Talk:Plague of Justinian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] tag
-
- Removed the "disputed" tag, added, apparently as a joke, by anon. User:217.225.130.152 a non-entity otherwise unheard from. --Wetman 11:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] bubonic plague?
It's not proven, whether this was the bubonic plague or not. see Black Death for this matter. and it is not proven either, if the death toll was as high as it is claimed here. -musschrott
Please see bubonic plague - for information on the disease and historic epidemics/pandemics. As with most historic events, we can't "prove" anything, but we can evaluate and discuss. It is true current scientists hold differing opinions (see bubonic plague alternatives as well as the written references). A general scholarly consensus says the Plague of Justinian was bubonic plague while the Black Death spread more rapidly due to the shifting of the disease from the bubonic to the pneumonic variety, with some septicemic plague as well. The Third Pandemic is considered to be a combination of the three plague varieties. Numbers are always an estimate (at best) from a historic source. I think the original author was quite clear about that and I left the concept in when I did my recent edit. WBardwin 06:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tell us more about this concensus. Is it a concensus among historians, or epidemiologists?? After all, historians are not scientists. Why not cite this and allow for controversy on this point. Unless there's been a serious study done on the cause of the plague (has there?) which turned up some concrete physical evidence (ie the pressence of plague bacteria found in the bodies of people known to have died in the Plague of Justinian... has there??) then I don't think this is a verifiable fact. Certainly not enough to be stated so concretely in the article. If the concensus is merely based on written records of the symptoms, then this is merely a theory--and a fairly weak one. So I think it's fair to ask for explaination as to just why it is believed to have been plague as opposed to something else. We must be careful when taking an authoritative tone in an article to state theory rather than fact. Also, I'm fairly sure I remember traditional theories regarding the evolution of Bubonic Plague tracing it to Central Asia at a later time period. Thus, if the Plague of Justinian was in fact Bubonic Plague, then wouldn't that contradict conventional theories of the origins of the disease?? It's these kinds of questions that demand further detail on the basis of the claim that it's bubonic plague. Anyone else know more? Links? Thelastemperor 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
At least some of the deaths from Justinian's Plague may have been from typhoid fever as well as Yellow Plague (Yellow Fever noticably different from bubonic from its jaundice tinge). Granted that bubonic sufferers, if they had time, would have been sufficiently weakened to catch typhoid fever in addition to their other woes. How this would abet Yellow Fever is not known to me, but some victims were definitely Jaundiced. The Yellow Fever spread north to Wales, Ireland, etc. Apparently they suffered no Black Plague there at that time.67.8.201.227 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] deaths?
10,000 people a day? Really? Wasn't the city's population only about 500,000 at this point? -Dmz5 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I missed the note about this later in the article. I'm going to rearrange it a little bit so it's clearer.--Dmz5 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
