[DanielGee]

Black death didn't kill feudalism ( even if we could come to a consensus on what feudalism is ). The societal structure wasn't affected by the black death. Feudalism died as european monarchs and elites got wealthy and used that wealth to centralize power. Feudalism is a result of weak or nonexistent central power. A classic example of this is japan during the meiji period. The emperor centralized power by overthrowing the feudal lords of japan. Which he was able to because he opened trade and gained investment and weapons from the west which gave him enough power to central japan's feudal estates under his direct rule.

The black death didn't cause rises in wages. What caused wages to rises was trade. There as something called the mongol empire ( you might have heard of it ) which allowed europe to trade directly with china, india and the rest of asia. The mongol empire ( particularly the golden horde ) was central to european wealth generation. So much so that when it finally fell in 1480, wealthy merchants were desperately seeking another trade route to the east. A few years later, you have columbus ( you might have heard of him as well ).

The idea that death caused wage rises is ludicrous when you think about it for a second. If population decline causes wage increases then japan would be seeing a huge rise in income. Russia in the 90s should have seen a ridiculous rise in income.

What increases wages are increasing population and increasing trade.

[toasterlovin]

You have to be insane to think that a 50% population reduction would have no significant impact on societal arrangements.

Life up until the industrial revolution was dominated by a single factor: the Malthusian limit. The Black Death obliterated that constraint. And, since it reoccurred every 10-15 years, it continued to make the Malthusian limit a non-issue for a long, long time.

[barking]

As an example I found on a moment's googling, I'll just quote you part of the conclusion from this article: (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black...)

The European economy at the close of the Middle Ages (c. 1500) differed fundamentally from the pre—plague economy. In the countryside, a freer peasant derived greater material benefit from his toil. Fixed rents if not outright ownership of land had largely displaced customary dues and services and, despite low grain prices, the peasant more readily fed himself and his family from his own land and produced a surplus for the market. Yields improved as reduced population permitted a greater focus on fertile lands and more frequent fallowing, a beneficial phenomenon for the peasant.

[DanielGee]

I'm well aware of the theory. I used to subscribe to it myself when I was younger. I won't go into why reduce population wouldn't affect farm yields since back then, farming was a very physical endeavor requiring many people. If yields did increase, it was most likely because of population increase in the countryside due to europeans fleeing disease ridden cities. Lets not forget that most of the attributed population decline was due to cities being emptied because city dwellers moved to the countryside. Just like isaac newton did in the 1600s when disease struck england.

I would think that numbers, knowledge, technology and goods from the east had more to do with changing european society than a population decrease.

What do you think impacted korea more? The deaths during the korean war or trade with the west? What impacted european wages more? The deaths during WW2 or the american-led trade system?

Also, throughout history, there have been quite a few plagues ( not to mention mass killings ). Those didn't lift wages. China's wages didn't rise after tens of millions of people died during the taiping rebellion. But you are free to believe what you want.

[barking]

>But you are free to believe what you want.

Do you have any references to sources that support your alternative theory or discredit the usual explanations?