Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI

[Mike_G]

Anyway, another thing to consider for military availability is previous generation equipment - anything that's currently in mothballs or assigned to units like the National Guard which could potentially be returned to front line service.

We're doing that now.

Since the F 35 is both delayed and awful, old planes are being taken out of mothballs and pressed into service. The Pentagon expected a new air fleet by now, but with delays and cost overruns and a higher operational tempo of more or less constant warfare over the last 14 years, our air fleet is old and worn out.

[Carl]

The problem with the hydroelectric storage is that the volumes of water required quickly get extreme for long duration output programs. For example if the UK wanted to cover it's normal daily usage out of such systems for a week, (to represent bad weather across the country for a period of time), and the average drop of water over the run was 10 meter's you'd need to store some 4000 cubic kilometers of water. Thats a lot, it's equivalent to 26 aswan dam's. Even spread out that's probably more storage capacity than the the UK has the available space to build. And thats assuming no serious growth in output capacity is present in the system.

[Max_Killjoy]

For those interested in modern military logistics, as well as a damn good show, take a look at "Generation Kill" it is the doco made by that Rolling Stone reporter about the 1st Recon Marine group that were the first to enter Iraq during the second gulf war.

Some stand out features:
- The backgrounds of soldiers is pretty depressing, mostly the poor of course
- War is boring 99% of the time, horrifying the other 1%
- Everybody gets equipped with nightvision, but the corp forgets to give them batteries. They have to get them sent from family at home if they want to be able to see.
- Orders send them towards an airstrip across an entirely open field and they only have hummers. The airfield is protected by tanks, so they have at best 1.5 km of killing field where their weapons are not in range, but the tanks are, to cross entirely unprotected. Not to mention nothing that can puncture tank armor at range.
- An officer calls in fire-close air support, for no good reason. Apparently calling in dangerous air support commands automatically gets you a medal for bravery and he wanted one. Thankfully he got the coordinates wrong and it landed nowhere near them.
- amphetamine abuse is pretty much mandatory to reach the objectives

The stand out thing from historic military strategy for me is just how evil everybody was. Even the "good guys" of history are evil bastards by today's standards. Even guys like Saladin who were considered noble and fair by their enemies (with good reason at the time) were, by today's standards, heinous war criminals. This gives me some hope regarding the world moving ever so slowly in the right direction.

Keep in mind that Rolling Stone has something of an agenda when it comes to war reporting... and that you might be getting a focus on the "lowlights".

[Brother Oni]

For example if the UK wanted to cover it's normal daily usage out of such systems for a week, (to represent bad weather across the country for a period of time)...

You do realise that extended bad weather in this instance means non-stop blue skies and no wind?

The UK's entire water infrastructure is geared around the fact that we receive rainfall at least once every 3 days and if there's a period of more than 2 weeks without rainfall, a drought is declared.

[cobaltstarfire]

Keep in mind that Rolling Stone has something of an agenda when it comes to war reporting... and that you might be getting a focus on the "lowlights".

I've been told by folks who went through Vietnam that there really needs to be more show of the "lowlights" of war these days, because people no longer really understand the implications of it. Showing of those lower moments doesn't happen or flat out isn't allowed because it is bad for moral back home. (though I understand that the imagery can also be very disturbing, which is probably another reason why it's generally not shown)

Even if that thing in particular is biased towards "lowlights" most of the rest of the media is not, so it's not really a bad thing to see that end of the spectrum too, and just keep in mind that stuff will likely be misrepresented, or misunderstood* regardless of if it's pro, or anti.


*one thing that comes to mind is a documentary we watched in sociology that was very anti-war, where a plane dropping flares was portrayed as a plane engaging in an aggressive action I don't know if the creators were just ignorant or were pushing an agenda. One of the other students who had been in the military and was apparently familiar with what was going on told us that no, the plane was not engaged in a violent action at all, though I can't remember the details.

I'm sure some of the military folks in here can elaborate on that further though.

[Xuc Xac]

*one thing that comes to mind is a documentary we watched in sociology that was very anti-war, where a plane dropping flares was portrayed as a plane engaging in an aggressive action I don't know if the creators were just ignorant or were pushing an agenda. One of the other students who had been in the military and was apparently familiar with what was going on told us that no, the plane was not engaged in a violent action at all, though I can't remember the details.

In much the same way that the gunner is the only violent member of a tank crew. The others are just driving around or moving ammo around, which doesn't directly hurt anyone.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've been told by folks who went through Vietnam that there really needs to be more show of the "lowlights" of war these days, because people no longer really understand the implications of it. Showing of those lower moments doesn't happen or flat out isn't allowed because it is bad for moral back home. (though I understand that the imagery can also be very disturbing, which is probably another reason why it's generally not shown)

Even if that thing in particular is biased towards "lowlights" most of the rest of the media is not, so it's not really a bad thing to see that end of the spectrum too, and just keep in mind that stuff will likely be misrepresented, or misunderstood* regardless of if it's pro, or anti.


*one thing that comes to mind is a documentary we watched in sociology that was very anti-war, where a plane dropping flares was portrayed as a plane engaging in an aggressive action I don't know if the creators were just ignorant or were pushing an agenda. One of the other students who had been in the military and was apparently familiar with what was going on told us that no, the plane was not engaged in a violent action at all, though I can't remember the details.

I'm sure some of the military folks in here can elaborate on that further though.

It's more that "charge this tank base using just your jeeps", "these guys are speed-heads", and "officers calling in air strikes danger close to get medals" are lowlights that distort the truth, rather than lowlights that illustrate the truth.

[Khedrac]

One of those storage methods is to use surplus electricity to effectively put the hydroelectric plants we have in the UK into reverse and pump water back into the reservoirs - it's normally done overnight when the demand on the gird is at it's lowest so that the plant can generate during the day.

Last time I checked we have exactly one of those plants (Dinorwig in Wales) and it's not actually a conventional hydro plant, it is a specialist power storage plant.

In fact storing large quantities of energy in a useful form is very expensive. Whilst it may work for specialist military projects (e.g. nuclear bomb simulation testing), most of those are also ones that require very fast discharge, so they may not be as useful as you might hope for power grid support.
Power generation tends to be a balcance between flexibility and continuity. Nuclear power provides a steady supply of power but it very poor at reacting quickly to changes in demand.
Gas (one of the main reasons the UK stopped building coal) responds very quickly (both ramp up and ramp down) but is regarded as less environmentally friendly and sustainable (why we are looking at fracking so much).


Oh - and as for bad weather for wind generation being still air, well strong winds (particularly gusty ones) can be just as bad - at a certain point they have to switch the wind turbines off to protect them fromt he wind...

[cobaltstarfire]

It's more that "charge this tank base using just your jeeps", "these guys are speed-heads", and "officers calling in air strikes danger close to get medals" are lowlights that distort the truth, rather than lowlights that illustrate the truth.

In that case, yeah that's quite icky.

[Carl]

@Oni: Rain dosen;t mean wind, but i was thinking more in the too high a wind speed case actually, though even having enough speed to run does not guarantee full output, which is the catch with wind and solar power anywhere outside of some very specific parts of the world. You can see significant variance in output even if they can operate. A fact that requires a lot of excess capacity or a lot of storage to go with a lower capacity, and if the area your working with is geographically small enough you can't use the first because you can build enough capacity sufficiently separated that there's a low enough chance of a significant chunk of it being offline at the same time. If you meant that rainfall into reservoirs could be used to help with the storage. Nope, using the uk's area times it average rainfall it receives just 250 km of water a year.

Admittedly said powerplant mentioned above shows what you can do if you've got a suitable place to construct a large reservoir that sits next to a steep downslope, based of the math they have a drop of around 450 meters for their water so it's around 45 times more energy storage for a given amount of water as my previous example numbers, but even mountainous areas like scotland won;t be over endowed with suitable sites.

[BayardSPSR]

Even the "good guys" of history are evil bastards by today's standards. Even guys like Saladin who were considered noble and fair by their enemies (with good reason at the time) were, by today's standards, heinous war criminals. This gives me some hope regarding the world moving ever so slowly in the right direction.

It's more that "charge this tank base using just your jeeps", "these guys are speed-heads", and "officers calling in air strikes danger close to get medals" are lowlights that distort the truth, rather than lowlights that illustrate the truth.

Context, as ever, is crucial. Unfortunately, narratives and context don't always mix that smoothly.

[Tobtor]

@Oni: Rain dosen;t mean wind, but i was thinking more in the too high a wind speed case actually

While this is true, the case is that:

The problem with the hydroelectric storage is that the volumes of water required quickly get extreme for long duration output programs. For example if the UK wanted to cover it's normal daily usage out of such systems for a week, (to represent bad weather across the country for a period of time)

Is unrealistic either way. I do not think the entire UK will have to shut down all wind mills for a week do to heavy wind either.... (at least even in small Denmark it have never happened for more than a day or two). Especially as heavy wind usually comes with periods of good strong wind for windmills in neighbouring regions (storms in Scotland might mean strong wind in Wales/Southern England etc). Also bad weather also include rain and thus continues new supplies for any hydro plants (which usually gathers up water through rivers which can include a large area).

Now, I do agree that most countries shouldn't be relying on wind energy alone (Denmark is I believe one of the only countries were wind have made up 100% of the needed electricity, and that is only for a couple of days).

But a combination of renewable energy sources might be realistic. At the moment they are focusing on improving the grid in order to connect countires, making sure that when the wind is too strong or too weak in Denmark you can either get power from German wind (or sun), or Norwegian/Swedish waterfalls.

Water can in some countries be the sole energy source.

The main reason that Iceland have aluminium smelters is that they have a lot of cheap renewable energy (hydro plants 70% and geothermal energy 30%). The geothermal also gives 92% of the heating (and they use a lot of heat and never thinks of saving it - heating important streets etc with underground heating systems). Thus in some cases renewable energy does supply the was majority of power needed (only 0.2% is fuels based (oil)).

Of course Iceland is a small country (300.000 inhapitants), but it is also a major aluminium "producer: Wikipedia have that "The aluminum industry in Iceland used 71% of produced electricity in 2011." And Iceland smelts something like 2% of the worlds aluminium (and also a few other metals is smelted). USA is at 4%. Thus if USA had an Iceland within the borders, it could increase the aluminium production capacity with at least 50% of the current one (or apply the energy toe steel or other industries).

Creating large scale hydro plants and geothermal energy stations is of course something that takes times, but not unrealistic in a war economy.

Geothermal energy is mostly used for heating (apart from in Iceland) but could be applied for electricity in many countries, also many with much less activity than Iceland (geothermal energy is viable in most of Europe, just more expensive).

[cobaltstarfire]

Did someone actually suggest that wind was the soul source of energy for most places?

I mean when I mentioned Texas, yeah I did mention the wind farms out in the west, but Texas is not exclusively powered by wind. It's just that the wind farms are the cause for big energy surpluses in Texas. I'd heard that the same is true of some countries in Europe.

Though it does sound like even if a place does have a noticeable energy surpluses, that doesn't mean the grid could necessarily handle the uptick in usage.

[Carl]

@cobaltstarfire: It started as a result of a comment someone made regarding the infeasibility of large scale wind power and i just ran with it to the extreme as a demonstration point. That said AFAIK there's a big push in europe in general to be as fully renewable as possibble.

@Tobtor: You're missing a key point. With a large number of non-weather dependent plants like gas and coal fired ones the chances of a sufficiently high percentage becoming spontaneously unavailable for a sufficiently extended period of time to crash the entire grid is exceedingly unlikely in the extreme. Any combined wind + storage has to achieve a similar level of unlikeliness taking into account both mechanical failure and freak once in "X millennia" weather events or other variables. TBH i suspect a week may be on the conservative side, but that was why i chose such a seemingly ridiculous value, the UK grid based on what i've heard is so over engineered it probably has a mean time between gridwide failures from purely mechanical and weather related causes measured in a number greater than the span of human history to date.

[Yora]

Do we know anything about military surgeons in Asia? All I've ever seen is either Roman or medieval.

I was particularly wondering about dealing with infection in unsanitary conditions as you have on campaigns and during sieges. Japanese religion makes a big deal about cleanliness and purity with water often taking a prominent role. Might that be related to an awareness of infectious substances?

[snowblizz]

@cobaltstarfire: It started as a result of a comment someone made regarding the infeasibility of large scale wind power and i just ran with it to the extreme as a demonstration point. That said AFAIK there's a big push in europe in general to be as fully renewable as possibble.

Not infeasibility, the observation that any significant renewable energy source is backed by non-renawable sources in case the former fails. These back up plants would be easily available to boost power production for short term while expanding production e.g.. Also, many power intensive factories have their own power generating facilities, e.g. a papermill provides all of it's own power and more besides if needed. Which is why Google has a server park in one of Stora-Enso's old papermills.

For that matter most western countries have spare industrial capacity currently sitting unused because we've outsourced so much production to China. Some of it can no longer be used ofc, eg some of the biggest shipyards in Sweden were turned into residential areas.

I would expect know-how and materials being a bigger issue than infrastructure like buildings and power grids. Most cases though today and the nearpast we are very dependant on neighbouring countries and gobal trade. By design actually.

TBH i suspect a week may be on the conservative side, but that was why i chose such a seemingly ridiculous value, the UK grid based on what i've heard is so over engineered it probably has a mean time between gridwide failures from purely mechanical and weather related causes measured in a number greater than the span of human history to date.

All depends on where you are. Locally the back-up power is estimated on a need for 100 days to replace the main sea-cable if someone snaps it.

[Brother Oni]

Do we know anything about military surgeons in Asia? All I've ever seen is either Roman or medieval.

I was particularly wondering about dealing with infection in unsanitary conditions as you have on campaigns and during sieges. Japanese religion makes a big deal about cleanliness and purity with water often taking a prominent role. Might that be related to an awareness of infectious substances?

I found a paper earlier on when looking up answers for a question on water hygiene: The Controlling Measures of Epidemic Diseases Taken by the Chinese Ancient Governments by Shi, but the abstract isn't particularly useful by itself.

I'll do some more digging when I have some more time, but you've mentioned 'Japanese religion', to which my reply is 'which one?'. If you can narrow down which period you're interested in (the four major belief systems have had an extremely chequered history of integration with each other over the years in Japan, unlike in China), it'll help narrow down my searches and how much dancing around the 'no religion' board rule I'll have to do.

[Carl]

@Snowblizz: I feel like you've forgotten the original thing that started this discussion. The observation on your freinds part that you can't have a completely renewable power grid. My point is you can if you replace the non-renewables with large scale storage. His corollary left unstated but which in my experiance is typical of professionals is that this makes renewable energy unworkable. And he';s right. Without government regulation, and interference it will allways, allways allways be cheaper to replace the two plants with one non-renewable plant that runs all the time, because the costs of leaving your non-renewable plant sitting there ready to go whilst not as high as having it running, (your not paying fuel duh), isn't trivial. Result, your electricity costs for the renewable sources are actually higher unless the cost of producing the renewable is lower, (and in most cases it's not, Hydro and Geothermal are the two big exceptions, in sustained operation designs they tend to have very cheap electricity).

All depends on where you are. Locally the back-up power is estimated on a need for 100 days to replace the main sea-cable if someone snaps it.

Thats why i specified gridwide.

[fusilier]

Though it does sound like even if a place does have a noticeable energy surpluses, that doesn't mean the grid could necessarily handle the uptick in usage.

When I first mentioned power as a strategic consideration in increasing military industrial output, I didn't think we would end up debating renewable energy . . . :-)

Anyway, I think the term I'm looking for is "excess capacity" -- not necessarily surplus, as power plants aren't usually running at 100% of output (for a variety of reasons). Due to fluctuations in demand the grid often has to be able increase/decrease supply fairly quickly. If memory serves me right, natural gas power plants were initially used to augment the grid during peak hours as their generators could be turned on and off quickly. However, I would consider excess capacity to be the ability to increase power beyond usual peak demand.*

If excess capacity is low, prioritization of military-industrial facilities and power rationing are other options. How much industry can be converted from civilian to military use is also factor. (I think Vinyandan covered which countries are heavily industrialized and would therefore have an advantage).

*What exactly that would be I don't know -- I think typically conventional plants *can't* have all their generators running, for various maintenance purposes or to maintain a reserve capacity, etc. Although certain forms of renewable might be different.

[cobaltstarfire]

When I first mentioned power as a strategic consideration in increasing military industrial output, I didn't think we would end up debating renewable energy . . . :-)

Me neither, I wonder if things had gone differently if I had omitted the bit about the windmills producing more energy than the state can use up.

I was mostly just bringing up Texas as a place that could possibly take on a large uptick in industrial work, because the grid is stable and has a higher capacity than it currently needs.

[Yora]

I found a paper earlier on when looking up answers for a question on water hygiene: The Controlling Measures of Epidemic Diseases Taken by the Chinese Ancient Governments by Shi, but the abstract isn't particularly useful by itself.

I'll do some more digging when I have some more time, but you've mentioned 'Japanese religion', to which my reply is 'which one?'. If you can narrow down which period you're interested in (the four major belief systems have had an extremely chequered history of integration with each other over the years in Japan, unlike in China), it'll help narrow down my searches and how much dancing around the 'no religion' board rule I'll have to do.

I am mostly interested in whether Asian physicians where aware of infectious contaminations before germ theory gained acceptance in Europe. Medieval European medicine usually doesn't look to great compared to India and China so I wouldn't be hugely surprised.
I only know that in some Japanese shrines there are fountains to wash the hands and mouth before entering to be cleansed of impurity. That clearly seems to indicate a concept that negative conditions can be transmited by touched and that water can wash off the contaminant. But really no idea how far back that custom goes. Could be relatively new for all I know.

[BayardSPSR]

I only know that in some Japanese shrines there are fountains to wash the hands and mouth before entering to be cleansed of impurity. That clearly seems to indicate a concept that negative conditions can be transmited by touched and that water can wash off the contaminant. But really no idea how far back that custom goes. Could be relatively new for all I know.

Ritual purity/cleanliness, which is also a thing in India and the Islamic world, has no relationship to medical hygienic practices.

[Vinyadan]

Ritual purity/cleanliness, which is also a thing in India and the Islamic world, has no relationship to medical hygienic practices.

It's also a western thing. Miasma coming from the dead was the reason why people weren't allowed to die in temples in Ancient Greece, and Hector wouldn't sacrifice to the gods before having washed his hands. Ritual cleaning was done in Rome with water containing ashes, which was used until the XX century in the Mediterraneum to wash clothes. Even the post-Vatican II liturgy maintains a moment in which the priests washes his hands, and other, less ubiquitous, uses of water (wash feet, full immersion...), which actually have no hygienic meaning.

[Mike_G]

Just because a thing became ritualized doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind it first.

People realized that sickness followed filth and stink and death. But the same way we can't get idiot celebrities to vaccinate their kids today, it was probably easier to just tell people that Zeus hated smelly worshipers than try to explain vectors of disease.

A lot of dietary taboos like Kosher and Halal foods actually make a lot of sense in days before refrigeration, whether or not you take those rules as a matter of faith. We hear warnings about trichinosis from pork to this day. If you just say "God says that's an unclean animal" people will listen. Talk about salting or smoking it and they might not.

The public can be pretty stupid, and religion has been used to control them for centuries. Don't think it's just luck that "ritual" practices tend to be what would benefit public health or the established order.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just because a thing became ritualized doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind it first.

People realized that sickness followed filth and stink and death. But the same way we can't get idiot celebrities to vaccinate their kids today, it was probably easier to just tell people that Zeus hated smelly worshipers than try to explain vectors of disease.

A lot of dietary taboos like Kosher and Halal foods actually make a lot of sense in days before refrigeration, whether or not you take those rules as a matter of faith. We hear warnings about trichinosis from pork to this day. If you just say "God says that's an unclean animal" people will listen. Talk about salting or smoking it and they might not.

The public can be pretty stupid, and religion has been used to control them for centuries. Don't think it's just luck that "ritual" practices tend to be what would benefit public health or the established order.

Given some of the absolutely useless and even counterproductive things DO get ritualized as well, I have a hard time thinking that it ISN'T just dumb luck. Even without religion, people draw really silly conclusions about things and set down absolutely meaningless boundaries -- I have a friend who FREAKED OUT about someone using "non-dish" soap to wash dishes, even though the ingredient lists were identical, because "It's not for dishes, you don't use it on dishes, you can't use it on dishes!"

[Mike_G]

Given some of the absolutely useless and even counterproductive things DO get ritualized as well, I have a hard time thinking that it ISN'T just dumb luck. Even without religion, people draw really silly conclusions about things and set down absolutely meaningless boundaries -- I have a friend who FREAKED OUT about someone using "non-dish" soap to wash dishes, even though the ingredient lists were identical, because "It's not for dishes, you don't use it on dishes, you can't use it on dishes!"

No arguing with that, but if you see how handwashing or what food you aren't supposed to eat together or at all is emnphasized, and realize these people lived in a time before toilet paper or refrigeration, I think a lot of religious teaching were codification of common sense.

The same way peasants were encouraged to endure suffering in this life for the big prize in the next one, rather than realizing they were being hosed and doing something about it.

Most rituals involve ingraining stuff that was healthy, or that helped keep the people obedient to the powers that be.

Just because it's cynical doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Xuc Xac]

Traditional Chinese medicine is really good for "external" things such as bruises or broken bones. Many topical ointments or oils applied to injuries have antibacterial properties (especially the ones that are herbal infusions in distilled alcohol). However, the Chinese never vivisected people like the Romans did to figure out internal anatomy. They didn't even dissect corpses until the 20th century. They followed the Platonic/Aristotelian ideal of deriving the truth from abstract thinking instead of experimental data. That is, they had the concepts of Yin and Yang and the elements and assumed that they must apply to everything and tried to extrapolate from them to explain the human body's functioning without actually investigating it (the same thing happened with Western medicine being held back by humorism being extrapolated from generic elemental principles). They stuck to the surface for the most part: massage, acupuncture, acupressure, checking the patient's pulse. They were good at eliminating bruises and setting broken bones and (accidentally) disinfected wounds with herbal infusions made from alcohol or boiled water. If a patient had a deep puncture wound or internal injuries, the doctors could put on a show of offering treatments, but they didn't actually have any techniques that were effective. Their only real surgeries were amputations and maybe lancing boils.

[Carl]

There's probably a lot of darwinism going on. Typical religious centers aren't over endowed with huge numbers of people so if their day to day activities increase their chances of dying of any cause it increases the chances of the a series of events wiping out the temple population. It also means a greater chance of both regular and pilgrimage worshipers surviving which increases its importance as a center of worship. In effect they don't have to be aware of what the procedure is doing or how or why, (there's no evidence of this anywhere AFAIK) for reality to make it dominant over time. The main reason this didn't work for humanity at large is complicated but a big part is that most ordinary communities are more than large enough to not be wiped out or seriously culled by any given disease at any given time, (and if it is it doesn't necessarily have the same influence effects present in the place of worship example amongst other factors). Thats a big part of why the black death has the reputation in the west and europe that it does. It's not that it's the deadliest or most virulent or whatever disease ever, it's that it was a very rare example of a mass scale continental epidemic that actually wiped enormous numbers, (for the length of time involved), of entire settlements off the map over a huge geographical area.

[Vinyadan]

Let's say that it's half and half.

The concept of contagion was a religious, and lather anthropological one, before becoming a medical one. The idea is that something which touched a being - let's say, a field mouse - keeps something of that being.
This can be positive or negative. A field mouse has wonderfully strong teeth. I might keep the little pole in which the mouse dug a home near my house. This way, my family's teeth will grow healthy and strong.
Negatively, a mouse is a little thief. I might decide that whoever touches the pole in which I saw a mouse run away with my corn is going to suffer contagion and grow a thievish spirit.
This means that I need to purge him from this contagion. The easiest way is to have him wash his hands. With time, a regulated, ritualized washing style will develop.
But why wash his hands? Because, when I touch mud, my hand becomes muddy, and everything I touch also becomes muddy. Mud is washed away with water. So it's not really a direct consequence, but more like an analogy.

We need to think that ancient people, at least in the West, were extremely superstitious, at levels which we can't really imagine nowadays. Developing this kind of rituals must have been a natural thing for them. Just ask Schweinsteiger why he wanted penalty kicks in Italy's side of the field.

The way in which people behaved when they were in a temple mainly depended on the fact that the god was supposed to live in there. Nowadays, there are some countries where people demand visitors to take off their shoes when they get inside (BTW, this is something I hate: at least give me some flip flops, don't make me walk around barefoot while you aren't). What was demanded to be taken off when visiting a temple was ritual impurity. Hector wouldn't sacrifice to the gods with dirty hands, but, IIRC, in that scene he actually sacrificed a dress. This is different from those sacrifices where the sacrificier was pretty much starting a banquet and thus needed clean hands.

I actually think that the whole "clean your hands before eating" thing was born because of taste. Food tastes better without mud on it. We also recognize mud and other things as not edible, and avoid putting them into our food. But, by analogy, the habit was expanded to anything which involved gifts (originally, food) and visits to the gods.

The reason why I don't believe ritual purity was bound to hygiene, anyway, is that washing hands became a sanctioned healthy habit only in recent times (XIX century). I think there was a perception of filthy or disgusting, but not of unhealthy in today's sense. The reason of my belief is the story of Dr Semmelweis. He noticed that development of fevers in new mothers could be avoided, if the physicians treating them washed their hands not just with soap and water, but with a chlorine solution, after they had dissected a cadaver. Of course they washed their hands: hands get dirty in the guts of a dead man, but Semmelweis noticed that their hands still stunk and proposed chlorine to make the smell go away. Semmelweis's methods decreased the insurgence of puerperal fevers from 16% to 3% in the clinic. However, there was still no germ theory. This means that people did not believe Semmelweis's methods had scientific meaning. All he could say was that chlorine made the cadaveric smell go away from the hands of the medics. Back in the day, it apparently was no problem that a gynaecologist helped give birth with hands that smelled like a corpse (which he had just dissected). As a result, Semmelweis's ideas about cadaveric particles resting on hands and carrying out fever were seen as ridiculous. After all, without knowledge of self-replicating germs, the idea of cadavers emitting such a powerful poison that it could be carried in such small quantities as to be only identifiable through smell was seen as excessive. A few years earlier, Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes had found physicians to be vessels of diseases which they carried from patient to patient. He also met strong opposition to his theory, because contagion was seen as something of a folk tradition. Epidemics were supposed to be caused by environmental conditions or (poisonlike) impurity in food. This is why people would immediately start looking for inexistent poisoners as soon as a problem became widespread or well known (they still act this way, look at autism and vaccines).

So, there might have been an embryonic understanding of hygiene, but it didn't build any unitary theory, and it actually was self-contradictory, with possible traces of ancient knowledge being exaggerated (lepers) or misunderstood (purity). I also think that there was a lot of reverse engineering on both sides, turning common sense into ritual practice (and needing to explain why a mundane praxis got metaphysical significance) and later attempting to explain ritual practice as socially useful. Anyway, I don't see it as cynical, for reasons I won't explain here.

There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.

[Mr Beer]

Just because a thing became ritualized doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind it first.

People realized that sickness followed filth and stink and death. But the same way we can't get idiot celebrities to vaccinate their kids today, it was probably easier to just tell people that Zeus hated smelly worshipers than try to explain vectors of disease.

So if we can just get Gwyneth Paltrow to believe in Zeus, the Western world can get back on track to eliminate measles? It seems easier than trying to get morons to understand established scientific facts like germ theory, that's for sure.