I get that, but germ theory during the middle ages wasn't exactly widespread, was it? If I'm not mistaken, the dominant belief was that diseases were caused by foul-smelling odors, not germs.
Imagine reading Rerum rusticarum libri III as a medieval scholar, or maybe event the relevant source. Could we expect a medieval scholar to jump and shout: "Yes! Yes! Of course! Disease is caused by small invisible creatures, not water that smells bad."
That's what Jack is trying to say, I think. With knowledge (and even proof) of germ theory, a find like this is pretty amazing. Without that knowledge or proof, "small-invisible-creatures"-theory has as much evidence as "foul smell"-theory. Maybe even less.
Maybe the lost document contains amazing evidence, but this leaves me wondering, how much evidence could someone in Classical times find to support germ theory.
I get that, but germ theory during the middle ages wasn't exactly widespread, was it? If I'm not mistaken, the dominant belief was that diseases were caused by foul-smelling odors, not germs.
So, this previous post is also relevant. The Roman legions actually understood how disease worked, and used policies to minimize the impact of infectious disease on their armies. This knowledge was lost, and infectious disease was a major killer in medieval and modern armies, to the point where a military which had implemented Roman sanitation likely would have had ...
Related: Son of Low Hanging Fruit, Low Hanging Poop
A post by Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's blog West Hunter.