" I cannot think of a finer piece of work that I have read in comparative history.... I suspect this work will quickly become a classic in its field and can serve as a model for the comparative study of the effects of the Black Death in other regions of the world."—Uli Schamiloglu, Chair, Central Asian Studies Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison" This book is unique. It has no parallel in the field of pre-modern Middle Eastern history. More broadly, it represents the perceptive result of a study conceived on a scale that enables a set of persuasive comparisons between two major states of the medieval Islamic and Christian worlds. Nothing like this has been attempted so far. No scholar has made such creative use of available primary sources from Egypt."—Carl F. Petry, Professor of History, Northwestern University Throughout the fourteenth century AD/eighth century H, waves of plague swept out of Central Asia and decimated populations from China to Iceland. So devastating was the Black Death across the Old World that some historians have compared its effects to those of a nuclear holocaust. As countries began to recover from the plague during the following century, sharp contrasts arose between the East, where societies slumped into long-term economic and social decline, and the West, where technological and social innovation set the stage for Europe's dominance into the twentieth century. Why were there such opposite outcomes from the same catastrophic event? In contrast to previous studies that have looked to differences between Islam and Christianity for the solution to the puzzle, this pioneering work proposes that a country's system of landholding primarily determined how successfully it recovered from the calamity of the Black Death. Stuart Borsch compares the specific cases of Egypt and England, countries whose economies were based in agriculture and whose pre-plague levels of total and agrarian gross domestic product were roughly equivalent. Undertaking a thorough analysis of medieval economic data, he cogently explains why Egypt's centralized and urban landholding system was unable to adapt to massive depopulation, while England's localized and rural landholding system had fully recovered by the year 1500.