Roman sanitation may not have helped health

[Duncan Head]

Fleas, lice and tapeworms:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/08/flea-bitten-empire-roman-gifts-to-the-world-included-bacterial-infections

Paper at http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPAR%2FS0031182015001651a.pdf&code=fa037460c1eae19d7fc0936b8a4b398c

[Patrick Waterson]

We may sooner or later see a hypothesis that garum was a significant factor in bringing down the Empire.  One might note that the legend of Uther Pendragon and his entire court being poisoned by persons unknown for reasons unexplained could simply be the outcome of a host attempting a retro-Roman banquet without understanding the risks of preparing garum from uncooked fish and leaving it to ferment for several days before the banquet was served ...

The spread of plagues at various points in Empire history is quite explainable as there would have been no shortage of vectors.

Even so, we may note that the hygienic conditions of the Roman Empire seem to have been no worse than those of 19th century Great Britain in the period 1811-1831, which saw the fastest doubling of population in British, and possibly human, history.

[Dangun]

Yes, hunter gatherer cultures don't suffer many diseases or parasites.

But when they come in contact with cultures with mechanised agriculture, large cities and the ability to travel great distances... they all die from what the denser civilisation is resistant to.

[Jim Webster]

indeed I've seen it claimed that for much of history, cities couldn't maintain their own populations and survived by drawing rural dwellers into them

[Erpingham]

With Romans, there is also the role of public baths.  Though one might think cleanliness would help, lots of people sharing pools of warm, unchlorinated and not regularly changed water is a great way to spread waterborne diseases.

[Duncan Head]

With Romans, there is also the role of public baths.  Though one might think cleanliness would help, lots of people sharing pools of warm, unchlorinated and not regularly changed water is a great way to spread waterborne diseases.

This is a point made  in the original article: some of the better baths had systems for regularly changing the water, but a lot apparently didn't.

[Dangun]

indeed I've seen it claimed that for much of history, cities couldn't maintain their own populations and survived by drawing rural dwellers into them.

I think there are a lot of analogues to this in development history.

I seem to recall research that used skeletal evidence to suggest that health and nutrition declined for a period after the advent of agriculture. The reason posited was that social stratification emerges coincident with agriculture, and the powers-that-be divert the surplus into other activities - self-enrichment, warfare, religion, building stuff etc. 

So I would not be surprised by similar evidence for the advent of large cities.

Its interesting though that the economic and social opportunities of cities still made it an attractive choice to would-be rural residents, despite the health consequences.

And then you get the urbanised coming up with all sorts of interesting stuff, even if the technological solutions of aqueducts, baths and sanitation did not immediately solve the health problems.

[Patrick Waterson]

One can see this happening over the past couple of decades in communist China.

The impression one gains from classical urban populations, or at least those who left any sort of record, which means Greeks are heavily represented, is that by and large the agricultural population lived in villages and the tradesmen and professionals in the city, together with the bureaucrats, troops and governor.

Thucydides (Peloponnesian War II.16) has something to say on this point:

The Athenians thus long lived scattered over Attica in independent townships. Even after the centralization of Theseus, old habit still prevailed; and from the early times down to the present war most Athenians still lived in the country with their families and households, and were consequently not at all inclined to move now, especially as they had only just restored their establishments after the Median invasion.

Citizenship was evidently not the same thing as urban dwelling until the Spartans began invading, following which the Athenians did indeed suffer the consequences of too many people in too small a space: the plague of Pericles.  The fact that most Athenians lived in the city's hinterland rather than in the city itself is a pattern which may have been quite widespread in classical times and context and which we should perhaps take into consideration with regard to this period.

That said, Thucydides' phrasing does imply that following the Peloponnesian War the bulk and focus of the Athenian population shifted to the city itself.

[Dangun]

One can see this happening over the past couple of decades in communist China.

Its good to be a capitalist in any period of rapid urbanisation, because the seemingly infinite supply of rural labor renders them powerless.

[Andreas Johansson]

indeed I've seen it claimed that for much of history, cities couldn't maintain their own populations and survived by drawing rural dwellers into them

Certainly true of Swedish cities from when documentation becomes dense enough to tell until industrialization. Given that our climate is less than welcoming to many infectious diseases, I imagine we're no exception on this point.