No (or less devastating) black death in Europe

I mean every disease in history has various strains and all that. So, I would propose that the Black Death would be simply designed to the point where it doesn't have as high as a lethality rating. Unless, you want the black death to be just as OTL in which case it comes down to the spread of the disease itself in which it might spread much slower into Europe.
 
The issue with the Black Death isn't that it killed a quarter of Europe in 1348-1349. It's that the disease kept coming back. England was quite significantly overpopulated at the time the Black Death hit, so in some cases you actually had improved efficiency via the culling of surplus peasants. Then it returned in 1361 (a truly nasty outbreak that went after children), 1369, and 1375 - by which point the economic system gets thrown into genuine crisis.

So, no Black Death... this overpopulation is going to have consequences. Famines, most likely.
 
So, no Black Death... this overpopulation is going to have consequences. Famines, most likely.
This would indeed be an important problem, and actually already began to be : the great famines of the early XIVth are a good indication that medieval productive capacities were reaching a limit altoiugh less technologically-wise than economically and demographically : some regions knew a significant overpopulation (like Flanders) and even ones that didn't saw a really important landed division, with each family having a really reduced agricultural land to work meaning the first meteorological incident could put whole communities at risk. And then the end of the medieval optimum (a warm climatic period) kicked in.
It led, even before the Great Famile of 1315, to a partial rural exodus in cities, which aggravated the situation by enlarging a medieval under-proletariat which could be already important already (up to 40% in secondary cities as Albi)

Economically, the rise of middle-classes and high-middle-classes lead to a rising demand of semi-luxury products such as wine, but really any product with added value, which transformed an increasing part of the neighboring rural production into this, limiting even more the basic food supply; which is something actively supported by the landowning nobility such as the dukes of Burgundy or (arguably later) in Gascony.
The growing monetarisation of the economy leads to an important fiscal pressure that can't really be entirely enforced and the regular devaluation of coinage (although I wonder if the threat of monetary starvation didn't played a role there) and new taxes, which didn't prevented a relative decline of fiscal revenues while still increasing pressure on populations and land owners which reacted by increasing the aforementioned situation, but as well turning to a renew of social militarization in the high-middle-class such as yeomen, as war becomes a more and more obvious sources of revenues.

Interestingly, no and lesser Black Death would have quite different consequences.
The epidemics happened at the middle of a cold and wet period, which prolonged the crisis (in no small part because of a rural exodus, and the weakening of virtually all communities), and I think that a smaller Black Death would have roughly similar effects : possibly being even more problematic on the long-term as the famine may be an added factor of significance (it was IOTL during the epidemic, you may argue).
No Black Death, on the other hand, would change the crisis into a regular series of famines in Europe, possibly compensated by an early grain import from Africa and Central Europe, which would certainly increase monetary exchange and the risk of metallic starvation IMO. On the other hand, specialization of regional production would probably remain a thing, so the commercial deficit might not be a problem (coinage would still be, of course).

A more warring XIVth and XVth centuries are still going to happen, as well with the social troubles and revolts : it would usually take the form of low-middle class mobilisation soon outpaced by low classes. Jacques, Tuchins, Maillotins (for France) would still be a thing, while arguably under different circumstances and events.
Which brings a point often mentioned when talking of the Black Death, that it would have indirectly led to the emancipation of low classes in rural areas. While it's not wrong that it accelerated the dynamic in several aspects, it was an already began process : in 1315 Louis X of France enforced the disappearance of slavery (essentially already disappeared since centuries, except in name) and servage (which was turning into a semi-servage, altough mixing with free tenants) while forcing serves to pay for their emancipation (see monetary problems above).
Giving the situation, I don't think that this emancipation movement would be butterflied away, altough the lack of a sudden demographical drop would possibly slow it compared to IOTL.
 
Economically, the rise of middle-classes and high-middle-classes lead to a rising demand of semi-luxury products such as wine, but really any product with added value, which transformed an increasing part of the neighboring rural production into this, limiting even more the basic food supply; which is something actively supported by the landowning nobility such as the dukes of Burgundy or (arguably later) in Gascony.
The growing monetarisation of the economy leads to an important fiscal pressure that can't really be entirely enforced and the regular devaluation of coinage (although I wonder if the threat of monetary starvation didn't played a role there) and new taxes, which didn't prevented a relative decline of fiscal revenues while still increasing pressure on populations and land owners which reacted by increasing the aforementioned situation, but as well turning to a renew of social militarization in the high-middle-class such as yeomen, as war becomes a more and more obvious sources of revenues.

Interestingly, no and lesser Black Death would have quite different consequences.
The epidemics happened at the middle of a cold and wet period, which prolonged the crisis (in no small part because of a rural exodus, and the weakening of virtually all communities), and I think that a smaller Black Death would have roughly similar effects : possibly being even more problematic on the long-term as the famine may be an added factor of significance (it was IOTL during the epidemic, you may argue).
No Black Death, on the other hand, would change the crisis into a regular series of famines in Europe, possibly compensated by an early grain import from Africa and Central Europe, which would certainly increase monetary exchange and the risk of metallic starvation IMO. On the other hand, specialization of regional production would probably remain a thing, so the commercial deficit might not be a problem (coinage would still be, of course).
Why was there a shortage of money?
 
Why was there a shortage of money?
Less a shortage of coinage, than a relative shortage of precious metals especially silver. It goes down to the growing monetarization of exchanges (although some productive decline as in Bohemia in the XVth didn't helped, it doesn't seems to have been a main cause) , the growing price of silver (which touched more North-West Europe, as the price of their products lowered). Another problem was that up to the late XIVth, silver was exported to the Near-East (especially by Venice) in exchange of gold, as the economical policy was to keep silver to relatively low prices, which it failed. By the early XVth century, gold was exported and silver imported.
The inflation of silver more or less led to a lesser "faithful" coinage, including from cities as Venice that had a relatively lesser problem of supply.

Interestingly, it's to be tied to the renew of economical theories and new budgetary practices.
 
Less a shortage of coinage, than a relative shortage of precious metals especially silver. It goes down to the growing monetarization of exchanges (although some productive decline as in Bohemia in the XVth didn't helped, it doesn't seems to have been a main cause) , the growing price of silver (which touched more North-West Europe, as the price of their products lowered). Another problem was that up to the late XIVth, silver was exported to the Near-East (especially by Venice) in exchange of gold, as the economical policy was to keep silver to relatively low prices, which it failed. By the early XVth century, gold was exported and silver imported.
The inflation of silver more or less led to a lesser "faithful" coinage, including from cities as Venice that had a relatively lesser problem of supply.

Interestingly, it's to be tied to the renew of economical theories and new budgetary practices.
Wait, why would taking silver out of European markets decrease the price? Also in such a situation wouldn't the trend of importing silver happen faster?
 
Wait, why would taking silver out of European markets decrease the price?
The price of silver within the Venetians markets outside Europe : when they traded silver in Syria or Egypt, it allowed them to keep silver at a reasonable price and thus more products to be exchanged.

Also in such a situation wouldn't the trend of importing silver happen faster?
It's what Venice tried to prevent for the sake of its commercial role : the use of large silver coinage was heavily limited at times in Northern Europe in order to preserve the Venetian merchants capacity to export these.
It kinda backfired when the price of silver was too low in Near East, and that local markets requested gold, and so by the early XVth exportation of silver coinage in Europe was authorized reaching for England twice more what was sent in Syria and Egypt (in weight of precious metals).

Furthermore, the constant devaluation of coinage (which is really helped by the multiplication of denominations, according their geographical use) partially compensate this, at least for a time before anyone began to do the same as a monetary weapon.
So, really, the idea was to prevent this to happen as long it was possible (up to using a devaluated golden coinage to buy spices).
 
The price of silver within the Venetians markets outside Europe : when they traded silver in Syria or Egypt, it allowed them to keep silver at a reasonable price and thus more products to be exchanged.


It's what Venice tried to prevent for the sake of its commercial role : the use of large silver coinage was heavily limited at times in Northern Europe in order to preserve the Venetian merchants capacity to export these.
It kinda backfired when the price of silver was too low in Near East, and that local markets requested gold, and so by the early XVth exportation of silver coinage in Europe was authorized reaching for England twice more what was sent in Syria and Egypt (in weight of precious metals).

Furthermore, the constant devaluation of coinage (which is really helped by the multiplication of denominations, according their geographical use) partially compensate this, at least for a time before anyone began to do the same as a monetary weapon.
So, really, the idea was to prevent this to happen as long it was possible (up to using a devaluated golden coinage to buy spices).
I have many questions but I think it's better I read through the information myself, what are the sources/books from which you took this information?
 
I have many questions but I think it's better I read through the information myself, what are the sources/books from which you took this information?
John Day, essentially : there's some criticism to be done especially on the mines productivity tough.
There's as well Jacques Heers "La naissance du capitalisme au moyen-âge" and Jacques le Goff but; as usual, I doubt it was translated.
 
Top