Are there any notable examples of European settlements being

I did a quick google search and came up with this, doesn't fully answer your question but may give some insight


1.European agriculturalists lived in closer proximity to disease vectors than did most Native Americans. A number of important diseases started with pigs, fowl, and so on before making the leap to humans. The Americas had fewer large mammals than did Eurasia, and so there were fewer candidates for domestication. Accordingly, American agricultural communities picked up fewer diseases than did Eurasian agricultural communities.


2.Europeans were part of a much larger human community than the Native Americans. Europeans had already been exposed to Chinese pathogens from at least the 6th century AD. The high volume of trade in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean over the next millennium meant that Eurasia was, from the perspective of many pathogens, a single community. Diseases like the plague could travel from Asia to Europe more easily than a pathogen could travel up and down the Americas. This is in part because the East-West axis had more similar climatic conditions than the North-South axis. Eurasian trade also involved sailing vessels, which carried rodents. Rodents were some of the nastiest disease vectors, and plagues often originated in port towns because of these stowaways. For all of these reasons, 15th-century Europeans (and their ancestors) had experienced a wider variety of germs than had their American counterparts.

3.Population densities were much greater in Eurasia, and there were more Eurasian cities than American cities. Cities were unhealthy places where diseases could remain "endemic" in the human or rodent population. By some estimates, a disease like measles can only be sustained in cities with a population over 500,000. In the Americas, only Tenochtitlan approached this. American pathogens might die out due to lack of "reservoirs." For example, there was at least one plague of American origins that killed from 7-17 million Mexicans in the 16th century. After killing 80% of the native population, the disease simply disappeared. We actually have very little idea what this disease was, or if it could appear again.


4.The long history of epidemics, plus the presence of disease reservoirs in European urban communities, did mean that natural selection on disease resistance was a larger factor in Europe than in the Americas. Europeans had better immunity to most communicable pathogens than Americans (see @MasonWheeler's excellent answer), which also made them "better" disease vectors.

>>2726892
That other guy's answer was pretty interesting too

>>2726888
This is why Europeans didn't colonise Africa until the late 19th century. Also,
>what is syphilis

>>2726979
>what is syphilis
A prolific disease but not an "uncontrollably wipe out all of Europe" level disease.

>>2726983
No but it was still a new world disease. Europe had already undergone the black plague of immense scale in the middle ages that originated in China, not long before new world conquests, and the old world in general was a much larger landmass, so everything spread more easily. Disease, technology, people, language etc.

>>2726991
Just being a new world disease isn't enough. It's about something that would wipe them out on the same level as their old world diseases did. >>2726892 does sort of help though since a disease like that wouldn't be able to last long enough as easily to spread to Europeans.

>>2726888
>Are there any notable examples of European settlements being wiped out by native diseases?

Not necessarily wiped out, but diseases did SEVERELY limit European colonisation of Africa up until the late 19th century.

The main diseases of note are still major killers today, such as sleeping sickness, yellow fever, dengue fever and others. But the king of it all, and the biggest hurdle to overcome was malaria. It still kills millions today, and decimated European expeditions before it was understood and could be medicated. Interestingly, it's supposedly the result of the quintessentially British drink gin and tonic, as quinine was found in the 19th century to be an effective treatment for malaria symptoms, and was consumed dissolved in tonic water, this solution tasting awful, was made palatable by the addition of gin, resulting in British expeditions to Africa being able to easily medicate malaria symptoms, and creating a now famous drink.

Another major issue, while not a disease, was the fact that African expeditions faced massive supply issues due to the fact that horses and oxen would very quickly die to infection spread by the tse tse fly (also a vector for human sleeping sickness transmission), which is endemic to almost the entire continent below the Sahara. This meant that invasions of the interior (which is massive), only became practical with the advent of modern rail travel, which could be used to bring supplies in lieu of unsustainably expensive horse or oxen drawn trains.

>>2726888
Every single European settlement in the tropics had really bad survivability rates for any European there. I once read that the average life expectancy in West-Africa in the 1650's was 3 months for arriving Europeans.

>>2727038
>>2727031
What about other areas though? Africa is still old world.