Infectious diseases during Height of Roman Empire?

[ascanius]

More specifically how do you think a disease such as HIV would have impacted society during the height of the roman empire.

I'm thinking that it would have been devastating in the long run mostly because there was extensive travel and trade during that period. Due to how HIV works it wouldn't be something that is immediately (weeks or days) apparent such as Bubonic plague. So thinking it would have been able to travel far across the empire with major population centers being hardest hit.

The main question is, would such a virus be able to cause a near apocalyptic collapse of society during that time period. I know there would be a lot of isolated places that are not affected but for the big picture what do you think.

 

[elemtilas]

More specifically how do you think a disease such as HIV would have impacted society during the height of the roman empire.

The main question is, would such a virus be able to cause a near apocalyptic collapse of society during that time period. I know there would be a lot of isolated places that are not affected but for the big picture what do you think.

Unlikely to the point of absolutely not.

HIV is pandemic in many parts of Africa even now, many people of which live in roughly similar conditions. No sign of impending apocalypse there. Couple HIV/AIDS with other more virulent and immediately deadly plagues and you might see deeper & broader mortality rates during those crises but I don't think society would collapse any worse.

 

[Holman]

HIV is an immune disease - so doesn't actually kill. It is the other diseases that kill. HIV and AIDS are the two extremes of the same illness. AIDS is defined as the occurrence of 20 or more other illnesses or related cancers. Consider the percentage of the population who actually have the HIV virus. The WHO gives the number 36.7 million out of approximately 7.5 billion. That is under 0.5% of the population.

If you want to have a rampant pandemic disease that kills then there are other options. But I would question how the disease travels in your world.

 

[ThinkerX]

Not HIV, but if I remember correctly, a devastating plague during the 3rd (?) century AD contributed greatly to the collapse of the western Roman Empire. It effectively depopulated entire provinces, depriving Rome of the manpower required to keep the borders secure.

 

[skip.knox]

The plague hit in the 3rdc and in the 6thc, both killing millions. Our sources are *extremely* sketchy, but in the wake of the 3rdc we get Diocletian and Constantine and Theodosius, so it's hard to argue that the plague caused the Empire to fall. The Byzantine Empire had some rough years after Justinian, but the advent of Islam had far more long-lasting effects than did the plague. The same can be said for 14thc Europe. The Hundred Years War continued with scarcely a hiccup. Effects at the more local level (e.g., abandoned villages) were of course more significant.

Anyway, I'd say just invent the disease you need for the job. But keep in mind that populations are extremely resilient. In the wake of a demographic crisis (pre-industrial anyway), the average age of marriage drops, leading to a higher birth rate. There is typically a big shift from the countryside into the cities. Wages go up. At least for medieval Europe, the lower classes managed to grab a bigger slice of power, at least for a while. The ruling classes, though, continued much as they always had.

 

[FifthView]

From what I remember, diseases in general were fairly widespread and devastating in the Roman empire, especially in large population centers. In Rome, people lived stacked up upon one another—multi-story tenements, tiny rooms with many occupants, most without running water, with public toilets and baths, with no understanding of basic hygiene to combat the spread of germs. (And no common understanding of the dangers of lead! But that's a different story.)

Even so, enough people kept living, surviving, in this unhealthy living environment.

Now, if you added a virulent auto-immune disease, probably the effects would have been made much worse.

 

[CupofJoe]

Didn't Rome have fairly regular Cholera epidemics?
With much of it built on the swampy land between 7 hills didn't help. They drained the land and canalised the river but sewage was always a problem.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Actually HIV would have been utterly devestating. It is a slow moving insidious disease for which there is no cure and no natural immunity. Without treatment it is invariably fatal. The two biggest checks on its spread in our world are the messages of safe sex and the antiretrovirals. Ancient Rome had neither.

It would just have moved through the population slowly wiping out anyone who wasn't monogamous - and unfortunately in ancient Rome that was very few - and no one would have even guessed that the disease existed since its the other illnesses it allows to spread that kill, let alone known how to prevent its spread. It wouldhave just looked like the entire population was slowly being wiped out by a hundred different illnesses.

However, it would have had one strange effect - it would have massively spread the rise of Christianity - simply because of the monogamy angle. They would have been the largest group of survivors and no doubt explained their survival through adherence to their faith.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

One thing that may reduce the spread is the general lower standard of living compared to today. People back them had shorter life spans due to poor health and health care. This would give someone with HIV less time to spread the disease. This could possibly reduce the strength of the Roman army and limit how far the disease spreads.
HIV may also be mostly confined to a certain class as the highest officials may have limited interactions with the poorest. The wealthiest people would have their own house slaves and not need to have sex with the poorest in society. This might keep most of the people with the disease in one of those groups, depending on how it travelled to nation.

 

[skip.knox]

I don't wish to hijack this thread, but people did not have shorter life spans. More people died at a young age, so that skews the average age at death downward pretty dramatically. But if you were not felled by accident or disease, then the years of man were threescore and ten. There is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate this.

I like to speak to the notion that people's life spans were shorter whenever I can. Please return to infectious disease.

On which, if I didn't say it earlier, why not just craft the disease that will serve your purpose? This is fantasy; you can have it behave however you wish, and make up the causation to suit.

 

[Russ]

It is hard to put an exact finger on where a society will "collapse" from a disease, but HIV certainly has the potential to do it in a non-modern setting.

Beyond simply the mortality rate you have to figure in the people who get really sick and linger. They are effectively no longer able to work etc which puts a further strain on the whole society.

The modern African situation was very bad, and that was in a far better situation than the Romans would be.

So from the point of view of writing fiction, I think you could credibly posit a broad societal collapse from a disease like HIV in a Roman setting, particularly if that works well for your story.

 

[ascanius]

Thanks everyone for the input. The religious innovation is a good point. Second question, do you think it would effectively we itself out over the long period. Our fo you think it would have a cyclical lifespan

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

HIV isn't something that burns itself out. Currently it's estimated that the total number of cases to date has been 78 million. 35 million to date have died from it. And the numbers of people found to have even partial immunity to the disease is less than one percent. IE it has an almost one hundred percent mortality rate of those infected, but a few will not be able to be infected. By comparison the Black Death had an estimated forty percent mortality rate. And it wiped out half of Europe. It's spread differently and moves faster and had a cyclical attack because the disease also killed the rats that carried the fleas that spread the bacterium - but still the comparison is worrying.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[ScipioBarca]

When in doubt: syphilis. This are words I like to live by.

 

[CupofJoe]

When in doubt: syphilis. This are words I like to live by.

One shudders to think of the context...

Hi,
HIV isn't something that burns itself out. Currently it's estimated that the total number of cases to date has been 78 million. 35 million to date have died from it. And the numbers of people found to have even partial immunity to the disease is less than one percent. IE it has an almost one hundred percent mortality rate of those infected, but a few will not be able to be infected. By comparison the Black Death had an estimated forty percent mortality rate. And it wiped out half of Europe. It's spread differently and moves faster and had a cyclical attack because the disease also killed the rats that carried the fleas that spread the bacterium - but still the comparison is worrying.
Cheers, Greg.

The time scale in this is important.
HIV can take years to become debilitating and years more to kill.
Black Death epidemics are more like wildfires in comparison. People died in weeks if not days.
I would guess/suggest that an HIV like infection could hobble or even cripple an economy. But things would limp along.
Something like the Black Death destroys the status quo. 40-50% population dead in a year or less could end societal structure.