"It is to be noted, that this mortalitie fell chieflie or rather upon men, and those of the best age as between thirtie and fortie years. Few women, nor children, nor old men died thereof".
In the real world, there was a mysterious "sweating sickness" that struck England during the reign of Henry VII, killing tens of thousands of people in London, and eventually spreading across the channel to the continent, where it is said to have killed half the populations of Calais and Antwerp. England was struck several more times by this strange, highly fatal illness, with the syndrome last being recorded circa 1551 (or perhaps a hundred years later in France, assuming the so-called "Picardie Sweat" was the same disease).
The English Sweate was said to disproportionately strike men, especially men of the upper and middle classes. It's been speculated that the Sweat was a hantavirus of some sort, but it could be spread from human to human (not generally seen in the hantaviruses). Surviving an infection did NOT render the sufferers immune. As the name implies, the symptoms where accompanied by an intense burning sensation and a pouring sweat with high fever. The symptoms only lasted a few hours, but if death was to come--and it did in most cases--it would come during this time period.
Since it remains one of the greatest mysteries of medical history, we could imagine it happening elsewhere in Europe. I've always been fascinated by how the various European powers responded to the expansion of the Ottomans, especially in the 15th century. So, what if the "Sweate" hit Stamboul instead?
Assume that in 1485 the "Sweate" makes its first appearance in Europe, in Istanbul. From there, the disease spreads to Brusa and Konya/Kayseria, killing half the populations of all three cities within a month. The sickness seems to follow the fleeing Sultan like a curse; his arrival in Trezbizond brings a plague that not only kills the local pasha, but virtually wipes out the entire garrison there. Come winter, less virulent but still crippling outbreaks have afflicted Jerusalem, Adrianople, Damascus, Aleppo, and even Cairo and Budapest, as yet outside of the empire's domain. The Sultan loses his entire harem, a quarter or so of the troops available within Anatolia itself, but only about 5% of Anatolia's rural population.
So, what happens? How does this affect history?
(looking at Beyazid II's biography on google, it looks like this was a rather bad time for a plague to hit...)
In the real world, there was a mysterious "sweating sickness" that struck England during the reign of Henry VII, killing tens of thousands of people in London, and eventually spreading across the channel to the continent, where it is said to have killed half the populations of Calais and Antwerp. England was struck several more times by this strange, highly fatal illness, with the syndrome last being recorded circa 1551 (or perhaps a hundred years later in France, assuming the so-called "Picardie Sweat" was the same disease).
The English Sweate was said to disproportionately strike men, especially men of the upper and middle classes. It's been speculated that the Sweat was a hantavirus of some sort, but it could be spread from human to human (not generally seen in the hantaviruses). Surviving an infection did NOT render the sufferers immune. As the name implies, the symptoms where accompanied by an intense burning sensation and a pouring sweat with high fever. The symptoms only lasted a few hours, but if death was to come--and it did in most cases--it would come during this time period.
Since it remains one of the greatest mysteries of medical history, we could imagine it happening elsewhere in Europe. I've always been fascinated by how the various European powers responded to the expansion of the Ottomans, especially in the 15th century. So, what if the "Sweate" hit Stamboul instead?
Assume that in 1485 the "Sweate" makes its first appearance in Europe, in Istanbul. From there, the disease spreads to Brusa and Konya/Kayseria, killing half the populations of all three cities within a month. The sickness seems to follow the fleeing Sultan like a curse; his arrival in Trezbizond brings a plague that not only kills the local pasha, but virtually wipes out the entire garrison there. Come winter, less virulent but still crippling outbreaks have afflicted Jerusalem, Adrianople, Damascus, Aleppo, and even Cairo and Budapest, as yet outside of the empire's domain. The Sultan loses his entire harem, a quarter or so of the troops available within Anatolia itself, but only about 5% of Anatolia's rural population.
So, what happens? How does this affect history?
(looking at Beyazid II's biography on google, it looks like this was a rather bad time for a plague to hit...)