4 ms·

> In cultures without industrialized agriculture, losing that many people to war would doom everyone. The Black Death killed an estimated 40-50% of Europeans b

> In cultures without industrialized agriculture, losing that many people to war would doom everyone. The Black Death killed an estimated 40-50% of Europeans between 1347 and 1351, but the survivors were not doomed. In fact, living standards increased as the amount of agricultural land per person increased.

dukeyukey 5y ago
Sure, but less people means less mouth to feed, whereas supporting the large conscript armies of the 19th and 20th centuries just meant less farm workers, and if anything more required calories.
danaris 5y ago
To clarify what dukeyukey said a little further: The Black Death killed 40-50% of the population indiscriminately. Wars killed able-bodied men in their prime almost exclusively—removing a huge chunk of those best able to bring in the harvest (many able-bodied women can help, of course, but some percentage of those are pregnant or caring for babies for much of the day), without removing a proportional chunk of those who cannot contribute as much but still need to eat.
- watwut 5y ago
  > Wars killed able-bodied men in their prime almost exclusively Definitely not true and increasingly not. Civilians, especially old and vulnerable die due to violence of soldiers, general violence, lack of food, medicine, having to move without support and so on. Armies extract very much needed resources and destabilize places. Plus, civilians are often targets - WWII notoriously killed more civilians then soldiers. Being soldier of front line is massive risk factor. But they are not exclusively victims, as non soldiers people die due to their activity everywhere they go.
  - danaris 5y ago
    I was referring to wars prior to WWI—those where the loss of manpower was directly relevant to the harvest. And sure, wars could target civilians, and sometimes did. But what you can be guaranteed of in a war is that soldiers will die.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > And sure, wars could target civilians, and sometimes did. They very often do. It is not exceptional. In pretty much all wars, civilians die. Cities, villages, farms get attacked and destroyed along people in them. War where civilians don't die would be an exception. Also, wars happen where people live. > I was referring to wars prior to WWII In those, civilians died too, cities/villages were attacked for fun and profit and all that. In addition, prior wold wars, armies lived off the land. Meaning taking food off whoever happened to live there, by force if necessary. Meaning, additional deaths off lack of food.
totetsu 5y ago
and it changed the balance of supply and demand of labor, increasing the price, causing rulers to try and implement price controls.

dukeyukey 5y ago

Sure, but less people means less mouth to feed, whereas supporting the large conscript armies of the 19th and 20th centuries just meant less farm workers, and if anything more required calories.

danaris 5y ago

To clarify what dukeyukey said a little further: The Black Death killed 40-50% of the population indiscriminately. Wars killed able-bodied men in their prime almost exclusively—removing a huge chunk of those best able to bring in the harvest (many able-bodied women can help, of course, but some percentage of those are pregnant or caring for babies for much of the day), without removing a proportional chunk of those who cannot contribute as much but still need to eat.

watwut 5y ago
> Wars killed able-bodied men in their prime almost exclusively Definitely not true and increasingly not. Civilians, especially old and vulnerable die due to violence of soldiers, general violence, lack of food, medicine, having to move without support and so on. Armies extract very much needed resources and destabilize places. Plus, civilians are often targets - WWII notoriously killed more civilians then soldiers. Being soldier of front line is massive risk factor. But they are not exclusively victims, as non soldiers people die due to their activity everywhere they go.
- danaris 5y ago
  I was referring to wars prior to WWI—those where the loss of manpower was directly relevant to the harvest. And sure, wars could target civilians, and sometimes did. But what you can be guaranteed of in a war is that soldiers will die.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > And sure, wars could target civilians, and sometimes did. They very often do. It is not exceptional. In pretty much all wars, civilians die. Cities, villages, farms get attacked and destroyed along people in them. War where civilians don't die would be an exception. Also, wars happen where people live. > I was referring to wars prior to WWII In those, civilians died too, cities/villages were attacked for fun and profit and all that. In addition, prior wold wars, armies lived off the land. Meaning taking food off whoever happened to live there, by force if necessary. Meaning, additional deaths off lack of food.

totetsu 5y ago

and it changed the balance of supply and demand of labor, increasing the price, causing rulers to try and implement price controls.