Skip to main content
15 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 28, 2019 at 22:43 comment added T.E.D. @CMonsour - In general, I don't like adding a lot of detail to superscripted footnotes in answers, because multiple lines of those don't read well. However, in this case I could clarify the confusion with two words, and it still fits on a line in my browser, so I've done so. Is it clearer now?
Feb 28, 2019 at 22:30 history edited T.E.D. CC BY-SA 4.0
added 11 characters in body
Feb 28, 2019 at 22:19 comment added T.E.D. @CMonsour - The very first sentence of the WP page linked in this answer currently reads: "The Black Death, ... resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people in Eurasia". Sadly for Asians (and North Africans), the disease wasn't racist enough to just kill Europeans. Its a decent point that this is the high estimate so it shouldn't be taken as gospel, but rather an upper limit. I made the same point in my comment dated March 24, 2016.
Feb 28, 2019 at 22:14 comment added C Monsour Population of Europe at the time of the Black Death was about 80 million. There's no way it killed 200 million people there in 6 years. It may have killed that many over the course of a few generations
Dec 17, 2017 at 11:41 comment added Golden Cuy For those wondering, AIDS has killed approximately 35 million people, and that was over decades.
Apr 1, 2016 at 3:31 comment added michaeltooth The book referred to above regarding the historical trend of violence is "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker. A weighty tome but very interesting appraisal
Mar 26, 2016 at 23:53 comment added djechlin If 200m people died of Black Death over 6 years then there must be at least one year when at least 33m people died of Black Death. Assuming equal distributions would lessen the worst year. Taking a lower estimate of 75m for the Black Death over 6 years with population at 450m shows its worst year killed at least 2.7% of the world population, c.f. 2.2% for the flu using 40m / 1.8b. So the Black Death answers the question in terms of ratio. And whether it breaches 40m in a single year is probably known as well.
Mar 26, 2016 at 15:32 comment added T.E.D. @GuntramBlohm - Yes, but you're taking the highest estimate (which is quite likely to be an overestimate), and then giving it a boost on one year, for a supportable reason, but mostly because it helps arrive at a number you'd like it to. One should avoid doing that with multiple pieces of information.This is the exact kind of logic that Columbus used to argue Japan was 3,000 miles west of the Canaries, when it was more like 20,000. Far better to use averages so wrong estimates even out.
Mar 26, 2016 at 5:46 comment added Guntram Blohm If the Black Death killed 200 million people in 6 years, you have an average of 33 million/year if you assume equal distribution. So it's at least conceivable there's a year close to the end that had more than 40 million. And of course, the percentage of total population was much higher at that time.
Mar 25, 2016 at 16:41 history edited T.E.D. CC BY-SA 3.0
added 25 characters in body
Mar 25, 2016 at 14:35 history edited T.E.D. CC BY-SA 3.0
added 90 characters in body
Mar 25, 2016 at 14:25 history edited T.E.D. CC BY-SA 3.0
added 21 characters in body
Mar 25, 2016 at 14:11 comment added T.E.D. As for some putative European contact year, the problem with that is even by the most ridiculously generous estimates there were no more than 100 million pre-Columbian Americans. For it to beat 1918, those would have to be correct, and most of the deaths would have had to happen in a single year. Communications and travel weren't that fast on that continent at that time. For example the medieval black death took 6 whole years to work its way through all of Europe.
Mar 25, 2016 at 14:05 history edited T.E.D. CC BY-SA 3.0
added 695 characters in body
Mar 25, 2016 at 13:57 history answered T.E.D. CC BY-SA 3.0