WI: Antisepsis invented in the ancient world

Suppose that during ancient times, probably in either Greece, Rome, or China, but plausibly elsewhere, like in Babylon or Persia, someone, probably a doctor, recognizes a possible connection between poor hygiene and infectious diseases, so the technique of cleaning hands and medical instruments is tried and found to significantly reduce deaths by infection, and as a result, word spreads. In a matter of years performing medical procedures in hygienic conditions becomes standard. Let's also suppose that due to the fact of significant intercontinental trade links at this time (the Silk Road, ship routes), this knowledge spreads, and is eventually well-known by doctors throughout both Europe and Asia, perhaps even some civilizations in Africa that have contacts with Europe or Asia. What are the long-term effects of this?
 
Unless you count alcohol or boiling water, I don't think ancients had a good way to sterilize stuff. Washing hands isn't sterilization, and cleaning of the medical instruments needs more than simple water.
 
There aren't big macro effects. Sepsis was not a leading cause of death.

Where you'd get the big changes are in OTL famous people who died of surgery now living, or OTL people who could have been famous but died young of sepsis.

Edit: If the knowledge spreads to childbirth, its possible that you do save enough lives to have a macro effect. In which case, the results are more population pressures, so more wars, famines, and plagues. But also probably faster settlement of underpopulated areas.
 
Ritualise things. Childbirth is very important, better have some boiling water at hand. Surgery is very important, better have some boiling water around. People will realise that if you don't have boiling water, more harm tends to result. Maybe this would filter down into other things?
 
Ok, let me tell you, they don't use simple soap when cleaning surgical instrument either

True, but they don't have to mirror the surgical techniques of today, they just need to make it hygienic enough to noticeably reduce deaths from infection. Also, keep in mind that research into this will likely increase so medical hygiene techniques will improve over time.
 
There would be a lot more rapid advances in surgery. A major limitation was reluctance to perform surgery because infection was inevitable.
 
Edit: If the knowledge spreads to childbirth, its possible that you do save enough lives to have a macro effect. In which case, the results are more population pressures, so more wars, famines, and plagues. But also probably faster settlement of underpopulated areas.
greater population accelerates the entire future, both the bad parts and the good parts.
 
From what I've heard from an army surgeon, who has done quite extensive research into Roman army medicine as a personal interest of his, at least some physicians in ancient Rome did wrap their instruments in linen and immerse them in boiling water with vinegar before an operation, but for some reason the practise didn't catch on and was completely forgotten during the dark ages.
 
I think, as others have said, that the biggest benefits would be for women during childbirth. We could see safe C-sections earlier and much less puerperal fever. Hemorrhage and eclampsia deaths wouldn't be affected, however. This might (highly speculative) change the power balance between the sexes somewhat.
 
Not quite related, but earlier knowledge that Cholera is caused by contaminated water would help a lot too. You dont need to understand germ theory even.
 
. . . and much less puerperal fever. . .
The strep bacteria mutate and evolve over time:

puerperal fever --> scarlet fever --> rheumatic fever --> ? ? and maybe today PANDAS ? ?

One kind of ideal outcome from the bacteria's perspective is to have a lot of walking wounded. And, I'm just someone interested in microbiology, not a doctor.
 
The strep bacteria mutate and evolve over time:

puerperal fever --> scarlet fever --> rheumatic fever --> ? ? and maybe today PANDAS ? ?

One kind of ideal outcome from the bacteria's perspective is to have a lot of walking wounded. And, I'm just someone interested in microbiology, not a doctor.
We're talking about aseptic technique, not antibiotics, so resistance isn't a concern.
 
. . . not antibiotics, so resistance isn't a concern.
If this whole sequence is correct, easily from puerperal fever to scarlet fever, strep bacteria evolved without being influenced by antibiotics. And really, the next step as well.

I think microbes often but not always become more mild over time, simply because people with mild illness who are still going around doing their regular activities are so much more efficient at spreading the microbes. Of course, there are abundant exemptions.
 
From what I've heard from an army surgeon, who has done quite extensive research into Roman army medicine as a personal interest of his, at least some physicians in ancient Rome did wrap their instruments in linen and immerse them in boiling water with vinegar before an operation, but for some reason the practise didn't catch on and was completely forgotten during the dark ages.

Assuming this is correct, how would this be able to become more widespread? Maybe make it the practice of an extremely successful surgeon (by both his sanitation habits and pure luck) who writes a treatise on medicine that gains much fame. Surgeons inspired by him imitate his cleanliness, and although they don't gain his success, it becomes mainstream as anything in surgery (and other medical matters like childbirth), and eventually goes on to inspire philosophical inquiries into why something like that works so well. Although I doubt they'd hit on Varro's idea about tiny creatures people can't see which go into the body and cause disease.
 
Top