That’s a great post, but I think it’s going too far to say that the Romans understood disease.
Sure, I agree that I oversold it, and should have worded it more carefully. But, I’ll point out that “understand disease” is not a single threshold. One could contest the claim that we understand disease. The following claims seem to be individually more likely than not: some educated Romans knew that sanitation and disease were linked, designed sanitation around their knowledge of disease, and that epidemic diseases were caused by invisible agents that were physically transmitted. It seems much more likely than not that Roman knowledge of disease- both theoretical and practical- surpassed medieval knowledge of disease for the majority of the medieval period.
I think it’s worth pointing out that early moderns didn’t seem to notice that disease in army camps was a big deal.
Really? I get the impression that they knew disease inside a city could end the siege in the attacker’s favor, and disease outside a city could end the siege in the defender’s favor. I think they thought it was an unavoidable fact of life, though, which might cash out as ‘not a big deal.’ (For example, I get the impression that the British Navy lost a ton of men to scurvy, but didn’t embark on many explicit attempts to figure out and prevent scurvy because it wasn’t obvious to them that such a thing was possible / they didn’t know where to start.)
Sorry I wasn’t clear, as you can tell from the other thread with Lumifer, but I really do mean to object to the claim that Roman knowledge contributed to the design of the camps.
Yes, early moderns did notice that epidemics were important in sieges, but they didn’t seem to notice that disease mattered at other times.
For fortified towns the following general principles are to be observed. First comes the choice of a very healthy site. Such a site will be high, neither misty nor frosty, and in a climate neither hot nor cold, but temperate; further, without marshes in the neighbourhood. For when the morning breezes blow toward the town at sunrise, if they bring with them mists from marshes and, mingled with the mist, the poisonous breath of the creatures of the marshes to be wafted into the bodies of the inhabitants, they will make the site unhealthy. Again, if the town is on the coast with a southern or western exposure, it will not be healthy, because in summer the southern sky grows hot at sunrise and is fiery at noon, while a western exposure grows warm after sunrise, is hot at noon, and at evening all aglow.
Springs should be tested and proved in advance in the following ways. If they run free and open, inspect and observe the physique of the people who dwell in the vicinity before beginning to conduct the water, and if their frames are strong, their complexions fresh, legs sound, and eyes clear, the springs deserve complete approval. If it is a spring just dug out, its water is excellent if it can be sprinkled into a Corinthian vase or into any other sort made of good bronze without leaving a spot on it. Again, if such water is boiled in a bronze cauldron, afterwards left for a time, and then poured off without sand or mud being found at the bottom of the cauldron, that water also will have proved its excellence.
And if green vegetables cook quickly when put into a vessel of such water and set over a fire, it will be a proof that the water is good and wholesome. Likewise if the water in the spring is itself limpid and clear, if there is no growth of moss or reeds where it spreads and flows, and if its bed is not polluted by filth of any sort but has a clean appearance, these signs indicate that the water is light and wholesome in the highest degree.
All of the other surviving scraps I can find suggest they had a decent idea what they were talking about, and that they took health seriously. I don’t know of a manual on camp latrine placement, or sewer design, or so on, or any works on germ theories directly. But I’m operating from the presumption that survival is the exception, not the norm. (In particular, I’m not a Roman scholar. There very well might be a manual on camp latrine placement that’s survived to the modern day, which I simply haven’t heard of. I only knew to look in Vitruvius because he’s famous enough that I’ve heard of him.)
It seems to me that if A) their knowledge of health and disease contributed to their design of cities and camps, it should be more likely to see B) health and disease mentioned prominently in design manuals. We do see B, and so that makes me more confident in A.
It seems like a confirmation of “their knowledge contributed to the design of the camps,” though it’s not a confirmation that their knowledge was ‘correct’ or that their knowledge was the primary historical cause of that particular design.
It also affirms that this isn’t just Varro being a hypochondriac, and is evidence for a general trend of Roman design taking health and disease into account in ways that were actually effective.
Sure, I agree that I oversold it, and should have worded it more carefully. But, I’ll point out that “understand disease” is not a single threshold. One could contest the claim that we understand disease. The following claims seem to be individually more likely than not: some educated Romans knew that sanitation and disease were linked, designed sanitation around their knowledge of disease, and that epidemic diseases were caused by invisible agents that were physically transmitted. It seems much more likely than not that Roman knowledge of disease- both theoretical and practical- surpassed medieval knowledge of disease for the majority of the medieval period.
Really? I get the impression that they knew disease inside a city could end the siege in the attacker’s favor, and disease outside a city could end the siege in the defender’s favor. I think they thought it was an unavoidable fact of life, though, which might cash out as ‘not a big deal.’ (For example, I get the impression that the British Navy lost a ton of men to scurvy, but didn’t embark on many explicit attempts to figure out and prevent scurvy because it wasn’t obvious to them that such a thing was possible / they didn’t know where to start.)
Sorry I wasn’t clear, as you can tell from the other thread with Lumifer, but I really do mean to object to the claim that Roman knowledge contributed to the design of the camps.
Yes, early moderns did notice that epidemics were important in sieges, but they didn’t seem to notice that disease mattered at other times.
Take a look at De Architectura:
From Book VIII:
All of the other surviving scraps I can find suggest they had a decent idea what they were talking about, and that they took health seriously. I don’t know of a manual on camp latrine placement, or sewer design, or so on, or any works on germ theories directly. But I’m operating from the presumption that survival is the exception, not the norm. (In particular, I’m not a Roman scholar. There very well might be a manual on camp latrine placement that’s survived to the modern day, which I simply haven’t heard of. I only knew to look in Vitruvius because he’s famous enough that I’ve heard of him.)
I don’t see what those quotes add to the Varro quote.
It seems to me that if A) their knowledge of health and disease contributed to their design of cities and camps, it should be more likely to see B) health and disease mentioned prominently in design manuals. We do see B, and so that makes me more confident in A.
It seems like a confirmation of “their knowledge contributed to the design of the camps,” though it’s not a confirmation that their knowledge was ‘correct’ or that their knowledge was the primary historical cause of that particular design.
It also affirms that this isn’t just Varro being a hypochondriac, and is evidence for a general trend of Roman design taking health and disease into account in ways that were actually effective.
Yes, multiple authors are good.