Was the crisis of the Late Middle Ages inevitable?

Enter the fourteenth century, and Europe is flying high, with two centuries of economic prosperity and population growth.

However, a change in climate and overpopulation lead to decreasing crop yields and a series of famines: Millions die, malnourishment increases (leading to an increase in health problems all across Europe), productivity falls, food prices increase, crime increases, and political tensions intensify, leading to an increase in conflicts both between and within states.

Just when it couldn't get any worse, Europe is struck with a deadly new pandemic that kills tens of millions.

Medieval governments, including the church, were unable to do anything to address the plight of the masses; indeed, government-imposed price controls on foodstuffs and export bans only worked to deepen the famine

As a result, confidence in authority decreased, and as a further result peasant militancy increased and heresies challenged the authority of the church.

Now, my question is: Was the CotLMA inevitable? What if parts of it (the Black Death in particular) are averted? How do technological development and European fortunes change with an averted or less severe CotLMA?
 
Some form of crisis was inevitable -- Europe was already populated to capacity, so there wasn't really any "give" left in the event of a run of bad weather reducing crop yields. Though as for the Black Death, I was under the impression that it actually improved living standards for those left behind, by reducing overpopulation?
 
Some form of crisis was inevitable -- Europe was already populated to capacity, so there wasn't really any "give" left in the event of a run of bad weather reducing crop yields. Though as for the Black Death, I was under the impression that it actually improved living standards for those left behind, by reducing overpopulation?

That's what I've read, and it does make sense.

I've also read that European population levels gravitated towards their pre-famine levels after those famines ended; it took the Black Death to reaally kill off the population numbers.

So, what if the Black Death never approaches Europe, and you see a Malthusian stalemate (population at high levels, decreased by famine, population recovers, repeat) continue throughout the 14th century? Without the catastrohpic shock of the Black Death, will agricultural technology evolve to meet those challenges (ending the stalemate) or will worsening climatic conditions (the Little Ice Age hasn't even reached its nadir yet) only result in deepening food shortages (ending the stalemate)?

I have heard it said that the Renaissance actually began in the 12th and 13th centuries, and that the Crisis merely interrupted this technological growth. If that's true, I would certainly argue that if the Black Death never deals a catastrophic blow to European society, we would see many products of the OTL Renaissance appear in the 14th century.

Indeed, if the Europeans are able to cross the Atlantic within the fourteenth century, you might see New World crops like the potato introduced to Europe earlier on, which could also solve Europe's agricultural challenges.
 
Indeed, if the Europeans are able to cross the Atlantic within the fourteenth century, you might see New World crops like the potato introduced to Europe earlier on, which could also solve Europe's agricultural challenges.

Wouldn't we also see more people wanting to settle in the New World and South Africa if that were the case
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...es-were-warmer-than-today-say-scientists.html

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
Using proxies such as tree rings.

(also illustrates politically that if things are left the last bit nitpick-able, people will kick at the whole thing, esp. if they want to anyway!)
 
as people even start to move into the middle class, are they more willing to take chances economically?

And if so, this would add to upswings and downswings.
 
as people even start to move into the middle class, are they more willing to take chances economically?

And if so, this would add to upswings and downswings.
What do you mean by taking chances?

Do you say 'upswings and downswings' in relation to population numbers and food supply?
 
For example, a farmer somewhat moving up from subsistence farming and somewhat moving into the middle class,

may plant 40% of the family's fields with one particular cash crop? ?

This is the kind of thing I have in mind.
People did that when they acquired more-than-barely-enough land, for millennia really. Thing is, land doesn't multiply, so it either takes depopulation, which lowers the prices, too, or productivity improvements, or a social inequality in which some suffer from having less than enough.

I'm not sure on the entire premise of Crisis of Late Middle Ages, though.
 
The breakdown of the Feudal System was certainly a crisis for the ruling class so, at least for them there was a Crisis of the Late Middle Ages

Given the combination of the Black Death and the Little Ice Age some form of crisis was probably inevitable. Given the reliance on subsistence farming climate change was always going to cause famine. On top of that the invention of the printing press in 1440 made it much easier to spread new ideas including religious heresies such as Lollardism in England and the Hussites in the Holy Roman Empire, It also was a factor in the urban revolts in the Low countries and Peasant revolts such as he Jacquerie in France or Wat Tyler#s revolt in England. Endemic wars between states in particular th Hundred Years War and the high taxation that wen with it arguably worsened the. situation
 
The breakdown of the Feudal System was certainly a crisis for the ruling class so, at least for them there was a Crisis of the Late Middle Ages

Given the combination of the Black Death and the Little Ice Age some form of crisis was probably inevitable. Given the reliance on subsistence farming climate change was always going to cause famine. On top of that the invention of the printing press in 1440 made it much easier to spread new ideas including religious heresies such as Lollardism in England and the Hussites in the Holy Roman Empire, It also was a factor in the urban revolts in the Low countries and Peasant revolts such as he Jacquerie in France or Wat Tyler#s revolt in England. Endemic wars between states in particular th Hundred Years War and the high taxation that wen with it arguably worsened the. situation
The feudal system did not so much break down as transform. The ruling elites of the emerging centralised kingdoms recruited themselves from the very same old elites mostly.

Bad weather was bad for food production of course, but after the Black Death, famine became a thing of the past for almost a century, with enough land being available to the survivors. There is evidence that the late 14th century were one of the few times when even average peasants were able to afford to eat meat regularly in significant quantities, for example.

When the printing press spread, Lollardy was almost completely suppressed in England already. It had left some sort of legacy, I´m sure of that, but Lollardy wasn`t spread by the printing press really, unless you consider later Protestant sects as direct heirs to Lollardy, which makes only very limited sense.

The same goes for Hussitism. Hussite ideas lived on after Lipany in Bohemia and Moravia to some extent, but their heyday was over when the printing press spread.

The Jacqueries were much earlier, and so was Wat Tyler`s revolt.

Endemic wars and especially the 100yw brought forth massive modernisation impulses, too.

I agree that there were high political tensions and a great potential for upheaval and change in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, but I wouldn`t consider that a symptom of Crisis. Yes, an old system was coming to an end, but at the same time, new structures, ideas, technologies were already emerging. It certainly wasn`t a time of downfall, decay, and misery.
 
The feudal system did not so much break down as transform. The ruling elites of the emerging centralised kingdoms recruited themselves from the very same old elites mostly.

Bad weather was bad for food production of course, but after the Black Death, famine became a thing of the past for almost a century, with enough land being available to the survivors. There is evidence that the late 14th century were one of the few times when even average peasants were able to afford to eat meat regularly in significant quantities, for example.

When the printing press spread, Lollardy was almost completely suppressed in England already. It had left some sort of legacy, I´m sure of that, but Lollardy wasn`t spread by the printing press really, unless you consider later Protestant sects as direct heirs to Lollardy, which makes only very limited sense.

The same goes for Hussitism. Hussite ideas lived on after Lipany in Bohemia and Moravia to some extent, but their heyday was over when the printing press spread.

The Jacqueries were much earlier, and so was Wat Tyler`s revolt.

Endemic wars and especially the 100yw brought forth massive modernisation impulses, too.

I agree that there were high political tensions and a great potential for upheaval and change in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, but I wouldn`t consider that a symptom of Crisis. Yes, an old system was coming to an end, but at the same time, new structures, ideas, technologies were already emerging. It certainly wasn`t a time of downfall, decay, and misery.

The point I am making is that there was a combination of circumstances. Furthermore, although Medieval Civilization did not break down but the Feudal System did. The examples I gave are examples of how the Feudal System broke down. It did however evolve into something else. Though this was due to a combination of reasons climate change (in this case the Little Ice Age was a key driver of change


Regarding Lollardism and the Hussites these were mentioned as examples of some of the religious heresies which were challenging the established Catholic Church which was one of the pillars of the feudal orders. There was most certainly a crisis at this time but his was a crisis of the Feudal System#s breakdown and change to the merchantalist system. While the period might not be one of unremitting disaster and collapse there were crop failures and famine and famines in localized areas

http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

Famine might well be one factor behind the social upheavals though certainly not the sole cause

If we examine the entire breakdown of the Feudal System we must accept that this was due to a combination of multiple factors although climatic factors were probably what pushed the feudal system over the edge
 
So does pre-Crisis feudalism survive the 14th century if the Black Death is avoided (IMO, the famines are unavoidable while a non-ASB POD could see the Black Death never make it to Caffa) or would endemic warfare (of which the famines were arguably an indirect cause) cause political upheaval and change anyways?

So, if we get political upheaval and the evolution/death of feudalism (from warfare) without massive depopulation (from plague) and (perhaps) the earlier arrival of the printing press and other Renaissance technologies, what does Europe look like going into the fifteenth century?

I would imagine that if Europe manages to avoid depopulation throughout this entire period (which could be hard even if the Black Death is avoided) there would be more surplus population with which to colonize the Americas.
 
Top