Plague Of Seleucia

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I read an interesting tidbit about a campaign conducted by Lucius Verus in the east.

 

Verus' troops brought back with them from the east a serious epidemic or plague, which was said to have first infected them at Seleucia. Its character is uncertain: it may have been smallpox, or exanthematous typhus, or boubonic plague. At any rate the scourge spread, with devastating results, into Asia Minor and Greece. Next it penetrated into the Italian peninsula - already suffering from several years of bad harvest - and struck Rome even before Verus himself got back to the city. Very soon the epidemic was carrying desolation as far as the Rhine. It left many districs totally depopulated, and contributed substantially to the future weakening of the Empire.

 

I know the Romans used huge burn piles in every city to ward off disease in times such as described above. What were some other anti-disease measure the Romans took?

[Primus Pilus]

I read an interesting tidbit about a campaign conducted by Lucius Verus in the east.

 

Verus' troops brought back with them from the east a serious epidemic or plague, which was said to have first infected them at Seleucia. Its character is uncertain: it may have been smallpox, or exanthematous typhus, or boubonic plague. At any rate the scourge spread, with devastating results, into Asia Minor and Greece. Next it penetrated into the Italian peninsula - already suffering from several years of bad harvest - and struck Rome even before Verus himself got back to the city. Very soon the epidemic was carrying desolation as far as the Rhine. It left many districs totally depopulated, and contributed substantially to the future weakening of the Empire.

 

I know the Romans used huge burn piles in every city to ward off disease in times such as described above. What were some other anti-disease measure the Romans took?

 

Bloodletting was terribly common and Galen developed a rather intricate system of how much blood to let from whom, and when (seasons, various portents, etc.), based on what disease, and from what vein/artery, etc.

 

However Galen does offer other exceptional insight on the Antonine Plague and medicine in general.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

*Sob* whenever I start a thread, I barely get any replies or views, for that matter... *sob*

 

:tomato: :sadwalk:

 

Where's Pertinax and his expertise when you need it? Many thanks to Primus Pilas for his participation... :notworthy:

[guy]

I read an interesting tidbit about a campaign conducted by Lucius Verus in the east.

 

I know the Romans used huge burn piles in every city to ward off disease in times such as described above. What were some other anti-disease measure the Romans took?

 

This plague you describe was known as the Antonine or Galen's plague (164-180). As you mentioned, this plague was probably brought back by from the Eastern frontier by Verus, serving as co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius.

 

Galen, the Greek physician from Pergamum, initially fled the plague, but was called back by the co-emperors to help control the plague. Most people (myself included) think it was a variant of small pox. Galen described a skin eruption occuring on the ninth day: sometimes dry and sometimes pustular. This does not sound like typhus or boubonic plague. A couple thousand people a day in Rome would die of this plague. Verus (and less likely, Aurelius) probably died from this plague.

 

Fortunately, we no longer suffer from smallpox. But it was the scourge of more recent history, too.

 

I feel that the impact of disease in the Ancient world has always been underestimated. This type of plague would have had a devastating impact on society. (Think about the impact of the Black Plague in Europe during the Middle Ages, for example. That plague killed at least a third of Europe's population. No one would write a serious history of the Middle Ages without at least a mention of the impact of the plague. Somehow, Ancient Roman history is frequently written without the slightest mention of the diseases that were so much a tragic part of everyday life in Ancient Rome.)

 

Plagues such as this would have caused immense depopulation and disruption in society. The Antonine plague and the later plague of Cyprian, also known as the Aurelian plague, (that lasted from 251 to 266 and killed Emperor Claudius Gothicus) could have resulted in the pressure for the Roman armies to recruit increasingly more barbarians into their diminishing ranks.

 

These plagues would haved caused food shortages due to the disruption of the food supply from the abandonment of farms to the breakdown of the means of transport. Undernourishment would only have made a population more vulnerable to the ravages of disease.

 

The plagues were excellent propaganda tools for the ruling elites. In Pagan Rome, the plagues could be seen as a result of the disruption of the Pax Deorum by the Christians. Later, in Chrisitan Rome, they could be seen as the result of the "wrath of a Christian [?] God."

 

In answer to your question, since Roman medicine did not adequately understand the cause (etiology) of these plagues, I doubt anything was done to prevent their spread except for isolation. (Remember, the simple concept such as handwashing in maternity wards wasn't widely accepted by Western medicine until the 19th century.)

 

At best, treatment would have been to reduce discomfort (palliative measures only)--narcotics and wine for pain, pleny of fluids, and blankets. At worst, use of bloodletting or cathartics would have hastened the poor victim's demise. Prayers and offerings would have had dubious benefits.

 

guy known as gaius

[Kosmo]

No prevention measure could work after the epidemic started. Those who escape the first spread would be affected by the next ones until olny those with immunity (either natural or survivors) were around. This is the theory developed for the Great Plague and the repeted ones that wiped out american natives after the Columbus Exchange.

In theory romans were less exposed to plagues because of good food supply (weakness because of stravation it's considered an adding factor) and extensive hygene network but the intense travel and the use of centralised water sources meant that they actually had little protection.

It will be interesting to know if the epidemics affecting the romans had spreaded in Europe, outside the Empire.

[Lost_Warrior]

If it were Bubonic plague, the huge fires would in fact provide a measure of protection. The reason for this is that it is spread by fleas and rats carrying the fleas, and, if huge fires were built around the city before the plague got a foothold, they would keep out the rats, and the fleas. This is said to have protected the Pope during the plague in the middle ages.