Lably
Skip to content

Antonine Plague

Disease outbreak (165–180 CE)

  • 9 min read
  • 6 chapters
The Roman Empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. His annexation of lands of the Marcomanni and the Jazyges - perhaps to be provincially called Marcomannia and Sarmatia - was cut short in 175 by t
Tataryn77 · CC0

Related on Lably

Through Roman Empire, Mesopotamia and Rome

Scholars generally believed that the plague was smallpox, due to the skin eruptions over the entirety of the body which appeared to be red and black (Horgan), but recent genetic evidence strongly suggests that the most severe form of smallpox did not arise in Europe until much later. Measles has also been suggested as a possible cause. As yet, there is no genetic evidence from the Antonine plague.

Ancient sources agree that the plague is likely to have appeared during the Roman siege of the Mesopotamian city of Seleucia in the winter of 165–166, during the Parthian campaign of Lucius Verus. Ammianus Marcellinus reported that the plague spread to Gaul and to the legions along the Rhine. Eutropius stated that a large proportion of the empire's population died from this outbreak. According to the contemporary Roman historian Cassius Dio, the disease broke out again nine years later in 189 AD and caused up to 2,000 deaths a day in the city of Rome, 25% of those who were affected. The total death count has been estimated at 5–10 million, roughly 10% of the population of the empire. The disease was particularly deadly in the cities and within the Roman army.

The Antonine plague occurred during the last years of the Pax Romana, the high point in the influence, territorial control, and population of the Roman Empire. Historians differ in their opinions of the impact of the plague on the empire in the increasingly troubled eras after its appearance. Based on archaeological records, Roman commercial activity in the Indian Ocean extending to the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia from ports of Roman Egypt seems to have suffered a major setback after the plague. This disruption likely contributed to a broader economic decline and social instability throughout the empire in the years that followed.

Economic growth and poor health

Epidemics were common in the ancient world, but the Antonine plague was the first known pandemic of the Roman Empire. The Antonine plague spread throughout the Roman Empire and infected many millions of people. The pandemic erupted during the last years of what is often considered the "golden age" of Rome during the reign of co-emperor Marcus Aurelius. The Roman Empire at that time had a population estimated at 75 million people. Historians generally agree that the population of the Roman Empire peaked at about the time that the Antonine Plague appeared and, thereafter, the population declined.

The economic prosperity of the Roman Empire notwithstanding, the conditions were propitious for a pandemic. The population was unhealthy. About 20 percent of the population — a large percentage by ancient standards — lived in one of hundreds of cities; Rome, with a population estimated at one million, being the largest. The cities were a "demographic sink" even in the best of times. The death rate exceeded the birth rates and a constant in-migration of new residents was necessary to maintain the urban population. As perhaps more than one-half of children died before reaching adulthood, the average life expectancy at birth was only in the mid-twenties. Dense urban populations and poor sanitation contributed to the dangers of disease. The connectivity by land and sea between the vast territories of the Roman Empire made the transfer of infectious diseases from one region to another easier and more rapid than it was in smaller, more geographically confined societies. Epidemics of infectious diseases in the empire were common, with nine recorded between 43 BC and 148 AD. The rich were not immune to the unhealthy conditions. For example, only two of emperor Marcus Aurelius' fourteen children are known to have reached adulthood.

A good indicator of nutrition and the disease burden is the average height of the population. The conclusion of the study of thousands of skeletons is that the average Roman was shorter in stature than the people of pre-Roman societies of Italy and the post-Roman societies of the Middle Ages. The view of historian Kyle Harper is that "not for the last time in history, a precocious leap forward in social development brought biological reverses". This decline in average height during the Roman era may reflect the stresses of urbanization, warfare, and economic inequality. Despite increasing development, average height did not increase in Europe between 1000 and 1800, while it increased in the 5th and 6th centuries during late antiquity.

Sign in to keep reading

5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Ancient