Disease & History

Rating:
Summary: Traces the influence of disease on civilizations
Review: Disease & History traces the influence of disease on civilizations, armies, and leaders throughout history, providing an unusual focus on the social and political effects of diseases on societies. From the classical era's plagues to modern times, Disease & History provides an updated, revised second edition of medical history.

Rating:
Summary: Traces the influence of disease on civilizations
Review: Disease & History traces the influence of disease on civilizations, armies, and leaders throughout history, providing an unusual focus on the social and political effects of diseases on societies. From the classical era's plagues to modern times, Disease & History provides an updated, revised second edition of medical history.

Rating:
Summary: There are much better books on the same subject
Review: Instead of discussing the impact of disease on society and civilizations, Cartwright speculates about what specific the diseases were that have played an important role in history. This was frustrating, because at best it is pure speculation.

For example, Cartwright asks "Was it syphilis that made Ivan IV "Ivan the Terrible?" and "Did the Bubonic Plague hearld the beginning of the end of feudalism?" I find such questions moot and pointless. If you are interested in this sort of thing there are several books I recommend over this one. A good introduction is Plagues and Peoples; Alfred Crosby's The Forgotten Epidemic is also excellent (although it is about only a specific epidemic.)

Rating:
Summary: A subtle account of disease and history
Review: This book is a good overview of disease and history, with a particular emphasis on psychosomatic disease. In this respect it is written in a slightly different style to others in the genre which I have read, such as "Plagues and Peoples", "Man and Microbes", and "Disease" (Ridley), which focus more on physical aspects of disease. It also presents perhaps more of the alternative views and arguments than some of the others, such as the debate around the origin of syphilis, the possibility that sweating sickness evolved into influenza, political ideologies and racism around the concept of disease, and the importance of geography and psychosomatic disease has on history in general, is more emphasised. Perhaps the crux of the books argument is summarised on page 191 "we may state that all disease is to a greater or lesser degree psychosomatic".

Examples of disease and the psychological effect on individuals and history is detailed in stories such as: the suspicion that Ivan the Terrible suffered from cerebral syphilis (page 52), and also Henry the V111, Queen Victoria and haemiphilia-and the suggested links to the downfall of the Russian Monarchy, the influence of the Black Death on feudalism, and the rise of Christianity in the light of successive "incurable disease during the years which followed the life of Christ" (page 15). The history of the Napoleanic wars is argued to have been influenced as much by "General Typhus" as by "General Napoleon", and Napoleon is observed to suffer from several possible ailments-not described in former literature. Cholera and its influence on sanitary reform in the 1800s is discussed, malaria and yellow fever and the development of germ theory, the death of the poet Keats by TB, Middle age witch- hunts, dancing manias, Hitlers paranoia about diseased and "pure stock"-these are all discussed in the light of physical and psychosomatic disease, and the issues and political ideaologies that sometimes surrounds disease. Aids is ony briefly discussed towards the end.

What I liked most about this book is the growing recognition of psychosomatic effects on people and history, and some alternative arguments to history and disease in this context. It is also interesting to note how the idea of "disease" itself has infleunced history, to the wrath of God to the inferiority by geography or immune system familiarity. One thing is certain about disease, whether disorder of the body, or disorder of the mind, physical or psychological or both -it has played a larger role in history than has formerly been given credit.

Rating:
Summary: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AUDIENCE MATERIAL
Review: THIS BOOK IS VERY INFORMATIVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN GIVEN AS A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT. IT IS READABLE AND AT TIMES GETS VERY SPECIFIC, BUT THE AUTHOR GOES OFF AT A TANGENT ONCE IN A WHILE WHEN NO MORE INFORMATION COULD BE PRODUCED BY HIM. OVERALL IT IS A PLEASANT BOOK TO READ, I WOULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND TO ANYONE INTERESTED IN HISTORY. I ESPECIALLY LIKED THE PIECE WHERE CAFFA (FEODOSIA)A CITY ON THE COAST OF CRIMEA, UKRANE IS GRANTED THE TITLE OF THE BEGINNING OF THE 'BLACK DEATH'--HEY WHO WOULD OF THUNK?...

Rating:
Summary: Good History, Questionable Opinions
Review: While the authors stick to facts, for the most part, they are rather free with their subjective interpretations, which has marred the book considerably. For example, they posit that some of the Africans brought to the Caribbean led better lives than they would have in their own country. This is absurd, and colonialist.

Both authors reflect their age in this, and other "facts", which I read as opinions, also reflect this, and their British-centric approach marrs things further. (They are both aging professors of distinguished British Universities).

Another remark, when talking about crowd manipulation, also reflects an unwarranted view:

"...the hysteria that followed the tragic death of Princess Diana....and [only] a relatively small circle of people knew of and admired...her humane efforts to outlaw landmines. Had an enquirer gone from house to house anywhere in Britain a few days before the accident and asked the simple question 'What do you know of Princess Diana?', many of the answers would run...'Not very much at all'."

They then proceed to use this as an example of "mass hysteria" brought on by the media. In fact, perusal of American, British, and Canadian (I am Canadian) opinions and views (not specifically but not excluding the mass media) shows that thier interpretation is not correct; these fellows have an axe to grind. And they do it throughout.

My recommendation? Don't base all your views of disease in history on this book. But read it, as well as others, with a "pinch of salt".