivalent to the entire population of the United States. 207.219.117.254 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map somewhat anachronistic

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)

[edit] Black Death caused Ice Age?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm

the "Little Ice Age" of the 15th century, not the actual Ice Age. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Although this observation is citable, it seems farfetched. This is a case of something brand new that hasn't had time to be researched.
It's a nonsense, considering that the Little Ice Age began before the Black Death, with the climatic downturn of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. There are details of this on the Little Ice Age page. 62.25.106.209 13:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Ravilious is aware of this and has an answer to it. In any case, it says "contributed" to the LA, not caused it. Any contentions or disagreements need to be cited and sourced. But honestly this is not the article to get into a running point by point debate, that's not what Wikipedia is for. If it is generally accepted this theory is bunk, then we can remove it entirely. -- Stbalbach 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How did it end?

How did the black death disappear? I mean how do you phase out a disease without doing anything? User:wally 01:14, 21 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Basically, epidemics end when a substantial portion of the susceptible population has either:
  1. Died, or
  2. Contracted the disease, developed immunities, and survived.
Below a certain population density of susceptible subjects, an epidemic dies out.
Atlant 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Or simply the disease stops spreading for whatever reason, such as isolating infected individuals. If, in aggregate, the number of people becoming infected is equal to or greater than the number of people already infected, a disease is considered spreading. If the opposite is true, the disease is dieing out. So if you get the disease, but don't infect anyone else, you are contributing to the end of the epidemic, regardless of anything else. This is why the number one most important factor in an epidemic is isolating sick individuals. Also the black death returned every generation for centuries in smaller less lethal flare-ups and mutations, it never really entirely disappeared (article discusses it). -- Stbalbach 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
At some point the disease causes the complete breakdown of social interaction. People become so afraid of others that they no longer interact. Pandemic spread, even of airborn pathogens, will eventually slow and stop when this happens. The other factors cited above also apply...immunities build, the disease mutates, and the vulnerable population dies off.Wood Artist 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Delta 32, a gene mutation. Devtrash 02:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Death

Section below moved from article for clarification. Last Black Death victim?? Last victim of bubonic plague?? Date of death?? Source?? WBardwin 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"A Swedish captain named Johan Strandberg in Norrtälje in Stockholm's skerries is the last known victim of this disease with deadly outcome [year unknown]."

[edit] "Blackened" Skin - syndrome??

Section below removed from article for clarification -- source? how does this differ from the symptom presented in the article? WBardwin 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

...called DIC (Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation), in which sufferers' skin would blacken due to subdermal haemorrhages, DIC by its self was fatal and still is today.'

[edit] Protection?

Should we consider asking for temporary protection? The volume of vandalism over the past two days have been unprecedent. I think there have been over 75 edits and the article has not changed. -- Stbalbach 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. The topic must be on a major High School reading list or something. WBardwin 00:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Request for page protection "Black Death" -- Stbalbach 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The semi-protection doesn't appear to be in force as we're getting anon vandalism again. MLA 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Around the Rosey

68.82.185.66 added and another user reverted the following text:

the childrens song rimg around the rosey talks abuot 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)

This is not in the article as it is an urban legend. Rmhermen 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiously enough, our own Ring a Ring O'Roses article isn't quite as sure as you are.

Atlant 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

This was on small pox, actually.

[edit] Plague in America

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)
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)
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)

[edit] important to put into perspective.

while the plague killed up to one third of 14th century Europe's population, I think it is important to mention that the other two thirds of the population died of other causes... no one survived.

someone erased this comment saying it's a joke, but my comment is not a joke. it gives an important perspective that many people who might come here from e.g. SARS, foot-and-mouth, bird-flu, etc, would appreciate. Can you think of any reason for NOT adding it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.188.6 (talk • contribs) .

I don't get your point. "people who come here from foot-and-mouth.."?? The article is about the Black Death, not death in general. It seems pretty obvious that we all die of something, and that no one from the 14th century is still alive. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What? It's NOT all obvious "we all die", most people today aren't dead, and won't be anytime soon (or maybe ever) but everyone from 14th century Europe is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.188.123 (talk • contribs) .
It's NOT all obvious "we all die" - are you sure this is not a joke? Are there people then who don't die? -- Stbalbach 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is essentially daft to include, but since on the subject I think I once saw a statistic that most human beings have in fact not died, ever, and so the average human lifespan is effectively open ended and indeterminate. Sandpiper 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, it is untrue. More humans have died than are currently alive. Rmhermen 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? What are the respective numbers? (And keep mindful that world population has really boomed in the last few decades.) Atlant 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Most numbers I have seen put it at around 40 billion humans in history versus 6 billion alive today. Here is one person's derivation: [9] Rmhermen 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why people today have not died is because they're STILL ALIVE! Everybody dies, but most people die at an old age such as 70-100 years. The reason why a deadly pandemic is significant is that it a lot more people dying than would ordinarily, and those people can be of any age!

[edit] HIV resistance

I seem to recall reading that a small number of people survived the Black Death by virtue of being naturally immune to the disease. That there were some identifiable and traceable examples from isolated communities, and furthermore that this immunity (considerably increased in the population by virtue of killling off those who did not have it) also conferred immunity to HIV. Sandpiper 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is already in the article. Rmhermen 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

what are the number of casualties in the black death? how many ppl died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.153.36.13 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Black Death vs Great mortality

I think it should be good to include in the article somewhere that the people who lived during the plague years never called it that. They had a lot of names and almost everyone include some synonyme for big or great. In England there is "Great pestilence" and and "Great mortality" and even "Unprecedented pestilence". In Germany "Pestilentia magna" or "Grosse sterfde" (Big death),, in france "La gran mortalitat", in Italy "Grande moria" and so on. As far as I know the name "Black death" in any language did not appear until at least about 200 years afterwards and then first in Sweden and Denmark. From there it spread to Germany and onwards through the continent. It doesn't appear in Great Britain until 1823. I dont want to change the name of the article but I do feel that the name by which it was originally known should be mentioned somewhere. What do you think? Kurben 17:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I see it is mentioned. Must have missed somehow. But Iceland? I thought that the Black Death didn't get there until 1402? Am I wrong again? Kurben 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanguine Groups?

What is meant by "some historians have assumed that the presence of sanguine groups in the local population helped them resist the disease" in section Europe and Middle East? Icemuon 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they mean "blood groups". There's a theory out there, and the only reference I've seen to it is in a book by (IIRC) Richard Gordon, that people with Type B blood are less attractive to fleas. If so, and if plague is spread by fleas, and if the Black Death was plague (as I think it almost certainly is), then people with Type B blood would be less likely to develop bubonic plague. However I have no current reliable source for this. --Charlene 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences -> Medicine

Perhaps a Medicine section could be added under Consequences. Gui de Chauliac, the personal physician of Pope Clement IV, was given the authority to perform autopsies. He also continued to try treating the afflicted. More importantly, he documented everything he could find with regards to anatomy and the disease's pathology. It seems he had a fairly big impact on medicine. The Chirurgia magna article claims it was an important reference for 300 years.

This French page has some details of his life and of what he wrote in the Chirurgia magna. [10] I wasn't able to find a good article in English, although i didn't look very hard.

Later on, during an outbreak 200 years after the plague, Nostradamus tried to treat the disease. I don't think he's really credited with advancing medicine much.

300 years after the Black Death, John Graunt studied the outbreaks in London. He is considered one of the first experts in epidemiology.

There are probably some other advances in medicine based on the Black Death. I'd say that at least Gui de Chauliac seems notable enough to at least be mentioned.

--Kevin L'Huillier 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palastine? Gaza?

In this article on the "Black Death" in the section on the Middle East Out Break, it says the following

"During 1348, the disease travelled eastward to Gaza, and north along the eastern coast to cities in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, including Asqalan, Acre, Jerusalem, Sidon, Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo."

This statement is quite confusing. At the time, that area was not called "Lebanon, Syria and Palestine," and now it is not called that. When they say Palestine, do they mean the modern state of Israel or the entire region which is really commonly referred to as Judea-Sumeria?

Do they mean the city of Gaza, of just that little strip?

Here is a link to the wikipedia article that includes a history of the name of "The Holy Land" or "Judea-Sumeria" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_%28region%29

Thank you!

[edit] Incorrect Link to Chinese Wikipedia

The link to different language (right to the article)is incorrect for Chinese language. How to change it? Tomlee2060 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plague in mecca

As a Muslim I have strong objection to this statement: “The people of Mecca blamed the disease on non-believers entering the city, but it is more likely to have arrived with Muslim pilgrims from surrounding infected areas.”

Islam does not teach superstition and no desease whatsoever is caused by infidels or non-beleivers. Moreover non-muslims are not allowed to enter mecca(since the time of the prophet) so the question of plague spreading through non-beleivers does not arise. This statement is merely an accusation hurled at Islam. Please do not repeat this.

It's not an accusation directed at Islam. It's an accusation directed at imperfect humans who did not perfectly understand the word of Allah. Unfortunately every religious community has a large percentage of individuals who do not perfectly understand the tenets of their religion and who retain their childish prejudices and superstitions. This is just a fact of human nature, unfortunately. --Charlene 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Death

The Black Death was a name for a series of outbreaks of the Bubonic Plaue around the 14th century in Europe. I've never seen the term "Black Plague" used, except as a bastardization of these two names, so I'm changing the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.233.221 (talk • contribs).

Google suggests that the term is in common usage; I've reverted your excision. Atlant 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Black Plauge is what I remember hearing about in school since i was a kid. Fresheneesz 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of things in "common usage" that are nevertheless wrong, just as there are a lot of things people have heard since they were little that are just as wrong (see the "ring around the rosie" talk above). While I personally think we should include both names here, you shouldn't use these sorts of arguments to justify your position. 74.98.56.80 03:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European focus

I think its inappropriate for this article to focus on European accounts and the European side of the pandemic. The page on Bubonic Plague does not go into great detail about the Black Death pandemic, and so directing people there for non-european accounts seems not the thing to do. The Black Death may be a European name, but it was a huge deal in asia as well - adding to the decline of the mongol empire. Fresheneesz 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germ Theory

The article said in it that the mongols used dead infected bodies as a form of biological war fare. The problema with this is that the germ theory of diesaes was only discovered in 1840 by Vienna doctor Ignaz Semmelweis and even at the time he discovered it there were two problems. 1, it was still considered a theory, no one believed his claims, he died in a mental institution b/c all other doctors were convinced he was a psycho. 2, the germ theory was not even accepted in most european countries more or less anywhere else in the world until 1865. There is simply no way that the mongols could have been purposely infecting people. Part of the reason why the bubonic plauge spread so fast was b/c people were stealing from infected people or people who died of infection and were getting infected by that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Even 18th C Europeans practiced biological warfare by giving smallpox-infected blankets to American indians. You don't need to understand why it works to know that it works. -- Stbalbach 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towns the Plague spread through

Hi i just wanted to ask you what were the towns, in england, the plague spread through (in order please). if you contributed thank you very much

Every single solitary one of them. There are about 50,000 towns and villages in England. --Charlene 13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supposedly

From there, supposedly, it was carried east and west by traders and Mongol armies along the Silk Road, and was first exposed to Europe at the trading city of Caffa in the Crimea from which it spread to Sicily and on to the rest of Europe.

So what does supposedly mean in this context? Was it or wasn't it carried? patsw 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-arguments to alternative Theories

This section seems rather lacking in logic:

  • What people believe isn't a Counter-argument.
  • I don't understand the analogy with European immigrants infecting Native Americans. How does that prove that Europeans were killed by a disease transmitted by rats? Possible increased immunity in the survivors and their descendents would hold true for any infectious disease.

Speaking personally, having read Scott and Duncan's book, I am interested to know historians counter-arguments to back-up why the Bubonic Plague theory is still the official line.--JBellis 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, the section doesn't seem to fit very well. Also, I can't see anything in the article discussing how the Black Death caused symptoms that were not similar to bubonic plague and the internal haemorraging is where the ebola-like theory comes from. MLA 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion section

The current includes the following under the religion heading:

The Black Death led to cynicism toward religious officials who could not keep their promises of curing plague victims and banishing the disease. No one, the Church included, was able to cure or accurately explain the reasons for the plague outbreaks. One theory of transmission was that it spread through air, and was referred to as miasma, or 'bad air'. This increased doubt in the clergy's abilities. Extreme alienation with the Church culminated in either support for different religious groups such as the flagellants, which from their late 13th century beginnings grew tremendously during the opening years of the Black Death, or to an increase in interest for more secular alternatives to problems facing European society and an increase of secular politicians. The Black Death hit the monasteries very hard because of their close quarters with the sick, who had come to the monasteries seeking aid, so that there was a severe shortage of clergy after the epidemic cycle. This resulted in a mass influx of new clergy members, most of whom did not share the life-long convictions and experiences of the veterans they replaced. This led to abuses by the clergy in years afterwards and a further deterioration of the position of the Church in the eyes of the people.

Lack of sources aside, this section has some problems.

1. Much of the scholarship in the field seems to point towards a strengthening of popular religion in the wake of the plague, rather than the weakening that is currently described. Herlihy's _Black Death and the Transformation of the West_ describes a strengthening of popular piety and a corresponding change in naming trends towards religions rather than local names. Economic histories like Miskimin's two volumes on the Economic History of Renaissance Europe, record an increase in donations to the church. Even the influx of clergy members and the increase in groups such as the flagellants indicate that religious piety was growing, not weakening. Certainly clasics like Bossy's _Christianity and the West_ support the idea that the catholic church came out of the plague years stronger than ever and riding a wave of intensified public piety.

2. The miasma theory of transmission seems out of place in this section.

Funkbot 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that "popular piety" increased, but cynicism towards established religion and a turn away from the Church and its officials was part of that. People turned away from the church and towards popular piety - this is mainstream in any text book. Popular piety and the Church are two different things. As for economic donations that was because the Church was selling indulgences and other things which further alienated people (see Martin Luther). The idea that the Church came out of the crises of the late middle ages stronger is unusual, with the Reformation the church literally broke apart, this was not a strong Church, it remains broken apart to this day. BTW I just created the popular piety article a week ago it needs a lot of work, I was very surprised no one had created it yet. -- Stbalbach 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The lack of sources for such a large section making a broad claim bothers me. I've given it a {{fact}} tag. patsw 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOST devastating pandemic??

The article previously read that the Black Death "was the most devastating pandemic in human history." I have altered this line to read "was ONE OF the most devastating pandemics". In fact, estimates for the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic are as high as 100 million deaths, and many estimates for the death rates of Small Pox and other Pandemics amongst post-Columbian Native Americans rate as high or higher. The Plague of Justinian may have killed as many as 100 million people as well, and may or may not have been the same disease responsible for the Black Death (Justinian's Plague is supposedly regarded as being Bubonic Plague, which the Black Death may or may not have been... but regardless it was a separate outbreak, and a separate pandemic with an equal or higher number of mortalities). It is completely unnecessary, and unwarranted, to resort to superlatives in the introduction of this article, since it mutes the significant level of controversy surrounding mortality figures and the very high body counts of comparable pandemics throughout history. Let's not rank things without substantial and verifiable justification. Thelastemperor 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that worldwide ranking is rather dubious given the uncertainty over historical figures. However it was the worst pandemic in Europe in terms of proportion of the population killed by countries by a long way. I think that this article used to say 'in Europe' but somehow the statement became globalised. --JBellis 18:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is trying for global coverage, which it didn't at one time, so that's probably what happened. I'm ok with the more general "one of" in the lead, and more specific "worst in European" further down in the article somewhere (not sure if it does). -- Stbalbach 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain your doubts

Fact-tags have been inserted into sections which are quite clearly sourced, but aren't so pedantic as to repeat the same footnote over and over in the same paragraph (or the same sentence for that matter). No justification or specification for these fact-tags has been provided either in the edit summaries or here on the talkpage. Motivate and specify your concerns here by discussing it and insert the fact tags after you've actually found it to be a verifiability issue.

Firstly, have any who inserted the fact tags actually read the assigned sources? Secondly, do you have any reasonable doubt based on anything other than personal opinion? A conflicting source perhaps?

Peter Isotalo 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Every fact that needs to be footnoted needs to be footnoted, even if that means there are multiple footnotes from the same source in the same paragraph. This is a community run organization, readers have no idea that a footnote at the end of the paragraph covers the entire paragraph, nor should it -- there can be multiple sources used in any one paragraph, the reader has no idea which facts are being sourced to which source. It's just common sense and how Wikipedia works. -- Stbalbach 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/Talk%7EBlack_Death_4426.html"