On Mon, 10 May 2021 16:47:04 GMT, Bucky Breeder
<Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:
>
>Everybody in my neighborhood has completely stocked our massive doomsday
>bunkers so full of toilet paper such that we don't have enough room to
>accomodate our entire family units, much less those people down the street
>who are never sufficiently prepared...
>
>Maybe we could offer them a couple of toilet paper sandwiches, for
>appearances sake? We find it profitable to present as "emphathetic".
>
>The difficult part is figuring out which family members we'll have to
>jettison when the actual doomsday event starts to occur.
>
>(I already have my list.)
Nice moralistic tales on the niceties of being rich.
-
Either the sixth-century plagues were a series of demographic hammer-
blows comparable to the Black Death of 1348–9 (which probably killed
at least a third of the population of fourteenth-century Europe), or
their impact was more closely comparable to that of the epidemics that
hit Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century (most famously,
London in 1665). These were devastating locally, and wiped out entire
families, but they did not affect all regions and settlements
concurrently. Even within affected towns and communities, outbreaks
hit some parishes and some families very much harder than others.
Despite the death in England from plague of perhaps three-quarters of
a million people between 1470 and 1670, over the same period the
population of the country probably doubled.
[ Besides Sister Famine, once settled in, who opens the door to
Brother Plague. ]
The so-called ‘Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite’ gives a graphic and
harrowing picture of such a disaster in its account of the famine
which affected the region of Edessa in 499–501, after a swarm of
locusts had consumed the wheat harvest and a second harvest, of
millet, had failed. The cost of bread rose; people were forced to sell
cheaply their other possessions in order to buy it; many fled the
region altogether; others, particularly those too weak to travel far,
flocked into the city to beg.Here disease killedmany, but there was
still far too little to eat (and not nearly enough to feed the crowds
of beggars). Some were reduced to eating the flesh of the dead, and in
the countryside people tried in vain to fill their bellies by eating
the lees from the vintage. In the town, the poor ate leaves and roots,
‘sleeping in the porticoes and squares, and day and night they howled
from their hunger, and their bodies wasted away and grew thinner so
that they came to look like corpses’. Many more died, particularly
those who were sleeping rough during the cold nights of the winter,
and the streets were filled with the dead.More disease followed.
All this misery took place in Mesopotamia in a period when the near
east seems to have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Edessa itself
clearly benefited from this prosperity and was a very wealthy city, as
can be seen from the amounts of tribute that it was (repeatedly) able
to pay the Persians: 2,000 pounds weight (more than five times the
cost of S. Vitale in Ravenna) promised in 503 soon after the end of
the famine; 200 pounds paid in 540; and 500 pounds more in 544. All
this gold did not spare the poor from misery and death in 499–501.