What if the Black Death never happened?

[Roma_Victrix]

That's the premise of this video:



I actually can't find anything to strongly criticize here. His arguments are rather solid, if a little vague, sweeping, and glossed over at most points. That has more to do with the constraints of explaining yourself within the timeframe of a 12-minute video, though. He makes a few minor mistakes about historical facts, but I think the bigger themes that he explores are very realistic and believable. Namely:

A) the stagnation of wages and no similarly dramatic population changes
B) the prolonging of both feudalism and unchallenged Catholic hegemony over Europe, plus the delay or total handicapping of the Reformation and the Enlightenment/Industrial Revolution/Capitalism
C) the sluggish development of agrarian technology, which would have inhibited greater population growth
D) the political setup of Europe doesn't change dramatically, happening much more gradually

I think the one thing he really failed to mention and really should have was colonization and the Age of Sail and exploration, which would have solved a lot of problems of overpopulation in Europe (that naturally led to poverty, famine, lack of resources, lack of social mobility, etc.). One could argue that, with its greater population and technology of the mid-14th century that was already suitable for ocrean-going travel, there could have been an equivalent figure to Christopher Columbus roughly a century before him who could have discovered the Americas or sailed around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to reach India like Vasco da Gama.

This is all focused on what would happen in the Western world, of course, so there is an equal amount of different results that could have happened in West Asia and North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia. It seems as if there are too many variables when considering these other regions of the world, but I generally think his idea of Mongol successor states lasting longer than they did to be believable enough. Perhaps they would have held on to Russia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia, China and Korea longer than they did historically (and pushed into northern India earlier like their Turko-Mongolic Islamic successors, the Timurids and Mughals).

[+Marius+]

The video is quite wrong on many levels.

Firstly, the 14th century Europeans had far superior hygiene than their post-medieval offspring did, not washing yourself is a New Era thing.

Secondly, the renaissance was already well on its way by the time the Plague struck(Alighieri, Petrarca etc.), in fact, in many ways, the plague slowed it down more than speed it up.

Thirdly, the famines had everything to do with crop failure, not overpopulation, the failure was a result of Europe leaving the Warm Period and entering the Little Ice Age by a series of horrifying solar radiation minimums(the Sun literally became dim for a while and stopped shining as much).

The rest is all arguable, who says that overpopulation would not result in an even faster development of commoner society?

In the same way that nobles lost influence because of labor shortages, they could have lost control over far greater numbers of peasants than they could control.

If the German Peasants War happened in the 14th century instead of the 16th century, they sure as hell could have won and destroyed the societal structure in its entirety.

[Roma_Victrix]

Here comes Marius off the top rope!

Yeah, I didn't think about how pervasive his hygiene argument was in the video. Medieval Europe actually had plenty of public bathhouses in towns and cities for commoners, in addition to private baths for wealthy merchants, nobles, and royalty. They even had access to hot water for that matter, especially if the baths were located next to a bakery where contact heat from ovens was available. People bathed at least once a month if not once a week, depending on the time period and culture. For instance, the Anglo-Saxons thought that the (stereotypically wild) Vikings bathed a bit too often by bathing once a week. People often think of medieval society of being rather uptight and sanctimonious, worse than the prude attitudes of the Victorian era simply because society was even more traditional and antiquated, yet that is simply not the case. In fact, modern people would even find medieval society to be rather risque in certain aspects judging by the gender neutral nature of public bathhouses, with couples bathing together in front of others:



Your other arguments are spot on. The video made no attempt to explain the effects of the Little Ice Age on Eurasia. It also didn't mention anything about the artistic and intellectual climate of Europe preceding the Renaissance proper. I think it is a reasonable argument to say the Renaissance already began in northern Italy during the first half of the 14th century, before the Black Death, or at the very least the bedrock of the Renaissance was laid out (even if they hadn't achieved certain things yet like linear perspective in painting). The video also makes no attempt to explain the advent of printing thanks to Gutenberg, which was arguably the key means by which the Renaissance movement and ideas spread outside of northern Italy after the mid-15th century.

[IrishBlood]

I'd also take issue with the assertion that the advent of Protestantism and the reformation would be slowed or weakened in anyway by an absence of plague.

True, the Catholic Church would have continued to reign supreme and wouldn't have been damaged by the plague, but their many vices (sales of indulgences, nepotism, corruption, etc etc) would have persisted. It was these vices, rather than any perceived weakness in the Catholic church, that prompted Martin Luther and others to kick start the reformation.

Just look at the Hussite wars and the Albigensian crusade and you'll see plenty of cases of those who fought for religious reform or a break from the Catholic church. This would have persisted irregardless of the plague, particularly so if the peasant population continued to boom to the point that they drastically outnumbered their noble masters.

Marius's point about the German peasant wars is bang on target. If the same thing had happened in the 1300's-1400's (which it likely would have had population growth gone unchecked due to the plagues absence) then they would have stood a much better chance of victory since they wouldn't be facing nearly as many gunpowder weapons, something that consistently devastated their ranks in the actual peasant wars.

[Roma_Victrix]

I'd also take issue with the assertion that the advent of Protestantism and the reformation would be slowed or weakened in anyway by an absence of plague.

True, the Catholic Church would have continued to reign supreme and wouldn't have been damaged by the plague, but their many vices (sales of indulgences, nepotism, corruption, etc etc) would have persisted. It was these vices, rather than any perceived weakness in the Catholic church, that prompted Martin Luther and others to kick start the reformation.

Just look at the Hussite wars and the Albigensian crusade and you'll see plenty of cases of those who fought for religious reform or a break from the Catholic church. This would have persisted irregardless of the plague, particularly so if the peasant population continued to boom to the point that they drastically outnumbered their noble masters.

Marius's point about the German peasant wars is bang on target. If the same thing had happened in the 1300's-1400's (which it likely would have had population growth gone unchecked due to the plagues absence) then they would have stood a much better chance of victory since they wouldn't be facing nearly as many gunpowder weapons, something that consistently devastated their ranks in the actual peasant wars.

I have to slightly disagree about the Protestant Reformation. Yes you would have had plenty of theologians like Martin Luther complaining about the excesses and wrongs of the Indulgences promulgated by the Catholic Church. However, outside of tiny intellectual circles the Protestant Reformation was a true movement of the people, both urban and rural, rich and poor, fed not only by the advent of movable type printing and greater availability of the Bible to the common people, but also the disillusionment with the erosion of Church authority following the Plague. If the Plague had never damaged the reputation of Rome, then many people arguably would have stayed home during the Peasant Wars and Protestant Reformation. You probably wouldn't see heads of state adopting Protestant faiths and severing ties with the Rome in excommunication had there been no big groundswell of support for it first. That would have delayed the Protestant movement by at least a century in my estimation.

[TWWolfe]

I have to slightly disagree about the Protestant Reformation. Yes you would have had plenty of theologians like Martin Luther complaining about the excesses and wrongs of the Indulgences promulgated by the Catholic Church. However, outside of tiny intellectual circles the Protestant Reformation was a true movement of the people, both urban and rural, rich and poor, fed not only by the advent of movable type printing and greater availability of the Bible to the common people, but also the disillusionment with the erosion of Church authority following the Plague. If the Plague had never damaged the reputation of Rome, then many people arguably would have stayed home during the Peasant Wars and Protestant Reformation. You probably wouldn't see heads of state adopting Protestant faiths and severing ties with the Rome in excommunication had there been no big groundswell of support for it first. That would have delayed the Protestant movement by at least a century in my estimation.

I would argue that it was not the plague that really damaged the reputation of the Church. what hurt them far more than anything else was the Schism, which pretty much cut the revenues of the Church in half. this is what transformed the sale of indulgences from an occasional thing to one of the main ways the church raised money. True the plague probably didn't help them any at that point, but with contemporaries saying the equivalent of "During these years no one went to heaven" and the sight of Popes like Urban VI (who one could argue was mad) and Clement VII (AKA the butcher of Cessna) is there any wonder people slowly began to loose faith in the church?

[Dromikaites]

If the Great Plague could influence religion it should have undermined any form of Christianity, not just the Catholic Church.

Add to that there is no objective reason why Poland and Hungary remained predominately Catholic in spite of the Protestants being allowed to practice their religion freely.

[TWWolfe]

If the Great Plague could influence religion it should have undermined any form of Christianity, not just the Catholic Church.

Add to that there is no objective reason why Poland and Hungary remained predominately Catholic in spite of the Protestants being allowed to practice their religion freely.

not to mention that there had been plagues before, some just as or more deadly, in times where people would have been far more superstitious and less learned as a whole. indeed, plagues of this magnitude often tended to drive people closer to the church, rather than away for it for most of history. Given the amount of times chroniclers complained about people "dicing in church, or talking business during sermons and rushing in for the communion" at the same time during the plagues you see a great fear of dying without confession or last rights, to the point where laypeople, or even women were authorized to perform them for people to ensure the safety of their souls. the number of wills giving much if not all possesions to the church upon death shows that people still believed, though this idea of giving to the church in order to "buy" salvation also ties into the indulgences problem.

THe problem with indulgences was compounded by the move to Avignon and staying there. moving away from the seat of Rome and into a palace in France did nothing to dissuade people that the pope was nothing but a French puppet. Avignon being a palatial city, with comments reaching us of walking through the palace and seeing priests hunched over tables counting out money hurt as well, furthering the view that the Papacy as become far too mired in earthly possessions and lavish comforts. the Schism further exacerbated this, with indulgence sales on both sides and sales of offices both exploding in order for each side to fund both their lifestyles and armies in order to try and unseat the other. by the time the church united under one pope again, sales had become firmly rooted in place as part of the papal income.

[Dromikaites]

In the absence of the Black Death it is quite likely the Christian attempts to push the Ottomans out of the Balkans would have been more forceful.

The campaign which failed at Nicopolis has happened after the Black Death had devastated Europe. While in terms of death toll the territories controlled by the Ottomans were just as affected, the economic base of the the opposing sides was different.

In the 14th century the Ottomans obtained their revenue mainly from taxing trade, and the main trade routes still passed through their empire. The peasants only had to support the sipahis, which while being the Ottoman heavy cavalry were lighter armed than the knights and thus were less expensive.

In contrast, the Christians depended mostly on agriculture to finance their armies (the exception being the city-states, but they weren't the main source of soldiers anyway).

Until the battle of Nicopolis the Ottoman advance had to be checked by the Byzantines and the Balkan kingdoms of the Serbs and the Bulgarians. While reasonably strong at the time, those states didn't field the best troops the Europeans could field in the 14th century.

The Bulgarians and the Serbs were defeated after putting up a strong resistance. Bad luck played a considerable role in their defeats. Later on the Wallachians and the Moldavians have shown even larger Ottoman armies than those present at Nicopolis or Varna could be defeated without the need to employ the best Western military tech.

The way the Serbs and the Bulgarians resisted and the later Wallachian and Moldavian victories suggest that a large Western army would have had a very high probability of defeating the Ottomans in the 14th century and at least could have expelled them from the Balkans if not also from a part of Anatolia.

The problem was the Black Death made it very hard to build a large Western army.

[Condottiere 40K]

Logistics would seem to be the stumbling block.

Politics would be the essential ingredient in the Catholic/Protestant split. And a woman.

[Roma_Victrix]

Logistics would seem to be the stumbling block.

Politics would be the essential ingredient in the Catholic/Protestant split. And a woman.

I'm Henry VIII I am. Got married to the widow next door. She's been married seven times before!

[Blastoise Groudon]

In the absence of the Black Death it is quite likely the Christian attempts to push the Ottomans out of the Balkans would have been more forceful.

The campaign which failed at Nicopolis has happened after the Black Death had devastated Europe. While in terms of death toll the territories controlled by the Ottomans were just as affected, the economic base of the the opposing sides was different.

In the 14th century the Ottomans obtained their revenue mainly from taxing trade, and the main trade routes still passed through their empire. The peasants only had to support the sipahis, which while being the Ottoman heavy cavalry were lighter armed than the knights and thus were less expensive.

In contrast, the Christians depended mostly on agriculture to finance their armies (the exception being the city-states, but they weren't the main source of soldiers anyway).

Until the battle of Nicopolis the Ottoman advance had to be checked by the Byzantines and the Balkan kingdoms of the Serbs and the Bulgarians. While reasonably strong at the time, those states didn't field the best troops the Europeans could field in the 14th century.

The Bulgarians and the Serbs were defeated after putting up a strong resistance. Bad luck played a considerable role in their defeats. Later on the Wallachians and the Moldavians have shown even larger Ottoman armies than those present at Nicopolis or Varna could be defeated without the need to employ the best Western military tech.

The way the Serbs and the Bulgarians resisted and the later Wallachian and Moldavian victories suggest that a large Western army would have had a very high probability of defeating the Ottomans in the 14th century and at least could have expelled them from the Balkans if not also from a part of Anatolia.

The problem was the Black Death made it very hard to build a large Western army.

Their response most definitely would have been better against the advancing Turks. Whether or not the quality of their armies would have been there is unknown but they should at the least have been able to put up more men.

[Dromikaites]

Their response most definitely would have been better against the advancing Turks. Whether or not the quality of their armies would have been there is unknown but they should at the least have been able to put up more men.

First of all I want to point out that in my opinion the "number of men" should be interpreted as "number of heavy cavalry and heavy infantry troops". The Black Death had quite likely killed proportionally as many Turks and Christian allies of theirs as it killed Christians. That means in terms of recruiting pools, both sides had them drastically reduced.

In the absence of tactical blunders, the heavier the troops the better. At the time "heavier" meant better armored (nowadays it means bigger firepower).

Being better armored meant such soldiers were harder to kill. Even during the Crusades, when the armor consisted mainly of chainmail (such troops would be labelled "medium" in the 14th and 15th centuries) its use made a significant difference against the lighter armored enemies.

While it is true the Moldavians and the Wallachians did not need heavy troops to defeat the Ottomans, those victories were extremely expensive for those two countries because they relied on a combination of scorched earth and allowing the enemy to penetrate the country till it arrived on unfavorable terrain. This is why in the 16th and 17th centuries, we see both countries opting for a heavier buildup of their armies. The Wallachians opt for small firearms while the Moldavians invest in and innovate artillery. A little known fact is during the reign of John the Terrible (1572-1574) Moldova had 5 times more canons than France. While those were mostly low caliber, it does tell a lot about the financial effort made by a very small country.

While the Wallachian and Moldavian approach to "getting heavier" was in the modern sense (increased firepower), the principle still stands: even though highly expensive, "getting heavier" was most of the time worth the money. Even the small states understood it.

This brings us back to the damaging effect the Black Death had on the Christian armies of Central and Western Europe compared to the Ottomans. In Central and Western Europe farmland was the main source of income. Less people to tile the land meant less money for equipping the knights and the infantry.

At Nicopolis the knights and their heavily armed retainers proved to be extremely lethal even dismounted. While they ultimately lost, their performance on the battlefield prompted the sultan to order the prisoners to be killed on the spot, except for the extremely rich ones. Even the lesser knights could have been ransomed for a nice sum of money - the only reason why they were killed was to permanently remove them from the future conflicts.

With more heavy troops at Nicopolis a second wave would have probably linked up with the French knights and would have shattered the Ottomans (second siege of Vienna style). However with roughly 2 thirds of the serfs dead it was quite difficult to field a large number of knights, sergeants and armored men-at-arms.

Another interesting detail illustrating the impact of economy on heavy equipment is this: the GDP of Moldova was mainly based on cattle exports to Germany via Poland while the GDP of Wallachia was mainly based on exports of sheep to...the Ottoman empire. Both sources of income needed the employment of only a few people, which in turn meant the Moldavian artillery and the Wallachian arquebusiers (a late in-game depiction of those are the pandours of ETW) could be supported by a relatively small number of peasants. In 14th and 15th century Central and Western Europe the agriculture in most countries depended on crops (which needed lots of men to tile the land) instead of cattle or sheep, thus the Black Death severely affected the ability to equip heavy troops.