Local Diseases

Chairete lads,

As you know, it is common for people travelling to far away countries, to suffer from diseases the locals have built immunity to. Even something as simple as drinking water, could result in serious problems, even death. The most notable example is the colonization of the Americas, where both Native Americans and Europeans suffered greatly from such diseases.
My question is: How common was that in the ancient world? I mean what would be the death rate of a band of ,say, Italian mercenaries traveling to India? Are there any accounts of what happened to foreign soldiers after drinking the local water, eating the local food or sleeping with local women?

If the death/serious illness percentage was significant enough, maybe you could use that Desertion-thingy to simulate that?

Thanks for reading.

I'd say it was so common that it wasn't noteworthy. Remember that before the advent of antibiotics and medicine, half the children would die before reaching adulthood. Disease was common and the causes obscure, so I am not sure if people back then were able to tell the difference between a common infection and a local one.

On the other hand, infectious diseases do not stay local. Because there were extensive trade networks all over Europe and Asia, immunity to these diseases would be pretty widespread. The situation is not analogous to that of the Native Americans.

I see, thanks for the response Ludens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klearchos

The most notable example is the colonization of the Americas, where both Native Americans and Europeans suffered greatly from such diseases.

---

In respect to diseases and immunity there is a difference between the Americas and Eurasia. Like Ludens said, there always has been some exchange over the Eurasian continent, both of diseases and their respective immunities. Such an exchange was only possible from East to West, because the climate differences weren't as big as when travelling from the North to the South. That's why the exchange between Europe and Africa in the course of history had been much smaller; therfore Europeans travelling to Africa had, untill the 19th century very poor chances to return alive, whereas this was much less a problem for travellers to Asia.
On the Americas there never was a great opportunity for such an East-West exchange, because the main direction of the Continent is North-South. Because of this small exchange, the native Americans had around 1500 a much less developed immune system than the Eurasians. So the Americans died in great numbers, where the Europeans - although hit by local diseases as well - could succesfully conquer and settle the Newe World.

My point regarding our question is: the diseases in Eurasia were pretty well spread, so the consequences of travelling would never have been nearly as dramatic as the events in the Americas. Like Ludens said: mortality wouldn't have been spectacularly bigger for a Greek army in India for example, than it would have been for a Greek army is Greece itself. (I'm not saying it would have been the same, because probably it would have been bigger, but not as spectacular as in your example of the American colonization.)

If you're interested in this whole exchange-of-diseases thing, I can strongly recommend the book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond to you. Most of my argument here are taken from there.

Very informative post podoh, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by podoh

If you're interested in this whole exchange-of-diseases thing, I can strongly recommend the book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond to you. Most of my argument here are taken from there.

---

:yes: I can heartily recommend that book. It sets out to investigate why it was the Europeans rather than the Africans or Native Americans that came to dominate the globe. Instead of assuming a racial or cultural basis, it looks at how geography has affected the development of technology, society and infectious diseases (hence: "Guns, Germs and Steel"). That could have been very boring, but instead it is a very informative and easy-to-read book that makes a good argument against racism.

Diamond mentions two other causes for the decimation of Native American cultures by disease. European society had access to far more domesticateable animals, and their germs. The cities of Western Europe were also very dense, making a very effective breeding ground for disease. As as result the European explorers carried more and deadlier pathogens with them than did the Native Americans.

Of course in the conquest of america disease played a huge role. No denial. Bur european supremacy over the world was not in the 15., 16.,17., century. It slowly started in the 18th century and had nothing to do with diseases among their enemies.
Also what about other conquering nations like the mongols, the turks etc. etc. etc.. Japan is another nice example. They didnt rise faster than china and conquered 1/4 of it and the rest of south east asia, because of germs ot their superior society. The only conquest of the eruopeans where germs helped was in amerika and maybe the europeans wouldnt have conquered america so fast without them, but that they would have conquered is completly out of question.
It seems to be rather a problem of technology, aggresiv potential and military strategies. (Which would also explain, turks, mongols etc.)
And by the way Geography may be an important point, but still people from every thinkable enviroment had huge empires.

Still. I think I might take a look at that book. Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by podoh

If you're interested in this whole exchange-of-diseases thing, I can strongly recommend the book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond to you. Most of my argument here are taken from there.

---

Didn't they make a 3 part documentary series on that book as well? I wonder how close the documentary was to the book?

Quote:

---

Didn't they make a 3 part documentary series on that book as well? I wonder how close the documentary was to the book?

---

They did. It followed the book quite well from what I saw.

Another good book about diseases and the way they affected history is "Armies of Pestilence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by podoh

"Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond

---

That's pretty much thread. There is a synopsis of the book on teh wiki.

It should also be noted that diseases are less prevalent in sparsely populated areas so if you want good health, go to the steppe away from those dirty city dwellers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Of course in the conquest of america disease played a huge role. No denial. Bur european supremacy over the world was not in the 15., 16.,17., century. It slowly started in the 18th century and had nothing to do with diseases among their enemies.
Also what about other conquering nations like the mongols, the turks etc. etc. etc.. Japan is another nice example. They didnt rise faster than china and conquered 1/4 of it and the rest of south east asia, because of germs ot their superior society. The only conquest of the eruopeans where germs helped was in amerika and maybe the europeans wouldnt have conquered america so fast without them, but that they would have conquered is completly out of question.
It seems to be rather a problem of technology, aggresiv potential and military strategies. (Which would also explain, turks, mongols etc.)
And by the way Geography may be an important point, but still people from every thinkable enviroment had huge empires.

Still. I think I might take a look at that book. Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

---

All thosepoints are explained it the book.

Germs is but one explanation.

And you right about the real supremacy in the 18th century and onwards, but that would not have been possible without the 15-16 th century conquests, in which germs played a big role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

It seems to be rather a problem of technology, aggresiv potential and military strategies. (...)

Still. I think I might take a look at that book. Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

---

Well, it's called "Guns, Germs and Steel". Germs are only a minor part, but important to explain why the advanced Native American civilizations folded so quickly when confronted by the Europeans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

The only conquest of the eruopeans where germs helped was in amerika and maybe the europeans wouldnt have conquered america so fast without them, but that they would have conquered is completly out of question.

---

I don't know where i read it but i remember that the one of the first Spanish who landed in north america came back with a report that the area was densely populated. Maybe more then 50 million people lived in north america and most of them got killed by hepatitis or something that was brought by some french there.
I don't believe that the world would look like it looks now if there really would have been more then 50 million native americans in north america when the first settlers/conquereres came about 100 years after this first spanish guys. Especially when you think of the problems the american colonies and later the USA had with only 1-2 million native americans...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

I don't know where i read it but i remember that the one of the first Spanish who landed in north america came back with a report that the area was densely populated. Maybe more then 50 million people lived in north america and most of them got killed by hepatitis or something that was brought by some french there.
I don't believe that the world would look like it looks now if there really would have been more then 50 million native americans in north america when the first settlers/conquereres came about 100 years after this first spanish guys. Especially when you think of the problems the american colonies and later the USA had with only 1-2 million native americans...

---

I don't think it was 50 million in North America alone. It was 50 million throughout the Americas as a whole, and 25 million were in the Aztec empire and 12 million were Inca, so that's about 2/3 of the population at least being concentrated in Central and South America. North America, having no real empires with large cities, was much less densely populated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Instead of assuming a racial or cultural basis, it looks at how geography has affected the development of technology, society and infectious diseases (hence: "Guns, Germs and Steel").

---

I would say that culture is an extremely important factor in the development of a society and its propensity for expansion. Some cultures are better at it than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

---

Its focus is on geography's affect on the development of different cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

I don't believe that the world would look like it looks now if there really would have been more then 50 million native americans in north america when the first settlers/conquereres came about 100 years after this first spanish guys.

---

While the sedentary peoples in Central and South America would have probably held the Spanish at bay at first, I think that they, along with those in what is now Canada and the US would eventually have been worn down by the Europeans' superior firepower, and in the North also by the destruction of their sources of food. It would have been more brutal and taken a lot longer, but we would have done it eventually.

Interesting question by the OP. I think disease pathways were open across Eurasia and Africa, so in general diseases didn't evolve in isolated pockets.

Was there a serious problem in Southern Italy with malaria after the EB period? I seem to recall the Goths having a problem with the "lethal dews of Campania".

Its arguable there should be provinces where "plague" (in the sense of the M2TW mechanism): big cities of course but perhaps also swampy territories.

The invasion of the Americass was definitely aided by disease ripping the heart out of the big organised politcal entities.

Both the Aztec and Inca polities were hardly stable structures though. Divide and conquer was the order of the day, like the various East India companies.

The example of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and British in S & SE Asia shows that aggressive European sea powers could conquer relatively large areas even without disease to assist, so long as there was political division to be exploited (Japan China and Thailand just managed to hold it together enough not to be completely carved up).

In response to several of the posts made. I believe the estimate made by Diamond for the population of the Americans at the time of Columbus was roughly 100 million people. In this theater one cannot downplay the sheer destruction caused by new diseases introduced to Native Americans. Many powerful tribes(including the Mississippians) were wiped out by disease before Europeans even explored the area. Another estimate used in Guns, Germs and Steel was that disease killed roughly 80-90% of the Native Americans after Columbus. If these figures are even remotely accurate how can a person try to compare European colonization with disease as opposed to without it?

Had disease been a non-factor I feel the Americas by and large would not have been colonized until the 19th Century, therefore comparable to the history of India. Remember the Europeans at the Jamestown colony failed at survival for nearly 25 years(including Roanoke). Without a constant supply of food from Europe any army would have simply starved to death if they were not able to raid supplies from the natives. Considering how much trouble the Europeans had dealing with the depopulated Native Americans, how would they have done against more numerous and cohesive foes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

While the sedentary peoples in Central and South America would have probably held the Spanish at bay at first, I think that they, along with those in what is now Canada and the US would eventually have been worn down by the Europeans' superior firepower,

---

Superior firepower? The conquest of the Aztec Empire had little to do with guns, and was largely a success due to native allies and disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB

and in the North also by the destruction of their sources of food.

---

What do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB

It would have been more brutal and taken a lot longer, but we would have done it eventually.

---

If disease was non-existent amongst the Native Americans, then the situation may have mirrored Africa and India. Trading colonies and so forth that would have eventually developed into a total claim/conquest on the two continents. Then eventual independance, mass expulsion of whites, and many, many wars. The natives would likely never have developed into minorities, but it is exceedingly difficult to imagine a world where the whites wouldn't have a couple continents in which to run away from their mess in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Superior firepower? The conquest of the Aztec Empire had little to do with guns, and was largely a success due to native allies and disease.

---

And horses, don't forget the horses...

Thanks for the responses guys. I understand that the situation with the diseases in Eurasia was totaly different from that in the Americas during the european colonization.
Let my ask a (slightly) different question now: What about the various toxins and parasites found in food and water. For example, tha natives of one land might be used in consuming a species of mushroom or some certain root, but for a foreigner it could be lethal. Same goes for the water.
I guess such things cannot be clasified as "diseases", for they are not transmittable, and immunity can be acquired only by generations-long consuming of that toxin.
Any thoughts on that?

(Of course, that would have lethal results for the first couple of waves of foreign soldiers, since they would learn to avoid some certain igredients after a while)

Also, my knowledge of biology is (obviously) not the best. :P Let me know if the things I'm saying are wrong.

It wouldn't really work like that, if there was a plant that was toxic enough to kill someone, the locals would just not eat it in the first place.

It would be pretty stupid of them to bilndly continue eating something lethal for generations until someone developed resistance.

As for parasites, they are different because your body's immune system doesn't work on that scale, it's the reason nobody is resistant to things like tapeworms or headlice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klearchos

Thanks for the responses guys. I understand that the situation with the diseases in Eurasia was totaly different from that in the Americas during the european colonization.
Let my ask a (slightly) different question now: What about the various toxins and parasites found in food and water. For example, tha natives of one land might be used in consuming a species of mushroom or some certain root, but for a foreigner it could be lethal. Same goes for the water.
I guess such things cannot be clasified as "diseases", for they are not transmittable, and immunity can be acquired only by generations-long consuming of that toxin.
Any thoughts on that?

(Of course, that would have lethal results for the first couple of waves of foreign soldiers, since they would learn to avoid some certain igredients after a while)

Also, my knowledge of biology is (obviously) not the best. :P Let me know if the things I'm saying are wrong.

---

Back then, everyone would have been used to eating and drinking slightely contaminated water.

So, that was not as much a problem as you have now when say a Western European starts drinking non-bottled water in India.

I see, thanks bobbin and Mediolanicus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Superior firepower? The conquest of the Aztec Empire had little to do with guns, and was largely a success due to native allies and disease.

---

As you said, it would have happened later, but they eventually would have come back with larger, better equipped, and more advanced armies that would have won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

What do you mean?

---

In the US at least, our greatest challenge came from the nomads in the central plains, who relied on the buffalo for food. Because the trigger-happy (US) Americans slaughtered the buffalo almost to extinction for the lulz (those of you who played Oregon Trail know what I'm talking about), the nomads were crippled. While this phenomenon was not limited to the central plains people, it was especially pronounced there due to their reliance on a single animal, whereas other groups relied on a variety of animals and plants or practiced agriculture. Of course, for this to happen, it's assumed that the Europeans would have already subdued/annihilated the groups on the East coast and have large colonies there in order to be in a position to make furthur inroads, but I do not think that it is an unreasonable assumption, seeing how the European goods were in such demand, who would refuse a request for a "trading post/enclave".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

If disease was non-existent amongst the Native Americans, then the situation may have mirrored Africa and India. Trading colonies and so forth that would have eventually developed into a total claim/conquest on the two continents. Then eventual independance, mass expulsion of whites, and many, many wars. The natives would likely never have developed into minorities, but it is exceedingly difficult to imagine a world where the whites wouldn't have a couple continents in which to run away from their mess in Europe.

---

I'm kind of picturing a situation more like apartheid-era South Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

And horses, don't forget the horses...

---

Actually, once the Aztecs and Inca stopped being afraid of them, I can't imagine them being very useful. The realms of the Aztec and Inca consisted mainly of extensive jungles and mountain ranges, where horses are craptacular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

It would be pretty stupid of them to bilndly continue eating something lethal for generations until someone developed resistance.

---

Yeah, that would be pretty stupid. *Knocks back a bottle of Jack Daniels and takes a drag on a cigarette before ordering Fugu*

Sorry to go off topic again Klearchos but I feel I should mention a great book which details the effect of disease in war. Its called "The Illustrious Dead" by Stephan Talty. The book chronicles the impact of Typhus on Napoleon's Grand Army as it marches into Russia. I found the book in mp3 format( I need some way to cope with a long commute) and it is fantastic. If I happen to find the torrent I will link it on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nirvanish

Sorry to go off topic again Klearchos but I feel I should mention a great book which details the effect of disease in war. Its called "The Illustrious Dead" by Stephan Talty. The book chronicles the impact of Typhus on Napoleon's Grand Army as it marches into Russia. I found the book in mp3 format( I need some way to cope with a long commute) and it is fantastic. If I happen to find the torrent I will link it on here.

---

That would be against ORG forum policy.

according to my knowledge the missisipians had millions of people and most recent research says that in the Amazonian jungle lived millions of people who where decimated by plages brought by the europeans

to add to the lack of proper defences the native americans gen pool was less divirsified then the europeans so it wasn´t just a matter of being more accostumed to living with diseases but also how strong is your organism is about fighting those deseases and when we come down to that and pardon my germanic but the indians where "genetically inferior"

but if we removed the disease part of it then i´m sure the world history would have been far more bloody cause imho doesn´t matter how strong the indians where the europeans bloodthrist for wealth would have eventually destroyed them (at least politically) and enslaved them because europe can pump up more people then the indians could reproduce themselfs

as for claiming that it would be a bit like africa nowadays africa is the most depopulated continent in the world and had the colonialist powers wanted to mantain it they would have easily but the problems where ww1 and ww2 that 1st removed political power from europe and transfered it to America and depopulated the population of the colonialist powers so they couldn´t continue to send so many europeans to africa as they had done for america for 300 years


ofc if we think about it the reason why france portugal the netherlands spain and most importantly the uk lost africa was because they didn´t shared it with germany and austria-hungary and as france kept and uk kept sending men to africa the germans where getting crowded (and we all know hiw pissed people get when they don´t have their personal space) so when the war started the pissed off germans beated up the depopulated and happy french :skull: ofc one could put russia in the mix but as far as i know russia went well the way to the pacific so they had more then enough room

almost forgot after ww2 the americans started pressing the colonial powers to give them freedom so they could enter those markets and since the political power was now in north america the europeans had to concede to both the american and russian pressure since most freedom and liberation movements in africa where sponsered sometimes by several powers at the same time

an interesting thing was during the portuguese colonial wars where the rebels/freedom fighters had better guns then the standing army and received suport from urss cuba sweaden america france and so forth and so forth
and wheater people admit it or not the africans would have never won their independence wars without the "european" suport (in this case europeans also includes the americans and russians) the 1st african army victory over an european army was in somalia or nubia where an italian army was defeated but the trufh behinde it was the african king received weapons and military training from the french and in every african war for independence up until our days every single one of them as some europeans behinde it trying to screw someone

Sorry about the mistake. I would still suggest it goes onto peoples' 19th century history must read list:)

This is getting very OT. The EB fora are not the place to discuss colonial history (check the Monastery). I'd also be careful with phrases like "genetically inferior" as these are closer to value judgements than scientific statements.

As I am guessing that the OP's questions have been answered, I am closing this topic. PM me if you disagree.

Thread closed.