Did The Bulk Of The Legions Die From The Plaque?

[Arvioustus]

Under his rule affairs were successfully conducted against the Germans. He himself carried on a war with the Marcomanni, which was greater than any in the memory of man (in the way of wars with the Germans)---so that it was compared to the Punic Wars, for it was exceedingly formidable, and in it whole armies were lost; especially as in this reign, after the victory over the Parthians there occurred a great pestilence so that at Rome, and throughout Italy and the provinces a large fraction of the population, and actually the bulk of the regular troops perished from the plague.

 

Perhaps a city was not optimum way of life when one doesn`t have understandings of deseases and causes. (ex. fleas on rodents)

[phil25]

Which period are we talking about? It is not clear from your post?

 

As far as i am aware, there is NO evidence (written or archaeological) that the British legions were ever so seriously affected by plague between 43-410AD.

[Pertinax]

The Legions were implicated , to a degree, in carrying plague into Italy.Three major plagues affected the Empire . Marcus is alleged to have perished in one such epidemic. The movement of previously segregated populations alwys brings unknown pathogens into play-the fate of many Native American Peoples when brought into first contact with settlers carrying chicken pox/smallpox being the easiest modern event to demonstrate the dynamics of disease. Cruse (Roman Medicine gives some flesh to the epidemic episodes).

[Favonius Cornelius]

Perhaps a city was not optimum way of life when one doesn`t have understandings of deseases and causes.

 

I've never heard of a disease affecting a population proportionally more because the people ran around half-naked in the sticks or lived in cities.

 

However, assuming that cities did contribute to proportionally greater degree of disease, I would say that there is a trade off for anything in life, the plus side of cities being the various bonuses to production and intellectualism.

[Pertinax]

Way back in another thread I mentioned "morbidity" ie: tendency to disease and illness in a population as a precursor to likely survival rates of population cohorts ( not the military term please note) . The usual suspects in a "morbid " group are obvious, poor water supply/ sewage disposal (cholera /typhus) , exposure to parasitic (chronic) infection ( helminths via sewage), imbalanced /innapropriate diet (malnourishment).

Wash your hands , drink clean water and take care where your sewage goes and things look much better.An organised city might well deliver these things quite well.

Ancient armies were disease reservoirs waiting to happen-I wonder how many combat fatalities were from "pure" fatal assault versus gross debility reducing effectivness leading to physical vulnerability?

A compact army with reduced camp followers ,carrying their own gear ( sound familiar?) with medical attendants would be a deadly weapon against levied troops called out for a campaign season especially if operating out of its own territory. I suggest combat effectivnes (in a given time frame ) for ancient armies was very short-you would only have a short period to use the assembled men before disease reduced overall effectivness.I dont say that everyone was smitten by plague , rather a proportion would be seriously ill and many more badly debilitated.

[trajen777]

The biggest Plagues that struck the Roman armies were the one described above and with Marcus Arulius and the one which stopped Justinian from reconquoring the west. I am more familiar with the later one then under Marcus Arulius. For example in the first 10 yrs of Justinian

[Centurion Legioneer]

Well the Roman Legions were in battle, with Germans, etc. All of their enemies could have been carrying the plague, and after the battles, with the enemy, they sometimes would collect the dead, or camp for the night then leave the next morning. The decomposing bodies would be a breeding ground for all kinds of diseases.