Talk:Black Death/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This is a Black Death archive page for material discussed by editors between 2004 - 30 June 2006.

Discussion initiated in 2004

Black Death vs. Bubonic plague

For a discussion on why Black Death exists as a separate article from Bubonic plague, see Talk:Bubonic plague.

Kevyn 06:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) I chose the black death for my senior research paper in 12th grade english. This information is leagal and pure factual, none of the information that I added was fictional. Through researching the Black Death, I used many different resources and books to obtain the information that I used in editing these Wikipedia pages. However, my work cited page is saved on my hard drive at my home, and I will long on to this web site later this evening to add that to this page. Thanks! the plague has scored 1000000000000 ('�က�')goals against chelsea

Death rate

I don't understand this addition to the article: "Recent studies have predicted a decline from twenty-five percent to fifty percent population decrease in Europe alone." Is this prediction really an estimate? Why "decline" and "decrease" in the same sentence? The previous text, giving an estimte of about a one-third death rate, seems fine to me, but before I delete the quoted sentence I want to see if there's some information in it that I'm not understanding. JamesMLane 02:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Facts pulled for checking

These sentences were pulled because I could not verify anywhere. The contributers have been notified and I hope they can re-add these with source material.

1. The reduction in the population of England led to the displacement of French by English.
2. Also because of depopulation, the surviving Europeans became the biggest consumers of meat of any civilization before industrial agriculture.

I took it from some book by Marvin Harris, probably Good to Eat, nut I don't have the book to check anymore and Google doesn't give me anything relating the book and the concept. Chapter 2 is "Meat Hunger". -- Error 01:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If anyone can back up these claims please readd them (with more explanation if possible). CaseInPoint 22:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The reduction in French language due to the shortage of french speakers is cited in British Food, Colin Spencer but its not a primary source. However the meat thing is not mentioned and seems exaggerated - many animals died too or were untended. The main effect mentioned is the fact that the peaants got more land and cottages not hovels, so they got their own ovens rather than having to use the Lord's oven and pay a tithe for it. Meat was eaten more mainly because the people left were richer, and did demand better food and working conditions but I cant verify the specific claim. Justinc 19:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to point out (here seems appropriate) that the description of three forms of plague is incorrect:

"The three forms of plague brought an array of signs and symptoms to those infected. Bubonic plague refers to the painful lymph node swellings called buboes. The septicaemic plague is called "Blood poisoning", and pneumonic plague is an airborne plague that forms a first attack on the lungs."

This is incorrect as there are two primary forms of plague: Bubonic and pneumonic. It's important to bear in mind that plague as caused by Y. pestis is spread through blood and naturally, for the organism to get back out of a host it must get out into the victims bloodstream in large numbers so it is sucked up by the flea. This causes widespread internalised bleeding, sepsis (blood poisoning) and eventual death. There is no 'third' form of plague called septicaemic plague, just bubonic and pneumonic which both kill by widespread septic shock. The key difference between bubonic plague and pneumonic plague is the time it takes for the organism to kill the host. In bubonic plague this can be several days, while pneumonic plague is already adapted to the human host and so infections caused by it progress more rapidly. Unusually, whoever wrote the remainder of the entry appears to have realised there isn't a "scepticaemic plague" and doesn't mention it any further. -J. O'Donnell. Addition: Actually, I've had a look at a more recent paper from the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) that suggests that bacteria delivered through a flea bite may directly cause scepticemia. I had assumed that the condition was simply a subclinical form of bubonic plague, where the bacteria still pass through the lymph nodes but do not cause direct infection. It appears that Y. pestis injected into a host through natural means, in this case a flea bite, may indeed cause a patient to proceed directly to a scepticemic form of plague.

The paper is free if anyone is curious to read it: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/14/5526 -J. O'Donnell. (added 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC) by 139.80.123.38)

Yes it's incorrect to talk about three. WHO, DCD and other authorities actually identify nine types of the disease plague (Pestis) (ICD-10 code A20), giving six of them separate ICD-10 sub-codings and grouping the other three milder versions under one joint sub-coding: bubonic plague (Pestis bubonica), cellulocutaneous plague (Pestis cellulocutanea), pneumonic or pulmonic plague (Pestis pneumonica), meningeal plague or plague meningitis (Pestis meningealis), pharyngeal plague (Pestis pharyngeus), septicemic plague (Pestis septic(h)aemica), and the three milder abortive plague, asymptomatic plague and pestis minor.

Discussions about the disease itself is, however, best kept on the talk page of the article Bubonic plague (Talk:Bubonic plague), as this article deals with the Black Death pandemic, which probably was a pestis pendemic, although some scientists question this. Thomas Blomberg 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion initiated in 2005

Wikivandalism

However, in 1666, gigantic toads besieged London. "They were terribly fierce beasts, who eat our hapless soldiers with their gigantic tongues." In terror, the inhabitants fled to the town hall, and bombarded the invading hordes with cannons and mortars. Eventually, the mayor of London sallied out with a formidable force and routed the frog army. Despite heavy casualties, they were successful. But if plague, fire and frogs wasn't enough, ten years later London was struck by a succession of tornadoes, that sweeped down from the Shetland Islands. The event was blamed on the carnies, who were subsequently driven out of town. However, bands of militant snowmen allied with the exiled carnies and attacked the city in 1679. After several fierce running battles, the Londoners were driven out. But David Beckham became their saviour and just three years after the carnies' victory, he led a force of Ewoks riding spiders that invaded the city. The carnies were defeated and slaughtered to a man, though the snowmen escaped. They would continue to harass Beckham's empire late into the 19th century.

After this violent civil war, relative peace reigned in Britain. Or did it...

You gotta admit that, as Wikivandalism goes, that was at least a good attempt, deserving high marks for its effort and humour value. It was a lot more creative than the usual "@*(&^(*!". Atlant 14:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone mistook Wikipedia for Uncyclopedia... --80.51.70.116 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some days, it's an easy mistake. :-(

Atlant 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cats - particularly Black!

"Another possible theory as to how the plague spread so quickly is that by killing many of the cats (believed to be witchs' familiars) during the witch hunts caused the rodent population to rise, and with them rose the probability of infection." Taken from an anon edit, 12 Apr 2005, 68.174.249.133, later reverted by User:Dmcdevit.

I've heard this one, but don't have the materials on hand to substantiate it. Actually it was probably a social result of the ongoing waves of plague. People looked for scapegoats -- some reason why these horrible things were happening to them -- and often focused on older people who may have survived earlier rounds of the disease (and Jews, of course). The number of accusations of witchcraft increased, and measures became more draconian. These people's pets and livestock were often burned or hung along with them as "familiars." I also remember that it was about this time that the genetic mutation that results in black domestic cats emerged. The sudden appearance of these "black imps of Satan" was mentioned in a couple of sources. This led some historian(s) to speculate about a massive roundup of cats. An interesting bit of information, but perhaps not for the article. WBardwin 20:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-I think the paragraph should be reinstated into the article. Of course there were many different misguided solutions that were attempted, but this one is really quite remarkable because of how ironic it is. --Jleon 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The anon who wrote the original paragraph didn't provide a source. I agree the point is interesting, and perhaps useful in the persecutions or social consequences section. But social points are difficult to document. If I can find a source that includes the material I'm recalling (see above comment), I'll put in a paragraph In the meantime, everyone feel free to look for similar references. WBardwin 00:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dogs, too? While looking into plague in other areas than Europe (see below), I came across:

In July 1348, the governor of Damascus ordered the killing of all dogs in the city for the duration of the epidemic, perhaps because they were eating abandoned human corpses in the street. (Source: Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East.)

I hadn't considered this as a cause for the persecution of cats, as cats usually like their meat fresh, but it might apply. WBardwin 03:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A reported source for this cat information. "Cats." World Book Information Finder. Vers. 2.5. CD-ROM. World Book, Inc. 1994. I haven't looked at this yet. WBardwin 21:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The thought cause at the time was that cats carried the deadly disease; however, by killing cats, people were doing themselves a dis advantage, as cats' naturally prey on rodents, the real cause of the disease." Another thought on cats by an anon. Moved from article by WBardwin 00:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cats DO carry the deadly disease. They can directly infect their owners and others who handle them with pneumonic plague. I'm not sure whether they can also carry disease-causing fleas or other parasites. See the Centers for Disease Control Health Advisory on Plague http://www.co.boulder.co.us/health/hpe/cdc/healthadviso....and the Utah State University Extension Animal Heatlh Fact Sheet: CAT PLAGUE--Veterinarians Caution (July 1997). MargaretDelacy 24.21.140.66 05:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This theory, while widespread, is wrong in part because it suffers from a peoblem with cronology. Witchcraft persecution (and the recognition of the crime of witchcraft) did not begin to emerge until the mid 15th century -- roughly 150 years AFTER the plague. Malleus Maleficarum, for instance was published in 1486, and even that predated the main witchcraft hysteria of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Addition to "Consequences" section?

Shouldn't we mention that one of the accepted results of the Black Death was the massive peasant revolts (i.e. Jacquerie, Great Peasants' Revolt in England, revolts across south France, Italy, and Germany) that affected mostly Western Europe, rather than Eastern Europe which was hit much less by the disease. Other factors include the famines, wars, skyrocketting food prices, and the landlords' efforts to fix wages and generally restrict the now-scarce peasants. This may have led to greater freedoms for the peasant class and the roots of capitalism.

Additional consequences -- the massive drop in European population led logically to to a similar reduction in workforce. Workers were more valued and the aristocracy began to provide incentives to keep and attract workers. This ultimately led to an upgrade in the rights of peasants, the decline of fuedalism and the establishment of guilds and merchant groups. A teacher of mine quipped that the Black Death "birthed" the middle class. 2/05 -W (an anonymous)

This is true but it didnt happen right away, it took 150+ years for the aristocracy to lower rents.. see Popular revolt in late medieval Europe which goes in to this in more detail (and mentions the black death as one of the causes). All of these things are inter-related, nothing "caused" somthing else they are all factors, really we need a higher-level article that ties it all together, perhaps a history of europe in the 14th and 15th century. --Stbalbach 18:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

is there any good website on this topic

Both this article and bubonic plague have link sections at the bottom. A quick search will pull up a number of sites, often history oriented. In addition:

[1] -- This one is only average, but contains links to accounts from the time period.

[2] -- primary source in translation. This one's a little better.

[3] eMedicine site - Good medical info.

Hope you put these to constructive use. Welcome to Wikipedia. WBardwin 21:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I really want to learn about an event, I like to look at the contemporary accounts (not necessarily for factual accuracies, but to get a good sense of what it was like). There are a few useful sites for this. I love reading the accounts of Petrarch and Boccaccio, some of the more famous chroniclers; see [4] (Petrarch, etc.)and [5] (Boccaccio's Decameron). Also see the accounts of more common folk, like Henry Knighton of England [6], and Adnolo di Tura the Fat of Siena [7] -- though I wish I could find the full text of these accounts, I hate the highlights, which seem to be the same quote on every website. Enjoy! (I feel kind of guilty about saying enjoy about the Black Death...) --Dmcdevit 01:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is black death communicable or non communicable?

is black death communicable or non communicable?

The Black Death - the bubonic plague - is primarily spread through an animal vector, fleas. One flea bites an infected animal/person and then transmits the disease to all other animals/persons it bites. However, when human beings get the plague, it can manifest itself in several ways. Two of these, pnumonic and septicemic, can actually become communicable person to person because of infected body fluids. When this happens, the rate of infection increases rapidly. Most scholars believe that the pnumonic plague, which settles in the lungs, and transmission from coughing, is the mechanism that made the Black Death so widespread in Europe. See Bubonic plague for more detailed information on the disease itself. WBardwin 19:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that not all scholars agree that it was bubonic plague. In general though, I do think most scholars will agree that the disease, whatever it was, was communicable, as the spread seemed to follow the trade routes, moving inland more slowly.--Dmcdevit 22:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plague in Poland

The exaple of Poland is especially notable, because it was the king Casimir_III_of_Poland goverment who stopped the spread of plague. The 40 day quarantine of foreigners and free distribution of food prevented black death from spreading in Poland.

This addition by an anonymous was reverted by a brand new contributer - Oo64eva - but with no reason given. Anyone know anything more about the plague in Poland? WBardwin 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-With 62.87.224.216’s poor grammar and spelling aside, there is no indication that the stifled spread of the Black Death in Poland had anything to do with actions taken by Casimir III. This is merely speculation and Wikipedia is no place for speculation. If somebody could cite some well documented evidence of Casimir III's prevention of the Black Plauge, that would be sufficient. Sorry for my failure to report the reason for removal on the discussion page. It is apparent to me that this practice makes a good contributor great. oo64eva (AJ) 00:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with oo64eva (AJ). While the quarantine may have been in effect, Poland is a landlocked country. So, whereas Ireland and Iceland may have had some success, it's obvious as to why a quarantine in Poland would have been both impossible and ineffective. Some theories state that Eastern regions like Poland, Bohemia, and parts of other local kingdoms may have been spared because of the cold temperatures caused a dormancy (if you ascribe to the bacterial Yersinia theory). That Casimir is responsible is simply an untenable statement. --Dmcdevit 01:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While the quarantine may have been in effect, Poland is a landlocked country.

Ehh? That sentence is a bit ambiguously written. Does it mean "during the time of the quarantine, Poland was landlocked?" 'Cause Poland the modern country certainly isn't landlocked.

Atlant 22:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. Poland has had, shall we say, somewhat transitory borders. The current borders that extend to the Baltic include historically German (Prussian) lands that were awarded to Poland after WWII from the former German holdings. Historic Poland has traditionally been borderd to the north by Prussia, east by Russia, west and south by Hungary, Austria, etc. (not to mention the other small local kingdoms).--Dmcdevit 23:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Social Changes

In regards to this recent addition:

Some historians credit the Black Death for helping or opening the way for the Renaissance and even the Reformation, as a direct or indirect result of peasant freedoms gained in the social upheaval left in the plague's wake. However this has been rejected as some who view the time passed between the events to have been to great for such an effect. Notably, these kinds of peasant revolts were more uncommon in more sparsely populated and less affected Easten Europe. As the social upheaval caused by Black Death has been seen by some as a factor that helped to bring about the Renaissance and even the Reformation, historians have cited this as a reason for Eastern Europe's failure to experience either of these movements on a similar scale as the West. Extrapolating from this, the Black Death may be seen as a contributing factor for Eastern Europe's considerable lag in scientific and philosophical advances as well as in the move to liberalise government by restricting the power of the monach and aristocracy. A common example is that England is seen to have effectively ended serfdom by 1550 while moving towards more representative government; meanwhile, serfdom was not abolished in Russia until the autocratic tsar decreed so in the nineteenth century.

There are some problems with this. First, I don't know any serious historian who says the Black Death caused the Renaissance, in fact the Renaissance is such a large, diffuse event taking place over hundreds of years across vast geopolitical areas there is no single cause, like turning on a faucet. It would be like saying there is a single cause of modernity. Indeed, the Renaissance is an invention of the 19th century, it was not an actual thing, no one alive at the time heard of it. Also, what we envision as a Renaissance, was well underway in Italy prior to (and during) the Black Death. Second, who are these "some historians"? That is often code-word for "in my opinion". Next, the theory that the Black Death is the reason for Eastern Europe developing more slowly.. again, this is a highly simplified approach to a very complex question. Who came up with this idea, who can I read to learn more about this theory and the supporting evidence behind it? I would suggest reading Medieval demography which discusses the question on why there was a delay between the "crisis of the 14th century" (reduced population) and the increased incomes of the lowerclass because of more available land. This is not a simple topic and cant be boiled down to a single cause of just the Black Death. Finally I would add, if you want to discuss in detail the question of social upheavels, Black Death is just one of many social upheavels, see also Great Famine of 1315-1317 and Hundred's Year War and Popular revolt in late medieval Europe .. there are more but not yet on Wikipedia. Stbalbach 02:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't quite see where you are seeing this from what is written. Nowhere does it say "the Black Death caused the Renaissance". Everywhere this suggestion is couched in terms like "helped" and "contributing factor", that it is a factor at the very least, like the rest of the crises, cannot really be denied. You seem to be denying that it was a mojor cause, but that is simply not sain in the text. I would suggest you read McKay (if memory serves) and similar historians, as well as to some extent Cantor. many suggest that it was a foctor of varying degrees. I would never suggest that it is a simple idea, but I think you are simplifying what is written. Also, I do think you are trying to reduce the importance of this plague, as it is easy to see why it would have been a contributing factor or even cause of the peasants' revolts and economic devastation (other crises). Also it is downright myopic to say that the Hundred Years' War caused much of the effects of the fourteenth century crises, as it effected only England and France, whereas the upheaval was Eurpoe-wide for the most part. As for your assertion that the Renaissance began before the Black Death, I would point out that few "serious" historians would place it that far forward, and certainly none of its defining aspects came until much later. In short, please reread the passage and notice that it is not unequivocal or POV. I would encourage you to expand on the opposing view if you believe it is neglected. --Dmcdevit 03:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we are on the same page. Someone without any background of other events to guide them could read this sentence "Some historians credit the Black Death for helping or opening the way for the Renaissance" and come away with a strong sense that the Black Death caused or was the primary cause of the Renaissance. In any case, this topic is large and needs a seperate article to explore in detail, perhaps Crisis of the 14th century, which ties together the other events (famine, war, revolt), and presents the various theories of how they fit together; the one presented here is one view, but it's not the best place to discuss the crisis of the 14th and 15th centuries.. not tucked away in half a paragraph of the Black Death article, without citations, and without sources. This is just the nature of an evolving Wikipedia. Once we have a Crisis.. article, then it's possible to write a Origins of the Renaissance article, which then becomes the lead section of the Renaissance article. Stbalbach 19:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, for clarification: I was not the original writer of the Some historians credit the Black Death for helping or opening the way for the Renaissance" sentence. If you'll take a look at the edit history, I took that sentence that was out of place at the end and integrated it into the first paragraph where it made logical sense, expanding the content to clarify the theory. --66.210.243.130 22:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Dmcdevit, not bothering to log in :) )

Wait now... Your last edit just totally got rid of any mention of the Black Death --> Renaissance theory. I realize you may not agree, but think about Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It means giving a fair shake to all sides, whether you agree with it or not, even whether its the more popular one or not. Your new wording is much too definitive on a contentious issue, and you talked to me about simplification. To say that it is simply "not satisfactory", is too imply that the theory's proponents have no evidence, which isn't true. The fact is that Britain, for one, passed the Statute of Labourors, which fixed wages, as the nobles' reaction to empowered peasants. I suggest you read the acconts of Agnolo di Tura and (if I remember, I'm accessing this from a computer away from home) Henry Knighton, who both complain of peasants moving off the land to find and demand better wages (sounds a little like capitalism). This kind of legislation passed across western Europe was largely unsuccessful, as it was unenforcable, there were always landlords willing to pay more for labor. Also it is simplistic to suggest serfdom disappeared spontaneously in the sixteenth century. There was no decree as in Russia, instead it had been a slow evolution, so the time frame arguent does not necessarily hold up. Not to mention the fact that the Black Death cannot be so easilt defined between a five or ten year range, it continued to return for centuries, even more reason that the time-frame argument is not the indestructable article you claim. Please NPOV the article so both sides are treated fairly.--Dmcdevit 01:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it was the nobles reaction (fixing wages, etc) that caused the 150+ year delay in benefits to the peasant class. I'm not sure your reading what I wrote correctly. Have you read the Demography article? As I said before, this is a large and complex topic that should not be in the Black Death article, it needs a seperate article, called Crisis of the 14th and 15th centuries, that goes into the causes and theories in detail, without being restricted by the context of the Black Death article.. I dont disagree BD was important, very important, but its not that simple. A single paragraph or two is going to be simplistic no matter what. Also, the renaissance theory is still there. Stbalbach 02:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• My point was, and I suppose I didn't make this clear, wage-fixing legislation was almost universally unsuccessful, as only the landlords who broke the law would be the ones to get the laborers. The wave of peasant revolts largely came after the reactionary legislation: Statute of Labourers (which I was surpried has a - poorly written - article here under the American spelling) was in 1351, and the English Peasant Revolt was in 1381. But anyway, what I'm saying is, in the interest of POV, you must say also the merits of the BD leads to Ren theory, and not merely dismiss it as is your personal opinion. --Dmcdevit 04:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh.. from the article: Because the social upheavals of the 14th and 15th centuries were caused in part by the Black Death, the Black Death is seen by some as a factor in the Renaissance and even the Reformation. Stbalbach 07:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article name change

As is typical on Wikipedia, someone made a name change on a major article without any discussion first, and we now have a rats nest of incoming links that are unresolved. I would like to hear the justification for this change, and who is going to spend the time to clean up the incoming links. If these things are not resolved, I recommend we change it back to its original name untill these issues are resolved. Stbalbach 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• I recommend we change it right now, I would have already but I'm in the middle of other things. And it looks as it the mover went offline right after the move. The move is against policy to exclude articles (grammatical ones, I mean) in titles. Actually, it's kind of funny, have you looked at Mkweise's talk page (the mover). --Dmcdevit 21:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I vote to change it back as well. Our mover is an admin., no less, but his talk page reveals a tendency to make odd and perhaps inappropriate title changes. I asked him to respond here with his reasoning. We shall see..........WBardwin 07:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, our general policy is to omit articles from titles. In this case, however, the inclusion or omission of the definite article changes the meaning of the phrase: "The Black Death" refers to the historical epidemic and the period of European history characterized by it, whereas "Black Death" is simply a synonym for bubonic plague. While we have many policies governing article naming, the prime directive remains is that the name of an article should identify its subject.

Also, note that this article had originally been started at The Black Death and then moved to Black Death by cutting-and-pasting rather than the move command, requiring a delete-move-undelete in order to reconstitute the article history. As for my talk page, LOL...the dozen or so cases where someone objected are somewhere around 1% of all the page moves I've performed over the years. No big deal, as it's just as easy for anyone to move back if called for by consensus. Mkweise 14:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The prime directive is it be clear. Almost all incoming links are Black Death, without the the. For the bubonic plague it is clearly identified as such in the disambig. No one has a problem w/ that. More significant, you made a name change on a major article w/out discussion or consensus or fixing broken links; no matter what the reasoning, it was wrong to do so. Stbalbach 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Black Death used properly always refers to this event, and not a disease. Indeed, if you read the page, you'll see that there is no agreement that the disease even was bubonic plague. And, as The Black Death is neither a title of a work, or an official name, it needs no article. From the convention: "If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." We say the Black Death. Besides, if your purpose in changing the title is to correct the meaning of the term, then you should have redirected just "Black Death" to bubonic plague, which is the meaning you assign it. But surely this would ruin most links here, so there's no point. --Dmcdevit 19:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That graph again

I tried to fix the Image:BlackDeath graph.jpg, but ran into some difficulty as I neither have Excel nor am I very good at this type of stuff. Could someone else can fix it? It needs to be recreated to clear up copyright status and make it better. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 19:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it even fixable? A graph like that needs a lot of support (a book even). I also dont think its accurate as it misses the Great Famine (I made a note to that effect). It also shows a steep upward climb after the back death, which is not what happened according to most demographers. I think the graph has a lot of problems, but is visually dramatic. We need better supporting evidence, in fact the whole thing could easily be challenged on original research grounds.Stbalbach 00:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, I certainly agree with you there. Indeed, I went to the site it says it comes from and the numbers don't match up (the site has no numbers specific to 1351, for example). Although, if you do go to that website, [8], some kind of online book, the numbers for total European population seem to be mainstream. 1345 levels aren't reached again until just after 1500. If we used just those numbers, it would show the whole crisis of the fourteenth century in one drop, which is dramatic and accurate, if oversimplified. We could work with that, but I'd like numbers before and after the plague too, so it doesn't look like it lasted until 1400, then went straight up. And stress estimates. --Dmcdevit 06:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Plague and the silk road

Does it say anywhere how the plague was spread along the silk road?

The Silk Road was one of the most trafficked trade routes between Europe and East Asia. Presumably the Black Death could have spread along that route just as it did though Europe's trade routes. I'm not sure what the question is here... Dmcdevit·t 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Recurrence of the plague

Under the Recurrence section, it says that the plague disappeared after the Great Plague of London in 1665-66, and yet at the top it talks about the Great Plague of Vienna in 1679. This doesn't add up :S Can anyone help?

My sense is that the Vienna plague is both less major (or just less well known) and less certain to be bubonic plague. In any case, I think the convention, rightly or wrongly, is to credit teh Great Plague of london as the last major occurence. I've reworded the sentence to make it less strong/definitive. Does that clear it up? Dmcdevit·t 23:44, 15 October 2005

Discussion initiated in 2006

Map somewhat anachronistic

I like the map which shows the spread of the plague, but it's a bit anachronistic. Preferably, it would show the country borders at the time, instead of the present borders. Junes 20:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Last Death

Section below moved from article for clarification. Last Black Death victim?? Last victim of bubonic plague?? Date of death?? Source?? WBardwin 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"A Swedish captain named Johan Strandberg in Norrtälje in Stockholm's skerries is the last known victim of this disease with deadly outcome [year unknown]."

historians

Still, the majority of historians support the theory that the bubonic plague caused the black death, so counterarguments have been developed.

Shouldn't it be the other way round? The fact that counterarguments exist is surely why historians still support the other theory.Furby100 21:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Blackened" Skin - syndrome??

Section below removed from article for clarification -- source? how does this differ from the symptom presented in the article? WBardwin 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

...called DIC (Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation), in which sufferers' skin would blacken due to subdermal hemorrhages, DIC by its self was fatal and still is today.'

Ring Around the Rosey

68.82.185.66 added and another user reverted the following text:

the children's song ring around the Rosey talks about the black death it tells you what the disease was like.

This wasn't very well written, but it is essentially true. Would someone care to take a stab at writing this better?

Atlant 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not in the article as it is an urban legend. Rmhermen 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiously enough, our own Ring a Ring O'Roses article isn't quite as sure as you are.

Atlant 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reference cited further up on this page. Reference at Snopes -- WBardwin 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This was on smallpox, actually.

Plague in America

I have heard that there are currently animals infected with the plague running about in the United States. The map on your "Third Pandemic" page confirms this, although there is no mention of the plague in America in the text itself. I had heard that the plague was brought over from Europe or something to control the prairie dog population (wise decision).

Re at least your first statement, a'yup. See:

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2006/05/21/news/regional/837a3691f3c07a0687257173005ab370.txt

Atlant 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the prairie dog control idea -- sounds like something government would do. But isolated populations of California rodents were infected with plague during the Third Pandemic outbreak. It hit San Francisco when infected rats, fleas and people arrived in port from areas of China and India. New York City faced a similar problem in their dock area. The SF city rodents evidently spread the disease to some rural areas, and it has since staked out a place in wilderness areas. However, plague outbreaks and human casulties have always been limited in the western US. WBardwin 21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a small presence of black plague today in the US. But this is not for this article. Tazmaniacs 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)