Scientists believe these plague events follow periods of climate change, when temperatures drop and rainfall diminishes. For example, volcanic eruptions in 536 CE caused the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to 660. This meant crop failures, stressed rodents succumbing to disease and their fleas seeking new hosts, including humans. Justinian's pandemic ran from 541 CE to 549. It first broke out in Northern Egypt. In the case of the Black Death pandemic that hit Europe in 1346 CE, there had been global cooling for the previous century, with a Great Famine in the UK starting in 1315 CE.
Of course, another way to start an epidemic is to besiege a city for an extended period. Basically the besiegers would set up tents around the city and live off the land. If the besiegers didn't understand sanitation, the city just needed to wait until disease decimated the besiegers. Thus the Roman siege of Seleucia starting in 165 CE may have started the Antonine Plague.
You're quite right, as always, Chris. Climate change was also a factor in the Crisis of the Third Century. From Wikipedia's entry (linked above):
A second and longer-term natural disaster that took place during the third century was the increased variability of weather. Drier summers meant less agricultural productivity and more extreme weather events led to agricultural instability. This could also have contributed to the increased barbarian pressure on Roman borders, as they too would have experienced the detrimental effects of climate change and sought to push inward to more productive areas of the Mediterranean region.
Very true; however, I think of the slave-based, imperial Roman government as besieging its own population. External factors surely played their parts, but I go with Nathan's assessment that Rome was domestically weakened by its economic policies so the people were unable to resist the ravages of Plague.
"the recent COVID pandemic was similar to the Black Death in the way it damaged the public perception of our modern authorities." Nathan should realize and write that this maxim applies to those "modern authorities" who followed the American, neoliberal approach to epidemiology which was mostly restricted to lockdowns, masks, and a questionable vaccine, with faint resort to tracing and quarantine. It does not apply to socialist and communist countries like Cuba and China, which actually used epidemiological science to manage the pandemic, with stellar results, by the way, and those peoples did not lose respect for their authorities.
I completely agree that the American response to COVID seemed to have been tainted by profit-seeking, instead of being focused on efficacy.
But now you've got me curious. I'm definitely going to take a closer look at the Cuban and Chinese strategies mentioned; I'll be keenly interested to learn more. It does seem like these societies are unshackled by the constant need to turn a profit, so what you're saying makes perfect sense to me.
Very interesting, thanks for a great comment, Tedder!
The best example is 'lockdowns'. In conventional epidemiology, these are necessary when a pandemic is out of control and when medical science does not know what to do. This occurred early on in Wuhan. But note that in Wuhan, the Chinese state fully supported the lockdowns with rent/mortgage relief, food, and medical care (they built four emergency hospitals in a matter of weeks)—this did not happen in the States. However, lockdowns are a temporary strategy, not a cure.
Even then, my little city on the north Gulf Coast was practically COVID free. When travel restrictions were lifted and thousands of Georgian fishermen trailered their little boats to go fishing, local infections spiked. Essentially, policy was nonexistent.
Scientists believe these plague events follow periods of climate change, when temperatures drop and rainfall diminishes. For example, volcanic eruptions in 536 CE caused the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to 660. This meant crop failures, stressed rodents succumbing to disease and their fleas seeking new hosts, including humans. Justinian's pandemic ran from 541 CE to 549. It first broke out in Northern Egypt. In the case of the Black Death pandemic that hit Europe in 1346 CE, there had been global cooling for the previous century, with a Great Famine in the UK starting in 1315 CE.
Of course, another way to start an epidemic is to besiege a city for an extended period. Basically the besiegers would set up tents around the city and live off the land. If the besiegers didn't understand sanitation, the city just needed to wait until disease decimated the besiegers. Thus the Roman siege of Seleucia starting in 165 CE may have started the Antonine Plague.
You're quite right, as always, Chris. Climate change was also a factor in the Crisis of the Third Century. From Wikipedia's entry (linked above):
A second and longer-term natural disaster that took place during the third century was the increased variability of weather. Drier summers meant less agricultural productivity and more extreme weather events led to agricultural instability. This could also have contributed to the increased barbarian pressure on Roman borders, as they too would have experienced the detrimental effects of climate change and sought to push inward to more productive areas of the Mediterranean region.
Very true; however, I think of the slave-based, imperial Roman government as besieging its own population. External factors surely played their parts, but I go with Nathan's assessment that Rome was domestically weakened by its economic policies so the people were unable to resist the ravages of Plague.
"the recent COVID pandemic was similar to the Black Death in the way it damaged the public perception of our modern authorities." Nathan should realize and write that this maxim applies to those "modern authorities" who followed the American, neoliberal approach to epidemiology which was mostly restricted to lockdowns, masks, and a questionable vaccine, with faint resort to tracing and quarantine. It does not apply to socialist and communist countries like Cuba and China, which actually used epidemiological science to manage the pandemic, with stellar results, by the way, and those peoples did not lose respect for their authorities.
I completely agree that the American response to COVID seemed to have been tainted by profit-seeking, instead of being focused on efficacy.
But now you've got me curious. I'm definitely going to take a closer look at the Cuban and Chinese strategies mentioned; I'll be keenly interested to learn more. It does seem like these societies are unshackled by the constant need to turn a profit, so what you're saying makes perfect sense to me.
Very interesting, thanks for a great comment, Tedder!
The best example is 'lockdowns'. In conventional epidemiology, these are necessary when a pandemic is out of control and when medical science does not know what to do. This occurred early on in Wuhan. But note that in Wuhan, the Chinese state fully supported the lockdowns with rent/mortgage relief, food, and medical care (they built four emergency hospitals in a matter of weeks)—this did not happen in the States. However, lockdowns are a temporary strategy, not a cure.
Even then, my little city on the north Gulf Coast was practically COVID free. When travel restrictions were lifted and thousands of Georgian fishermen trailered their little boats to go fishing, local infections spiked. Essentially, policy was nonexistent.