WI: More severe Black Death plague at the 14th century

I was thinking that if the Black Death plague would have had a death ratio of 80-90% of people in Europe/Middle East just like smallpox had in many areas of America when Europeans brought it there, probably the European civilizations could have not recover of it.
In that case, would some Asian civilization took over of such huge amount of territories (virtually depopulated) and resettled it? Or maybe it was too challenging for any of them?
Or maybe some of the European civilizations could have rebound in some decades and took over of most of the continent?
 
I was thinking that if the Black Death plague would have had a death ratio of 80-90% of people in Europe/Middle East just like smallpox had in many areas of America when Europeans brought it there, probably the European civilizations could have not recover of it.
In that case, would some Asian civilization took over of such huge amount of territories (virtually depopulated) and resettled it? Or maybe it was too challenging for any of them?
Or maybe some of the European civilizations could have rebound in some decades and took over of most of the continent?

Years of Rice and Salt.
 
I was thinking that if the Black Death plague would have had a death ratio of 80-90% of people in Europe/Middle East just like smallpox had in many areas of America when Europeans brought it there, probably the European civilizations could have not recover of it.
In that case, would some Asian civilization took over of such huge amount of territories (virtually depopulated) and resettled it? Or maybe it was too challenging for any of them?
Or maybe some of the European civilizations could have rebound in some decades and took over of most of the continent?

How would you have such a high death rate in Europe and the Middle East without it being similarly devastating in Asia? Assuming you could even get the plague to such figures in the first place.
 
Europe was far from being the only place ridden with plague : Arabo-Muslim world was as well, and it wasn't much prettier. We don't know much about how it was in Central Asia (while it seems to have been endemic in Far East), but it shouldn't have been mch different.

Furthermore, 80,90% of epidemic death even for Americas seems a bit high : the ratio I generally see for that (being really vague for lack of stats) is more close to 3/4.

Anyway : I don't think that even with a depopulated western world (aka not only Europe, but North and Eastern Africa, Central Asia), Asian powers would have been able to completly takeover : granted Mongols could, if they get their shit together, but it wouldn't be a settlement per se and rather a relativly far conquest.

On the same line of idea, Indian states could admittedly takeover East Africa and Arabian coast.

See, Asian powers were or really divided and too busy fighting each other, or too far to launch a settlement policy (admitting they go by this precise mode of expension.
In addition to that, a big difference with colomnian epidemic exchange would be the lack of political demographic pressure : Native Americans would have recovered eventually if Europeans didn't took over really quickly (virtually at the same time), and making them their punching-ball.
 
How would you have such a high death rate in Europe and the Middle East without it being similarly devastating in Asia? Assuming you could even get the plague to such figures in the first place.

The origin of the Black Death is purportedly the Indian-Southeastern Asia area, so people living there was used to it and the lethal ratio there can't be as harsh as in populations never exposed to that illness.

Europe was far from being the only place ridden with plague : Arabo-Muslim world was as well, and it wasn't much prettier. We don't know much about how it was in Central Asia (while it seems to have been endemic in Far East), but it shouldn't have been mch different.

Probably, in the Far East mortality would have been not that dramatic, as they were used to the illness.

Furthermore, 80,90% of epidemic death even for Americas seems a bit high : the ratio I generally see for that (being really vague for lack of stats) is more close to 3/4.

It's something controversial. Anyway, smallpox had an asimetric impact in the Americas, because of the different genetics and living standards of pre-Hispanic populations. However, it's proved that smallpox killed 100% of the people in some tribes of the southern North America that vanished without direct contact with Europeans (they got smallpox from other tribes that were infected by them).

Anyway : I don't think that even with a depopulated western world (aka not only Europe, but North and Eastern Africa, Central Asia), Asian powers would have been able to completly takeover : granted Mongols could, if they get their shit together, but it wouldn't be a settlement per se and rather a relativly far conquest.

Mongols could make just the opposite that Russians did: a slowly expansion and settlement from East to West in this case, until founding a 'Mongol Vladivostok' in the Baltic :D

On the same line of idea, Indian states could admittedly takeover East Africa and Arabian coast.

See, Asian powers were or really divided and too busy fighting each other, or too far to launch a settlement policy (admitting they go by this precise mode of expension.
In addition to that, a big difference with colomnian epidemic exchange would be the lack of political demographic pressure : Native Americans would have recovered eventually if Europeans didn't took over really quickly (virtually at the same time), and making them their punching-ball.

Aztecs or Inca people discovering Europe and settling them would be certainly interesting.
 
The origin of the Black Death is purportedly the Indian-Southeastern Asia area, so people living there was used to it and the lethal ratio there can't be as harsh as in populations never exposed to that illness.
Yes and no : there wouldn't be epidemic crisis, but the mortality ratio would be still higher than OTL european one.
It's not because Africans are "used to" (I find the formula a bit strange, if you pardon me) SIDA epidemics that their demographies aren't impacted.

However, it's proved that smallpox killed 100% of the people in some tribes of the southern North America
"Proven", in the absence of datas and direct sources is somewhat an exaggeration. The diseases probably (hence probably) killed entiere communauties as some villages were deserted in Europe after the plague.

Overall, the death ratio is generally guesstimated to 3/4 , and as there's an absence of real knowledge of pre-colulmbian population outside Mesoamerica and Andine Region, you wouldn't have much more.

Mongols could make just the opposite that Russians did: a slowly expansion and settlement from East to West in this case, until founding a 'Mongol Vladivostok' in the Baltic :D
It would necessit a change into Mongol structures and society : even when they had the possibility to do so in Russia after the plague, they didn't. It's a possibility, I concede that, but not the "natural" outcome.

Aztecs or Inca people discovering Europe and settling them would be certainly interesting.
You mean, before or after Amerindians die out of this *columbian exchange? Remember that, in addition of smallpow, they would have to deal with a super-plague.

Furthermore, neither of american peoples by this era, would have the capacity for trans-atlantic crossing before a really long time, probably giving Europe enough time to recover of its own.
 
The origin of the Black Death is purportedly the Indian-Southeastern Asia area, so people living there was used to it and the lethal ratio there can't be as harsh as in populations never exposed to that illness.

I'm not familiar with the numbers, but I'd question whether or not that's true based on the OTL plague.
 
The origin of the Black Death is purportedly the Indian-Southeastern Asia area, so people living there was used to it and the lethal ratio there can't be as harsh as in populations never exposed to that illness.

If the disease had a human reservoir there, it would have spread. Unless said people were totally isolated from the rest o the world. That it originated in south-eastern Asia does not mean it was endemic there.
 
Yes and no : there wouldn't be epidemic crisis, but the mortality ratio would be still higher than OTL european one.
It's not because Africans are "used to" (I find the formula a bit strange, if you pardon me) SIDA epidemics that their demographies aren't impacted.

That comparison is completely wrong. AIDS did not spread into human populations allegedly until the XX century, so no human population was used to this illness, regardless the origin. Black Death pest was not a 'new' epidemic and many people in the Far East had been suffering it from centuries, so they had enough time to develop immunities to it.

"Proven", in the absence of datas and direct sources is somewhat an exaggeration. The diseases probably (hence probably) killed entiere communauties as some villages were deserted in Europe after the plague.

There are archeological proves that entire populations in the southern North America wiped out at the time of Cabeza de Vaca expeditions. As it does not seem they were massacred, illness (in form of epidemic) is the only plausible explanation. And don't compare this with European villages as I'm refering to 'tribes' as genetic pools different to neighbouring ones, that fully succumbed to epidemic, and that did not happened in Europe, as villages did not represent 'genetic pools'.

You mean, before or after Amerindians die out of this *columbian exchange? Remember that, in addition of smallpow, they would have to deal with a super-plague.

Black Death hit Europe in the 14th century, so not Columbus anymore. If Native Americans would have reached a depopulated Europe centuries after this, they would not probably have to cope with smallpox.

If the disease had a human reservoir there, it would have spread. Unless said people were totally isolated from the rest o the world. That it originated in south-eastern Asia does not mean it was endemic there.

Not necessarily. There are epidemics that need of certain circumstances to become pandemic, even if they have existed in human populations for centuries. Black Death reached Europe then thanks to the increase of ship trade between Europe and East Asia that allowed black rats carrying the epidemic to enter the continent (something difficult when trade was made mostly through caravans).

And yes, the epidemic is endemic of south-eastern Asia because this is carried out by black rat parasites that were exclusive from that area.
 
T
Black Death pest was not a 'new' epidemic and many people in the Far East had been suffering it from centuries, so they had enough time to develop immunities to it.
Immunities to plague doesn't mean immunity to plague : the disease still ridden regularly Europe up to the XX century while the surviving population developped immunities. Even more resisting, the asian populations didn't exactly considered it as a common cold.

There are archeological proves that entire populations in the southern North America wiped out at the time of Cabeza de Vaca expeditions
.
No, they proove that really large part of the population died out and that places were deserted. It says nothing about possible migrations, by exemple.

And don't compare this with European villages as I'm refering to 'tribes' as genetic pools different to neighbouring ones, that fully succumbed to epidemic, and that did not happened in Europe, as villages did not represent 'genetic pools'.

I don't compare it genetically, but archeologically. by simple archeological clues, you would say the entiere population in european regions died out, but we know that a good (if not major) part just left (maybe to die elsewhere, but that is speculative).

My point is : archeological clues can only give one aspect on the question (how did these guys died, which proportion of men/women/childs, etc; but says little to nothing to things unrelated directly to these.

As it does not seem they were massacred, illness (in form of epidemic) is the only plausible explanation.
I really advise you to read my posts more carefully : I didn't said that native population was slaugthered by 3/4, but that in the places more populated AND more sourced (that is, historically more sourced and likely to give contextual informations), epidemics death ratio was certainly reinforced by a bad treatment of native population (somehow, you don't go well by doing forced labor) and was prevented to recover for the same reason.

If European population dies out in a 3/4 proportion, their immediate neighbours and possible conquerors will be as much touched by the disease, allowing it to recover more easily than OTL Native Amerindians.

Black Death hit Europe in the 14th century, so not Columbus anymore. If Native Americans would have reached a depopulated Europe centuries after this, they would not probably have to cope with smallpox.
On this board putting an asterisk right before a name means "atl-equivalent"
It goes easier and faster to write rather than "ITTL Trans-atlantic exchance comparable to OTL columbine one".
So, *columbine, means atl-equivalent of columbian exchange.

Native Amerindians were really vulnerable to old world diseases because they were an isolated population since millenias : more you wait, more important the backleash; critically in an Europe where epidemics were far more virulants (As smallpow and plague were still a thing in the XIX there, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be this way ITTL)
 
The black death in the 14thcentury was not the first time it had appeared in Europe. It appears that the Plague of Justinian was the same disease, just a different strain.
 
While the total death toll in the Americas may well have been 90% or higher, there were many diseases involved, not just smallpox, although that was probably the single worst one.

Measles killed many, for instance.
 
You mean, before or after Amerindians die out of this *columbian exchange? Remember that, in addition of smallpow, they would have to deal with a super-plague.

Furthermore, neither of american peoples by this era, would have the capacity for trans-atlantic crossing before a really long time, probably giving Europe enough time to recover of its own.

Which brings an interesting point. Say some ships try to run away from plague and sail west in hopes of something... Eventually they make it Americas. Its a couple ships tops, not viable enough to sustain a colony so it fails and they die out, but not before giving plague and smallpox to the natives.
Now we have both die outs happening at the same time and surviving natives have same resistances as europeans. Now both civilizations have to start out on a more even playing field. What happens now?
 
Giving the mortality of said super-plague, the dominant concept that westwards was nothing but a huuuge ocean (basically same size distance than between Europe and Asia by west, just without land), and the navigation knowledge of North Atlantic, I doubt crew would make it without them being deads in sea, honestly.
 
Now we have both die outs happening at the same time and surviving natives have same resistances as europeans. Now both civilizations have to start out on a more even playing field. What happens now?

What LSCatilina said, plus that even if they do make it they won't give anything resembling "same resistances" to the natives to what Europeans have to their diseases.

You need a lot more exposure than that over a much longer period.
 
Top