That is to say, you consider it inevitable that
a 40% mortality bubonic plague would arise in Asia and spread to Europe in the time period to result in the Plague of Justinian.
I've to be pretty clear on this:
- I didn't said it was inevitable
- I didn't mentioned any death tool proportion
- I didn't said that it would be the exact same than the Plague of Justinian
What I said, is that you have
fair chances IMO (I'm not sure, but I tought that it was distinct from
inevitable in English. As I mistaken?) having a similar strain popping around in the rough time period, and if we're not touching the historical context, that it would behave the same way (going trough Persia instead of Red Sea, being a good exemple).
Giving that both pandemics had similar death tools, it might be a good idea to wonder if a virulent strain doesn't have to have something similar...
But I didn't find anything about this myself (after a quick search, granted), so let's assume we're talking of a death tool significantly more important than Ist century outback in eastern Mediterranean basin, without much precision (let's talk 25% if you will instead of 40%, but really I don't hold to a given proportion)
I may have been quick on the earliness of the PoD needed, and I agree it don't have to strike at the exact same time period but later (allowing Justinian era to be longer) but I must stress that there's a difference between simply getting rid of the pandemic which ask for more important changes to be on the safe side, and delaying/modifying enough the pandemic itself.
which is, I might add, most certainly a time when there was the huge trade networks which would facilitate the spread of such a plague.
Direct trade is only one of the facilitating factors : the climatic changes (especially a sudden climatic event in the VIth century) provoked rats/rodents migration that are not only transmitters but hosts of the plague.
Giving that these were ridden with plague, their presence in masse where they weren't before is to be taken in consideration, not as an isolated factor but as part of it.
Can't speak for all regions, but the Black Death first outbacks in Europe didn't impaired many cities on the long term, in spite of huge losses. You don't have, say, the systematical abandonment of whole parts of towns (even if whole villages get abandoned).
Eventually, thanks to migrations from countryside that compensated the losses, you have the maintain of the urban network and a new growth after some time. Huge losses doesn't mean destructuration (important cities in 1800 were often important cities in 1300), and at the early XVth century, you have a clear urban re-growth.
We do have evidence, IIRC, of price controls and efforts to stop wages for unskilled laborers from rising. This suggests to me a major disruption.
Neither of these really worked (in England, it didn't took one generation), that said, and eventually went their own road.
Not that you didn't have major disruption, but this situation was already present by the early XIVth century (while the plague clearly surged it) and it was most about agricultural production (IIRC, you had a surge of specialisation in urban production, while you had a mass of unskilled/poor producers in towns, up to 40% in big ones)
Basically the Black Death resulted in a pause in the hostilities from about 1348-1355 for reasons including simple finance. So it did result in a seven year interruption in the war.
As Faeelin said, things were eventually more complex, even if it certainly played a role : not only field battles were rare in medieval warfare, but Jean II (whom reign begins roughly in the same time) seems to have searched to particularily avoid them while building up his armies while you had English raids on France still during this period (
Bataille of Winchelsea,
Battle of Ardres or by proxy (with Charles of Navarre or the War of Succession of Brittany).
I do agree, tough, that the uneasy truce was at least partially due to plague (while it had geopolitical and financial concerns as well, at least for what matter the Treaty of Guînes) but it didn't really "stop" the fights.