What if the Black Death occurs 150 years earlier in Europe?

I'm thinking particularly in terms of its effects on the Crusades, and the "Latin Empire", in particular. Would the Fourth Crusade, which captured Constantinople from the Byzantines in 1204, ever have occurred, if Western Europe had just suffered the devastating loss of manpower that occurred as the result of the Black Death? Indeed, wouldn't losing 40-50% of the population effectively spell end of the Crusades? Aside from the practicalities of shipping huge numbers of men to fight in the Holy Land given a massive loss of manpower, bear in mind that the motto of the Crusades was "Deus lo vult" -- God Wills It. Now, the Black Death occurring earlier during the Crusades would have sent a very clear message indeed, a very clear omen that "Deus no lo vult" -- God doesn't want it! Now, if the Crusaders never sack Constantinople, then the Byzantine Empire has a much better chance of surviving and holding out against the Turks, for much longer. Indeed, one could argue that the very reason for the rise of the Turkish Empire was that they filled a power vacuum in the region, largely created by the Crusaders destroying utterly the existing power structure in the Middle East in general, and in Turkey in particular. So, the Byzantine Empire may survive, and the Turkish Empire may never really come into being, at all. If this is the case, then the trade routes to the east will never by cut off to Western Europe, by the Turkish Empire, since it never comes into being. If this is true, then there is much less incentive for the voyages of discovery by the Portuguese and the Spanish, and the discovery of the New World may be delayed, perhaps by a century or more, probably delaying the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, by a century or more. Thoughts? COMMENT REPLIES tiberarran So the answer to your question is probably yes. Understand though the reason the Crusades began in the first place is not religious fervor. I'm sure that the Pope actually did consider the idea of recapturing Jerusalem and other holy cities to Christendom to be a good thing and Urban was certainly pious enough. However, two things truly drove the motivation of the Papacy. Urban and the Papacy wanted the wars that plagued Christian Europe to end since they undermined his authority and threatened Papal power. Alexios I had intimated that if help was sent the Eastern Rite Christians might be open to a reconciliation with Rome. This was a ploy used several times to garner gullible Papal authorities into calling or even sending aid and the split was still fairly fresh to make this seem more reality than farce though Alexios lacked the authority to make this commitment and he probably had no intention of ever even following up on it. It was a powerful carrot though and Urban ran with it. The other important thing to remember is that Alexios never actually wanted the Crusades as they became. He wanted men to assist in recapturing swaths of Anatolia and perhaps dreamed of breaking back into Armenia and Syria eventually, but the massive armies that showed up on his doorstep in the latter parts of the 11th century were not what he wanted at all. For one thing he had to feed and supply them since it would not do to irritate these powerful armies brittle as Byzantine power was at the time. Once the Crusades had actually seized the Holy Lands they formed their own principalities rather than turning the lands back over to the Byzantines which also contravened Alexios desires. All that context laid in place let's get to your question. So the Black Death arrived in Christian Europe in 1347 in Sicily and spread like absolute wildfire throttling Christian Europe for decades and killing enough people that the population levels wouldn't recover for 200 years. Let's assume the Crusades had progressed as given to this point and all other historical events are intact including the Islamic recapture of Jerusalem in 1187. Does the 4th Crusade happen? The answer is actually yes and in fact is probably better off than the actual Fourth Crusade which was mostly funded by the Venetians on the promise of the Crusaders paying it. After racking up enormous debts to the Venetians the Crusaders agreed to pay it off by intimidating the ports along the Adriatic and sacking Zara which had thrown off Venetian sovereignty several years earlier. These acts led to the Crusade being excommunicated, a fact which the leaders concealed from their followers, and after wintering in Zara they were given a rather interesting proposition. The son of the recently deposed Isaac II, a certain Alexios Angelos, offered to fully fund the entire expedition along with a host of other promises that were likely nonsense he had no intention of following through on, the only catch was they had to install him as Emperor. The Crusade, desperately short of money even after sacking Zara, couldn't resist and so arrived and achieved their end. Unfortunately Alexios was horribly unpopular, made promises he couldn't keep, and generally inflamed and irritated both the notoriously fickle Byzantine nobility and people who deposed and then murdered him in favor of another Emperor. Long story short the Crusaders, in retaliation and because they weren't paid, sacked the city crippling the Byzantine Empire for the next 60 years until it was recaptured and the Empire restored. The Crusade would still occur, but they wouldn't sack Constantinople. I'll actually break this into two posts as this is getting terribly long, but I will get to everything I promise. So why would the Crusade still go forward if Christian Europe is gripped in the midst of a horrible plague and the answer lies primarily in two parts. The first is the psychology of Christian Europe in High Middle Ages and understanding the supreme grasp that Christianity had in the mind of its people. The second is the pragmatic aspects of a plague that actually make it more likely to occur and with better overall results. When Innocent III issued his call for a Crusade he got little to no response. He was currently embroiled in a dispute with the Holy Roman Empire (when wasn't the Papacy), England and France were in the midst of a war (again when weren't they in the Middle Ages) and enthusiasm had somewhat diminished in general. Crusades were horribly expensive in manpower, money, and time that most kings and kingdoms simply couldn't afford. Another difficulty arose from the fact that a king on Crusade couldn't trust his rivals not to take advantage of his absence and so they required cooperation such as the 3rd Crusade with Richard, Philip, and Frederick though none of them really trusted each other. Assuming a plague really does break out it at least tempers English and French rivalry out of necessity more than desire since it would make it really difficult to feed and maintain an army during a plague. Otto IV probably is still bitterly embroiled in his fight with the Pope, but it's also possible that Otto might assist Innocent if Innocent were willing to recognize Otto as the Holy Roman Emperor. Innocent really really wanted a Crusade, but he also really hated Otto so I can't say with any confidence whether that rapprochement could actually have happened in this alternate timeline. When Innocent issues his proclamation under these conditions there are a couple of pragmatic reasons for the princes to set aside their issues and take the Cross. Firstly, it gets them away from the plague itself as the Black Death didn't really scour the Holy Lands quite like it did Europe and in the midst of a plague if I had an excuse to get away I'd take it. With both sides hampered by the plague I could easily see John and Philip (particularly the more pious Philip) come to some agreement and go on Crusade as Philip had done with John's brother a decade earlier. Secondly, the people will not look kindly on war since they're dying and famine is likely hovering around them with a lot of peasants who farm the land dead. A holy war on the other hand would be incredibly favorable to the people and many would join for a number of reasons we'll cover in the psychology of Christian Europe. Third, money wouldn't be an issue for the kings at this time, I know that seems counter intuitive, but the primary way of raising money a king had was taxes and titles. When a noble lord died all of his titles could be returned to his liege lord or in this case the king. It was commonly thought these titles are hereditary because often they were simply conferred via a will upon the first son, but this is incorrect. The very fact that the will was necessary to confer such titles should make this clear, but a king could and did strip nobles of titles and land for monetary purposes particularly to resell them at profit. Kings didn't make a habit of it because nobles were fickle and a king could anger the wrong one, but a bunch of people dying in a plague makes this type of thing a buyers market for land and titles and many a king got rich during the Black Death, indeed it's one of the things that funded England's coffers during the 100 Year's War which was fought during the Black Death. Another lesser point, but the nobles also aren't likely to cause as much trouble during a plague as they are normally. French and English nobles weren't likely to try to depose a king in his absence especially on Crusade, but that didn't mean they couldn't be really irritating, look no further than John's dealing with the English nobles in Richard's absence to get my point. The psychology of Christian Europe in the High Middle Ages is a fascinating topic so to understand why the Crusade would still occur understand that Christian Europe saw the Black Death as God's Judgement upon them. Now you could pick the reasons for his judgement, your lack of true devotion, lack of penance, life of debauchery, and on and on. The point is that the Papacy would pick their reason for you and that reason would center on Muslim control of the Holy Land and the only way to stop this plague on the Earth was to go forth and retake them. The Papacy tried this during the actual Black Death, but the difference here is that Jerusalem had been in Islamic hands for well over two centuries at that point and few people placed stock in their call. Jerusalem hadn't even been in Islamic hands for two decades in 1204 and their case is much stronger. Papal influence was still strong in the early 13th century, but had waned for a number of reasons by the 14th century and would continue it's decline with minor reversals until the present day, specifically it's secular power and theocratic hold over secular princes. When Innocent makes his call in 1198 for a new Crusade he's in a much more powerful position because he can use the Black Death to stoke fear and religious fervor and that's a potent combination given the pragmatic reasons for princes to take up the Cross. Innocent's hand in 1198 in the OTL was weak and played poorly given his contentious relationship with both Otto and John. The Black Death might be seen as God's Judgement by the people, but as far as Innocent is concerned it would have been divine intervention for his dream of a new Crusade. The irony of your timeline is that rather than hurting the Fourth Crusade it assures its creation and probably a fulfillment of it's original intent as it would almost certainly have been better funded, equipped, and unlikely to incur the enormous debt the OTL Crusade did. Thanks for the great question really enjoyed it! I'll cover how this effects the Byzantine Empire and the New World exploration in reply to this just give me a little bit to get it done. Reply Share Report Save Give gold jerrykraus 1 point · 19 hours ago Thankyou, Sir, for your brilliant and incredibly insightful comment. You obviously put a great deal of work into this, and I genuinely appreciate it, for what that's worth, anyway. Very interesting perspective. So, you still think a fourth Crusade would have occurred, and they would have mustered sufficient forces to take Constantinople, then, even after a plague of the level of the Black Death? I guess I might be underestimating the power and deviousness of the Medieval Papacy, both of which were truly enormous, I suppose. So, effectively, the whole idea of the Crusades was simply to centralize power in Europe under the control of Rome, at the expense of the temporal powers in Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, France, England and the Italian City States etc.? Effectively, the Muslims and the Holy Land were simply an irrelevant but highly effective distraction, ruse and incentive? Reply Share Save Edit tiberarran 2 points · 16 hours ago This is in response to your reply to my original post and unfortunately this will make things somewhat weirdly complicated as I just posted part two of my response below. Now to your question. The Crusaders wouldn't have sacked Constantinople mostly because I expect one of Philip, Otto, or John probably a combination thereof to be along for the trip. The leaders of the Fourth Crusade could all plead helplessness or lack of knowledge or blame someone else. A king of their nature would have risked Excommunication on himself and an Interdict of his whole kingdom by attacking other Christian cities. Also being better funded they wouldn't have needed to pay off the Venetians by sacking Zara or needed Alexios IV money. Therefore they would have simply gone to the Holy Land instead of fooling around at either place. You probably are underestimating the power of the Medieval Papacy though that power waxed and waned with the Pope. Deviousness might be the wrong word though I suppose it could be applied to a number of its Popes so it can stand. Innocent wasn't devious, shrewd is probably a more apt description though he was one of the better Popes of his time. The biggest mistake people make with regards to the Papacy is their perception of it viewed thru a modern lens. For much of its history, probably the better part of sixteen hundred years the Papacy is both a secular and theological authority. The theology is second to its secular power, but in many ways that secular power is tied to its theological power so its something of a chicken and egg thing. I personally would lend the theological power first, but by the Middle Ages they saw themselves every bit kings as they did Popes and ruled over much of Central Italy for good measure. So yes, you probably are underestimating both their power and deviousness as you put it. The Crusades could certainly be seen and understood in the light of Papal assertion of temporal power over those kingdoms. It's not the whole aspect of it, but it played a part and they desired to unify Christendom in a Holy War against the Muslim invaders. There is also no doubt that the Pope desired to lessen the power of the Byzantine Empire and through it the Orthodox or Eastern Rite Church which was, at the time, the only true rival to their theological authority. Eliminate or subjugate that rival and their power would have increased manifold and as I intimated their theological power was directly tied to their secular power so if you increased one you increased the other. You can begin to understand their desire to subjugate Byzantium to their will then. Irrelevant might be too far, they certainly aimed their vitriol at them and it was unquestionably genuine. A better word would probably be scapegoat, much as they scapegoated the Jews or other small sects of heretics or disbelievers. Distraction and incentive were certainly true, ruse less so, Urban wanted to retake the Holy Lands from the infidels it was insulting that their Lord and Saviors birth place and their holiest cities were in Islamic hands. Remember that Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem were all important cities in the early church it wasn't just Jerusalem that they wanted though it was the most important. So it wasn't a ruse per say, but it was certainly a useful distraction meant to increase their temporal power and theological reach by bringing back Eastern Rite Christians under the power of the Catholic Church. Needless to say they failed ultimately, but they did have early successes especially the First Crusade. Really love the questions thanks so much it's been a lot of fun working on this! Reply Share Report Save Give gold tiberarran 2 points · 16 hours ago So the Crusaders never sack Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire is in a much stronger position to resist the Ottoman invasion into Anatolia. Except this isn't really the case, understand that the sacking of Constantinople was not the disease that killed the Byzantine Empire it was a symptom. To illustrate this let's return to Alexios Angelos IV the son of Isaac II and the man who had solicited the help of the Fourth Crusade. His father Isaac had seized the throne from a cruel potentate by the name of Andronikos I who had devolved the Byzantine Empire into something of a terror state before his deposition. Isaac ruled for several years, fairly incompetently, and faced a number of problems the most vexing of which was the Bulgarian-Vlach rebellion which formed the Second Bulgarian Empire and was to remain free and independent of the Byzantine rule ever after. Following a multitude of setbacks he himself was deposed by his older brother Alexios Angelos III while he was away on a hunting trip. He was blinded and imprisoned but his son escaped and appealed to his brother-in-law Conrad of Monteferrat who had joined with the Fourth Crusade. Alexios Angelos IV returned with his army forced Alexios III out and had himself installed as co-emperor with his blind and now enfeebled father. They were then forced out and killed by the people under the auspices of the powerful court official Alexios Doukas who became Alexios V before he himself was deposed by the members of the Fourth Crusade for breaking promises he had not made (though when it came to money that hardly mattered). The politics of the Byzantine Empire particularly as time went on had grown more and more, for lack of a better word, Byzantine. It is this flaw that truly broke the Empire not the loss of Constantinople. Yes, Constantinople's loss crippled the Empire and the split up into client kingdoms for almost 60 years hastened it's downfall, but the Empire was already in substantial decline and with or without Constantinople I doubt they would have been sufficiently equipped to handle the Ottoman invasions after the collapse of the Sultanate of Rum. The Empire was incredibly weak, it's power brittle, it was almost entirely reliant on foreign mercenaries even by that early stage of 13th century and politically it was a cesspool of ever changing nobles. The loss of Constantinople was a knife to the heart, a fatal irrevocable blow from which the Empire might never recover. The simple truth is that by the time of that fatal stab wound the Empire had been brain dead for decades and despite the occasional spark of activity an enterprising Emperor could provide it over the next two and a half centuries it never truly rose from it's slumber. No amount of physical health on it's part could have fixed or accounted for this brain death. None of the Emperors from Andronikos I to Alexios V a span of 30 years and five men had inherited the throne peacefully or shown competency for it. Few enough of the men after 1261 showed more such and the Empire limped along for 190 years. Whether Constantinople endures or not I'm not sure it makes a difference specifically because the Byzantine Empire declined at precisely the same time the Seljuk Turks did. By the time the Byzantine Empire had returned to a semblance of power the Ottomans under a beyzid known as Osman had come to substantial power. At a glance it seems that a whole Byzantine Empire could have taken advantage of this collapse in Anatolia to strengthen their hand, but it requires two things the Byzantines lacked at a time when they specifically needed it most. The first is a powerful, competent, and militarily astute emperor who could lead them to victories and understood the administrative side of the empire enough to prevent its fiscal collapse. The second is a motivated army and nobility that would stand firmly behind their emperor for at least a decade or more and not engage in the internecine politics that plagued the Byzantine Empire continuously and that was currently wracking it at the very moment of the Fourth Crusade. Neither seems likely, of the current Emperors given none possessed the qualities required. Isaac was capable of status quo rule, but he had exhausted the coffers of the Empire buying friends for his overthrow of Andronikos and expeditions against the Bulgarians. Alexios III failed to rise even to the level of Isaac and emptied the treasury lavishing nobles to keep them at bay and repay them for their part in overthrowing Isaac. Alexios IV was generally despised by the commoner and noble alike and perhaps set the lowest of the bar with Alexios V barely having enough time to make his mark. None possessed the foresight and wisdom nor the martial abilities required to seize opportunity of any consequence such as was required to keep the throne let alone make inroads in Anatolia before the Ottomans. If I gave the Byzantines a remarkable ruler like Leo the Isuarian or Alexios I perhaps other great Emperors who arose when the need was dire or the day momentous. Alas none lay before us truly the Ottomans timeline would be little altered by the wholeness of the Empire, it wasn't the body that was broken first it was the mind and spirit, in that sense Constantinople was a consequence not a cause. Could the Byzantines have forestalled judgement longer, maybe, but given the squabbling and pettiness that paralyzed their Empire for its final centuries I very much doubt that it could. As to how it would have affected the expeditions to the New World, it wouldn't have altered much had they survived longer. The fall of the Byzantine Empire has always been given greater consequence on the affairs and trips of the New World. The body of the Empire was barely cold before the the Venetians and Genoa had worked out new trade deals with Suleiman and his new dynasty. The flow of goods and materials were not greatly altered and the taxes and restrictions on such trade agreements were lessened in as many areas as they were increased due to the nature of such deals. The Ottomans needed trade just as Western Europe had and both hardly questioned the theological differences for the profits to be had. Did the fall of the Byzantine Empire expedite ambitions further West, unquestionably, but Christopher Columbus was barely two at the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Cortez, Pizarro, Ponce de Leon, and every British and French explorer of note weren't even yet born. So if the fall so greatly hastened the the appetite why the delay of forty years? The truth is that the loss of Constantinople was not so great a tragedy as it has been made out and indeed it was somewhat a boon as Constantinople's luster had dimmed with the Empire. It was a dilapidated, depopulated, and war torn city that was but a shadow of its former glory. The Ottomans returned it to much of its former glory and access to trade routes since cut off to the Byzantines suddenly flowed again with Ottoman support and encouragement. The reason rulers began to look West was not because of the death of the Byzantine Empire, but the rise of the Ottomans as a power of consequence. What territory could be had in the Balkans, Greece, Bulgaria, Anatolia, the Holy Lands themselves now seemed placed beyond the reach of any of the great powers of Europe and the idea of contesting a power like the Ottomans was a weary thought. The New World was a land of untapped potential with unknown lands, wealth, and little resistance of consequence. Such potential was intoxicating and certainly more interesting than confronting the Ottoman Turks against whom the gains were as unlikely as the fight was unappetizing. The conquest of Iberia is far more consequential to Columbus expedition than the fall of Constantinople and you'll notice the timeline seems far more straightforward than bridging the gap between 1453 and 1492. If the New World was so important following the fall of Constantinople Venice and Genoa both possessed the maritime and material wealth to see it explored both turned down Columbus cold 40 years later, seems the necessity was as great as made out. EDIT: This is the second of two parts to answer your questions in the original post sorry it took so long, but I'm hopeful you'll find this useful it's not an answer to your reply just saw that and am now working on responding. Thanks! Reply

Universal Collisions

Universal Collisions, Existence is Transition, Drizzling drunkenly like Falling Stars, I hear your kind and sympathetic Wars.

Charles Darwin's Down's Syndrome child, Charles Jr., lives to adulthood

The year before he published "The Origin of Species", Charles Darwin's wife gave birth, at the age of 48, to their last child, Charles Darwin Jr., who suffered from Down's Syndrome. There's a considerable, indeed, almost an overwhelming irony in this, in that Charles Darwin's entire life was devoted to promoting the notion of "The survival of the fittest", as the natural and rational model for all of existence, and, The Origin of Species was his seminal work advocating this notion. So, simultaneously with publishing a work supporting the ideals of British racial superiority, British imperialism, British "liberal" robber baron capitalism, our friend is trying to raise a little boy bearing his own name, who is not very fit or superior, at all! Young Charles Darwin Jr. is most unlikely to win or even survive any competitions. But, fortunately for his career, Charles Darwin, wealthy scion of the most notable medical and industrial families in Britain, was a very resourceful man. So, when Charles heard of a scarlet fever epidemic in the local village, he very astutely hired a "nurse" from the infected village to "take care of" young Charles Jr. Quite naturally, Charles Jr. died at the age of 18 months of scarlet fever, while the "nurse" survived her own scarlet fever infection. No one else in the family was affected, of course. No doubt, if Charles Jr. had managed to somehow survive this event, he would have soon perished in some unfortunate boating or hiking accident. Or, perhaps Charles would have taken the child on a voyage to the South Seas, where the little boy would have, most unfortunately, succumbed to Malaria. In any case, Charles Darwin was now free to pursue his Social Darwinist agenda, so popular with British Imperialists, and advocates of "liberal", that is totally unrestrained, capitalism. And, also, by the way, largely the basis of the Nazi movements of the twentieth century. But, suppose somehow Charles Darwin's rather Christian wife prevails on him to let the boy live, and, to take care of him. How could Darwin have possibly reconciled this fact, with the whole underlying principle of "The survival of the fittest"? What would Darwin's supporters have said about it? What effects might this have had on the whole interpretation of Evolution? Bear in mind, we think, of Evolution, today, in terms of biotechnology, genetic engineering, new approaches to health care using nanotechnology, that kind of thing. But, these concepts scarcely existed in the nineteenth century. The survival of the fittest was primarily a rationale for social engineering, social Darwinism, the rationalization of the exploitation of the weak, by the strong -- Imperialism, War, the Irish Hunger, Child Labor, etc. So, if Darwin is actually taking very good care of a Down's Syndrome child bearing his own name, how can he possibly be promoting these notions in a very viciously competitive public debate, simultaneously? Wouldn't he have looked totally ridiculous?

What if mankind never had/gained the ability to travel by sea?

I think the problem I see here, is that we can travel quite a ways down a river simply by holding onto a floating log. And, effectively, a canoe is simply a dug out floating log. So, we have to go a bit beyond Alien Space Bats for this, and postulate some kind of serious mental block. Put another way, if mankind was stupid enough that it couldn't figure out how to hollow out a log, what exactly IS mankind capable of doing in your scenario? So, I'd say if mankind is mentally deficient enough that they can't figure out how to travel by "sea" -- which, I assume includes rivers or lakes, too -- that we'd have been superseded by some more intelligent life form by now. Or, possibly, wolves domesticate men, rather than the other way around? Actually, elephants can travel by sea to some extent, they can swim 10 or 20 miles in open ocean and survive. So, possibly elephants are the dominant intelligent life form in your scenario. On the other hand, maybe we're just hydrophobic, and fear proximity to seas and rivers, whether in boats, or otherwise. In this case, all trade and commerce is overland, so I would suspect roads and road making technology become much more advanced, much earlier. Also, the horse collar and stirrup are invented much earlier. The land based economy forces adaptation to more arid climates, so the camel would likely be very popular worldwide, as well. Irrigation would have to be extremely sophisticated, because farming, as all human activity would be isolated from the seas and rivers, and in more arid areas. No fertile crescents, so, civilization is likely delayed. Society is likely Nomadic, for a very long period of time, rather like the camel caravans in the traditional Sahara or Gobi deserts. Possibly, advanced technologies for extracting water from the air are developed much earlier, leading to the possibility of great civilizations inland, as well as unique advances in chemistry and materials technology.

Matriarchal extermination of 95% of human males in the late neolithic

https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/05/30/war-clan-structubiological-event/ The male gene pool apparently collapsed about 7000 years ago. Either only a very small proportion of the male gene pool expanded dramatically, or almost 95% of males were exterminated systematically, and women outnumbered men 20 to 1, for a period of about 2000 years. I favor the latter explanation. Women were the first farmers, as an extension of their "gathering" function in paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies. So, female priestesses and Queens would have acquired great power, as the traditional hunting function of men in paleolithic societies became less critical, and female dominated farming became more important. Indeed, the aggressiveness, predatory sexual behavior and social non-conformity of men, as a gender, may have been perceived as a threat to the peaceful order of neolithic agricultural societies by the late neolithic. Hence, a simple solution was arrived at. Systematic infanticide of the vast majority of male human births, probably by exposure. No trace of these soft-boned infants would likely remain, all consumed by wild beasts. Of course, the contraction of the gene pool would result in reduced genetic diversity and the diseases and malformations typical of all inbred societies. Hence, in time, these matriarchies were perceived as being accursed, by the Gods, and they were overthrown, and replaced by the patriarchies typical of historic times, by 5000 years ago.