Chapter XVII: Conclusion (1)

The history of war-pestilences has shown how severely belligerent armies are attacked by infectious diseases, how seriously their operations are hampered by them, and what loss of life such diseases cause by spreading to non-combatants. If we start from the time when more or less accurate descriptions enable us to determine the nature of the epidemics, we find that plague and typhus fever were the two diseases which, until a few decades ago, most commonly attacked the soldiers; the latter disease, which made its appearance in almost every war that was waged between the beginning of the sixteenth and the middle of the nineteenth century, consequently acquired the name ‘war-plague’.

For a long time nobody knew just how to combat these pestilences, and nowhere were rational measures adopted aiming to prevent them from spreading. We have seen the bitter truth of this statement in connexion with the endless Napoleonic wars. One reason for the neglect of preventive measures was the belief that these pestilences broke out spontaneously when large numbers were crowded together under miserable living conditions. The physicians of that time, in their efforts to explain the sudden appearance of these pestilences, arrived at the conclusion that they were autochthonic. But modern medical science, realizing its limitations, contents itself with the hypothesis that the original cause of these diseases is not to be ascertained, and with the knowledge that the infective agents in the case of almost all of them have been discovered, and that an outbreak of any infectious disease in any specific locality signifies that the germ of that disease must in some way have been deposited there. It was precisely the belief in the spontaneous origination of pestilences that led people to neglect watching for and isolating, with all possible dispatch, the first cases—a measure which is to-day looked upon as the most important means of preventing the dissemination of a disease.

The belief in the autochthonic origin of diseases continued to prevail until the first half of the nineteenth century. Hecker upheld it in a discussion of the plague-epidemic that occurred during the Russo-Turkish War of 1769–70; he believed that the intermittent fever prevalent in the Danube countries passed over into putrid fever, with or without petechiae, that carbuncles and buboes gradually developed, and that putrid fever was thus converted into bubonic plague. ‘It is therefore in all probability true’, says Hecker, ‘that the outbreak of plague in the Russian army in the year 1770, as well as in the year 1828, was not caused by direct infection from the Turkish troops, but was merely an independent development from intermittent fever and spotted fever.’

Recent investigations in the field of medicine turn over to the other sciences all questions regarding ultimate causes, and confine themselves to what is actually observed. We know that the agents responsible for infectious diseases are specific minute organisms which must be present in the system to produce the disease in question, and that these micro-organisms are conveyed from place to place by infected persons, by intermediaries, on articles to which they have attached themselves, in contaminated food, in drinking-water, and in many other ways. Investigators have studied the conditions in which these infective agents live and the manner in which they are disseminated, they have discovered methods of determining the nature of the disease in a very short time, and they have come to recognize the danger of coming in contact with germ-bearers, that is, with persons, healthy or convalescent, who have these micro-organisms in their systems without being themselves sick. Medical science is now endeavouring, by means of systematic procedure and splendid organization, to guard soldiers against the danger of infection; good drinking-water is provided, the men and the rooms in which they live are kept clean, persons suffering from infectious diseases are isolated, all rooms and articles used by patients are disinfected, infected divisions of troops are quartered by themselves, germ-bearers are watched for and discovered, &c. The success of such measures is well known. The knowledge gained and profited by in times of peace is also applied in times of war, and to-day we are able to confine pestilences within much narrower limits than was formerly possible. In order to do this, however, we must have, in addition to an efficient system of transporting and feeding troops, physicians who are well informed in regard to hygiene and bacteriology.

As early as the eighteenth century, successful efforts were made to prevent, by means of energetic measures, the reappearance of plague in Europe; the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–9 was the last war in which it broke out. On the other hand, typhus fever continued to be the Nemesis of belligerent armies, while a new infectious disease, cholera, entered upon the scene and played a very important rôle in the Crimean War, and a by no means minor rôle in the war of 1866. Along with these diseases, typhoid fever advanced into the foreground about the middle of the last century, and it soon turned out to be one of the most dangerous diseases that occur among soldiers. This appearance of typhoid fever has led some to think that the disease has prevailed extensively only in comparatively recent times. Hirsch, however, ably defends the opposite view; he maintains that typhoid fever was in many instances confused with the _febres pestilentes_, _malignae_, _putridae_, and _nervosae_, with the mucous fevers, bilious fevers, putrid fevers, &c. In discussing the typhus-fever epidemics that occurred in the course of the Napoleonic wars, we have several times called attention to the fact that typhoid fever probably broke out in the form of epidemics; but it could be diagnosed with certainty only after post-mortem examinations began to be more frequent. At all events, typhoid fever is to-day prevalent all over the world, and there is always danger that field-armies will be infected with it, either in their own land or in the land of the enemy. All the wars of the last few decades have clearly demonstrated this fact.

For a successful battle against war-pestilences, it is a fortunate coincidence that the civil as well as the military authorities are equally interested in their prevention. Every military leader knows how important it is for the soldiers to keep healthy, since their efficiency is otherwise seriously impaired. It is not our task to describe the particular measures that are to be adopted; the manuals of military sanitation give us accurate information regarding these matters. We merely mention the fact that it is of great value and importance to have physicians, who are well acquainted with hygienic problems, make a preliminary examination of sanitary conditions in the territory through which the soldiers will be required to pass in order to reach the scene of hostilities.

Very great difficulties, to be sure, confront the efforts made in war times to prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases. If the struggle is carried on in an infected region, the troops are often compelled to seek shelter in infected houses; thus during the battles of Orléans and Le Mans in the Franco-German War the troops, in order to protect themselves against the severe winter cold, had to live in houses which small-pox patients had shortly before occupied or were actually occupying at the time. Circumstances frequently arise which render impossible the adoption of the most effective measure calculated to prevent the dissemination of a pestilence, that is, the isolation of infected divisions of troops; one can readily imagine how difficult this would be in the case of an army re-forming after a lost battle. Furthermore, even if one of the belligerent armies is doing all it can to prevent diseases from spreading, its efforts must be seriously handicapped if the enemy’s army does not include an equally diligent sanitary corps and does not devote the same amount of energy to the prevention of the outbreak and dissemination of infectious diseases. For even if a sanitary corps is successful in warding off a reaction upon its own troops, nevertheless this reaction is sure to take place with respect to the civil inhabitants of the country in which the war is waged.

During a war, the civil authorities must also do their part in preventing diseases from spreading to the civil population. The local administrations of a region in which fighting is going on are powerless. The generals care very little whether or not a city or village in the enemy’s country is infected by their troops, whom they quarter in whatever house or place best suits their purpose. On the other hand, the communities in which military prisons are located are confronted with a very difficult problem, since these prisons, if infected men are confined in them, easily develop into centres of infection; this fact was observed a hundred times in the year 1870. If a disease breaks out in a community in consequence of the fact that a military prison has been established there, in my opinion it is incumbent on the central government of the country to support the local authorities in their efforts to check the disease, and to give them financial help as well as scientific advice. Unfortunately, it is not to be denied that, in many small cities and in almost all rural communities, absolutely no provision is made for the isolation of persons suffering from infectious diseases; the authorities justify themselves with the reflection that in case of emergency barracks can quickly be erected for the purpose, but at the same time they fail to remember that working-men are not always available in the storm and stress of war times, that building materials in the general scarcity of supplies cannot always be procured with sufficient promptitude, and that pestilences, if the isolation of the first cases is delayed, usually spread with great rapidity.

In future wars we must expect the military authorities to do all they can, just as soon as the prisoners are taken, to segregate as carefully as possible all known and suspected cases of infectious diseases. The difficulties confronting the military authorities, when it is necessary to remove large numbers of prisoners with all possible dispatch away from the scene of the war, are, to be sure, very great.

Finally, we must also call attention to the danger to which the civil inhabitants of a country are exposed, when the soldiers return home after the termination of a campaign in an infected region. It must be demanded under all circumstances that divisions of troops among whom infectious diseases have made their appearance, before returning from the enemy’s country, shall be subjected to a medical examination, isolated, and disinfected, just as was done on such a large scale, for example, by the Japanese after the wars with China and Russia. This also applies to all other persons who have had anything to do with infected divisions, particularly to teamsters.

All preparations designed to prevent the outbreak and dissemination of infectious diseases must be made in times of peace; barracks and lazarets must be erected, physicians who are well acquainted with methods of hygienic investigation must be available, and an adequate number of nurses and sick-attendants must be prepared for immediate service at the very first appearance of an infectious disease. For the military authorities, who can scarcely perform all the duties that the beginning of a war imposes upon them, it will facilitate matters greatly if in future campaigns the Red Cross devotes its attention, not only to the care of the wounded, but also, on a larger scale than it has heretofore, to the prevention of the outbreak and dissemination of war-pestilences.

INDEX

Acre, pestilence, 14.

Adrianople, bubonic plague epidemic 1829, 168 f.

del Agua, 277.

Algiers, typhus epidemic 1868, 195 f.

Amoebic dysentery, 7 f.

Amsterdam, pestilence 1624, 72.

Andersonville prison, 181.

Anti-vaccinationists, 198, 251, 260, 269.

Armenia, plague epidemic 1828, 169 f.

Athens, plague, 11.

Augsburg, pestilence 1634, 58 f.;
pestilence 1703, 80;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 259.

Austria, small-pox epidemic 1872, 275 f.

Barbarossa, 12 f.

Basel, small-pox epidemic 1870, 271 f.

Baudens, 174.

Baumgarten, von, 326.

Bavaria, typhus epidemic 1813, 149 f.

Beitzke, 122, 129, 132.

Belgium, small-pox epidemic 1870, 273 f.

Beri-beri, 298.

Berlin, pestilence 1637, 69;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 230 f.;
typhus fever epidemic 1813, 124 f.

Berne, small-pox epidemic 1870, 271.

Bernstein, 140.

Black Death, 6.

Blech, 122, 308, 309, 310.

Boehnke, 195.

Boersch, 29, 78.

Boin, 103, 104.

le Borne, 95.

Bouchut, 322.

Bourchardet, 320.

Brandeis, 12.

Braun, 151.

Bremen, small-pox epidemic 1870, 242.

Breslau, pestilence 1758, 82;
plague 1633, 47;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 224 f.;
typhus epidemic 1813, 123.

Brunner, 272.

Bubonic plague, 5; 1707, 85;
Adrianople 1829, 168 f.;
Armenia 1829, 169 f.;
Bucharest 1828, 165 ff.;
France 1628, 73 f.;
Italy 1629, 74 f.;
Netherlands 1635, 72 f.;
Russo-Turkish War 1769, 86;
Russo-Turkish War 1828, 165 ff.;
Thirty Years’ War, 25 ff., 41 ff.;
Varna 1829, 168 f.

Bucharest, bubonic plague 1828, 165 ff.

Bukowina, small-pox epidemic 1871, 276.

Burckhardt, 78, 158, 272.

Bürger, 313.

Cannstatt, 112.

Canz, 94.

Cazalas, 183.

Charles VIII, expedition to Naples, 17.

Charles XII, 85.

Chauffard, 200.

Chemnitz, small-pox epidemic 1871, 255 f.

Chenu, 171, 173, 183.

Cholera, 6 f.;
Balkan War, 300 ff.;
Crimean War, 170 ff.;
France 1853, 170 ff.;
German War of 1866, 184 f.;
Tripolitan War, 299 f.

Civil War, American, 5;
dysentery, 178 f.;
malaria, 180;
measles, 179;
small-pox, 179;
typhoid fever, 177;
typhus fever, 178.

Cless, 260.

Colin, 203.

Cologne, small-pox epidemic 1870, 247 f.

Concentration camps, South Africa, 292 ff.

Constantinople, cholera epidemic 1912, 301.

Copenhagen, pestilence 1710, 85.

Crimean War, cholera, 170 ff.;
dysentery epidemic, 172;
scurvy epidemic, 172;
typhus epidemic, 172 ff.

Crusades, 12, 13 ff.

Czetyrkin, 165, 167, 169.

Daimer, 185, 275, 276.

Damietta, siege of, 14 f.

Danzig, pestilence 1709, 85;
siege of, 306 ff.;
small-pox epidemic 1870, 220 f.;
typhus fever 1813, 122.

Davoust, 141.

Delpech, 201, 202, 324.

Deneke, 141.

Denmark, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Depopulation, Thirty Years’ War, 76 ff.

Diemerbroeck, 73.

Dietz, 78.

Dillenius, von, 151.

Diodorus, 11.

Diphtheria, Boer War, 294.

Dresden, pestilence 1757, 83;
plague 1632, 44;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 254 f.;
typhus epidemic 1813, 127 f.

Dupinet, 321.

Düsseldorf, small-pox epidemic 1871, 245 f.

Dysentery 7 f., 14;
American Civil War, 178 f.;
Crimean War, 172;
Franco-German War, 190 ff., 194 ff.;
Port Arthur, 326 f.;
Russian Campaign, 116 ff.;
siege of Paris, 321 ff.;
siege of Torgau, 314 f.;
Thirty Years’ War, 31 ff.

Elsässer, 150.

Ebstein, 12, 115, 137.

England, small-pox epidemic 1870, 278;
typhus fever 1808, 105;
typhus fever 1856, 174 f.

Enteric fever, 8.

Erfurt, small-pox epidemic 1871, 236 f.;
typhus epidemic 1813, 133.

Erisman, 287.

Feichtmayer, 98.

Ferenczy, 291.

Finland, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Fischer, 127, 128.

Flexner, 7.

Flinzer, 130, 255.

Follenfant, 298.

Fonteret, 205.

Fracastorius, 20.

Franco-German War, small-pox epidemic, 197 ff.

Frankfurt-on-the-Main, pestilence 1633, 63.

Frankfurt, small-pox epidemic 1871, 250 f.;
typhus epidemic 1813, 135 ff.

Franque, von, 137, 138, 140.

Frederick the Great, 82, 83.

Friccius, 122, 307, 309, 310.

Friedländer, 157.

Fuchs, 17.

Gaffky, 8.

Gasc, 117.

Geissler, 256.

Genoa, typhus fever 1799, 67.

Gilbert, 100.

Giraud, 132.

Gmelin, 61.

Godelier, 175.

Göden, 121.

Gratiolo, 22.

Grätzer, 78, 82.

Gravelotte, 189.

Greiner, 132.

Grellois, 196.

Grenet, 324.

Grossi, 74.

Gurlt, 1, 99, 101, 115, 122, 125, 131, 132, 143, 153.

Gustavus Adolphus, 27 ff., 50.

Guttstadt, 186, 214, 219, 223, 230, 231, 233, 234, 242, 243, 248, 270,
283.

Györy, 20, 24.

Haga, 297.

Hain, 98, 161.

Hamburg, small-pox epidemic 1870, 239 f.;
typhus fever epidemic 1813, 141 f.

Hammer, 85.

Hanau, typhus fever epidemic 1813, 134 f.

Häser, 12, 17, 72, 74, 81, 85, 92, 97, 114, 123, 172, 306.

Haurowitz, 176.

Hecker, 17, 86, 87, 89, 329.

Heilbronn, small-pox epidemic 1870, 263 f.

Herero War, 296.

Hildenbrand, 106, 113.

Hirsch, 15, 18, 19, 173, 178, 184, 185, 330.

Holk, 44.

Höring, 263.

Horn, 52, 113, 124, 125, 133.

Hörnigk, 64.

Hufeland, 100, 103, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 124.

Hungarian disease, 20, 22 ff.

India, small-pox epidemic 1873, 282.

Ireland, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280.

Italy, small-pox epidemic 1872, 277 f.

Joerdens, 99.

Jörg, 112.

Kanngiesser, 12.

Kausch, 123.

Kerckhoffs, 115, 116, 120, 318.

Kiev, bubonic plague 1770, 89.

Knaak, 1, 183, 287.

Koch, 7, 286.

Königsberg, typhus epidemic 1806, 100;
typhus epidemic 1812, 121 f.

Kopp, 108, 122, 131, 134, 135.

Kosloff, 286, 289.

Kraft, 138.

Kraus, 301.

Kriesche, 204.

Kruse, 7.

Kübler, 184.

Ladysmith, typhoid epidemic, 291 f.

Lammert, 26, 50, 58, 64, 66, 72, 74, 77.

Larrey, 115.

Laveran, 1, 12, 73, 100, 118, 158, 175, 178, 197, 202.

Lehmann, 311, 312.

Leipzig, pestilence 1630, 41 f.;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 252 ff.;
typhus epidemic 1813, 128.

Lemazurier, 115, 117, 118.

Lentilius, 79.

Leprosy, 15 f.

Lersch, 13, 14, 18, 282.

Leyden, pestilence 1624, 72.

Liévin, 220, 221.

Linstow, 1, 101.

Littré, 12.

Löbenstein-Löbel, 132.

Lohnes, 150.

London, small-pox epidemic 1871, 279.

Loth, 194, 237.

Lotz, 274.

Louis IX, 15.

Louis XIV, 79.

Lübeck, small-pox epidemic 1871, 240 f.

Lyons, small-pox epidemic 1870, 205 f.

Magdeburg, small-pox epidemic 1871, 233 f.

Maier, 125.

Majer, 258.

Malaria, American Civil War, 180 f.;
Italian War of 1859, 183;
siege of Mantua, 304 f.

Mansfeld, 29 ff.

Mantua, pestilence 1630, 75;
siege of, 304 ff.

March, 182, 274.

Maréchal, 18, 21, 30, 92, 109, 155.

Maria Theresa, 80.

Martin, 188.

Martius, 258.

Massachusetts, small-pox epidemic 1872, 281.

Matignon, 299.

Maurin, 196.

Mayence, siege of, 316 ff.;
small-pox epidemic 1870, 266 f.

Mayr, 257.

Measles, American Civil War, 179;
Boer War, 294 f.

du Mesnil, 203, 321.

Metz, pestilence, 21;
pestilence 1636, 65 f.;
pestilence 1792, 93;
small-pox epidemic 1870, 203;
typhus epidemic 1813, 155 f.;
typhus epidemic 1870, 196 f.

Meyer, 32.

Michaux, 14, 196.

Michigan, small-pox epidemic 1872, 281.

Milan, pestilence 1630, 75.

Moore, Thomas, 18.

Moravia, typhus epidemic 1813, 161.

Mortality, Moscow pestilence 1771, 91;
Seven Years’ War, 84;
Thirty Years’ War, 78.

Moscow, bubonic plague 1771, 89;
typhus fever 1812, 116.

Munich, pestilence 1634, 55 f.;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 258 f.

Münster, small-pox epidemic 1871, 242 f.

Murchison, 73, 112, 174.

Myrdacz, 183, 287.

Nantes, pestilence 1793, 95.

Napoleon, 115 ff., 126.

Nassau, typhus epidemic 1813, 140.

Netherlands, small-pox epidemic 1871, 274 f.

Neuhof, 126.

Neumann, 110.

New York, small-pox epidemic 1871, 281.

Niedner, 173, 184.

Norway, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Nuremberg, plague 1633, 53;
small-pox epidemic 1871, 258 f.

Oesterle, 304.

Oettingen, von, 298.

Okuniewski, 324.

Ophthalmia, 15.

Ozanam, 21, 73, 74, 75, 81, 84, 97, 101, 104.

Parenteau-Desgranges, 109.

Paris, siege of, 320 ff.;
small-pox epidemic 1869, 202;
typhus fever epidemic 1814, 156 f.

Parrot, 118.

Pastau, von, 225.

Pellerin, 157.

Peloponnesian War, 11.

Peninsular War, typhus fever, 101.

Perroud, 206.

Pettenkofer, 286.

Pfaff, 40.

Physicians, typhus mortality, 123, 129, 131, 135, 137, 142, 145, 151,
155, 319.

Plague, 5 ff.;
Athens, 11;
Rome, 12.

Pneumonia, siege of Paris, 322 f.

Pneumonic plague, 5 f.

Pont-à-Mousson, typhus fever epidemic 1813, 154.

Port Arthur, siege of, 324 ff.

Prague, pestilence 1742, 81;
small-pox epidemic 1872, 277.

Presl, 186.

Pringle, J., 1, 82, 308.

Prinzing, 199.

Prussia, small-pox mortality, 198.

Rabinowitsch, 272.

Rapp, 260.

Rasori, 97.

Reisseisen, 155.

Reissner and Neidhart, 265, 266.

Reuss, 260.

Rhumelius, 29.

Richter, 311–16.

Riecke, 313.

Roetenbeck, 52.

Roller, 99.

Roloff, 131.

Rösle, 78.

Roth, 297.

Russia, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Russian Campaign, typhus epidemic, 115 ff.

Samoilowitz, 89.

Sanitary Commission, American Civil War, 176.

Schäfer, 148, 298.

Schafonsky, 89.

Scheerer, 115, 116.

Schinzinger, 152.

Schnurrer, 12, 21, 24, 52.

Schön, 60.

Schopper, 301.

Schwiening, H., 18.

Scorbutus, 9.

Scotland, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280.

Scrive, 171, 173.

Scurvy, 9, 14;
Crimean War, 172;
Metz 1552, 21–2;
Port Arthur, 326 f.;
siege of Mantua, 305 f.;
siege of Paris, 324;
Thirty Years’ War, 52 ff., 66.

Sedan, 189.

Seidlitz, 166, 167, 168, 169.

Seitz, 26, 55, 81, 95, 98, 99, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 257.

Sforza, 299.

Siegel, 253.

Sigel, 261.

Silesia, typhus epidemic 1805, 98.

Simon, 166.

Small-pox, 9, 17;
American Civil War, 179;
Franco-German War, 197 ff.;
Germany 1865, 184;
Germany 1870, 212 ff.;
siege of Paris, 321.

Small-pox mortality, in France, 199;
French prisoners 1870, 209 f.;
Germany 1871–2, 268;
Prussia, 198;
Prussia 1862–73, 214.

Stegmeyer, 305.

Steiner, 16, 299, 324.

Steinheim, 142.

Stemmler, 132.

Stettin, small-pox epidemic 1871, 226 f.

Stiga, 7.

Stockholm, pestilence 1710, 85.

Strassburg, small-pox epidemic 1870, 204.

Stricker, 115.

Stuttgart, small-pox epidemic 1870, 261 f.

Sueur, 203, 320, 322.

Süssmilch, 83.

Suttner, 55.

Sweating sickness, 18 ff.

Sweden, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Switzerland, typhus fever epidemic 1813, 158 f.

Syphilis, 16, 17, 18.

Takaki, 298.

Teuffel, 188.

Thierer, 62.

Thilenius, 138.

Tholazan, 169.

Thouvenel, 154.

Thucydides, 11.

Tilly, 27, 50.

Torgau, siege of, 311 ff.

Typhoid fever, 8 f.;
American Civil War, 177 f.;
Boer War, 290 ff.;
Franco-German War, 190 ff.;
Herero War, 296;
Port Arthur, 326 f.;
Russo-Japanese War, 297 f.;
Russo-Turkish War 1877, 288 ff.;
siege of Paris, 321 ff.;
siege of Torgau, 315 f.;
Thirty Years’ War, 71.

Typhus fever, 4 ff., 19 ff., 106 ff., 149 f.;
1812, 114 ff.;
1813–14, 162 ff.;
Algiers 1868, 195 f.;
American Civil War, 178;
Balkan War, 301 ff.;
Berlin 1813, 124 f.;
Breslau 1813, 123;
Coalition War, 98;
Crimean War, 172 ff.;
Danzig 1813, 122;
Dresden 1813, 127 f.;
England 1622, 75 f.;
England 1808, 105;
England 1856, 174 f.;
Erfurt 1813, 133;
Frankfurt 1813, 135 ff.;
Genoa 1799, 97;
Hamburg 1813, 141 f.;
Hanau 1813, 134 f.;
Königsberg 1806, 100;
Königsberg 1812, 121 f.;
Leipzig 1813, 128 ff.;
Metz 1813, 155 f.;
Metz 1870, 196 f.;
Moravia 1813, 161;
mortality 1813–14, 163;
mortality among physicians, 108;
Moscow 1812, 116;
Nassau 1813, 140;
Paris 1814, 156 f.;
Peninsular War, 101 f.;
Pont-à-Mousson 1813, 154;
Russian Campaign, 115 ff.;
Russo-Turkish War of 1877, 287 ff.;
Seven Years’ War, 82 ff.;
siege of Danzig, 307 ff.;
siege of Mantua, 305 ff.;
siege of Mayence, 317 ff.;
siege of Torgau, 311 ff.;
Switzerland 1813, 158 f.;
Thirty Years’ War, 26 ff.;
Verdun 1792, 109;
Vilna 1812, 117;
Wars of French Revolution, 92 ff.;
War with Moors in Spain, 21;
War of Polish Succession, 80;
Warsaw 1812, 119;
Württemberg 1813, 150 f.

Uetterodt, L., 1.

Ulm, pestilence 1634, 62;
small-pox epidemic 1870, 262 f.

Vaccination, 200, 201, 202, 207,
211, 212, 217, 231, 240, 241, 251, 255 f., 260, 265, 269 f., 279, 282,
283, 284, 285;
effects of, 197 f.;
effect on mortality, 9.

Vacher, 199, 206, 207, 303, 320.

Varna, plague 1829, 168.

Venice, pestilence 1630, 75.

Verdun, pestilence 1793, 82 f.;
typhus epidemic 1792, 109.

Vernois, 200, 201.

Verona, pestilence 1630, 75.

Vienna, small-pox epidemic 1872, 277.

Vilna, typhus fever 1812, 117.

Virchow, 115.

Viry, 196.

Vogt, 271.

Volz, 186, 194, 262.

Wahl, 247.

Wallenstein, 27, 50.

War Pestilence, use of term, 4.

Warsaw, typhus epidemic 1812, 119.

Weber, 143.

Weichselbaum, 185.

Wendt, 123.

Westergaard, H., 1.

Wilbrandt, 94, 136.

Wilken, 14, 15.

Wittmann, 316–19.

Woillez, 207.

Wolf, 119.

Wunderlich, 251, 252, 270.

Württemberg, pestilence 1634, 63;
typhus epidemic 1813, 150 f.

Yellow fever, Spain 1810, 101.

Zenzen, 318.

Zurich, small-pox epidemic 1871, 272.

GENERAL APPENDIX
PUBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND HISTORY

The Conference which met at Berne in 1911, under the auspices of the Division of Economics and History of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, appointed three Commissions to draft the questions and problems to be dealt with by competent authorities in all countries. The first Commission was entrusted with _The Economic and Historical Causes and Effects of War_; the second with _Armaments in Time of Peace_; the third with _The Unifying Influences in International Life_. Subsequently the suggestions of the three Commissions were considered and approved by the entire Conference.

The questions are to be discussed scientifically, and as far as possible without prejudice either for or against war; and their discussion may have such important consequences that the questions are presented below _in extenso_.

Report of the First Commission
THE ECONOMIC AND HISTORICAL CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF WAR

The Conference recommends the following researches:

1. Historical presentation of the causes of war in modern times, tracing especially the influence exercised by the striving for greater political power, by the growth of the national idea, by the political aspirations of races and by economic interests.

2. Conflicts of economic interests in the present age:

(_a_) The influence of the growth of population and of the industrial
development upon the expansion of States.

(_b_) The protectionist policy; its origin and basis; its method
of application and its influence upon the relations between
countries; bounties (open and disguised, public and private);
most-favoured-nation treatment; the attitude towards foreign goods
and foreign capital; the boycott; discouragement of foreign
immigration.

(_c_) International loans; the policy of guarantees; the relations of
the creditor to the debtor States; the use of loans for gaining
influence over other States.

(_d_) Rivalry among States with respect to capitalist investments in
foreign countries:

1. The endeavour to obtain a privileged position in banking
enterprises, in the opening and development of mines, in the letting
of public contracts, in the execution of public works, in the
building of railways (Siberian, Manchurian, Persian Bagdad Railway,
Adriatic Railway, &c.); in short, the organization of larger
capitalistic enterprises in foreign countries.

2. The hindering of foreign countries by convention from executing
productive enterprises on their own soil, e.g. from building
railways in their own countries.

3. The anti-militarist movement, considered in its religious and political manifestations. (Only opposition to all military organization is here to be considered.)

4. The position of organized labour and the socialists in the various States on the questions of war and armaments.

5. Is it possible to determine a special interest of individual classes making for or against war, for or against standing armies?

6. The influence of women and woman suffrage upon war and armaments.

7. The extension of obligatory military service in the different States, in times both of war and of peace.

(_a_) The conditions of military service; the system of enlistment and
of general obligatory service, the actual position of aliens.

(_b_) The ratio of the persons obliged to render military service to
the entire population.

(_c_) The influence of the present system of military obligation and
the organization of armies upon warfare and upon its duration.

8. The economic effects of the right of capture and its influence upon the development of navies.

9. War loans provided by neutral countries; their extent and influence on recent warfare.

10. The effects of war:

(_a_) Financial cost of war. The methods of meeting it: Taxation;
International Loans; External Loans.

(_b_) Losses and gains from the point of view of public and private
economic interests; checks to production and the destruction of
productive forces; reduction of opportunities for business
enterprises; interruption of foreign trade and of the imports of food;
the destruction of property; shrinkage of values of property,
including securities; financial burden caused by new taxes, debts, and
war indemnities; effects upon private credit and upon savings banks;
advantages to those industries which furnish military materials;
advantages and disadvantages to neutral countries.

(_c_) The effects of war upon the supply of the world with food and
raw materials, with special reference to those States which are in
large degree dependent upon other countries for such supplies, e.g.
Great Britain and Germany; by diversion of capital from those
countries which produce food and raw materials (especially the
stoppage of railway building and of new investments in agriculture and
other industries).

(_d_) The condition of the victorious State: manner of levy and use of
contributions and war indemnities; influence upon industry and social
life.

(_e_) The manner in which the energy of nations is stimulated or
depressed by war.

11. Loss of human life in war and as a result of war: influence upon population (birth-rate, relation between the sexes, ratio of the various ages, sanitary conditions).

12. The influence of war and of the possibility of war upon the protective policy, upon banking conditions (especially upon banks of issue), and upon monetary systems.

13. The influence of annexation upon the economic life of the annexing States, and upon the State whose territory has been annexed.

14. The annexation of half-civilized or uncivilized peoples, considered especially from the point of view of the economic interests, which act as motive powers; the methods through which private enterprises take root in such regions and through which they bring influence to bear upon their own governments; the effects of such annexations upon the development of trade with the annexing State and with other countries, as well as upon the economic and social life of the natives.

15. The progressive exemption of commercial and industrial activities from losses and interferences through war.

16. Influence of the open-door policy upon war and peace.

Report of the Second Commission
ARMAMENTS IN TIME OF PEACE. MILITARY AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS. THE
THEORY, PRACTICE, AND HISTORY OF MODERN ARMAMENTS.

1. Definition. Armaments might be described as ‘the preparations made by a State either for defence or for attack’. These would include the provision of food, financial preparations, and also semi-military railways, canals, docks, &c.

2. Causes of armaments. Motives for increasing or commencing them, distinguishing the great from the small powers.

3. Rivalry and competition in armaments. Motives and consequences of rivalry, with the possibilities of limitation.

4. Modern history of armaments, with special fullness from 1872. To be noted as important landmarks:

(_a_) The introduction of conscription into Germany, France, Austria,
Italy, Japan, &c.

(_b_) Modern inventions affecting war.

(_c_) The question of privateering and private property at sea.

(_d_) Duration of military service.

(_e_) The traffic in arms.

5. Military budgets from 1872 (distinguishing ordinary from extraordinary expenditures).

6. The burden of armaments in recent times.

(_a_) The proportion of military to civil expenditure.

(_b_) Military expenditure per capita.

(_c_) Military expenditure from loans in time of peace, i.e. a
comparison of expenditure from taxes with expenditure from borrowed
money.

(_d_) Comparative burdens of individual taxpayers in different
countries and the extent to which the differences are due to
armaments.

(_e_) Military pensions.

(_f_) It is desirable to ascertain where possible the ratio between
the total income of each nation and the total expenditure on armament
at various times.

7. The effects of war preparations upon the economic and social life of a nation:

(_a_) On the sustenance of the entire population of a country at war.

(_b_) On railway policy.

(_c_) On public administration and on social legislation.

8. The economic effects of withdrawing young men from industrial pursuits, into the army and navy:

(_a_) Compulsory.

(_b_) Of non-compulsory service (specially in the case of mercenary
troops).

(Allowance being made for the industrial value of military education
and training.)

9. The influence of changes in the occupations of a people upon the composition and efficiency of armies, and the influence of the changes in the composition of armies on the economic life.

10. Loans for armaments (participation of domestic and foreign capital).

11. The industries of war, i.e. the various manufactures and other industries which are promoted and encouraged by military and naval establishments, distinguishing between:

(_a_) Government undertakings (arsenals, dockyards, &c.).

(_b_) Private undertakings, including the history and working of the
great armament firms, which sell to foreign customers as well as to
their own governments.

12. War materials (munitions of war). Their recent development and their cost. This includes arms, ammunition, armour-plate, warships, guns of all kinds, military airships, &c. So far as possible the effect of recent inventions upon offensive and defensive war should be indicated.

Report of the Third Commission
THE UNIFYING INFLUENCES IN INTERNATIONAL LIFE

1. The Conference is of the opinion that the economic life of individual countries has definitely ceased to be self-contained; and that, notwithstanding the barriers raised by fiscal duties, it is becoming in ever-increasing measure a part of an economic life in which the whole world participates.

2. It desires that this change be studied with the object of ascertaining to what extent the economic life of individual nations has ceased to be self-contained, and the causes which are bringing about the greater interdependence of nations.

3. Special attention should be paid to the following factors:

(_a_) How far the growth of population is responsible for the changes
that have occurred and are in progress.

(_b_) The extent to which the insufficiency of the natural resources
of individual countries for their own requirements has contributed to
it.

(_c_) Whether the increasing economic unity of the world is the cause
or the result of the rising in the standard of living, and how far the
increasing welfare of nations has been caused by the growing unity.

(_d_) In what measure the need of individual countries to obtain
materials of production from other lands and to find new markets for
their own products is responsible for the growth of international
dependence.

4. The Conference desires that investigations be made into:

(_a_) The volume of the world’s production of all the many articles of
food, of the various raw materials, and of the principal manufactures.

(_b_) The productions of individual countries, and the extent to which
they are retained for home consumption or are exported.

(_c_) The consumption of individual countries, and the extent to which
the various articles are supplied from home productions or are
imported.

5. The Conference wishes to ascertain to what extent the economy of production by large units, instead of by small units, has contributed to the international dependence of nations.

6. The development of this world-embracing economy has taken place in great measure in consequence of the investment of capital by rich countries in less developed lands. Through this there have arisen close relations and a great increase of wealth, not only for the lending and the borrowing countries, but for all nations. The Conference is of the opinion that researches should be made into the extent of the interdependence of the nations in the matter of capital.

7. The Conference desires to institute inquiries into the interdependence of the financial centres of the world.

8. The Conference desires to make the unifying effects of international trade, the building of railways, the progress of shipping, the improvement and extension of all means of communication and the progress of inventions, the subjects of careful investigation.

9. The Conference is in favour of making a comprehensive study of the various international unions and associations, in which the social and economic interests of all classes of society are now either organized or in process of organization, through official or private action.

-----

Footnote 1:

This subject is discussed in a general way in the following works: J.
Pringle, _Beobachtungen über die Krankheiten einer Armee sowohl im
Felde als in Garnison_. Translation by J. E. Greding. Altenburg,
1754.—Gurlt, _Zur Geschichte der internationalen und freiwilligen
Krankenpflege im Kriege_. Leipzig, 1873.—A. Laveran, _Traité des
maladies et épidémies des armées_. Paris, 1875.—L. Uetterodt zu
Schaffenberg, _Zur Geschichte der Heilkunde: Darstellungen aus dem
Bereiche der Volkskrankheiten und des Sanitätswesens im Deutschen
Mittelalter mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Lagerepidemien und der
Militärkrankenpflege_. Berlin, 1875.—Knaak, _Die Krankheiten im
Kriege_. Leipzig, 1900.—von Linstow, _Kriege, Schlachten und
Belagerungen, in denen nicht die feindlichen Waffen, sondern
Krankheiten das entscheidende Moment waren. Deutsche mil.-ärztl.
Zeitschrift_, vol. xxix, p. 177, 1900.—H. Westergaard, _Die Lehre von
der Mortalität und Morbilität_. Second edition. Jena, 1901. pp. 223,
254, 260, 264, 566.—H. Schwiening, _Krieg und Friede_, in Th. Weyl,
_Handbuch der Hygiene_. 4. Supplement, B. 1904. P. 65.

Footnote 2:

We must remember that the word ‘typhus’, without further
qualification, in Germany means typhoid fever, whereas in France and
England it means typhus fever.

Footnote 3:

F. Schnurrer, _Chronik der Seuchen_. Tübingen, 1825. Vol. i, p. 38.—H.
Brandeis, _Die Krankheit zu Athen nach Thukydides_. Stuttgart,
1845.—H. Häser, _Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medizin und der
epidemischen Krankheiten_. Third edition. Jena, 1882. Vol. iii, p.
4.—W. Ebstein, _Die Pest des Thukydides_. Stuttgart, 1899.—Also an
article by the same author entitled _Die Pest des Thukydides in the
Deutsche med. Wochenschrift_. No. 36. 1899.—F. Kanngiesser, _Über die
Seuche des Thukydides_. _Prag. med. Wochenschrift._ No. 100. 1903.

Footnote 4:

A. Laveran (note 1, introduct.), p. 653.—H. Häser, op. cit., p. 24.

Footnote 5:

Information regarding pestilences that attacked German armies during
campaigns into Italy is taken largely from a book by B. M. Lersch,
entitled _Geschichte der Volksseuchen_. Berlin, 1896.

Footnote 6:

See B. M. Lersch (loc. cit.) for statements regarding the First and
Second Crusades, pp. 80 and 85.

Footnote 7:

B. M. Lersch (loc. cit.), p. 90.

Footnote 8:

F. Wilken, _Geschichte der Kreuzzüge_. Leipzig, 1826. Vol. iv, p. 314.

Footnote 9:

Id., loc. cit., vol. vi, p. 222.

Footnote 10:

F. Wilken, _Geschichte der Kreuzzüge_. Leipzig, 1826. Vol. vi, p. 290.

Footnote 11:

Id., loc. cit., vol. vii, p. 561 ff.

Footnote 12:

A. Hirsch, _Handbuch der historisch-geographischen Pathologie_. Second
edition, 1881. Vol. ii, p. 4.—II. Schwiening, op. cit., p. 692.

Footnote 13:

H. Häser, op. cit., p. 256.

Footnote 14:

H. Fuchs, _Die ältesten Schriftsteller über die Lustseuche in
Deutschland_. Göttingen, 1843. P. 436.—J. F. C. Hecker, _Die grossen
Volkskrankheiten des Mittelalters_. Berlin, 1865. P. 218.

Footnote 15:

F. Maréchal et J. Didion, _Tableau historique, chronologique et
médical des maladies endémiques, épidémiques et contagieuses qui ont
régné à Metz et dans le Pays-Messin_. Metz, 1850 and 1861. P. 116.

Footnote 16:

H. Hirsch (note 10, Chapter II), vol. ii, p. 62.

Footnote 17:

H. Schwiening (note 1, Introduction), p. 694.

Footnote 18:

B. M. Lersch (note 3, Chapter II), p. 197.

Footnote 19:

H. Hirsch (note 10, Chapter 11), vol. i, p. 385. Hirsch uses the word
typhus for typhus fever.

Footnote 20:

Tiberius von Györy, _Morbus hungaricus_. Jena, 1901. P. 146.

Footnote 21:

J. A. F. Ozanam, _Histoire médicale, générale et particulière des
maladies épidémiques, contagieuses et épizootiques_. Paris and Lyons,
1823. Vol. iv, p. 157.—F. Schnurrer, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 27.

Footnote 22:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 89.

Footnote 23:

Ibid., p. 150.

Footnote 24:

Györy, op. cit., p. 145.

Footnote 25:

Györy, op. cit., p. 143.—F. Schnurrer, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 112.

Footnote 26:

F. Seitz, _Der Typhus, vorzüglich nach seinem Vorkommen in Bayern
geschildert_. Erlangen, 1847. P. 55.

Footnote 27:

G. Lammert, _Geschichte der Seuchen-, Hungers- und Kriegsnot zur Zeit
des Dreissigjährigen Krieges_. Wiesbaden, 1890.

Footnote 28:

J. C. Rhumelius, _Historia morbi, qui ex castris ad rostra, et a
rostris ad aras et focos in Palatinatu Bavariae superioris penetravit,
anno 1621, et permansit annos 1622 et 1623_. Quoted from Ch. Boersch
in his _Essai sur la mortalité à Strassbourg_, 1836, p. 138.

Footnote 29:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 174.

Footnote 30:

E. J. J. Meyer, _Versuch einer medizinischen Topographie und Statistik
der Haupt- und Residenzstadt Dresden_. Stolberg and Leipzig, 1840. P.
122.

Footnote 31:

K. Pfaff, _Nachrichten über Witterung, Fruchtbarkeit, merkwürdige
Naturereignisse, Seuchen u.s.w. in Süddeutschland, besonders in
Württemberg, vom Jahre 807 his zum Jahre 1815. Württ. Jahrbuch_, 1850,
p. 80.

Footnote 32:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 114.

Footnote 33:

E. J. J. Meyer, op. cit., p. 267.

Footnote 34:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 120.

Footnote 35:

Joannes Roetenbeck, _Speculum scorbuticum oder Beschreibung des
Scharbocks in zweyen Traktätlein, abgefasst dem gemeinen Mann zum
Besten_. Nuremberg, 1633.—Caspar Horn, _Kurzer Bericht von der
fremden, vordem bei uns bekannten, jetzt aber eingreifenden Krankheit,
dem Scharbock_. Nuremberg. Quoted from F. Schnurrer, op. cit., vol. 2,
p. 174.

Footnote 36:

G. von Suttner, _München während des dreissigjährigen Kriegs_. Munich,
1796. Quoted from F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 63.

Footnote 37:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 66.

Footnote 38:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 110.

Footnote 39:

Th. Schön, _Bilder aus Württembergs Leidensgeschichte nach der
Schlacht bei Nördlingen. Blätter für württ. Kirchengeschichte._ 1891.
P. 14.

Footnote 40:

J. Gmelin, _Bevölkerungsbewegung im Hällischen seit Mitte des 16.
Jahrhunderts_. G. von Mayr’s _Allg. statist. Arch._ Vol. vi, p. 240.
1902.

Footnote 41:

G. Thierer, _Ortsgeschichte von Gussenstadt auf der Schwäbischen Alb._
Stuttgart, 1912. Vol. i, p. 207.

Footnote 42:

Hörnigk, _Würgengel_. P. 195. Quoted from Lammert, op. cit., p. 201.

Footnote 43:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 185.

Footnote 44:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 218.

Footnote 45:

F. Schnurrer, op cit., vol. ii, p. 181.

Footnote 46:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 214.—H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 410.

Footnote 47:

Diemerbroeck, _Peste de Nimègue_. Amsterdam, 1665. Quoted from A.
Laveran, op. cit.

Footnote 48:

Ch. Murchison, _A Treatise on the Continued Fevers of Great Britain_.
Quoted from the German translation by W. Zülzer. Brunswick, 1867. P.
25.—Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 173.

Footnote 49:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 404.

Footnote 50:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. v, p. 18 ff.

Footnote 51:

Ch. Murchison, op. cit., p. 26.

Footnote 52:

Figures published by the Leipzig Bureau of Statistics in 1872; prior
to 1629 they cover the governmental years of the successive
burgomasters, but from 1630 on, they cover the calendar years.

Footnote 53:

Only the Protestant population, including sixteen villages annexed to
Dresden, _Stat. Jahrbuch der Stadt Dresden_, Jahrgang 1902. P. 15.

Footnote 54:

Dr. J. Grätzer, _E. Halley und C. Neumann_. Breslau, 1883. P. 89.
Including only the deceased supporters of the Augsburg Confession.

Footnote 55:

According to a written compilation made out by Dr. E. Rösle in
Dresden. Taken from the reference material in the Augsburg Archives.

Footnote 56:

A. Dietz, _Frankfurter Bürgerbuch_. Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1897. The
Catholics are only partially included, the Jews not at all.

Footnote 57:

Ch. Boersch, op. cit., p. 167.—Krieger, _Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Volksseuchen_. _Stat. Mitteilungen über Elsass-Lothringen_, fascicle
10.

Footnote 58:

A. Burckhardt, _Demographie und Epidemiologie der Stadt Basel während
der letzten drei Jahrhunderte, 1601-1900_. Leipzig, 1908.

Footnote 59:

Rosini Lentilii _Miscellanea medico-practica tripartita_. Ulmae, 1698.
Vol. ii, p. 435 ff.

Footnote 60:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 85.

Footnote 61:

Ibid., p. 105.

Footnote 62:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 110.

Footnote 63:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 206.—Häser, op. cit., vol. iii. p. 478.

Footnote 64:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 207.

Footnote 65:

J. Pringle, loc. cit.

Footnote 66:

Dr. J. Grätzer, loc. cit.

Footnote 67:

J. P. Süssmilch, _Die göttliche Ordnung u. s. w._ Vol. i, p. 316.
(Fourth edition. Berlin, 1788.)

Footnote 68:

_Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Stadt Dresden_, Jahrgang 1902.

Footnote 69:

Figures published by the Leipzig Bureau of Statistics in 1872.

Footnote 70:

Year-book of Statistics for the City of Berlin.

Footnote 71:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 181 ff.

Footnote 72:

Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 454.

Footnote 73:

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 459.

Footnote 74:

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 481.—Hammer, _Geschichte der Pest, die vom Jahre
1738 bis 1740 im Temesvarer Banate herrschte_. Temesvar, 1839. (Quoted
from Häser.)

Footnote 75:

J. F. C. Hecker, _Geschichte der neueren Heilkunde_. Berlin, 1839.

Footnote 76:

J. F. C. Hecker, _Geschichte der neueren Heilkunde_. Berlin, 1839, p.
11.

Footnote 77:

D. Samoilowitz, _Mémoire sur la peste qui, en 1771, ravagea l’empire
de Russie, surtout Moscou_. Paris, 1783. (A German translation
appeared in Leipzig in 1785.)

Footnote 78:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 533.

Footnote 79:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 284.

Footnote 80:

Ibid., p. 287.

Footnote 81:

L. Wilbrandt, _Die Kriegslazarette von 1792-1815 und der Kriegstyphus
zu Frankfurt am Main. Arch. für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst._
N.F., Vol. xi, p. 29. 1884.

Footnote 82:

G. E. F. Canz, _Beschreibung einer Schleim-, Faul-, und
Nervenfieberepidemie, die im Winter und Frühjahr 1793-4 in der
Rheingegend und auf dem Schwarzwald unter dem Landvolk gewütet_.
Tübingen, 1795.

Footnote 83:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 125.

Footnote 84:

G. le Borne, _Recherches historiques sur les grandes épidémies qui ont
régné à Nantes depuis le 6^e jusqu’au 19^e siècle_. Nantes, 1852.

Footnote 85:

Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 536.

Footnote 86:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 251.

Footnote 87:

G. Rasori, _Geschichte des epidemischen Fiebers, das in den Jahren
1799-1800 zu Genua geherrscht hat_. Translated from the Italian.
Vienna, 1803.

Footnote 88:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 291.

Footnote 89:

Seitz, loc. cit.—J. N. Feichtmayer, _Beitrag zur Geschichte des in
einem Teile von Schwaben und auch in unserer Gegend häufiger als sonst
gewöhnlich herrschenden Nervenfiebers_. Ulm, 1800.

Footnote 90:

J. Hain, _Handbuch der Statistik des österreichischen Kaiserstaats_.
Vienna, 1852. Vol. i, p. 78.

Footnote 91:

Seitz, op. cit., p. 150.

Footnote 92:

P. G. Joerdens, _Semiotische Bemerkungen über die auch zu Hof im Jahre
1806 herrschend gewesenen Nervenfieber. Hufelands Journal der prakt.
Heilkunde._ Vol. xxv. 1807. Third section. P. 58.

Footnote 93:

E. Gurlt, op. cit., p. 151.

Footnote 94:

J. Ch. Roller, _Geschichte und Beschreibung der Stadt Pforzheim_.
Heidelberg, 1816. P. 247 ff.

Footnote 95:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 254.

Footnote 96:

Hufeland, _Bemerkungen über die Nervenfieber, die im Winter 1806-7 in
Preussen herrschten. Hufelands Journal der prakt. Heilkunde._ Vol.
xxvi. 1807. Third section. P. 120.

Footnote 97:

N. P. Gilbert, _Tableau historique des maladies internes de mauvais
caractère, qui ont affligé la grande armée dans la campagne de Prusse
et de Pologne et notamment de celles qui out été observées dans les
hôpitaux militaires et les villes de Thorn, Bromberg, Fordon et Culm
dans l’hiver de 1806 à 1807, le printemps et l’été de 1807_. Berlin,
1808.

Footnote 98:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 177.

Footnote 99:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 266.

Footnote 100:

von Linstow, op. cit., vol. xxix, p. 204. Compare also _Der Feldzug
von Portugal in den Jahren 1811 und 1812 in historischer und
medizinischer Hinsicht. Beschr. von einem Arzt der französischen Armee
von Portugal_. Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1816.

Footnote 101:

A. Hirsch, op. cit., vol. i, p. 238.—Kopp, _Jahrbuch der
Staatsarzneykunde_. 6. Jahrgang. Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1813. P. 246.

Footnote 102:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 269.

Footnote 103:

Hufeland, _Journal der prakt. Heilkunde_, vol. xxxvi, 1813, May vol.,
p. 120.

Footnote 104:

A. Boin, _Mémoire sur la maladie qui régna en 1809 chez les Espagnols
prisonniers de guerre à Bourges_. Paris, 1815.

Footnote 105:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 275.

Footnote 106:

J. V. von Hildenbrand, _Über den ansteckenden Typhus_. Vienna, 1810.

Footnote 107:

C. W. Hufeland, _Über die Kriegspest alter und neuer Zeit, mit
besonderer Rücksicht auf das Aderlassen in derselben_. _Hufelands
Journal der praktischen Heilkunde_, vol. xxxviii, 1814, June vol., p.
55. See also special copy with the title, _Ueber die Kriegspest alter
und neuer Zeit, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Epidemie des Jahres
1813 in Deutschland_. Berlin, 1814.

Footnote 108:

Hufeland, _Erster Bericht über das epidemische und ansteckende
Nervenfieber und dessen Behandlung im kgl. Charité-Krankenhaus zu
Berlin_. _Hufelands Journal_, vol. xxxvi, 1813, June vol., p. 3.

Footnote 109:

J. H. Kopp, _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde_. 1814. Vol. vii, p. 280.

Footnote 110:

J. Parenteau-Desgranges, _Hommage à la vérité; précis historique des
événements les plus remarquables survenus depuis la rentrée de la
Russie jusqu’au passage du Rhin_. Paris, 1814.—_Journ. de méd., chir.,
pharm., etc._, 1814, Vol. xxix, p. 407.

Footnote 111:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 287 ff.

Footnote 112:

Neumann, _Ein Wort über die Fieber, die in Lagern und
Militärlazaretten auszubrechen pflegen_. _Hufelands Journal_, vol.
xxxiv, 1812, April vol., p. 70.

Footnote 113:

Kopp, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 292.

Footnote 114:

C. Cannstatt, _Handbuch der medizinischen Klinik_, vol. ii, p. 578 ff.
1847.—Ch. Murchison, _Die typhoïden Krankheiten_. Translated by W.
Zülzer. P. 34. Brunswick, 1867.

Footnote 115:

J. Ch. G. Jörg, _Das Nervenfieber im Jahre 1813 und eine zweckmässige
Behandlung desselben_. Leipzig and Berlin, 1814. P. 27.

Footnote 116:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 613.

Footnote 117:

J. R. L. Kerckhoffs, _Observations médicales faites pendant les
campagnes de Russie en 1812 et d’Allemagne en 1813_. First edition,
1814. Third edition, 1836. Reproduced in epitome by W. Stricker in his
_Historische Studien über Heereskrankheiten und Militärkrankenpflege_,
1743-1814. Virchow’s _Archiv für pathologische Anatomie u.s.w._, vol.
liii, p. 383. 1871. (The spelling ‘Kerkhove’ is incorrect.)—J. D.
Larrey, _Mémoires de chirurgie militaire_, vols. i-iv. Paris, 1812-17.
(Kerckhoffs and Larrey give only indefinite information regarding the
nature of the diseases; Larrey, in particular, who served as a surgeon
and general inspector on the Health Staff, had very little
understanding for the infectious character of typhus fever or for the
energetic measures that have to be adopted to prevent its
dissemination.)—M. J. Lemazurier, _De la campagne de Russie in Recueil
de mémoires de médecine, chirurgie, et pharmacie militaires_, vol.
iii, p. 161. Paris, 1817. Translated from the French by C. F.
Heusinger, _Medizinische Geschichte des Russischen Feldzugs von 1812_.
Jena, 1823. (This book, owing to the clarity of its descriptions,
constitutes the best source of information regarding the diseases that
broke out during the Russian campaign.)—Ch. J. Scheerer, _Historia
morborum, qui in expeditione contra Russiam anno 1812 facta legiones
Wurttembergicas invaserunt; praesertim eorum qui frigore orti sunt_.
Tubingae, 1819.—R. Virchow, _Kriegstyphus und Ruhr_. Virch. Archiv,
vol. lii, p. 1. 1871.—E. Gurlt loc. cit.—W. Ebstein, _Die Krankheiten
im Feldzug gegen Russland_. Stuttgart, 1902.

Footnote 118:

W. Ebstein, op. cit., p. 65.

Footnote 119:

J. Ch. Gasc, _Histoire de l’épidémie observée à Wilna en 1813 après la
campagne de Moscou_. Reproduced in Gasc and Breslau, _Matériaux pour
servir à une doctrine générale sur les épidémies et les contagions,
par F. Schnurrer_. Translated from the German. Paris, 1815.

Footnote 120:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 254.

Footnote 121:

Parrot, _Über das im jetzigen Krieg entstandene typhöse Fieber und ein
sehr einfaches Heilmittel desselben_. _Hufeland’s Journal_, vol.
xxxvi, 1813, May vol., p. 3.

Footnote 122:

Wolf, _Bemerkungen über die Krankheiten, welche im Jahre 1813 in
Warschau herrschten, insbesondere über den ansteckenden Typhus_.
_Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxix, 1813, May vol., p. 3.

Footnote 123:

Kerckhoffs, op. cit. Kerckhoffs uses the name ‘fièvre adynamique’ for
typhus fever; occasionally he uses the word typhus.

Footnote 124:

H. A. Göden, _Erfahrungen und Ansichten zur Lehre vom Typhus_. Horn’s
_Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung_, 1814, p. 342.

Footnote 125:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 217.

Footnote 126:

A. F. Blech, _Geschichte der siebenjährigen Leiden Danzigs von
1807-14_. Danzig, 1815.—Carl Friccius, _Geschichte der Befestigungen
und Belagerungen Danzigs_. Berlin, 1854.—H. Beitzke, _Geschichte der
deutschen Freiheitskriege in den Jahren 1813-14_. Second edition.
Berlin, 1859. Vol. ii, p. 604.

Footnote 127:

Kopp, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 284. 1814.

Footnote 128:

Wendt, _Über die letzte Typhusepidemie insofern sie den Nichtarzt
interessiert. Corr.-Blatt der schles. Ges. für vaterländische Kultur_,
vol. v, 1814, Nos. 17 and 18.

Footnote 129:

Kausch, _Die auf Selbsterfahrung gegründeten Ansichten der akuten
Kontagien überhaupt und des Kontagiums des Typhus insbesondere_.
_Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxix, 1814, July vol., p. 9.

Footnote 130:

Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 612.

Footnote 131:

Hufeland, op. cit.—E. Horn, _Über die ansteckenden Nervenfieber,
welche während der Monate März, April, Mai, Juni, u.s.w. 1813
herrschten. Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung._ Jahrgang 1813, p. 278.

Footnote 132:

Horn’s _Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung._ Jahrgang 1813, p. 245.

Footnote 133:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 339.

Footnote 134:

Horn’s _Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung_. Jahrgang 1813, p. 431.

Footnote 135:

Neuhof, _Geschichte und Beschreibung des im Jahre 1813 und 1814 zu
Annaberg im sächsischen Erzgebirge allgemein geherrschten
Nervenfiebers. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1815_, p. 5.

Footnote 136:

A. F. Fischer, _Geschichtliche Darstellung der im Herbst 1813 in
Dresden ausgebrochenen und bis gegen Ende Januars 1814 angedauerten
Epidemie. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_, p. 82.

Footnote 137:

Reproduced in Kopp’s _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneikunde_. 7. Jahrgang.
1814, p. 286.

Footnote 138:

Beitzke, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 460 and 562.

Footnote 139:

_Ältere Nachrichten über Leipzigs Bevölkerung 1595-1849. Mitteilungen
des statistischen Bureaus der Stadt Leipzig_, 1872.

Footnote 140:

F. Flinzer, _Die Bewegung der Bevölkerung in der Stadt Plauen i. V.
während der Jahre 1800-99. Bericht über die Verwaltung und den Stand
der Gemeindeangelegenheiten der Kreisstadt Plauen i. V. auf die Jahre
1899 und 1900._

Footnote 141:

M. Magaziner, _Über den ansteckenden Typhus In Zwickau, vom September
1813 bis zum Februar 1814. Annalen der Heilkunst._ 1815. P. 218.

Footnote 142:

Kopp, _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde_, vol. vii, p. 413.

Footnote 143:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 459.

Footnote 144:

Beitzke, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 564.

Footnote 145:

P. F. F. J. Giraud, _Campagne de Paris en 1814_. Third Edition. Paris,
1814. P. 32.

Footnote 146:

Greiner, _Das exanthematische Nervenfieber. Annalen der Heilkunst des
Jahres 1814_, p. 602.

Footnote 147:

J. G. Stemmler, _Schilderung des vom November 1813 bis Februar 1814 in
Zeulenroda herrschenden Nervenfiebers. Annalen der Heilkunst des
Jahres 1814_, p. 97.

Footnote 148:

Löbenstein-Löbel, _Über das Wesen und über die Heilung des
Nervenfiebers in und um Jena von Michaelis 1813 bis Ostern 1814.
Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_, p. 217.

Footnote 149:

Wilhelm Horn, _Zur Charakterisierung der Stadt Erfurt_. Erfurt, 1843.
P. 318 ff.

Footnote 150:

J. H. Kopp, _Beobachtungen über den ansteckenden Typhus, welcher im
Jahre 1813-14 in Hanau epidemisch war. Hufeland’s Journal_, vol.
xxxviii, 1814, May vol., p. 3.

Footnote 151:

L. Wilbrand, _Die Kriegslazarette von 1792-1815 und der Kriegstyphus
zu Frankfurt a. M. Archiv für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst._ N. F.
Vol. xi, p. 96. 1884.

Footnote 152:

J. B. von Franque, _Die Verbreitung der typhösen Krankheiten im
Herzogtum Nassau während der ersten Hälfte dieses Jahrhunderts. Mediz.
Jahrbücher für das Herzogtum Nassau_, fascicles 12 and 13, p. 18.
Wiesbaden, 1854.

Footnote 153:

H. C. Thilenius, _Beobachtungen über das im Winter 1813-14 im Rheingau
epidemisch ansteckende Fieber. Hufeland’s Journal_, 1815, vol. xli,
October vol., p. 3.

Footnote 154:

Kraft, _Etwas über den Typhus bellicus und die blaue Nase, eine
merkwürdige Erscheinung bei demselben. Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xli,
1815, July vol., p. 47.

Footnote 155:

J. Th. Ch. Bernstein, _Kleine medizinische Aufsätze_.
Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1814. P. 132 ff.

Footnote 156:

_Die Gesundheitsverhältnisse Hamburgs im 19. Jahrhundert._ Hamburg,
1901. P. 273. (Presented to the Seventy-third Congress of German
Naturalists and Physicians.)

Footnote 157:

Steinheim, _Über den Typhus im Jahre 1814 in Altona_. Altona, 1815. P.
12.

Footnote 158: