I encountered some of you guys on B forum, just thought i would say hello.
Are you going to be around for awhile? I want to see those stone etchings.
Yes, I have read that. The rat population was out of control without the cats.An aside, did you guys know about the murder of cats in the old days, it seems witches were not the only hunted things, the killing of cats may have hastened the black death, how crazy is that.
Hi Ned! Welcome to PF - hope you like it here.
Sad that people were so unenlightened about kitties back then, isn't it .
On this kitty discussion, i see they are also very susceptible to contacting plague from rat fleas. (http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/pcfleas.htm" [Broken]). So even if they could have aided in keeping down the rat pop'n, they could have accelerated the spread of the plague.
What I mean, is if cats were allowed to roam free in an environment with a high incidence of Black Death (and not hunted down like a witches in early Britain), they themselves, would be a vector for the bacterium. If your infected cat came around and rubbed against your legs for attention, any scratches on your skin would allow transmission of the disease. (they do lick their fur to clean themselves though i don't know, off hand, how long the bacteria may survive in saliva, and also any sores on their skin are potentially infectious) So in addition to the rats carrying fleas, the cats would be a contagion and carry the disease closer to their human companions, thereby accelerating spread of the disease.I don't think that is true, that the cats could have, "accelerated the spread of the plague." The reason is that, the major carriers of the plague were the black rats. Even if the cats were susceptible to the disease, it doesn't mean that they were a major contributor to the spread of the disease. (the amount of rats compared with cats and the fact that the rats did not die of the disease, whilst the cats did)