[DrNo]

The germ theory was the foundation of numerous applications, such as the large scale brewing of beer, wine-making, pasteurization, and antiseptic operations. Another significant discovery facilitated by the germ theory was the nature of contagious diseases. Pasteur's intuited that if germs were the cause of fermentation, they could just as well be the cause of contagious diseases. This proved to be true for many diseases such as potato blight, silkworm diseases, and anthrax. After studying the characteristics of germs and viruses that caused diseases, he and others found that laboratory manipulations of the infectious agents can be used to immunize people and animals. The discovery that the rabies virus had a lag-time before inducing disease prompted the studies of post-infection treatment with weakened viruses. This treatment proved to work and has saved countless lives.

from Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

[Billthedrill]

Pasteur actually put an identification on what we now call an etiological agent, but theories of contagion exist in medicine back well beyond Galen to ancient Egypt and Sumeria. (Just finished a book on the latter which was amusing in a dark sort of way - translations of certain cuneiform medical texts contain two columns: on the left, the symptoms, on the right, the prognosis. "He will die" seems to be very popular on the right side.)

There are numerous references to the launching of dead (I hope!) plague victims into besieged cities from the time of Justinian through the Renaissance, which turned out to be a pretty effective tactic. So I wouldn't put an attempt to spread disease by blankets beyond the conception of these folks, but I would challenge that it worked.

I have to go with sarasmom here on two accounts - first, that we're attempting to judge 17th-century people by 21st-century moral codes, and second, while we try to do better our actual success in that regard is spotty at best. Would the various tribes have nuked Jamestown or Boonesborough if they could in order to settle a nasty, genocidal war? Would the settlers have nuked Indian villages for the same purpose? It's only hypothetical, but based on the real actions of both parties, I'd have to suggest that they would have. Would we nuke a city to settle a nasty, genocidal war? Two? Hmm...