Twista
03-25-2004, 11:49 AM
I just had to do it today in timed and exam conditions. Its worths 30% of my final grade. This was my draft, my final essay was pretty much the same. Can i have your opinions please?:
“To what extend did the Black Death merely accelerate changes in Europe, in the Fourteenth Century?”
"Short term disaster but also a long term benefit that completely revolutionised the land", wrote Thornald Rodgers in the late fourteenth century. The Black Death rampaged through the whole of Europe in the 14th century, spread by rats, brought over from the East. It's greatest victory, it could argued, was that it changed medieval society and brought a demise to feudalism, and helped save Serf's from an eternity of poverty. However, some historians do say that it was not just the black death, for the plague was just a random catalyst that accelerated what was already happening. Most historians believe that it was in fact the black death was the turning point of the age, the point where people could begin to speak fro themselves, and live their own life free from the damnation of medieval slavery.
There was obviously major flaws to this ‘acceleration’, as many people had to die in the process. As a result of this, Europe faced a massive population drop, Zeigler wrote; "at least a third of Europe’s inhabitants were killed off”. The plague came to Europe in the fall of 1347. By 1350 it had mostly passed out of western Europe. Within two years, one out of every three people were dead. Nothing like that had ever happened before or since. These numbers hide the random nature of the epidemic, as some areas suffered more than other, and there was even some pockets within the centre of Europe that seemed non-effected at all. It was these deaths that started to signify a main point. The church was beginning to fail. The majority of people explained the plague within two reasons, either God was punishing everyone, or the Devil was inflicting massive evil upon the world. And at the same time, no matter how much people turned to the church, people carried on dieing. Not to mention that the church actually suffered massive causalities to its order. This was because all the priests had to say the last rights to all those dying, and subsequently caught the plague off all those they came in contact with. This just showed that the plague effected everyone. The chroniclers said, the plague touched everyone, rich and poor, and the Florentine historian, Villani, wrote this, "And many lands and cities were made desolate. The plague lasted until _____" - he left a blank at the end of the sentence, hoping to fill in a date after the plague had gone, however, he never did since he died in 1348 from the plague. The loss of life in such great numbers and to so gruesome a disease, brought despair and misery everywhere. The church didn’t so much fall however, as it constantly had a larger and larger flow of income coming in. Many people, in the will’s, left everything to the Church, and with hundreds dying everyday, they basically had a endless supply of money coming their way. Not that they could use it for anything however, as if something needed built, there was no one to build it, and further more, no priest to fill that position. This whole idea of people not being able to go to church on a regular basis, and loosing faith besides that, was quite a good thing as it allowed people to ‘think outside the box’ and actually live their lives in a different manner to how the church so harshly demanded. People ( including that of high Bishops ) lost their faith to such a degree that they went out on drinking binges, and had very promiscuous nights to say the least. Open opposition to the authority of Pope and Church came in the person of John Wycliffe, a notable theologian and master of Balliol College, Oxford. He not only questioned the Churches power, but also attacked the worship of images and relics, the sale of pardons, and masses for the dead. Wycliffe was dismissed from his position at Balliol College for his views but many people flocked to his teachings and his large following became known as the Lollards. These were a key group that basically deserted the church all together for the tragedies they had faced. This kind of thing could be foreseen as happening because every day people were coming up with new theories to dispitute God, and the plague was most probably the catalyst that set it going even further.
Economically, the plague was a disaster, yet a perfect answer for everyone, for although many became poor, more became rich after the disaster struck. Cities were hit hard by the plague. Financial business was ruined as people who owed people money died and their creditors found themselves without recourse. Not only had the debtor died, his whole family had died with him and many of his kinsmen. There was no one left to collect the owed money from. Construction stopped for a while or were abandoned altogether. Guilds lost their craftsmen and could not replace them. Mills and other special machinery might break and the one man in town who had the skill to repair it had died in the plague. Towns were advertising for specialists, offering high wages. The labour shortage was very severe, especially in the short term and landlord were desperate for labourers and had to give into the peasants so wages rose. Prices also rose with the wages ( even though most peasants were payed in kind-food), however, because of the mortality food prices ten dropped. Between these two trends, the standard of living rose. The Short term disaster here is that prices rose and landlord found it hard finding labour; as well as it being hard to pay them. However, the long term benefit is that when prices fell everyone alive was living better off. This kind of thing could not to be said of happening anyway, was the black death was probably in fact the sole cause of it happening. Some historians even think if the Black Death hadn’t accoutred then we might still be living under a feudalistic society.
“To what extend did the Black Death merely accelerate changes in Europe, in the Fourteenth Century?”
"Short term disaster but also a long term benefit that completely revolutionised the land", wrote Thornald Rodgers in the late fourteenth century. The Black Death rampaged through the whole of Europe in the 14th century, spread by rats, brought over from the East. It's greatest victory, it could argued, was that it changed medieval society and brought a demise to feudalism, and helped save Serf's from an eternity of poverty. However, some historians do say that it was not just the black death, for the plague was just a random catalyst that accelerated what was already happening. Most historians believe that it was in fact the black death was the turning point of the age, the point where people could begin to speak fro themselves, and live their own life free from the damnation of medieval slavery.
There was obviously major flaws to this ‘acceleration’, as many people had to die in the process. As a result of this, Europe faced a massive population drop, Zeigler wrote; "at least a third of Europe’s inhabitants were killed off”. The plague came to Europe in the fall of 1347. By 1350 it had mostly passed out of western Europe. Within two years, one out of every three people were dead. Nothing like that had ever happened before or since. These numbers hide the random nature of the epidemic, as some areas suffered more than other, and there was even some pockets within the centre of Europe that seemed non-effected at all. It was these deaths that started to signify a main point. The church was beginning to fail. The majority of people explained the plague within two reasons, either God was punishing everyone, or the Devil was inflicting massive evil upon the world. And at the same time, no matter how much people turned to the church, people carried on dieing. Not to mention that the church actually suffered massive causalities to its order. This was because all the priests had to say the last rights to all those dying, and subsequently caught the plague off all those they came in contact with. This just showed that the plague effected everyone. The chroniclers said, the plague touched everyone, rich and poor, and the Florentine historian, Villani, wrote this, "And many lands and cities were made desolate. The plague lasted until _____" - he left a blank at the end of the sentence, hoping to fill in a date after the plague had gone, however, he never did since he died in 1348 from the plague. The loss of life in such great numbers and to so gruesome a disease, brought despair and misery everywhere. The church didn’t so much fall however, as it constantly had a larger and larger flow of income coming in. Many people, in the will’s, left everything to the Church, and with hundreds dying everyday, they basically had a endless supply of money coming their way. Not that they could use it for anything however, as if something needed built, there was no one to build it, and further more, no priest to fill that position. This whole idea of people not being able to go to church on a regular basis, and loosing faith besides that, was quite a good thing as it allowed people to ‘think outside the box’ and actually live their lives in a different manner to how the church so harshly demanded. People ( including that of high Bishops ) lost their faith to such a degree that they went out on drinking binges, and had very promiscuous nights to say the least. Open opposition to the authority of Pope and Church came in the person of John Wycliffe, a notable theologian and master of Balliol College, Oxford. He not only questioned the Churches power, but also attacked the worship of images and relics, the sale of pardons, and masses for the dead. Wycliffe was dismissed from his position at Balliol College for his views but many people flocked to his teachings and his large following became known as the Lollards. These were a key group that basically deserted the church all together for the tragedies they had faced. This kind of thing could be foreseen as happening because every day people were coming up with new theories to dispitute God, and the plague was most probably the catalyst that set it going even further.
Economically, the plague was a disaster, yet a perfect answer for everyone, for although many became poor, more became rich after the disaster struck. Cities were hit hard by the plague. Financial business was ruined as people who owed people money died and their creditors found themselves without recourse. Not only had the debtor died, his whole family had died with him and many of his kinsmen. There was no one left to collect the owed money from. Construction stopped for a while or were abandoned altogether. Guilds lost their craftsmen and could not replace them. Mills and other special machinery might break and the one man in town who had the skill to repair it had died in the plague. Towns were advertising for specialists, offering high wages. The labour shortage was very severe, especially in the short term and landlord were desperate for labourers and had to give into the peasants so wages rose. Prices also rose with the wages ( even though most peasants were payed in kind-food), however, because of the mortality food prices ten dropped. Between these two trends, the standard of living rose. The Short term disaster here is that prices rose and landlord found it hard finding labour; as well as it being hard to pay them. However, the long term benefit is that when prices fell everyone alive was living better off. This kind of thing could not to be said of happening anyway, was the black death was probably in fact the sole cause of it happening. Some historians even think if the Black Death hadn’t accoutred then we might still be living under a feudalistic society.