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 same sanitation? or did it not make much difference?
I think it's worth pointing out that early moderns didn't seem to notice that disease in army camps was a big deal. So the observed failure to copy the Romans probably would not have been mitigated if they'd had an ancient text asserting that the method protected from disease. (Though maybe the assertion that disease mattered in war would have been helpful.) Yes, someone blindly copying Roman camps would have had an advantage, but an advantage not understood propagates slowly.
That's a great post, but I think it's going too far to say that the Romans understood disease.
Sure, I agree that I oversold it, and should have worded it more carefully. But, I'll point out that "understand disease" is not a single threshold. One could contest the claim that we understand disease. The following claims seem to be individually more likely than not: some educated Romans knew that sanitation and disease were linked, designed sanitation around their knowledge of disease, and that epidemic diseases were caused by invisible agents th...
Related: Son of Low Hanging Fruit, Low Hanging Poop
A post by Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's blog West Hunter.