City Sanitation

[Marcus Caelius]

I'm reading The Ghost Map, about the 1853(? - terrible memory!) cholera outbreak in London. Counterintuitively, one reason the epidemic became the worst outbreak in the city's history was the onset of modern sanitation, via the installation of a citywide sewage system that allowed city dwellers to stop storing their feces in their own cellars.

 

I keep contrasting this with ancient Rome and the Cloacta Maxima. Imperial Rome had, what? one million residents throughout much of its history? And the Cloacta Maxima had been there from the first and, presumably, used for sanitation from the first. Indeed, perhaps Rome's most outstanding, if not impressive, feature was the copious amounts of water allowed, forced, to flow into, through and, most importantly, out of the city.

 

So, the contrast is that London was the world's largest city in the 1850s, with twice the population of 2nd-century imperial Rome.

 

Question: In it's 1,000 years, how many outbreaks of cholera did Rome suffer? To my extremely limited knowledge, the answer is "None."

 

ETA: Hmm, let me rephrase. Both ancient Rome and 1850s London discharged their waste into their respective rivers. The difference was the Roman aqueducts; the affected Londoners drew their drinking water from the Thames, downstream.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Marcus Caelius

[caldrail]

Rome suffered many outbreaks of disease, and in its later years disease was a constant problem. Although rome could supply fountains, baths, and wealthy homes with fresh water the cloacta maxima was not able to rid te streets of rome completely of refuse. Remember that a common practice in poorer parts of the city was to dump their doings out the window (just like any other city in europe prior to the flushing toilet).

 

Its believed that disease was a major factor in the decline of rome as a city.