View Full Version : Typhoid fever linked to fall of Athens
HetHert
January 24th, 2006, 02:01 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10992720/from/RS.5/
Cain
January 24th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Interesting article, but I have to raise some doubts. I'm not so certain it was typhoid. Sure, it was probably knocking around then as well, but I've got a copy of Thucydides in front of me and some symptons dont add up.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/travel/diseases/typhoid.htm says that in the early stages there is a fever and "the patient's temperature rises gradually to 40ºC".
Thucydides, by comparison, said "the body was not externally hot to touch".
There are other differences too, such as the occurence of ulcers and pustules on the body and the chest infections that also came with it.
But I'm not a doctor, perhaps I'm wrong. Any medics in the house wanna pull me up on this?
omar
February 14th, 2006, 07:52 PM
I heard on the radio that Nepolians Grand Army of 1812 was weak from typhus & that is part of the reasan for the Russians defeating them.
Little Billy
February 14th, 2006, 09:59 PM
I heard on the radio that Nepolians Grand Army of 1812 was weak from typhus & that is part of the reasan for the Russians defeating them.
Huh? Napoleon kicked the CRAP out of the Russians. The only reason he had to retreat was that Russian die-hards set fire to Moscow around his ears.
His troops then froze to death on the march home.
Zibblsnrt
February 15th, 2006, 12:57 AM
Huh? Napoleon kicked the CRAP out of the Russians. The only reason he had to retreat was that Russian die-hards set fire to Moscow around his ears.
I'd hardly call Borodino "kicking the crap" out of the Russians. That was the only significant fight Napoleon had between Poland and Moscow, and it was less a battle than an ahead-of-its-time reenactment of WWI in which both sides lost a quarter to a third of their armies.
Little Billy
February 15th, 2006, 02:07 AM
I'd hardly call Borodino "kicking the crap" out of the Russians. That was the only significant fight Napoleon had between Poland and Moscow, and it was less a battle than an ahead-of-its-time reenactment of WWI in which both sides lost a quarter to a third of their armies.
Who waltzed into the enemy's capitol? (even if he had to tapdance OUT?)
Zibblsnrt
February 15th, 2006, 10:11 AM
Who waltzed into the enemy's capitol? (even if he had to tapdance OUT?)
With the type of war the Russians were fighting, that's actually irrelevant. The advance to Moscow was little more than unfurling enough rope to hang the Grande Armee with; the reason there was only one major battle between Poland and Moscow was because the Russians spent the entire invasion choosing the battlefield.
Someone got mauled in the invasion of Russia, but it wasn't the Russians. If you want an example of Russia getting whooped invasion-wise you need to fast-forward a century, but the Napoleonic invasion wasn't such a case.
Cain
February 16th, 2006, 03:55 AM
But the fact they took Moscow would seem to indicate that they didnt lose due to illness, more because the wily Russians grabbed all the food and legged it, then partisans set the place on fire.
Theres
February 17th, 2006, 04:00 AM
Napoleon chose poorly. Hitler chose poorly. Russian winter, natives win... go figure.
can we get back to Athens now?
Little Billy
February 19th, 2006, 04:40 PM
Napoleon chose poorly. Hitler chose poorly. Russian winter, natives win... go figure.
can we get back to Athens now?
When did Athens invade Russia?
Cain
February 21st, 2006, 06:27 AM
Well, I'm pretty certain they had a colony on the Black Sea, that counts, right?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.