Besides the Black Death and the Spanish flu that other epidemics have had a major impact on history?

Novosedoff said:

The thing about Justinian Plague is that it actually lasted for 2 centuries with occasional outbreaks in different parts of the ancient world.
That's the reason why it is often considered as one of major factors of the Arab conquest. The Arab world had not been affected, the disease mainly afflicted the population of Byzantine and Sasanian empires

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:plague_pandemics

Click to expand...

Dorgedrogt said:

J.A. S. Evans convincingly argues in his book on the period that in the initial outbreak half of the population or more dead is actually a very plausible estimate. Gas bubbles trapped in ice-sheets imply a massive population decline, Procopius describes such a decline, by the year 600 population in the area was only 60% of what it had been a century before and the disease in question was a new strain, to which people consequently had no resistance, which did have the attributes for killing such amounts of people.

Click to expand...

Do we really know it was the same plague for 200 years? There are frequent references to plague in Visigothic history, yet scant in substance as is the nature of that era. Heck they are now questioning whether bubonic plague was indeed that, 700 years later, so who knows? Plus plagues fade away when remaining populations have resistance as Dorgedrogt says, so likely new/different strains at least

But plague was indeed one of the very many weakening factors of the Visigothic kingdom, possibly to the extent of claiming King Witiza and ultimately leading to the regnal dispute which Rodrigo was involved in at the time of the arabic led crossing. Garcia Moreno - today's leading Visigoth-watcher - opines that the absence of any references to Witiza's death suggests it was of some sort of natural cause - as opposed to the usual blood-letting in Visigothic society. And, given his fairly young age and the proliferation of 'plague' - it could well be that.

I'd also note that the collapse in Byzantine army strength was partly due to the plague and partly having basically spent all the money on buying peace treaties among other things

Outside of the Black Death, the Justinian Plague was heads-and-shoulders the worst thing to happen to Europe. Something like a third of the population of Constantinople died, and even Justinian himself caught the plague and barely survived. On the low end they lost 5 million people in a couple of years, from 541-542 CE, devastating the army and its manpower reserves to say nothing of the economic destruction. By 590 CE when the last of the major reoccurring waves ended, half of the population of Europe was dead. The Byzantine Empire would inevitably go into decline from that point to the final fall of its capital in 1453 CE.

The black death was significant , it bankrupted the tottering feudal system , there were several factors
the decrease in farming hands and their flight to the cities
centuries old slow rising inflation , the decrease in value of quit rents paid in kind
the increasing cost of equipping a knight ,
by the 15th century war became mercenary using paid soldiers , then there was little use for the old feudal levies

The plague didn't stop either with major outbursts well into the 18th century

Congo Free State -

As is well known, between 1885-1908 the Congolese were busy between getting rubber sap baths and getting enviable quality amputation for not getting enough of said baths. That said, the general consensus among historians is that the 'civilizing, humanitarian actitivities' like the usual handchoppings, massacres, tortures etc by Leopold's leonine lackeys account for only about 5% of the nigh astronomical population decline that CFS experienced during its existence.

Sub-Saharan Africa had long been able to resist a general onslaught of diseases introduced by outsiders because of very low transregional migration of people. This kept frequent outbreaks of various diseases localized. But when Force Publique detachments started roaming constantly form place to place it actively helped in turning outbreaks into epidemics. As noted by Raphael Lemkin -
"The sentries introduced gross and wholesale immorality, broke up family life, and spread disease throughout the land. Formerly native conditions put restrictions on the spread of disease and localized it to small areas, but the black Congo soldiers, moving higher and thither to districts far from their wives and homes, took the women they wanted and ignored native institutions, rights, and customs."
In a way it was somewhat similar to the novel coronavirus as humans themselves, acting as vectors spread the diseases. Apart from this reason, the societal collapse that resulted from CFS exploitaion so totally devastated the agrarian economy that rampant malnutrition, periodic famines greatly reduced both birth rate and general immunity among Congolese population.

As a result, about 10 million perished (estimates vary from 1 to 15, Belgian government maintained 10 million which is generally agreed upon), which is roughly estimated to 50% of Congolese population at the beginning of Leopold's takeover (can't call it 'rule'). Amoebic dysentery wiped out 30--60% of the local populace wherever it struck. Smallpox and swine flu killed a whole lot. The granddaddy of all of them was African trypanosomiasis, estimated to have killed 500000 in 1901 alone. And then there were the typical VDs.

This hell's cocktail had absolutely no long term socio economic benefits like the Black Death. It may have shortened the period of Leopold's hold on Congo but can't call it a benefit as that's what had started this in the first place. The chain of events set off by CFS rule continues to this day, creating a history of tragedy of astronomical proportions. So does the diseases; Democratic Republic of Congo still accounts for more than 80% of all sleeping sickness cases.

Figures and quotes mostly from Wiki.

MG1962a said:

Smallpox handed the world North and South America on a plate

Click to expand...

Smallpox gets a bad rap.

Actually- Small Pox is so deadly to europeans that you can assume that it could not possibly have been the disease that wiped out the Native Americans. It would have killed as many spanish and british and french colonists as it did natives.

Stories of Smallpox infected blankets being given to indians are apocryphal and not supported by fact, nor reason. Given how deadly smallpox is to whites who could you possibly get to Handle infected blankets?

In fact- it was ASSUMED by earlier historians that it Had to have been smallpox based on only two pieces of evidence- that those afflicted broke out in small pustules all over their body- and that it killed over 60% of all Native Americans who got it. The only disease historians knew of with those symptoms that was That lethal was Smallpox.

But historical cases of smallpox epidemics show that it is not that easy to spread. Those who catch it become desperately ill rapidly and have little chance to spread the disease.

The disease that Killed the Native Americans, however, has other traits that can identify the true culprit. It had a long incubation period during which it was ten times more infectious than Smallpox is.
And there is NO evidence at all of Europeans coming into contact with the afflicted tribes and then spreading it back into their own communities.


That leaves just One possible disease. The most infectious disease known to man. Measles.
For Europeans, Measles was mostly survivable because of hundreds of generations of measles in Europe killing off those most vulnerable to it.

But prior to European contact, measles had never been in the Americas. The Native population had NO evolved resistance to it at all and so it was even more deadly than smallpox.
Measles can be transmitted to a hundred tribal members by just ONE native coming into close proximity of an infected, non-symptomatic person- say at a trading post. And then traveling home to infect his entire village. Unlike smallpox Just walking thru your village could infect dozens of people because of measles ability to survive in the air.

And only Measles explains why purported native Smallpox epidemics never seemed to bounce back into European communities Because most people in European communities had had measles in their childhood, survived it because of evolved resistance, and were immune as adults. Earlier historians did not suspect measles simply because they knew it as a disease that was far less lethal than what was killing the natives.


There WERE verified instance of smallpox infections. But it can't explain how rapidly entire tribes of natives were decimated or destroyed.
Measles is probably the disease that did the most damage.