WI No plague of Justinian

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.

I don't think this is quite accurate. First, there were recurring epidemics of the plague. Second, military operations continued; there was an assault on Calais in early 1350, in August of 1350 the English attacked Castilian galleys, and there were several more battles in Western France in the early 1350s.
 
It's wonderful how, while i'm the only one, it makes you uncomfortable enough to lie and open a new thread in order to clean it from my polluting interpretation :rolleyes:

The reason I started a new thread is because this one, which had quite an interesting premise, had become bogged down in legalistic arguments over whether "X disease doesn't develop" counts as an evolutionary POD and should go in the ASB forum, and other disputes of a like nature. It's got nothing to do with me feeling "uncomfortable", whatever you mean by that.

I might also mention the post where I litteraly said that it was butterflying the Justinian Plague (which is a form of the plague, not the plague itself) as a Pod, not as a consequence of a PoD. Which you would have seen, if you weren't too busy getting yourself a posture.


Yes, and if you were to start a threat with "The POD is that Sir John Moore doesn't die at Corunna," then technically speaking you'd be wrong -- the actual POD would be that the guy shooting at him misjudges the distance, or sneezes just as he takes the shot, or whatever. But everybody would still know what you meant, and it would be a bit strange to start objecting "No, saving Sir John as a POD would require divine intervention, what you actually mean is 'My POD is that the guy shooting at Sir John sneezed and threw off his aim'..."

Similarly, if somebody were to say "I'll be there in a minute!" it would be a bit off to chastise them for inaccuracy if they took more or less than sixty seconds precisely to arrive.

Or again, if I were to say "Everybody knows who George Washington was," and you replied "No, people in remote Amazonian villages untouched by western civilisation don't," I might justifiably say that you were missing the point somewhat.

You see, people don't always have to be super-precise when speaking. Often, it's fine to speak in somewhat loose terms and trust that others will get your meaning. Hence, if somebody says "What if there was no Plague of Justinian?" and you write multiple posts saying that, no, what he actually means is "What if a certain flea happened to get trodden on in India?" or something along those lines, don't be surprised if people think that you're being rather strangely pedantic.

Everyone can plainly see my points (which doesn't imply agreement) with a bit of intellectual honesty.

Multiple posters all seem to be making the same objections to your arguments; are they all being intellectually dishonest?

I mean, I don't mean to be rude about this, but English isn't even your first language. Does it not seem more likely that you've been a bit unclear (and there's no shame in being so; plenty of people miscommunicate sometimes, especially if they're talking in a foreign language) than that lots of other people have randomly decided to lie about your arguments?

(Especially on such a thread -- I could see some intellectually dishonest moves being made regarding a potentially emotive topic, such as "Did the British ruin the third world with their imperialism?" or "Would humanity have been better off without the USA?" But on a discussion about the effects of sixth-century epidemics? I'd find that... surprising, to say the least.)

Not only I spent only small part of the discussion on ASB, (and that's only because people get screaming at one mention of supernaturality of handwaving simply a virulent strain to appear), but affirming that I threatened anyone of mod action, which is not only idiotic but is a kickable offense on the board, is entering fully in vicious ground.

Snarkiness and viciousness doesn't replace actual discussion, if it was needed to be precised.

End of this part of the discussion for what matters to me.

As I said above, I was never affirming such a thing. I was simply pointing out that the mods -- i.e., the people whose job it is to create and enforce the rules of the forum -- don't seem to concur with your interpretation of a certain rule.
 
I don't think this is quite accurate. First, there were recurring epidemics of the plague. Second, military operations continued; there was an assault on Calais in early 1350, in August of 1350 the English attacked Castilian galleys, and there were several more battles in Western France in the early 1350s.

Bear in mind that, whilst more complex governments are generally more effective, they also have more things that can go wrong with them. So I find it quite plausible to suppose that Justinian's government would be worse hit by a 40%-mortality plague than a simpler feudal government would have been.
 
Bear in mind that, whilst more complex governments are generally more effective, they also have more things that can go wrong with them. So I find it quite plausible to suppose that Justinian's government would be worse hit by a 40%-mortality plague than a simpler feudal government would have been.

I'm not sure I would say the English government was simpler. After all, unlike the Byzantines, the English crown knew how to take loans and work with credit. :D
 

trajen777

Banned
The plague hit at an incredible difficult time :
1. Italy conquered but not secure
2. Belasaurius having to leave for a rebellion in N Africa
3. After Bel. Secures Africa he returns to find all of Italy in rebellion

At this time the plague hits -- resources diminished - trade freezes - Justinian gets Plague --


So a difficult time and place

My kid is an Epidemiologist that was working for prevention of Bio Terrorism and things like inoculations, evacuations, etc. However she was with the state so she was also responceable for disease control etc. Plague or other diseases is really a random thing that a simple mutation can take or not take in a population.

I feel that the plague would happen sooner or later (1918 -- Plague of Marcus Arulius -- ebola) and we are due for another pandemic sooner or later. But the P of Justinian could have been prevented or never taken place as as stated in the thread by a single death of the first person. Anyway i wrote 2 comments on the other thread that was on point to what could have happened. I think the short term is predictable.
 
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.

Huh, we do?
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.
 
Top