We were taught in school that at the height of the Roman Empire your average Roman, let’s say someone who actually lived in Rome, had a fairly decent life.
Assuming you weren’t poor, or a member of the slave class, there was abundant food and fresh water, good sanitation systems, as well as public places for bathing, however this was before the discovery of germ theory. Large Roman armies were formed that marched from one end of Europe to the other. They would need a lot of healthy men to do that successfully.
So how did the Romans remain healthy and free of disease, and what happened when they got sick? Were there hospitals where the sick would go to be cured? Could simple surgeries, like an appendectomy, be performed successfully? Obviously Cesarean birth existed at that time, but why didn’t these women all die of mass infections?
Does the idyllic picture painted on life in Rome during this period somehow mask the death and disease that must have been rampant without the aid of modern medicine?
I don’t have time to go into the big picture now. But Caesarian delivery was only done if the mother had died in childbirth–in an often-vain attempt to save the life of the child, at least.
There were several major plagues during the imperial period that wiped out sizable portions of the population. So they don’t seem to have been disease free, indeed some of the technological innovations of the empire (high urbanization rates, roads, contact with the east) probably made them more vulnerable to plague outbreaks then they would’ve been had they been more primitive.
Assuming you didn’t die in infancy, you didn’t contract something like pertussis, influenza or measles that could overwhelm a child’s defenses, and then didn’t get an infection from an open wound, you’d probably be okay for several decades.
The practice of suturing wounds dates back to at least the Egyptians, while cauterization goes back to at least Hippocrates. Other than that, you were pretty much on your own.
ETA: Of course there were those occasional plagues Simplicio mentioned.
Rome had some big advantages and disadvantages. Clean water and regular bathing were huge advantages, which definitely improved the situation. However, food could be erratic in bad years, and the big cities were definitely packed in tightly, adding to disease troubles. That said, most Romans could expect to die of things other than plague and disease. It was an ongoing nuisance more than a constant threat.
Medicine was lacking, certainly, though it was less wildly up and down than later European cures. They had a few reliable cures and surgical tools. Unfortunately, we just don’t know all that much about ancient medicine; it wasn’t written down all that often.
In almost all societies, infant mortality was fairly high. That is likely part of the evolutionary selection process of humans, we hav a lot of children, but only the strong survive. Urban crowding exacerbated the problem. Death from childbirth complications was another common cause of death.
However, with decent living conditions, complications or stunted growth due to poor nutrition were probably much less common.
Diseases and problems like diabetes or cancer - since disease was more prevalent, these were known but not rampant problems. Without cars, people pretty much walked everywhere and a lot of work was physical, and excesses of bad fats were less common, so likely heart disease was less of a problem than today. But, all these conditions were known and seen occasionally. Basically, if you had the income security you could accomodate them as best you could (i.e. avoid strenuous effort if it caused heart pain). Otherwise, you worked until it killed you; but this is no different than even 1800’s Europe.
At least the Romans recognized the healthy nature of cleanliness, and brouht in fresh water, built sewers to remove waste, drained nearby swamps, etc. Ths probably made their cities more healthy and liveable than medieval ones.
So as long as you did not need modern medicine, it was probably a passably decent lifestyle.
They didn’t know exactly why sanitation was important, but from a practical standpoint, they knew it was. Eliminate standing water and people coming in regular contact with poop and you have a pretty good handle on quite a few diseases.
The apparently understood you had to boil medical tools between uses. Again, the Romans weren’t too big on theories but they did know what worked. They used trial and error most of the time but they recorded their efforts and the results systematically.
They also were fairly well exposed to the Egyptians who also had a lot of thoughts about medicine and a built-up body of recorded trial and error experiences (to the point where they were able to characterize diseases as fitting three patterns: easily cured, possible cure, and “nothing to be done” (which could mean either you get better on your own or, alternatively, no matter what it will kill you).
Emperor Augustus professionalized military medicine which raised the prestige of medical services in general.
In reading about the people, the gladiators and Roman soldiers in various books and pieces, and other bits of exposure to various experts who chimed in, the one thing that was a common theme and weaved its way permanently into my brain was how they accepted and viewed death.
Death was all around them. People rarely died with dignity, and death was a way of life. It was at your front door, next to you, behind you… it was there. It was unpleasant. For all the advances, it also put everyone together with everyone’s death, disease and problems.
Dying as a soldier or gladiator or because you took some decisive action (other than battle) towards something – *anything? *-- added some small nugget to dying – the rotting, pathetic, misery and undignified stench of death/dying.
According to the master, Julius Caesar was not born by cesarian section, although it is possible (far from certain) that some ancestor of his was, and that the family name thus became attached to the operation.
If you were in the Roman Empire, you probably were poor or a slave, so saying, “Assuming you were poor or a member of the slave class”, you’re disqualifying most Romans.
This was true even in 1800’s America. I have visited the area where two of my great-great-great grandparents homesteaded, and they are buried there with most of my great-great-aunts and uncles. Only two (iirc) kids survived, my great-great-grandfather and one girl.
Compared to other societies at the same time or medieval times later, probably yes. Compared to our times, probably not. And circumstances matter a lot - a poor person today, or in the 19th century USA, or in Rome, would face different problems. How much importance you put on each problem is an individual decision.
Simple living for the poor, who made up the bulk of the army. Compared to modern lifestyle in western societies, just eating non-processed food and getting enough exercise is very healthy. Romans also knew about the importance of clean water (Aquaeducts and sewers!) which eliminated a lot of sources for infection that were present not only in later medieval towns, but also for example in 19th century US towns.
Hospitals until recently were run by religious groups, because you can’t make money with them (unless you cater only to the rich). You usually would call a doctor, which had for their time good medical knowledge. Again, better than medieval times and not much worse than a lot of the superstitious nonsense still around in early 19th century America.
The problem with all surgeries until recently was lack of anesthetic, which often caused people to die from shock - but in Rome you had a good chance probably of getting opium in some variant, because the Egyptian and Greek doctors used that already.
The second problem was infection, and the chances in Rome were not worse in that regard than in the US until the end of the 19th century when Germ theory became known.
The women who died in childbirth had the highest rate in the hospitals in Vienna in mid-19th century where doctors worked, compared both to the hospitals run by midwives and to house births. It took Semmelweiss (the “saviour of mothers”, as he became known) some time to figure out that germs from autopsies performed by the doctors were transferred to the women and made them die from “childbed fever”.
In Roman times, the germ theory was obviously not yet known, but there were also no doctors around to make things worse, either. It depended on the skill of the midwife and that there were no complications.
Most women in the past generally died in childbirth because they didn’t go to war like the men; because they had a lot of children, raising the risk of complications; and because childbirth was the major opportunity to become infected compared to normal life.
Even with modern medicine, death and disease is rampant. The US has the highest rates of child death among first world countries, and the poor people today in the US don’t have it any better regarding disease than ancient Romans.
There are still epidemics, and pandemics could wipe out many more people in a world of instantaneous travel all over.
Rome had a lot of good points compared to its contemporaries or the small broken-up remnants that were left. A big empire that is stable is always better for the small ordinary people than a chaotic anarchy that follows its breakup. That doesn’t mean that a modern democracy isn’t much preferable to the empire.
When I recently watched the series “Rome”, while they took some liberties with the actual history to make the two ordinary guys Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo involved in the events all the time and for dramatic reasons, the feeling of what life was like in Ancient Rome was very vividly evoked. (In the Cafe Society thread, somebody quoted the producers that they were going not for historical accuracy but for authenticity, and that they seem to have done well).
What struck me most was:
the lack of law enforcement. No police, little military (for fear of uprisings), so it was gangs that ruled the different hills. In one ep., a big grain shipment was due to come in, and the gang that “owned” the harbour would get a cut of the price for guarding and transporting it. In other words, the Mafia had access over the most vital resource of the empire (today, it would be oil).
the absolute power the Paterhad as head of family. No moving out because you’re 18 or 21 and adult - everybody was property of the Pater familias. Even when the grown children were married, they still belonged to him. They could be disowned at the drop of a hat, or sold into slavery, or even killed. It was not common and would be frowned upon as bad manners, but it was legal.
Connected to both of these, the family was your only source of protection. If a time traveller of today showed up in Ancient Rome alone, he would be dead within hours by robbers, because he had neither a family that would revenge him, nor a group of bodyguards to show he’s important and rich. You can’t even step into a time machine with pepper or something else that’s worth a lot, because before you can sell it, you will be robbed. Or arrested as thief yourself.
The lack of love. Marriages were strictly for alliances and status. Marriages could be divorced by the parents and arranged again if a better opportunity came up.
The complete disregard for democracy by the politicans. Despite Rome being an ideal of republic for its time, it was still mob rule. There was sense of justice as in finding out the truth, but rather, whoever got the loudest applause won the trial or debate, and there was nothing wrong with hiring people to shout for you. Overthrowing the leaders was not a problem itself, it was only a problem if you wanted to be leader yourself.
But… how would they prove it at trial? Was the criminal court system so corrupt that they would just assume that it “must have been stolen” or would someone “conveniently” come up and perjure themselves and say the stuff was theirs?
They didn’t have a presumption of innocence, or a jury, and they did have a bit of torture. There’s a scene in The Golden Ass where Apuleius is dragged before a court in the Greek part of the empire and terrorised just for the amusement of the locals.
