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 a major advantage.
So you don't really need a scholar who believes in an ancient work because of evidence- you need someone who tries it out, for whatever reason. In the realm of non-fiction, if it actually works, that will lead to them winning in some way.
It's also worthwhile to consider the impact of new classics on a culture where ideas have to be worded as somehow related to the classics. It's much easier to say "I agree with Democritus over Parmenides" than it is to say "I disagree with Parmenides."
That's a great post, but I think it's going too far to say that the Romans understood disease. Maybe they did, but I don't think there's any evidence that they consciously designed their camps for disease reasons. Note that Cochran doesn't claim that they understood. Also, he mentions the alternate hypothesis that there was less disease back then. It ought to be clear from the historical record if Rome won by avoiding disease that struck enemy armies. I don't know the history, but Cochran implies that Rome didn't have such an edge. Did the enemies have the...
Related: Son of Low Hanging Fruit, Low Hanging Poop
A post by Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's blog West Hunter.