04-01-2004, 01:51 AM
Gregg, why exactly 165 AD? Was that the "Antonine Plague"?<br>
<br>
Whatever, the plague of 165 (?) is very unlikely to have been the first introduction of smallpox to the Rome. Egyptian mummies with smallpox scars have been found dating thousands of years BCE, and given the influence Egypt had with the Mediterranean world, it's almost inevitable that smallpox would have spread widely long before then.<br>
<br>
A mortality rate of 30% *is* colossal though, and does suggest smallpox -- or measles on a virgin population.<br>
<br>
This is my first post in this forum btw -- been lurking for a while.<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
<br>
Rich<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Whatever, the plague of 165 (?) is very unlikely to have been the first introduction of smallpox to the Rome. Egyptian mummies with smallpox scars have been found dating thousands of years BCE, and given the influence Egypt had with the Mediterranean world, it's almost inevitable that smallpox would have spread widely long before then.<br>
<br>
A mortality rate of 30% *is* colossal though, and does suggest smallpox -- or measles on a virgin population.<br>
<br>
This is my first post in this forum btw -- been lurking for a while.<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
<br>
Rich<br>
<p></p><i></i>
