The relevant quote:

A.D. 671. This year happened that great destruction among the fowls.

This is such a bizarre thing to encounter among the endless lists of who became king and defeated whom in battle, or who was baptized when by which bishop, that I feel like there must be something interesting behind it, but there isn't any detail given except that one bare sentence. After all this time I suppose it's highly unlikely that any other record of the Fowl Destruction Incident Of 671 exists, but a girl can always hope.

I've heard Venice in its Renaissance heyday was considered relatively clean because of its built-in sewage system, the sea. Since Tenochtitlan and its floating gardens were on a large lake and the city had a levee system to keep fresh spring water moving in, was it less prone to the disease and gnarly squalor a lot of European cities had to deal with?

Both the Wikipedia page and the largest post on this subreddit seem to reflect the contested history surrounding the topic.

Common charges against Reagan is that he delayed in recognizing the disease, failed to fund research, failed to speak out on behalf of the ill, and actively prevented others from addressing the disease, and that his actions or lack of action were driven by a disregard or dislike of homosexuals.

Some historians believe the plague existed in parts of Europe continuously from 1346 to 1671. How did it ever end without modern medicine?

Something that I often notice is that we often talk about previous wars similar to tales that we say to children and "glorify" warriors for their weapons, battle strategy, philosophy and so on.

For example,

• Sparta - known as the ultimate warrior ever in mainstream media. Known for their strict military philosophy and training to be the perfect warrior in every situation (Another thing to mention is the "Iliad", the famous book about war that both glorifies war, something that was common in ancient Greece, and is also anti-war)

• Rome - known for their famous imperalism and over 1000 years of history and known for their superior emphasis in their military structure, advancement and strategy against their other enemies like the Celts, the Normans, the Huns, the Carthaginians and so on.

• Imperial Japan - Famous for the Samuria and how they were the ultimate class (above them was the Shogun) and their Bushido code. Their sword of choice (among other weapons) was the katana, a weapon that plenty of people like and believe that it is unmatched against any other swords (which is not entirely the case). Darth Vader's helmet of the Star Wars universe is designed after the Kabuto, the helmet that Samurai used

• Mediaval times - Instant thought that comes to mind is the Medieval knight and their bodies covered in thick armour plate armour and their code of chivalry. Among these knights, there are tales of famous wars like the Holy Wars, the Crusades, the Knights of St. John against the Arabs, the Fall of the Byzantine Empire, the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, the Independence of Scotland from the English and so on

• American Revolution - American colonists fought for their own independence from the British empire because they felt that they were being abused by the British by increasing taxes (and the famous line "taxation without representation) and fight to the death until 1783 and brought the birth of the U.S. that we know today

• World War 1 and World War 2: Probably the time when glorification of war ended and the rise of anti-war propoganda became increasing popular (the ones that became MORE popular were the anti-war protests in the 60s and 70s) but we speak of the wars about their tactics, weapons, vehicles and arsenals used and so on.

I often like to tell stories like these as well I am telling tales of awe to children but at the same time

But at the same time, I wonder why we often do this considering that we know how war is an incredibly complicated subject and one that brings a lot of destruction, loss, famine, disease, and despair

Even Metatron, a Youtuber who speaks about history mentioned this

I am looking for more information on holmgang, the Nordic dueling custom (correct me if I am misunderstanding the custom).

My light research has given me a bit of info: there was a challenge, followed by a 'duel' a few days later; it was used to settle dispute; it did not carry strict social prohibitions; it was demarcated e.g. by an island or an object on the ground.

Also, as asked above, was it a frequent custom?

Lastly, was it used to handle larger disputes such as armed conflicts or territorial/inheritance disputes between rulers?

(I am writing a low fantasy novel and used the term but became interested in learning a bit more about it - the duel between Ragnar and his Earl in the History channel's Vikings is what originally got me interested).

Sorry it is not disease related: I have been enjoying all the threads about water sources etc.

Edit: Is this flaired disease due to the theme or did I mess up?

The Wikipedia page suggests that early mentions of specific "seeds" spreading illness, go back to Thucydides' description of a plague in Athens. Many other examples are cited, which demonstrate some kind of hypothesis that some kind of illness-causing organism is propagating itself through people's bodies and spreading contagiously, even if the microbiological details are unknown.

So why did the miasma theory retain so much influence for so long?

While the expressions and, more importantly, interpretations of mental illness are culturally conditioned and constructed, there is frequently an underlying genetic pathology. For example: 19th-century schizophrenics weren't receiving messages from their TV sets, but that's frequently listed as a symptom today; or the early medieval monastic sin accedia or spiritual listlessness has close ties to modern depression. There is a long history of modern scholarship on the prehistory of people, especially women, who starve themselves in the presence of abundant food: medieval holy women's severe asceticism, Victorian fasting girls, modern anorexia nervosa.

In Holy Feast and Holy Fast, which exploded the medieval side of the story for us, Bynum cites a couple cases of a (self-starving) holy woman who threw up or made herself throw up whatever she ate. She also references folk tale traditions of gorging and vomiting used to symbolize sensual pleasure and excess, but without examples to show whether that had connection to real practices, was linked to specific people, etc.

Like anorexia, bulimia (we know today) has an underlying genetic component. Is there a similar pre-history/narrative of historical expressions of the pathology underlying what we call bulimia nervosa today?

Cholera is an especially awful disease to see proliferate, so I'm not at all surprised that it was given a sort of pride of place, but how did this specifically monarchical nomenclature come about?

Today's Monday Methods topic ties-in with the Weekly Theme of "Disease, Illness, and Epidemics".

What sort of research methods do scholars bring to bear when studying historical incidence of disease?

Particularly, how do you tackle eras before the rise of modern medicine and medical diagnosis?

To choose an example, are written accounts of the symptoms of the Plague in Athens that killed Pericles distinctive enough to diagnose a particular strain? Or must scholars hope for some sort of surviving tissue sample with which to conduct DNA testing? Short of that, can diseases be diagnosed by examining the bones of the deceased?

To add an additional aspect to this question; how do scholars determine demographics of historical diseases? Are they heavily dependent on written records? Can scientific sampling techniques (osteology, DNA testing, others?) be brought to bear to give a more representative picture?

I watched a youtube video recently, in which the author claims that syphilis was a major impact on everyday moral standards.

TL;DR: Are there any widely accepted works supporting the claim that syphilis' epidemic provoked a major shift in European morals from 1960-s Sexual revolution style freedom before syphilis and to strict Puritan style moral code after?

Specifically, in the video it's claimed that sexual life was a lot more frivolous before the first European epidemic of syphilis circa 1495. And only the outbreak of syphilis made everyday sexual life like it's usually imagined for those ages: with strict taboos on adultery and plain clothing style.

He goes to provide some evidences of such frivolous sexual life. First goes the art of School of Fontainebleau. Its paintings prove, author claims, that sexual taboos weren't strict at all.

Second is the fact that one of the most prestigious orders in England is the Order of the Garter. Author claims that it's name and the fact that it's named after the garter of Countess of Salisbury is a direct evidence of how free sexual life in the Middle ages, before the first outbreak of syphilis.

As for the evidences for the rise of moral strictness after the syphilis epidemic, author claims that this outbreak provoked doubts in the Catholic church, and these doubts made the advent of Protestantism possible. And the reason why rise of Protestantism supports his views is the Protestant ethics.

After such a long intro the question is this. Are there any widely accepted works supporting the claim that syphilis' epidemic provoked a major shift in European morals from 1960-s Sexual revolution style freedom before syphilis and to strict Puritan style moral code after?

This notion of "memes" as a unit of cultural transmission has often found provocative parallels to how diseases propagate; indeed, it has become commonplace to describe a successful meme as having "gone viral".

Was this pseudo-medical approach to the matter always on the table from the very beginning, or has it only been adopted in the intervening decades? How did medical scientists respond to the idea? And have they played any role in the subsequent collapse of meme theory as a field?

I have heard that a large obstacle to European conquest of Africa prior to the late 19th century was the prevalence of African diseases like dengue fever and malaria. Also, of course, European diseases greatly facilitated the conquest of the Americas.

I’m wondering whether any major potential conquerors of Europe, such as the Andalusian Muslims, Mongols, or Ottoman Turks were deterred by the prospect of European disease: “Conquering Europe would be easy enough militarily, but trying to live among all of these zoonotic diseases, contaminated water sources, and people who bathe once a year and empty their chamber pots into the streets would be epidemiological slaughter!”

There are of course other reasons generally given (Battle of Tours/Poitiers and pro-Abbasid subversion preventing Andalusian conquest, Ögedei’s death stopping Mongol westward expansion, etc) but I’m wondering if we have any sources suggesting that endemic illness was a significant European deterrent.

I recently caught a few episodes of Snowfall on FX. The show depicts a 1983 version of Compton that seems very idyllic. That got me wondering what these communities were really like between, let's say, 1979-1983.

Specifically, what the crime rate and general level of safety was, as well as the overall se]nose of community that may or may not have been present.

And how much political control do you need to implement a successful quarantine?