Did you actually read the article? That sentence was referring to the situation among the native populations of the New World, not the situation in Europe.
I’m not sure it really matters, to be honest. I think smallpox was from Europe, and plague from either India or China, but by the time those diseases got to the Americas it didn’t matter.
You could literally (if you were diplomatic, multilingual and accompanied by a large army and great supplies) walk from France to China. While (probably) nobody actually did that, people traveling various routes were carrying diseases. The black plague came from India (or possibly China) to the west, and down into Africa, so lots of people died. The survivors were generally resistant. So when the plague broke out again, far fewer people died.
Smallpox may have come from Europe, but so what? A little before AD 184 half of China’s population was killed by a plague that resembled smallpox. I’m positive people between Rome and China died of smallpox, and it must have reached into Africa too. There were lots of Arab merchants who carried trade good to and from Africa. Lots of Africans probably died, and when the Europeans came in force, large numbers of Africans did not die. While most of Africa was colonized, the people weren’t wiped out by disease. If anything, the relationship was the other way around. There are lots of “tropical” diseases that only exist in some areas (eg certain parts of Africa) so lots of slave traders keeled over from malaria. (Because the mosquitoes couldn’t carry the diseases to Europe, the Europeans were not genetically resistant.)
I’m not sure where measles came from, but it struck Japan and killed at least one shogun. Japan was known for trying to keep foreign visitors away during certain parts of its history, but even if it was completely successful at this, there were Korean and Chinese pirates to contend with (you might not just be trading swordstrokes with that pirate), plus Japanese soldiers would sometimes invade Korea, then return when they had to give up, so any diseases from there or further west would get to Japan anyway.
In fact, the Icelandic and Greenland Vikings were sufficiently isolated to go many years without European illnesses, only to be decimated when a visitor arrived with something like smallpox or measles.
A Viking longship just arrived in Greenland, and is on its way to the New World.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
True, most of these diseases were found throughout the Old World by the time of Columbus, regardless of their original origin. However, they pretty much all were brought to the Americas by way of Europe (or in the case of tropical diseases, from Africa), which I think was the intent of the way the OP phrased his question.
Exactly. Diseases spread - it’s what diseases do. Whenever people meet, they’ll share contagions. That’s how it’s always worked.
This goes well beyond correlation. The mortality rate among natives alone is compelling evidence for the absence of previous exposure. Plus, there were devastating epidemics throughout the Americas, often thousands of miles apart but closely following first exposure to Europeans.
Right. Relatively few people took the overland trip from France to China, but a lot of them took the trip from France to Italy and interacted with people who would soon take the overland trip from Italy to Poland, and so on from Poland to Russia, and from Russia to China. While this was happening, travelers were going north and south too, so some people were exposed in Italy who then traveled north to Scandinavia, and some of the people exposed in Russia then went down to Syria, then things passed down into Egypt, and then to Ethiopia, etc. You get the idea. There was very little isolation.
Link to three, please.
-
The Aztecs were decimated by smallpox brought in the wake of Cortes’ invasion.
-
The Inca Empire was devastated by a plague that appears to have spread from the area of first contact with Europeans even before the arrival of Pizarro. The Inca Emperor died in the epidemic, leading to a civil war between his sons that contributed to the conquest.
-
Smallpox epidemic on the Northwest coast in the 1770s.
There are lots of examples. The Pilgrims found relatively sparsely populated land when they arrived at Plymouth because disease had wiped out most of the local inhabitants a few years before.
Interesting how “decimate” now means almost the opposite of what it used to: “10% taken”, but now it’s more likely to me “10% remaining”.
My daughter’s history book in high school said that the Native Americans were given blankets infected with smallpox by the government and I have heard about this before I read it the book.
I remember an article analyzing the last great smallpox epidemic on the west coast and Alaska in the late 1800’s. The author pointed out the natives were no more susceptible and the disease was no more lethal than for Europeans or anyone else. What did the people in was subsistence living and mass infection’ people died of starvation and thirst while too sick to fetch water or feed themselves since everyone was feverishly incapacitated at the same time. In villages where there were immune people - previously exposed natives or missionaries - they could care for the sick and the smallpox was no more lethal than elsewhere maybe 10% of those infected actually died.
Also note the implication - smallpox epidemics did not cross the Rockies, where the intermediate population density was too low. A person would have to be able to infect the next village before he became feverish and dropped in his tracks. If the next village is too far for an encounter, the plague stops.
What logically follows from this is that smallpox had the greatest effect on the most populous areas. the mound builder cities on the central Mississippi valley for example were deserted by the time the white man reached them, despite some having populations of up to 100,000. One suggestion was that de Soto and his expedition brought the disease (and pigs) and it travelled the extra few hundred miles north.
IIRC this was a suggestion made once or twice _ the siege of Detroit and during the plains conflicts - but no evidence of follow through.
No, there apparently is evidence of follow-through, per the wiki article on Lord Amherst.
Smallpox and measles (two candidates for highest body count in the New World) weren’t established in the Viking part of Europe at the time they voyaged West. Also, Viking culture wasn’t highly urbanized, and a certain level of urbanization is needed to sustain a pool of infectious diseases inbetween epidemics. The rise of plagues like the various poxes goes hand-in-hand with the rise in urbanization, and the people coming to America after 1492 were from those highly urban cultures (so often were asymptomatic carriers or recovered victims), unlike the Vikings.
Plague (Central Asia), smallpox (Egypt) and measles (Either Middle East or the Med) weren’t exactly tropical in origin.
The contagious nature of Smallpox was understood pretty early by Europeans (as was the fact that native americans were far more suspectible to it), and we have firsthand, contemporary accounts of it ravaging native american populations.
That’s… I’m sorry but that cite is ridiculous. There had been slaves in Spain for several hundred years before the 15th century, that paragraph you quote is akin to saying that “engineering was invented in the 19th century”. Which realms had slave trade (as opposed to slaves owned by travelers or purchased elsewhere), where they came from, etc. changed through time, but “the history of slavery in Spain began… in 1441”? That line manages to discredit the whole article all by its lonesome.
I disagree - bubonic plague and flu are the obvious counter-examples.
That is much more telling.
Interesting, given how widely the Vikings traded.
Regarding malaria specifically,a ccording to Charles Mann’s 1491, malaria was established in England, of all places, at least by Elizabethan times if not earlier. Malaria could have come to the New World from England; West African slaves are not necessarily the only source.